The BIG one

[DHK]

As I stated, I believe what you say is expressive is literal, and what you say is literal, is expressive. Expressive of VERY important concepts yes, and therefore, NO, they are NOT to be ignored and NO I do not ignore them.

What is your authority for this approach?
On what basis do you find that this method of hermeneutic is correct?

You all also rely on your study, so understand if I rely on mine. It's all I can reasonably be expected to do.

There are right and wrong ways to study the Word of God. Most of us know or have a good idea what "hermeneutics" is, that is the proper approach to the interpretation of God's Word. When you don't apply those principles you are apt to find yourself in deep error.

 

[Darren]

On hermeneutics, I'll admit, I've never studied it. I'm not big on being told how to interpret the Bible, seems simple enough to me. That may be niave... lets see:

A common use of the word hermeneutics refers to a process of scriptural interpretation. Its earliest example is however found not in the written texts, but in the Jewish Oral Tradition dated to the Second Temple era (515 BCE - 70 CE) that later became the Talmud through its development of the Midrash.
Rabbi Ishmael of the Amoraic era of Judaism interpreted laws from the Torah through 13 hermeneutic principles, such as the a fortiori argument (known in Hebrew as קל וחומר (kal v'chomer)). This is the first appearance of hermeneutic rules in the World, through the exegetic interpretation of Biblical texts.[citation needed]
Traditional Jewish hermeneutics differ from the Greek method in that the rabbis considered the Tanakh (the Jewish bibilical canon) to be inviolate. They did not consider inconsistencies in the text to be mistakes or corruptions. These sections found to be problematic for Christian interpretation of the text, were believed to be deliberate, and containing meanings which had to be teased out of the text through the process of exegesis. As a result, the rabbinical interpreters created a secondary, esoteric reading of the text based on these sections.
This was one of the bases of early Kabbalah and the Gematria, which posited mystical or "secret" meanings to the Biblical text based on the letters of the text themselves and even their numerical value.

(I added underline.)

If there were a class on original Hebrew Hermeneutics I might consider it, but modern Christian Hermeneutics, forget it. Which version? Four square, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Catholic, Roman Catholic, Greek Othodox Catholic, Assembly of God, Anabaptist, Congragationalists, Puratin, Prespiterian, "impartial" historical (I've been to "impartial" classes on the Bible, usually they're taught by athiests)....

And when Herod succeeded Archelaus, having received the authority which had been allotted to him, Pilate sent to him by way of compliment Jesus bound; and God foreknowing that this would happen, had thus spoken: ‘And they brought Him to the Assyrian, a present to the king.’[5]
​

Here Justin demonstrates that prophecy fulfillment supersedes logical context in hermeneutics. He ignores the christological issues that arise from equating Jesus to the calf idol of Bethel which is the "him" being brought to the king in Hosea 10:6.

No I must say...

Hermeneutics in the Middle Ages witnessed the proliferation of non-literal interpretations of the Bible. Christian commentators could read Old Testament narratives simultaneously as prefigurations of analogous New Testament episodes, as symbolic lessons about Church institutions and current teachings, and as personally applicable allegories of the Spirit. In each case, the meaning of the signs was constrained by imputing a particular intention to the Bible, such as teaching morality, but these interpretive bases were posited by the religious tradition rather than suggested by a preliminary reading of the text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

I'm really not into deeper meanings, and I wonder how deep you're into them DHK.

Maybe I should go for the Open Theist version:

Open theists advocate that the Bible be read literally while understanding figures of speech such as metaphors, hyperboles, and synecdoches. Bob Enyart, in a moderated debate with Knox Theological Seminary Associate Professor of New Testament, Samuel Lamerson, lays out a systematic method for interpreting scripture. He proposes two hermeneutics: NOAH and JONAH:

The New Openness-Attributes Hermeneutic resolves conflicting explanations by selecting interpretations that give precedent to the biblical attributes of God as being living, personal, relational, good, and loving, and by rejecting explanations derived from commitment to the philosophical attributes of God such as omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, impassible, and immutable. [5]​

The hermeneutic to prove Openness is JONAH!
Jehovah’s Obvious Nativity Attributes Hermeneutic
Holding her cooing newborn, any mom can tell you her baby’s attributes, of being living, personal, relational, and loving. But the sin inherited by the baby through the father will eventually express itself, and lead to death. And Mary would recognize an additional attribute in her Baby, because she did not conceive by a sinful man but of God as a virgin, therefore she could add to those four attributes: absolute goodness! [6]​

Really, how do I put this? I hate anyone who thinks he can sit as my guru or something and make it so I can't interpret the Bible without his constant input. The Bible is NOT that hard to understand. It was written for all men. We are encouraged to check up on those teaching us, not to simply trust them, by the Bible itself, but I think it is clear that there is too much trust at times inspite.

