No one has said that or implied that so I have no idea what that was in repsonse to. I do know that higher criticism does not equal hermeneutics.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The fight against dogmatism
- Thread starter stilllearning
- Start date
No one has said that or implied that so I have no idea what that was in repsonse to. I do know that higher criticism does not equal hermeneutics.
stilllearning
Active Member
Good morning John
Just a quick response;
You said........
But there is a great danger, in spiritualizing literal statements in Scripture.
--------------------------------------------------
And although I don’t want to step on Aaron’s toes:
I would like to know if you have truly ever heard anybody say, that God “wrote” Ezekiel?
Just a quick response;
You said........
I am sure that you knew, that did not mean that all scripture should be interpreted literally.
But there is a great danger, in spiritualizing literal statements in Scripture.
--------------------------------------------------
And although I don’t want to step on Aaron’s toes:
I would like to know if you have truly ever heard anybody say, that God “wrote” Ezekiel?
Actually, at least one prior post (not yours) categorically exchews hermeneutics.
You are correct. Higher criticism includes the application of heremeutics and exegetics.
Thanks for clarifying your position.
That's a good question. Numerous individuals have stated that, since scripture is God's Word, that the words of scripture were written by God.
Last edited by a moderator:
Then your response to me ( if that is true) was inappropriate.
It includes none of that. What it does include is a means to destroy people's faith not much more.
It's appropriate because you were taking issue with my statement, "higher criticism demands hermeneutics..., where dogmatism typically ignores hermeneutics. Having an understanding of scripture as God intended requires a hermeneutical application."
Then you don't have an understanding of higher criticism. First of all, opponents of scriptural higher criticism usualy don't realize that higher criticism is a general literary term which applies to all literature. It was the 16th century bible scholar Erasmus who is credited with being the first person to cite its use in regards to biblical studies. Second, higher criticism by its nature requires the application of hermeneutics and exegetics to glean a proper understanding of scripture. Third, opponents of higher criticism often don't realize that they're actually opposing lower criticism, which is an attempt determine what a text originally said before it was altered. Interestingly, single-translation-onlyists usually eschew higher criticism, but apply lower criticism to support their version-onlyist view.
Last edited by a moderator:
Another statement that could not be more untrue.
I am not a single translation only guy. But higher criticism works to remove the supernatural (eg. God's hand) from scripture and results in ignoring what scripture says about itself and what Christ said about scripture. Of course those who hold to the mythical Macro evolution need higher criticism. Those who rely on God and His word do not.
It's the exact statement which you didn't disagree with.
Another statement that could not be more untrue.
Yet anyther myth which is easily debunked by the fact that the application of higher criticism to scripture is over 500 years old.
It is completely true as is the fact that higher criticism is a putrid tool of liberalism.
One does not lead to the other nor does it make your point.
Oh, no, the "L" word, which, given the fact that you use that word to describe anyone who doesn't agree with you, doesn't carry ay particular objective weight.
I know...you like to pretend to be a conservative. But nothing shows that to be untrue more than your support for higher criticism. It is what feeds your macro evolution and your support of it stems from your liberalism. Liberalism always needs to be exposed to the light of truth so it cannot linger in darkness as you would have it.
I have no doubt that higher criticism was the tool of liberal theology. It was the target, in my early days of seminary, of fundamental thought and understanding of scriptural truth. Isa 7:14 is ever etched in my mind, where liberals danced for joy at the "young maiden" rather than "a virgin", even though the meaning was the same.
Hence we have the importance of employing proper hermeneutics in trying to understand what scripture is saying to us to-day.
Higher criticism could work, if we had a solid foundation to work with. If we have an agenda, however, higher criticism will always lead a person to where they wanted to go in the first place.
Cheers,
Jim
Hence we have the importance of employing proper hermeneutics in trying to understand what scripture is saying to us to-day.
Higher criticism could work, if we had a solid foundation to work with. If we have an agenda, however, higher criticism will always lead a person to where they wanted to go in the first place.
Cheers,
Jim
All these years I thought Joe McCarthy was dead.
So that is it? Nice:thumbs:
Marcia
Active Member
I'm amazed people defend higher criticism. Higher Criticism is not mere critical evaluation, it is much more.
Higher Criticism was a movement among theologians and scholars that started in Germany. Almost all of these people were anti-supernatural and sought to explain miracles in the Bible as natural circumstances.
Moreover, these critics tried to dismantle the Bible into accounts written by people (not by God) who were evaluating and trying to understand their own experiences with God. They asserted at first that there were 2 Isaiah's and that rapidly devolved into a theory of many authors of Isaiah. They also attacked other OT books and claimed these were written later because the Higher Critics did not believe in biblical prophecy.
I had to write an apologetics paper on Higher Criticism. Although most of the theories of Higher Criticism were eventually invalidated, their theories are still taught in many seminaries today.
Higher Criticism was a movement among theologians and scholars that started in Germany. Almost all of these people were anti-supernatural and sought to explain miracles in the Bible as natural circumstances.
Moreover, these critics tried to dismantle the Bible into accounts written by people (not by God) who were evaluating and trying to understand their own experiences with God. They asserted at first that there were 2 Isaiah's and that rapidly devolved into a theory of many authors of Isaiah. They also attacked other OT books and claimed these were written later because the Higher Critics did not believe in biblical prophecy.
I had to write an apologetics paper on Higher Criticism. Although most of the theories of Higher Criticism were eventually invalidated, their theories are still taught in many seminaries today.
People who defend it know all this and avoid its discussion. They work to misrepresent its goals and impact.
As did I, and I seriously regret not having a copy of it. There are some things absent in your post, the foremost of which is the lack of mention that the phrase "higher criticism" is a very broad term that applies to all literature in general, not just scripture.
Much of what you're referring to is, for lack of a better term, a form of hypercricism. Mainline higher criticism in regards to scripture includes applications of hermeneutics, exegetics, and related contectual criticisms. Few people, if anyone, would argue the necessity of these on their own merit. It's also important to denate the difference between higher criticism and what is often referred to as "lower criticism", which, in biblical terms, referrs to the infusion into scripture of concepts and writing to fix a prior "error" (single-translation-onlyists frequently use this to support their beliefs).
Higher criticism, when referring specifically to scripture, referrs to the application of intent of the author, the audience to whom he was writing, and the use of language of the day, including writing style, grammar, and linguistic context (note, for example, Jesus' Jesus "needles' eye" reference, or the use of circumcised vs uncircumcised to refer to jew and gentile). Proper scriptural high criticism does not downplay miracles, divine inspiration, biblical authority, or any such thing.
Higher criticism is not what John is presenting it as. It began as a tool to destroy faith in scripture, it works to look past the supernatural. Liberal theologians took up this ungodly tool to do that very thing. What john describes is the least of what Higher criticism is. And standing alone fails any true definition of it. It is used to promote the Bible as a human product rather than being totally inspired by God. It assigns Genesis to authors contradictory of What Christ said and tries to explain away miracles.
But liberals like to minimize its definition on order to appear credible. Not everyone is so gullible and they need to be exposed.
But liberals like to minimize its definition on order to appear credible. Not everyone is so gullible and they need to be exposed.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's why I went to great lengths to denote the difference between the term "higher criticism" in its general literary use without regards to scripture, and "higher criticism" in its specific use pertaining to mainline scriptural application.
You went to great lengths to minimize what it is period.
On the contrary, I went to great lengths to define in specificity what it is.