Submitted by Georgie Porgie
Any truly valid interpretation of Scripture must be based upon sound rules. These rules must then be applied consistently. The following are the most basic rules we attempt to always follow in our interpretation of Scripture. We do not feel at liberty to discard these rules when they lead us to a conclusion in contradiction to what ‘orthodoxy’ has taught us. We instead endeavour to allow the scriptures to speak for themselves and believe by faith whatever conclusions they may lead us to.
I It will be assumed that the 39 books of the Old Testament, and the 27 Books of the New Testament are the wholly inspired Word of God. “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim 3:17.
II The Bible itself will always be used to define its own terminology, symbols, etc. No appeal will be made to any man-made dogma, theory, or writing, such as the apocrypha or psudopygrypha, to explain Biblical terms which are already clearly defined within the Bible itself.
III The proper interpretation of any given passage will be determined, not only by that with which it stands immediately connected, but by considering all scriptures which have bearing upon the subject throughout the entire Bible . The truth of any given subject can only be determined by bringing together all scripture which sheds light on that subject.
IV Every passage will be given as literal an interpretation as possible, unless such a literal interpretation would render the meaning absurd, or bring it into disagreement with other passages which speak in positive language.
V No interpretation will be given to any scripture beyond what the fair meaning of the text itself allows. For Example: Carcass cannot in any case be interpreted to mean immortal soul burning in hell.
VI All passages belonging to any particular subject must contain one or more of the peculiar features of that subject, by which it may be identified as belonging to that subject.
VII The truth of any doctrine must be determined firstly by those passages which speak in clear and positive language, and not those which are symbolic or parabolic in nature. No inference should be drawn from any symbolic or parabolic passage which would bring the passage into contradiction with those which speak unequivocally on the same subject.
VIII No doctrine will be derived based on a single passage of scripture, a mere inference, or an argument from silence. Any true doctrine will found throughout the entire Bible.
Fundamental Rules for Interpreting Scripture
1. Since Jesus spoke and the Bible writers wrote primarily for the people of their day, always consider the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the passage you are studying.
2. Always consider the context of the unit, chapter, and book when interpreting a text. The meaning of each verse must agree with the theme of the unit, chapter, and book, as well as the overall teaching of the Bible.
3. When interpreting a passage or verse, make sure to study each sentence grammatically to get the correct meaning. Pay special attention to the verbs as they deal with actions.
4. Make sure to get the meaning of each text as intended by the Bible writer or inspired speaker before making application. This is called bridge-building and is important in giving Bible studies.
5. Difficult texts must be interpreted in the light of the clear teachings of the whole Bible. Therefore, study all that Scripture teaches on a given subject before coming to a conclusion on any single verse.
6. The New Testament must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and vice versa. The Old Testament is promise and the New Testament is fulfilment. Both complement each other.
7. For accuracy, use the best translations and, if at all possible, compare with the original text.
Here are the eight rules:
1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words “allos” and “heteros”. Both are usually translated as “another” in English – yet “allos” literally means “another of the same type” and “heteros” means “another of a different type.”
2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them – just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one’s interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: “…for there be gods many and lords many…” as a “proof text” of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods “so-called”), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.
4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can’t be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote – without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter’s own culture or society – then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present.”
5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason – it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:
“What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence… interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic…may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence.” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)
6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge’s chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called “noble” because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.
7) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).
8) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.
Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today. However, these eight principles are no substitute for the Holy Spirit which will, if you let Him, guide you in the truth [John 14:26]. If you receive Christ into your heart, God will give you the Holy Spirit freely as a gift [Acts 2:38]. I urge you, if you have not already done so, to examine the claims and the work of Jesus Christ and to receive Him as your Saviour.
Interpreting Scripture (Hermeneutics)
Hermeneutics is defined in one dictionary as “the art of finding the meaning of an author’s words and phrases, and of explaining it to others.” When applied to Scripture, accurate hermeneutics would require the scholar to:
• Study the context of the passage and the theme of the book.
• Look up the actual meaning of each word in the original languages.
• Note the verb tenses, the cases, and other grammatical determinants.
• Learn the cultural setting of the passage.
• Determine what the original readers understood it to mean.
• Check out cross-references to see how the words are used in other contexts.
• See how the first mention of the word or topic is presented in the Bible.
• Confirm an interpretation with two or three similar passages.
These are all proven study methods and good guidelines of interpretation. Here are some other additional factors of correct Biblical hermeneutics?
