Proper Hermaneutics

Well, I for one feel a bit of relief! I now see that you meant that OTHER Joseph Smith! I really did think you were taking a bit of a wrongheaded swipe at my posting about not making doctrine out of obscure passages.

I want to associate and agree with the effort to teach people how to do hermeneutics, even as non-specialists. I did that in my pastorate, and am doing it again in the church where I am now a member. I do not habitually use technical words like this H-word, although I may in passing define it for them. Nor do I try to intimidate them with lots of references to the original languages that neither they nor I are equipped to work with. But I do try to acquaint them with the fact that in given passages there are exegetical issues that are often mirrored in the varying translations. At the very least it keeps people from being too dogmatic about their own readings of difficult texts.

My original point remains the same, however: that we have ample basis for Christian doctrine out of the texts which are clear, and do not have to be overly troubled about those which are obscure. Don't run off and make dogma from verses that are hard to understand, have corrupted texts, or are just unique and unsupported by other passages.

Back now to being THIS Joseph Smith, who works with the Bible and not add-on Scriptures!

 

Bless you for doing what a pastor ought to do. Some folks have to interject 'One Bible' beliefs into everything.

 

One of the primary rules is the answer to the question "Where is the meaning?" The meaning is not in the author's intentions, nor is the meaning in our interpretation. Rather, the meaning is in the text. The meaning is in the words themselves, not in my opinion of interpretation or in my opinion of the author's intentions.

Jim also brought out a good point about the original context.

 

The only thing I would change Tim is this; The science of proper interpretation of scripture is exegesis. The application of exegesis to a contemporary society is hermeneutics. :thumbs:

 

At first I thought you were on top of Mars' Hill, but by the time I finished, I see you fell to the bottom laughing all the way.

Send me some of the "stuff" you drink.

 

Why did you bring these two men to the table? To whom do you try to bring close to Joseph or Samuel . . . simth or rigdon?

It is clear you cloud clear with suspicion. It is Paul I refer to, not of those suspicious, and in your suspicion you link what is clear which clouds your vision.

You refer to men that "interpret His Word". Are we to do the same? We are to correctly divide as the Holy Spirit interprets. He leads, we follow. We get trampled on every time we try to interpret on our own - Witness those you chose to refer to.

 

I had no doubt as to the one referenced.

See you agree with Peter as he writes to his people of Paul's writings. It is by correct hermeneutics that it is possible not to be dogmatic, but knowledgeable, determining from the translations we use they must all render the same interpretation. Positioning myself in translations I accept both the literal exactness translations as well as those that bring the thought of the Greek into play for understanding, of which I prefer Williams NT. When scripture proves itself we know we have the interpretation of the Holy Spirit. This is then truth narrowly defined, which to many equals dogmatism.

Congrats to you realizing it is the Word that has the power, and we are to provide those not in detailed study groups the words in our common language. It is not with the wisdom of words we use for categorization in our studies but the familiar when presenting His Word.

It is back again to Peter and Paul for the hard to understand verses or thoughts, working with text written by those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Do some verses in Mark come to mind you include as "add-ons?