Proper Hermaneutics

1. Lot's of prayer.

2. Lot's of reading the Word.

3. Lot's of studying God's Word.

4. Even more study . . . .

Note: I believe that before someone starts 'studying' the Bible, they should read through the entire Bible in their preferred version at least 2 times and at least one more time in the NT.

Then:

1. Let the Word speak to you - do not go to the Word with a pretext looking for a support to your theology, rather look at what the Word is saying.

2. Use the historical rules of grammar to determine what the original hearer would have understood the passage to mean.

3. The passage almost always has one clear meaning.

4. Interpret the text in its context - verse, passage, pericope, chapter, book, testament, Bible . . .

5. Apply the use of 'helps' after having read the text 5 or more times in one English version. 'Helps' include commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.

Remember that "a text without a context is just a pretext" . . . Dr Tolar . . . .

All this has been from memory . . .

6. Use the original languages - always use at least an interlinear . . . the tempo of the text and its connection to the surrounding verses and pericope(s) just are not communicated as well in English as in the originals.

7. Read the passage A LOT! I try to read a passage (3 to 7 chapters) more than 30 times before I preach it. Ten times from the version that I am preaching and at least once from all but one of the following: RV60 (Spanish), RVA (Spanish), KJV, NKJV, NIV, NAS, Greek (when preaching from the NT), Interlinear (for both OT and NT).

God bless you brother and study more . . . and more and more.

Wayne

 

first, we start by the correct spelling of it :tongue3: :saint:

H-E-R-M-E-N-E-U-T-I-C-S

 

"How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth" (Fee and Stuart) is a good read thats not too technical and gives a great start.

 

Two excellent texts to read that can answer this question better than anything else are:

D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies (available here: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780801020865&itm=1)

and

Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpretting Scripture (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780805424928&itm=6)

I'd check those two before anything else. Fairly inexpensive and easily accessible.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

I noticed that too....


I second the book by Fee and Stuart, excellent tool to have!

 

When I began reading the Bible as a youth, it was a child's book of Noah, Moses & Pharaoh, Samson, David & Goliath, Solomon, and Jonah. These all appealed to me and I could see myself as the good guy in each setting. As I got older I noticed I could never be as Moses, Samson, David, Solomon or Jonah. This happened when I fully understood I could never be a Jew. But for a good number of years I lost sight of this fact, for I was taught what most was found in the New Testament applied to me. Some years later I realized what I had been taught was not all true. I noticed when I began to read as intently and trying to identify with Jesus and the Apostle's, it was just as with my hero's of years past. It could never be.

I began to take notice that Jesus had no words for me, but how could this be for Paul said He did. Something was wrong, and the contradictions were coming fast and furious. It took a while, but I finally quit shoving Damascus Road from my mind, and acknowledged what Paul was telling me. He was my Apostle, and he has a gospel for me. Not the gospel of the Kingdom Church in the Kingdom of God that Jesus preached while on earth to only His people, and not that same gospel Peter preached in Acts 2:38 to the men of Israel. The gospel that Christ gave to Paul for today to both Gentile and Jew of the Body Church, is of the Cross by the grace of God through faith, we will be saved upon believing on the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation. No "great commission", and no ordinances to be carried out by us, they all being nailed to the Cross.

If we believe the Bible is written for us it follows that the proper principles of exegesis is to determine if any part of the Bible applies to us. After exploring and giving study with thought that we as individuals can be found in His Word, it is possible to find that God did not forget we Gentiles after all.

Good Hermeneutics to me is looking to find How things begin, progress, and affect us. We determine What is being said, and attempt to know When and Where it is happening, will happen, or did happen. Who is talking and Who is being addressed at the time. Why do we study? To find out Why What happened, When, and Where it happened, Who is involved, and How others and we are affected.

 

I agree with all the above but find it strange that proper hermanuetics today means:

-NOT doing it like the apostles,

-NOT following the NT examples,

-NOT following the example of the early church fathers.



Rob

 

Correct hermeneutics is not doing it like the earthly Apostles as they have their own Kingdom. That is not for me.

According to what NT examples are used.

Dangerous ground

I Corinthians 4:14-16, "I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
15. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
16. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me."

 

>>>Lets see how Jesus used the OT.

Look at Luke 20:27-40 were Jesus answers the Sadducees with a quote from Exodus 3:6 [bolded in quote below].

Would any of us use this as a proof text for the resurrection from the dead?
If we were there would we tell Christ, “Context, context, context”?

>>>The apostle Matthew, recounts the familiar story of the magi and quotes Hosea 11:1.
“This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15 ESV).

You would be hard pressed to attribute this to the future Messiah when examining that verse in Hosea.
What is the oft-quoted declaration about interpreting Scripture; “It can’t mean here and now, what it didn’t mean there and then”.
It sure doesn't seem to apply here!

Any aspiring seminarian caught using Scripture like that would be flunked out of school.

>>>Then there’s the often maligned Origen (185–ca. 254) who tended to spiritualize the Scriptures, seeking the deeper meanings.
(Unfortunately even today we can still find examples of this form of interpretation among popular T.V. preachers).
Origen wasn’t the originator of this form of interpretation.
He was using a form popular even before Christ.
It was a method of interpretation also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

SO HOW DOES THIS EFFECT ME?

I am not so dogmatic (inflexible, assertive, rigid) in my interpretations; most particularly in my end-times studies.

