Literal Interpretation

[JesusFan]

Just ignore him J.D., it's what I do. This sort of condenscending nastiness has become to be expected of his posts, and merit no acknowledgement on your part, in my opinion.

he does have a good valid point though, as "rightly dividing" the Bible allows us to see Dispy theology in it!

 

[psalms109:31]

Taught

I am so glad God could teach us not like a people who could not understand what He was saying. That He could teach us as Intellectuals. If people do something stupid as cut their hand off or pluck their eye out, then they have something wrong mentally and need a straight jacket and a rubber room.

 

[kyredneck]

he does have a good valid point though, as "rightly dividing" the Bible allows us to see Dispy theology in it!

Dispy theology is defective at it's very foundation; you've yet to address the scriptures I presented to you showing that.

 

[John of Japan]

To truly be "literal" one must consider the genre and respond accordingly. If poetic, then realize that poetry is not always completely prescriptive, but rather, often, descriptive. If historical narrative, then realize that an event is being detailed, but we should look for the "bigger picture" in the event, and not the details of the event to guide us, i.e., why was the event shared and what can we learn from the episode. If evangelistic tract, then we can understand that the underlying reason for the text is to share the gospel. If apocalyptic in nature, then we ought to realize that the text is speaking of some prophetic event, and may not be strictly seen in a "do it now" literalism. If allegorical, then realize that a bigger point is being made. If hyperbole, understand that some exaggeration is attempted to make a point -- we ought to figure out what is the point, not what is the exaggeration. If the literature is a parable, then we can know that it is a divine illustration of a point, but that the details are made up in order to create a teaching moment.

Understanding what we read and knowing when it is descriptive or prescriptive, plus knowing to whom the passage is spoken, for what reason, by whom, and what the main point was to the one hearing it for the first time all help us to draw inferences and prescriptions from the text that apply to our own situations, needs, and yes, God's direction for all people in all times and at all places.

I agree with all of this.

 

[John of Japan]

Think that those oppossed to "literal" interpreting of the Bible usually mak up the 'straw man" of saying that we use 'wooden" literalism, not taking into account the genres and types of figures of speech being used...

Always interprete the bible in its plain and literal meaning way, unless there is a valid reason not to, as based upon the style of parable, simile, hyperbole etc!

I agree 100%.

 

[John of Japan]

OK, someone may be showing some ignorance, just as another someone on the BB may be showing some arrogance, as described in the article:

“The conviction of a superior, literalistic approach to Bible interpretation can lead to a spiritual arrogance leading to a feeling of infallibility.”

You say the article was 'quite vague'. The writer was 'quite clear' in making a distinction between these two:

“Traditionally a literal hermeneutic referred to the grammatical-historical method, that is, interpreting the Bible as it presents itself. Nowadays, the use of the world "literal" by dispensationalists tends to mean the opposite of "figurative."”

The "Nowadays" item is not true in the circles I run in.

Perhaps, if you haven't done so already, you should take a long look and see what dispensationalism, with it's grammatical-historical method of interpretation, has largely morphed into “nowadays”; a form of Christian Zionism which is hardly distinguishable from Jewish Zionism. Here in The States (don't know about Japan), this Christian Zionism (formerly premillennial dispensationalism) largely believes that “what Israel wants God wants, and every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised”. The tendency is to believe that harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel is crucial to America's survival, i.e. in order to be blessed and not cursed [Gen 12:3], in other words, anything short of blind, unconditional support of physical Israel is against the will of God. The Church of Christ is temporary, a “mere parenthesis”, and the nation of Israel tends to take front stage in their theology and their politics.

In short, dispensationalism, with it's grammatical-historical method of interpretation, has evolved to the point where the line between politics and religion has, to put it lightly, blurred.

Why must you rail against dispensationalism every single time you get on the Internet? (hyperbole )

Frankly, this whole post about dispensationalism is irrelevant to my position. My grandfather was not a dispensationalist, but wrote 8 commentaries (including Rev. & Dan.) from a grammatical-historical hermeneutic. I find the idea that this hermeneutic always leads to dispensationalism, and only dispensationalists use it, to be way too narrow in focus. You can't see the forest for the trees! (idiom )

Besides that, the scholars don't agree with you. According to the non-dispensational seminary text on hermeneutics mentioned above (Klein, Blomberg, Hubbard), "Dispensationalism has taken great strides away from the excesses of past generations toward a more 'centrist' position" (footnote, p. 348).

Well did Sylvester Hassell warn, “the idea of a pre-millennial advent is Jewish in its origin, and Judaizing or materializing in its tendency; that it disparages the present, the dispensation of the Holy Ghost...”.

Please source this. The subject is hermeneutics. Is he a scholar in this? Never heard of him.

No thank you. I left sensationalism a long time ago. If I'm going to read commentators it'll be those like were mentioned in the article:

“ Whereas certain literalists have claimed that O.T. prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ were all fulfilled literally, others have demonstrated this assertion to be false. Only 35% of such prophecies were literally fulfilled, the rest were typical or analogical fulfillments. Other inconsistencies are too numerous to mention, but have been abundantly documented by Allis, Berkhof, Bahnsen and Gentry, Cox, Crenshaw and Gunn, Fuller, Gentry, Gerstner, Grenz, Hoekema, Hughes, LaRondelle, and others.”

The fact that you apparently don't recognize my sources (sensationalist? hah!) leads me to believe that you are not very educated in the area of hermeneutics. Bernard Ramm is the classic in the field, yet he was not dispensationalist to my knowledge. In fact, his textbook doesn't even mention the term, and only mentions premil on one page.

Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard is also not a textbook on dispensational theology, but a straight up seminary text on hermeneutics. I really don't think these guys are dispensationalist.

And I don't know all of the men you mention, but I don't recognize any of them as having written books on hermeneutics. And that's what this thread is about, isn't it?

 

[J.D.]

I agree 100%.

as i type this with one hand i was wondering if you could point me to something in the text that would have prevented me from taking it so literaly

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, let's say it's hyperbole. Let's not argue over which form of symbolism it takes. You say it's symbolic, "hyperbole". How do you know that?

It's quite easy to discern hyperbole. The definition is standardized. Here is what my college English textbook says (still have it): "Hyperbole is deliberate over-statement or fanciful exaggeration" (Harbrace College Handbook, 6th ed., by John Hodges & Mary Whitten, 1967, p. 232).

Take the case of the cut-off hand and cut out eye in Matt. 5 and 18. How could that be anything other than hyperbole? Surely no one would take the words of Christ as being a literal way of salvation? So what did Christ want? People to believe on Him, not cut off their hand! Hyperbole, with no doubt whatsoever.

 

[J.D.]

It's quite easy to discern hyperbole. The definition is standardized. Here is what my college English textbook says (still have it): "Hyperbole is deliberate over-statement or fanciful exaggeration" (Harbrace College Handbook, 6th ed., by John Hodges & Mary Whitten, 1967, p. 232).

Take the case of the cut-off hand and cut out eye in Matt. 5 and 18. How could that be anything other than hyperbole? Surely no one would take the words of Christ as being a literal way of salvation? So what did Christ want? People to believe on Him, not cut off their hand! Hyperbole, with no doubt whatsoever.

well i didnt see that definition in the text

how about this is it hyperbole - the moon shall turn to blood.

 

[Winman]

It's quite easy to discern hyperbole. The definition is standardized. Here is what my college English textbook says (still have it): "Hyperbole is deliberate over-statement or fanciful exaggeration" (Harbrace College Handbook, 6th ed., by John Hodges & Mary Whitten, 1967, p. 232).

Take the case of the cut-off hand and cut out eye in Matt. 5 and 18. How could that be anything other than hyperbole? Surely no one would take the words of Christ as being a literal way of salvation? So what did Christ want? People to believe on Him, not cut off their hand! Hyperbole, with no doubt whatsoever.

I think the point Jesus was making is that you have to value him more than all other things. Our hands and eyes are very precious to us. You might have a sin you love like drugs or alcohol, some folks do not want to get saved because they know the Lord is going to ask us to give that up. You must be ready to give up all these things for Jesus.

 

[John of Japan]

well i didnt see that definition in the text

how about this is it hyperbole - the moon shall turn to blood.

It's hyperbole, naturally.

 

[J.D.]

It's hyperbole, naturally.

do you believe that a four-square borg-like new jerusalem will come floating down from outer space and hover near the earth in the end of time

 

[quantumfaith]

do you believe that a four-square borg-like new jerusalem will come floating down from outer space and hover near the earth in the end of time

Resistance if FUTILE!!!!

 

[John of Japan]

as i type this with one hand i was wondering if you could point me to something in the text that would have prevented me from taking it so literaly

Common sense, maybe?? I am sorry for your loss. :saint:

 

[John of Japan]

do you believe that a four-square borg-like new jerusalem will come floating down from outer space and hover near the earth in the end of time

Yes. What's your point?

 

[J.D.]

Resistance if FUTILE!!!!

i'm just trying to find out what is a deliberate over-statement or fanciful exaggeration and what is not according to my superiors, literalists. perhaps there is a method of interpretation other than common sense which some of us don't have that that could be consistenty applied that would have prevented me from severing my hand which is the reason i am now typing in all small letters and no question marks or certain other special characters.

 

[J.D.]

Yes. What's your point?

i've heard about that i was wondering why i shouldn't think that new jerusalem coming down out of heaven adorned as a bride is symbolic language in an apocalypted text, it's not common sense to me to take it as an actual city - how does a city put on a wedding gown..

 

[John of Japan]

i'm just trying to find out what is a deliberate over-statement or fanciful exaggeration and what is not according to my superiors, literalists. perhaps there is a method of interpretation other than common sense which some of us don't have that that could be consistenty applied that would have prevented me from severing my hand which is the reason i am now typing in all small letters and no question marks or certain other special characters.

Well, at least you didn't get blood all over your computer keyboard, so you can still type. :thumbsup:

 

[John of Japan]

i've heard about that i was wondering why i shouldn't think that new jerusalem coming down out of heaven adorned as a bride is symbolic language in an apocalypted text, it's not common sense to me to take it as an actual city - how does a city put on a wedding gown..

Um, the bride symbolism is called a simile.... (Come on, I know it's hard, but you can remember your high school English.:applause But John said he actually saw the city, and described it in detail--without a wedding dress.

 

[J.D.]

Um, the bride symbolism is called a simile.... (Come on, I know it's hard, but you can remember your high school English.:applause But John said he actually saw the city, and described it in detail--without a wedding dress.

yeh, i was wondering why he used that simile, the church is called the bride of Christ, i thought there might be a connection there comparing scripture with scripture but i guess there are two brides, the church and new jerusalem. oh well now i know if it says the moon shall turn to blood it's hyperbole even though many of your friends say it's literal but anyway if it says that a city floats down from outer space it's literal, thanks for the help?