1. Spiritual Perception Over Intellectual Understanding
The first factor of interpreting Scripture is to approach it as an exercise in spiritual discernment rather than just an intellectual pursuit. Paul emphasized this in his letter to the Corinthian believers. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14). Jesus Himself confirmed that Biblical understanding does not come from human reasoning but from spiritual enlightenment. He said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matthew 11:25).
The Holy Spirit is the One Who inspired the writing of Scripture, and He is the most qualified One to interpret its meaning to each reader. Jesus assured us that the Holy Spirit would indeed guide us into all truth. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
This being the case, it is also reasonable to conclude that if a person who wants to interpret Scripture has sinful habits or practices in his life that grieve the Holy Spirit and quench His power, the Holy Spirit will not reveal the truth of Scripture to such a person. In fact, God warns that such individuals will take Scripture out of context to their own destruction. (See II Peter 3:16.) This result supports the axiom that a man’s morality will dictate his theology and his philosophy.
2. God’s Revelation Over Human Reasoning
In the final analysis, accurate Biblical interpretation is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ throughout the Scriptures. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than on that walk on the road to Emmaus. The disciples had been personally taught by Jesus for three years.
However, they still did not understand the Scriptures from which He taught. They were distracted by the conflicting interpretations of contemporary scholars. It was not until Jesus began with Moses and all the prophets and explained how they revealed Him that they understood the true meaning of Scripture. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). They later recalled, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Luke 24:32).
The scholars of Jesus’ day carried out heated debates over the correct interpretation of Scripture, but Jesus counselled them to search the Scriptures on the basis that they testified of Him. “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39).
3. Genuine Love Rather Than Justification of Selfishness
Since the Scriptures reveal the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, it also follows that the primary theme of the Bible is the love of God and how we are to live out His love in our daily words and actions.
When a clever lawyer tried to involve Jesus in a wordy battle, He began his forensic sparring with the question “Which is the greatest commandment?” The reply that Jesus gave is a profound principle for Biblical interpretation. All the Law and prophets are based on the command to love God with all of our hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Therefore, we must interpret Scripture on the basis of how it teaches us to love God and to love others. Love is the theme of the Bible. All good character qualities are simply practical expressions of genuine love. When the Pharisees used the Law of Moses to justify their harsh and unloving treatment of wives, Jesus reproved them for hardness of heart and took them back to the Creation design of one man and one woman becoming one flesh for the rest of their lives.
The lawyer who tried to engage Jesus in debate then tried to justify himself by asking, “Who is my neighbour?” to which Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan.
4. Christ’s Commands Over Man’s Theology
Every interpretation of Scripture is based on some foundational structure of reasoning. Jesus provides the structure of truth in the commands that He gave to His disciples during His earthly ministry, and they are the guiding lights for correct Biblical interpretation. They clarify what was written in the Old Testament and are further explained in New Testament teaching. Jesus promises that if we keep His commands before our eyes, He will reveal more of Himself to us. This was the great goal of Paul: “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection” (Philippians 3:10). Jesus further promises, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31–32).
It is customary for a Bible scholar to base his interpretation of a passage on the theological position that he has accepted. The problem with this approach is that no theological system is totally without some human error, because it is not inspired. It is man’s explanation of Biblical truth.
This is not to say that theology is unimportant. Wrong doctrine leads to wrong behaviour. No one was more concerned about false doctrine than the Apostle Paul. He maintained a continual battle against false teaching. However, he did not base sound doctrine on the theological views of his day but on the words of Jesus Christ and that which leads to Christ like living.
He explains this in his epistle to Timothy. “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself” (I Timothy 6:3–5).
5. One Interpretation and Many Applications
The Bible makes it clear that there is only one interpretation of Scripture. However, there can be many applications. It is the Holy Spirit Who guides us not only to the right interpretation of a passage but also to the precise application of Scripture to our daily lives. If our lives are in harmony with the Lord, we can expect the Holy Spirit to illuminate certain passages of Scripture for our personal application. When this happens, it is God giving us a “rhema” of Scripture.
In the New Testament, the Word of God is generally referred to by the Greek word logos. Jesus is identified as the Living Word (logos). However, there are many references that use the Greek word rhema to define the Word of God. A rhema is a precise direction of Scripture for a particular person or circumstance. When Jesus told Peter to cast his net on the other side of the boat, Peter replied, “Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word [rhema] I will let down the net” (Luke 5:5). Jesus did not tell every one to cast their nets on the other side of the boat—only Peter.
It is on the point of the Holy Spirit applying a passage of Scripture to a decision that critics often rise up and claim that this is not acceptable hermeneutics. Their quarrel is not with believers who know in their spirits that God is directing them by the witness of two or three rhemas, but with the Holy Spirit Who confirms the application of rhemas.