I have my opinions,
I can give support for my opinions,
but when it comes to knowing EXACTLY when and how future things will occur,
only God and time will tell.

Surely that will guarantee a proper interpretation[FONT=&quot].
[/FONT]
Rob

 

Another excellent book is Grasping God's Word, by Duvall and Hays , Zondervan....They say, "we are separated from the biblical audience by culture and customs, language, situation and a vast expanse of time."

Hence, we must consider: What did the text mean to the original audience. Then, What are the differences between the biblical audience and us?, And so, What is the theological principle in this text? And, finally, How should individual Christians to-day apply the theological principle in their lives?

An excellent study.

Cheers,

Jim

 

To this I would add, "How have Christian scholars throughout the ages read this text?" There are traditions of interpretation which, although we may now find them antiquated, have influenced modern readings.

Then I would offer as a general principle what one of my seminary professors underscored (I think it may have been Raymond Bryan Brown in New Testament): Do not make doctrine out of a single verse in an obscure passage! Let the Scripture as a whole speak to you.

 

Your question looks to be invalid for Jesus was in Context, and doesn't say Moses was out of Context.

A chesty remark, but from a humble mouth. I have found many professors follow the tradition of man. I am not "hard pressed" in understanding Hosea was a Prophet. Matthew then proves my point of keeping things in "Context". In this case we can only understand when we overlay the "Content" of Hosea with Matthew. There is no contradiction when we keep in Context Hosea, and then Matthew, as Content will equal Content.

We must keep Hosea in his "dispensation", with understanding coming in the dispensation when Matthew lived. It is understanding of Who said What, and When they said it. Why do most miss How the Holy Spirit will "interpret" for us? Most fail to realize Where they are to look. We find it in His Word, and no other Book, and in no certain Seminary.

Case in point. Today, do we believe Jesus, and are we to believe Jesus makes plain He came for none but His own, preaching the Gospel of the "Kingdom is at hand" in Matthew 15:22-28? Do we believe Jesus Christ when He gave the "great commission" in Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:14-20, and Luke 24:45-53. Are there "churches" today that believe the gospel that Jesus preached only to Israel of the "Kingdom is at hand" applies to them? Context and Context equal the Content. Are we today to look for the "Kingdom that was then coming"?

Do we believe Christ Jesus when He spoke to and "commissioned" a New Apostle to the Gentile and the Jew? Without contradiction can we make the Content found in the Context of the gospel of the "Kingdom is at hand" overlay the Content found in Context of the gospel of the "Body of Christ"? Isn't this what we should be looking for today, the rapture, for it must come before that "Kingdom that will come" afterwards.

Has not through Christendom a continual debate among most wondered at the difference between the Gospel of John, and the other Gospel's? Have we ever truly admitted that in John's we find he sounds so much like Paul, and not the others? No Paul does not sound like John for Christ Jesus first revealed to Paul the "Body of Christ Church", with entrance gained "through faith", not just "by faith", clearly shown in Hebrews 11.

We need to try and dig deep. "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God," I Corinthians 2:10. This is the "more perfect way" for understanding the "dispensational" gospel that Christ Jesus gave to Paul - Acts 18:26.

I can see you are much better than I, but not as sure of what you believe.

Me too.

Me too.

We certainly agree on this point.

As you say of things not known, yes.

 

God can interpret the clear with the unclear.

For us men, we had better stick to interpreting the unclear with the clear . . .

Unless our name is Joseph or Samuel . . . simth or rigdon . . .

 

Amen

Clear is unclear until the word of truth is correctly divided.

Yes interpretations are of God, and we find these interpretations to be true as shown in the story of Joseph. Samuel is the beginning of the Prophets, as the nation of God begins movement from a theocracy to a "kingdom".

You reference God's chosen one's, those made covenant with. We believe God spoke to Samuel and revealed to Him things not known. We find nothing edifying concerning the Gentile here. Do we believe God spoke to Saul/Paul and revealed to Him things unknown? The things revealed to Samuel we believe, but do we believe the things revealed to Paul?

Are we looking for that "kingdom that was at hand", or for the "rapture"? I find what Christ revealed to Paul to be "clear".

 

H-E-R-M-E-N-E-U-T-I-C-S - The art of maneuvering scriptures to say what God must have meant for them to say rather than accepting in faith what they in fact do say! Proper hermeneutics further requires convincing others of two things. First that we can not be sure what God really intended to say. This may be accomplished by pointing out that we do not have Gods word i.e.... the original manuscripts. Since we don't have the original manuscripts... we therefore can't be certain that any manuscripts we do have are accurate. This will lead to the second point that only thru hermeneutics (which requires advanced studies at the Greater Institutes, including but not limited to Greek and Hebrew languages) can one really understand what God has desired to convey to the masses. Get it!!!

The less educated must be brought to an understanding that only an ordained hermeneuter can properly bring light to the scriptures. It is dangerous to have these unlearned trying to grasp things too deep for their finite minds. In short we must take the scriptures out of the hands of the commoner.

Note: The very use of the word hermemeutics will often persuade the less educated that they should be ashamed to question the hermeneuter.

 

I pray that you divide the Word of God much better than you interpret my meager words . . .

Joseph Smith and Samuel Rigdon were men that interpreted the Clear Word of God with the unclear words of men . . .

Sorry the allusion was not clear to you.