Perhaps some more specifics are called for on "trust". "Why shouldn't I trust?" I know it sounds silly not to, but lets look at the facts. Trust who? Almost everyone has their own view of the what the Bible says but in truth, each passage has only a few REAL set meanings, the other ideas people try to force on them aren't worth the paper to record them. This is the BIBLE. This is, THE HOLY WORD OF GOD. That is why you should read it for yourself, because you can't just trust on this one. This book, which you just trust others on, is only the size of a children's chapter book. READ IT!

 

[Tom Bryant]

Darren,
You're right. One of the biggest issues is trust. You have decided that you will put your own reasoning on a par with the Scriptures. You trust your mind and powers of logic and the Scriptures. We put our logic and reasoning subservient to the Scriptures. We don't check our minds at the door, but we do understand that God's ways are above our ways and that He is past figuring out.

 

[DHK]

What is your authority for this approach?
On what basis do you find that this method of hermeneutic is correct?

There are right and wrong ways to study the Word of God. Most of us know or have a good idea what "hermeneutics" is, that is the proper approach to the interpretation of God's Word. When you don't apply those principles you are apt to find yourself in deep error.

I will simply await for an answer to this post, rather than wade through the nonsense posted on your previous one.

 

[Darren]

Had to work, sorry I'm late.

Darren,
You're right. One of the biggest issues is trust. You have decided that you will put your own reasoning on a par with the Scriptures. You trust your mind and powers of logic and the Scriptures. We put our logic and reasoning subservient to the Scriptures. We don't check our minds at the door, but we do understand that God's ways are above our ways and that He is past figuring out.

Truth be told, I believe I am looking at the original intent of the writers. When it actually says God said He would do something, then decided to do something else... what should I believe? That's pretty literal. What part is figurative, His first or second decision? Read the passages I present, they are neither "one verse wonders", nor are they "figurative".

I'm sticking to my defense. I read the Bible. It is the size of a children's chapter book and almost as simple in language. You don't need a class to read it. Anyone who tries to control your interpretation of scripture for you "to avoid heresy"... probably... likely, is committing heresy himself and doesn't want to be found out.


_________________________________________________

The word doctrine simply means "teaching". If you put your faith in God, you must have some teaching of the God whom you are putting your faith in. That in and of itself is doctrine. It is the doctrine of theology. Theos means God. "Ology" means the study of. Thus the study of God. Which God then are you putting your faith in. I am not being sarcastic here but quite serious. I am pointing out that you can't do away with doctrine or teaching when you say that you put your faith in God. You need to study about God first. All faith is grounded in doctrine or teaching.

I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that even the writers of the new Testament encouraged their followers to check up on them and not just take their word for things. If absolute trust was not even to be place in THEM, how much now must I place in any given pastor?

When everyone disagrees on an issue, to find the truth, you just have to research for yourself. This goes for any subject. I encourage everyone here to do what I did. Read the Bible for yourselves and see what it really says. Be ready, because odds are, even if I'm wrong, you're still wrong in a lot of places. The Bible is a simple book, God is not the author of chaos. We humans are authoring chaos though, that is obvious.

Personal study is good. But if your conclusions run contrary to what the rest of the Bible teaches then you must realize that your conclusions are wrong.

Good in theory, but I don't think I am contradicting the Bible. Any good examples? You know me, yep, they gotta be longer than a verse and in context.

Cults like the J.W.'s reject those doctrines that they cannot understand.

Um... Never actually met with a Jehovah's Witness have you? Go ahead, give your Jehovah's Witness story, I've heard them all, convincing me we have more than a few liars in the church these days. But when I actually talked to one, it was a different story. Oh yes, they are LOST, but that's not because of missunderstanding. They drench themselves in an entirely different dogma.

My first problem with JWs is their disrespect for the Word of God. This goes beyond misinterpretation. Go ahead, if one comes to your door, take and look in his Bible when he offers. You will be stunned. Every time "God" or one of His names is said, they substitute "Jehovah", attempting to make the issue of that name more serious than it is.

JWs actually accept the omni-doctrines. Actually, aside from the Jehovah name thing and a few other dogma's, all of their beliefs usually adopt the most popular and easy. Universalism is popular with them, they don't think hell exists. Creationism happened over the course of billions of years, they'll even accept that humans evolved. They're "open minded", or like to say they are, so that you'll talk to them. They like to liken your beliefs to theirs to lull your defense.

