Search results

Still no Bible verse to back up your claim. That was my problem too when I held to a plain & literal view. Plus, you keep arguing from a modernistic, post-enlightenment understanding of literature. This is foreign to the authors of Scripture. What justification is there for such an...

There is more about Jesus in the OT beyond mere prophecies. That Matthew would open w/ Jesus as the Son of David and Son of Abraham is pretty telling that the story of redemption is accomplished in him. Speaking of interpretation, Luke records the hermeneutical practices of the early...

No because the early church did not rely on the "plain and literal" meaning of the OT. Acts demonstrates this. Their hermeneutic was a premodern, messianic, figural one. I think we would do well to approach the text in this light first.

Except you do not list any verses to back up your modernistic, post-enlightenment hermeneutic that was never in the minds of the authors of Scripture. Plus... Luke records the practice of the early church in Acts. He is not changing their words to make a theological point. The way in which...

This is why I mentioned Acts 15. It was not just "under inspiration" what Luke recorded. It was the way the early church used the OT scriptures to verify the ingathering of the Gentiles with the understanding that the restoration of Israel has begun. We can't just say "they had the HS" b/c we...

Not to be rude... but what basis do you claim to apply "plain logic in a spiritual sense" to the text of Scripture. As something as important as hermeneutics (since it will inevitably affect all other areas in one way or another), it would seem that "bible-believers" would want biblical support...

Read Amos 9:11ff. and interpret that passage first. Then come back to Acts 15 and see how the apostles interpreted and applied it to their own setting. Pretty interesting hermeneutic they apply. Definitely not "literal".

Even though none of those speak on interpretation at all (at least not in the sense of literal or figural or something else).

The way the apostles in the NT use the OT often goes against the "plain and literal" meaning of the text. They would frequently interpret it with a theological/messianic/Christocentric motif (Matt. 2 being a good example and Acts 15:16ff. being the best acid test). Your second question seems...

This was a question I posed to a guy on an ordination council. It however haunted me for a while until my hermeneutic adjusted to match a Biblical practice. So for me, my hermeneutic is a Christocentric one (John 5:39; Luke 24:27, 44-47; 2 Cor. 1:20; Gal. 3:16). This means there will be...

You confuse obtaining a PhD with leadership... you also assume that one is a follower of Jesus when studying for a PhD (in religion, theology, &/or NT/OT studies). Both would be incorrect assumptions.

Not sure that was his intended direction considering the academic nature of the PhD.

I like the sentiments from this article. The author is trying once more to make the degree distinguished and prestigious. There are so many people w/ "doctorates" right now that it means very little and the programs are not as rigorous as they once were. I was once gung-ho on getting a PhD...

Aside from a few terms I would have avoided, this was an excellent post and I enjoyed reading it. (the bolded sections are my fav's)

I am about to preach a 3 sermon series on Haggai next week to 200 teenagers! In my prep... I translated the book to glean some helpful literary insights. One of my favorite tools (since Hebrew grammar is not my forte but rather exegesis) is the OT Hebrew Parsing Guide (former prof was an...

But if you say Jesus' choice would ALWAYS be to never sin, then isn't that basically affirming that he can't? Otherwise, he would be contradicting himself and his decisions previously made. I think the question could be better suited if it was asked in the affirmative rather than the negative...

Dr. Black is awesome!!! I would recommend using all of his materials.

Little help here... If he wouldn't sin, doesn't the resultant conclusion lead that he couldn't sin (God contradicting himself and all)? I mean if he would never choose to sin, then for all intents and purposes he could not sin.

Biblical authority wasn't his problem. He just has a different view of Scripture than you. But it was still his rule of faith and guide. To hold some of the interpretations that he did and convictions he lived by, you have to have the Bible as the authority. BTW... biblical authority does...

Here's what I did w/ my GGBB... I put tabs in all the major sections so I could reference it much quicker. It saves a lot of time not having to thumb through to find pronouns, participles, and etc... Also... I highly recommend just reading it through as you would if you were in a Greek 3 class...