JWs... if they were to objectively sit down and read a NORMAL Bible themselves, they wouldn't even get half of their doctrines. They are actually a great demonstration of what happens without independent study.

How can a finite mind understand an infinite God? It cannot.

No. I'm not gonna defend this again. When did I actually SAY I understood God?

How do you know that it was God that answered? How can you be sure of that? Could it have been a demon? I don't mean to offend. But there are other possibilities.

Agreed... course, that He said this was for me and me alone not prophecy, I would think that a demon would want me to manipulate. I was actually a respected kid in my church. I knew the doctrines up and down and knew my Bible pretty well. I asked the best questions and had the best answers. A demon would have wanted to take advantage of that I would think. Besides, the "revelation" was "Darren, read my Bible again, how you know it should be read" (no, Darren isn't my real name, just subbing it). Not much of a manipulation... especially not a demonic one. At best, it was from God, at worst, a random musing of my own mind.

How can you be sure that God answered your prayers? How do you know?

Because I trust that God did not leave me in my time of need. He always answers prayer, I believe, just not how we expect.

Fair enough. But teaching or doctrine from the Bible simply isn't theory. It must agree with the rest of Scripture. If it doesn't then you know that it is wrong.

That's the sound of no one disagreeing with you.

Why, against all other scholarship, do you state that these figures of speech, are suddenly not figures of speech, when all other highly educated people maintain that they are?

Most "highly educated" people, call each other heretic all the time and have little if any respect for God's word. You know exactly what I mean. How many Bible scholars are Baptist? Okay now, how many then are not and according to YOU therefore, are wrong? See... that's called taking a side.

Don't you think that is a little odd?

Count the number Christian denominations. Isn't THAT a little odd?

Common sense here would dictate that you are mistaken in your ideas, and that you ought to do some more study in these areas.

When everyone disagrees with everyone, common sense dictates that there's been a fundamental misunderstanding.

One of the most dangerous positions to take is to rely on experience over and above the Word of God. That is the position you have taken. Instead of taking God and His revelation at face value

Actually, I think I am taking face value.

If I set forth a Biblical argument, why should it make you dig in your heals all the more. That is a matter of pride. I can show you what the Bible teaches. But are you teachable enough to receive it?

Common sense. Think about this. When you attack someone personally, which I think you've done to me, calling me a heretic and a blasphemer, you generally do nothing but make them believe they are right all the more, because persecution is a faith STRENGTHENER, in fact it is the best. The more mindless and bold the attack, the more someone is convinced you have nothing valid to put forward. I'm still waiting on scriptures BTW, so you've taught me mostly your theory, and I've rejected it... actually, more acturately, mostly your theory of ME not God.

Scripture is always sound. But you must be able to accept it.

said to:

I get stronger arguements at times, understand, these aren't logical ideas I'm arguing against, so I don't expect the theory to be very good, but the scripture is sometimes, though not often, sound. The Bible I find both my strongest reference for my arguements, and my biggest anti arguement. At the moment, the score... you guys aren't winning. I've examined many passages supposidely proving special soveriegnty. Few of them ever even speak to the issue, but are taken completely out of context and slapped around with total disregard for what they actually mean. I suppose I did come to my conclusions over night, but I didn't maintain them without careful study.

Oh I'm sorry, said only to this:

I get stronger arguements at times, understand, these aren't logical ideas I'm arguing against, so I don't expect the theory to be very good, but the scripture is sometimes, though not often, sound.

I don't know how you missed this, but if it wasn't clear: I meant their use of scripture is often not sound. Anyone go back and read the post if you don't believe me. But it is good that you showed everyone what you think good quoting means DHK. You took ME out of context. How can I trust you on scripture?

You don't really use the Bible. You take verses out of context, and use them according to your experience.

I sorry, but just noticing something. I haven't actually mentioned experience other than Bible study... what experience are YOU referring to? Why does it seem to me like you're making a straw man?

The Scripture is not wrong. Your interpretation is wrong.

said to:

Now, as to the clincher, are they just wrong? Need I really even waste my breath?

These doctrines are more than wrong. They're a burden to the faith.

oh I'm sorry, said only to this:

Now, as to the clincher, are they just wrong? Need I really even waste my breath?

You took me out of context again. By the very next SENTENCE, it's clear I was talking about special sovereignty doctrines, not scriptures.

 

[Darren]

DHK, my patience with you is wearing thin again.

So far you have, accused me of being possessed by a demon (I think), misquoted me twice, and so far I see two straw men arguments: 1, I never said I fully understood God, in fact often stated contrary 2, you say I rely on experience, but I've never mentioned any experience, just objective reading of the Bible.



Although I see that you've calmed down... I'll think about the other things you've said, and whether I'll reply to them... might not. Tomorrow though, I have other things I want to do today.

 

[BobRyan]

Now, back on subject, first, let me reassure, I believe firmly, every bit of the Bible is true, however, largely missinterpreted. I feel like I am Luther, pointing out the many rediculous ideas put out by tradition ("we have the graves of all 14 apostles!" when refering to artifact collecting). I'm not denying the Bible, I'm denying traditional belief, there's a very big difference. I do NOT believe the Bible contradicts.

If we start with the Bible is the Word of God -- is accurate -- is trustworthy and the traditions of man are not -- then we get to the next point -- EXEGESIS.

What principles do you use to ensure that you exegete the text correctly?

How do you keep from letting your preferences, speculations, imagination, wishful-thinking it mixed in with what is written?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

What is your authority for this approach?
On what basis do you find that this method of hermeneutic is correct?

There are right and wrong ways to study the Word of God. Most of us know or have a good idea what "hermeneutics" is, that is the proper approach to the interpretation of God's Word. When you don't apply those principles you are apt to find yourself in deep error.

Let me ask again:
Here is your original quote:

Originally Posted by Darren: As I stated, I believe what you say is expressive is literal, and what you say is literal, is expressive. Expressive of VERY important concepts yes, and therefore, NO, they are NOT to be ignored and NO I do not ignore them.

What is your authority for this approach?
On what basis do you find that this method of hermeneutic is correct?

There are right and wrong ways to study the Word of God. Most of us know or have a good idea what "hermeneutics" is, that is the proper approach to the interpretation of God's Word. When you don't apply those principles you are apt to find yourself in deep error.

 

[Darren]

What is your authority for this approach?
On what basis do you find that this method of hermeneutic is correct?

There are right and wrong ways to study the Word of God. Most of us know or have a good idea what "hermeneutics" is, that is the proper approach to the interpretation of God's Word. When you don't apply those principles you are apt to find yourself in deep error.

Very simple. I'm using common language. Read the passages I present. They are VERY literal. They will actually say God intended to do something, then deliberately and intentionally did something else because His mind was influenced by human actions.

Now as to passages that talk about omnipotence etc, most are indeed figurative, it's undeniable, most are refering to dominion or most easily only meaning God can or will do great things. In fact, half the time, so called statements of omnipotence only refer to God's ability to do SPECIFIC things like forgive sins.

I look at Gods actions throughout the Bible and see that they are undeniably based on reason, not just because. God acts as though there is an urgency behind it all, as though something big or at least very important to Him were at stake. I propose that is not figurative.

In fact, I'm not the first to notice, in fact most people do, that the Bible presents God as a God at war with the world. God desires it's salvation, though is bound to destroy it for the greater good. It portrays a God that OFTEN does not get what He wants. A God whom does NOT simply will things to happen, but for some reason gives us a choice, which often means He gets what He doesn't want from us. It portrays God as angry, indignant and full of wrath. These are the emotions of a being disappointed and who's desires have been gone against. We also see love, compelling real and literal sacrifice, sacrifice never occurs without NEED, the very idea otherwise is ludicrous. Why sacrifice if nothing is at stake, or if there is an easier way to achieve your goal, that's just silly.

Another 2 of my pages.... yes they need work but they show my point:
http://www.freewebs.com/phantomwolf/omnipotence.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/phantomwolf/sorry_guys.htm

Another person I refuted on my site said this:

The cardinal rule of biblical interpretation is that narrative passages should be interpreted by didactic passages.

To this I pointed out:

(Jeremiah 18:1-10)
1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

(Psalm 81: 8-16)
8 "Hear, O my people, and I will warn you—
if you would but listen to me, O Israel!
9 You shall have no foreign god among you;
you shall not bow down to an alien god.
10 I am the LORD your God,
who brought you up out of Egypt.
Open wide your mouth and I will fill it.
11 "But my people would not listen to me;
Israel would not submit to me.
12 So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts
to follow their own devices.
13 "If my people would but listen to me,
if Israel would follow my ways,
14 how quickly would I subdue their enemies
and turn my hand against their foes!
15 Those who hate the LORD would cringe before him,
and their punishment would last forever.
16 But you would be fed with the finest of wheat;
with honey from the rock I would satisfy you."

http://www.freewebs.com/phantomwolf/digging_deeper.htm

Have fun looking at this wonderful example of man with seemingly NO respect for the Bible, God or his opposition, loosing respect for all those things, just to hold to his silly beliefs:
http://www.freewebs.com/phantomwolf/back_to_the_bible.htm