Jesus used rhemas in overcoming Satan’s temptations, and one of the passages He used affirms rhemas. “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word [rhema] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).
6. Correct Divisions of Truth Versus Truth Out of Balance
Paul gave Timothy wise instruction in hermeneutics when he wrote, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15).
Scripture is a living, powerful instrument in the hand of God. It functions on what appears to us to be paradoxes. In a similar fashion, the muscles in our bodies are only able to function by opposing tensions.
On the one hand, Scripture presents the Law of God, but then it contrasts this with the grace of God. Scripture teaches the need for justice, but then it counters this with mercy. We are told to cease from our own labour and enter the rest that is in Christ. At the same time, we are commanded to work for the night is coming when no man can work and to labour for the Lord. We have freedom in Christ. However, we are to make ourselves servants to all people.
If we emphasize only one side of God’s Biblical equation, we can certainly support it with verses of Scripture, but we will come out with the wrong answer. Truth out of balance leads to heresy. For example, if we emphasize the “rest” that a believer has and fail to give equal and primary emphasis to the “labour” of a believer, we will view any emphasis on working for the Lord as legalism.
Paul put labour and rest together when he wrote, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (Hebrews 4:9–11). Similarly, there is certainly freedom in Christ. However, if we focus on freedom, we will react to God-ordained authority as being oppressive and cultish.
Proper hermeneutics requires diligent use of all the above factors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Avoid Scripture Twisting: Eight Basic Rules Of Bible Interpretation
1. Begin with what the passage says, but always ask, “What does the passage mean?”, not what it “says.”
2. Pay attention to the Greek and Hebrew, (For those without language training, an interlinear Bible used in conjunction with a Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words or Expository Dictionary of Bible Words is recommended).
3. Remember the context. Read verses in the context of the whole passage, the chapter and even the book. Finally, keep in mind the larger context of the New Testament or Old Testament.
4. The Bible is progressive revelation. This means that, generally, the New Testament specifically interprets the Old Testament.
5. Always interpret the incidental passage by the systematic teachings of that topic; consider all the passages dealing with the topic, A good topical Bible is a useful aid (e.g. Nave’s Topical Bible).
6. Interpret the unclear passages by the clear ones. A favourite ploy of the cults is to choose a difficult passage and build their unique doctrines on it.
7. Beware of novel interpretations, check various conservative commentaries on the passage. There is very little new under the sun. Many of the heresies of the cults have been dealt with thoroughly. Even though there are many Christian denominations, it is interesting that on the essential doctrines there is solid agreement. Always go beyond what the passage is saying to get at its intended meaning. Cult leaders are expert in isolating passages and imposing their interpretation on it.
8. Come to Scripture prayerfully, submitting to be taught by the Holy Spirit, allowing the Scripture to interpret itself and not be clouded by personal doctrinal presuppositions.
1. Pray! Pray! Pray! The Holy Spirit knows better then you do!
2. Always know what the verse actually says, not what you think you remember it saying
3. Take the verse in literary context, don’t just read what you want to read to prove your point and don’t forget the Bible is a mosaic of different kinds of literature meant to be read different ways.
4. Take the verse in cultural context, just like you saying “it’s raining cats and dogs” is not what you literally meant
5. Remember the Bible is a whole 66 books! Interpret all verses in relation the other 1000’s of verses
6. Check the other translations, The variations are complimentary and show the whole picture
7. The Bible was not originally written in English, go back to the sources
8. Theological presuppositions are bad, scripture determines doctrine, not the other way around
9. Check the Theologians’ opinions, The Ph.D, professor of heart surgery of Harvard is better then your uncle Ted’s heart removal service. Professional opinions matter! (but don’t assume they’re always right)
10. Assume nothing, be ready to learn, don’t give up. Remember, only God knows everything.
561 responses to “Hermeneutics And Exegesis”
I once read this sermon outline in a book and I copied it down, because I thought it was cute at the time.
TITLE: WHAT HAVE YOU?
TEXT: What is that in your hand?—Exodus 4:2
LESSON: IT’S NOT WHAT YOU HAVE — BUT HOW WELL YOU USE IT FOR GOD
Moses had a rod, and it became like a wand. Exodus 4
David had a sling, and used it to slay a giant. 1 Samuel 17
A Jewish maid had a little voice and used it to tell of the man of GOD 2Kings 5
A LITTLE LAD HAD HIS LUNCH, AND Jesus used it to feed a multitude John 6
A widow had two mites, but millions have been inspired by her giving. Mark 12/ Luke 21
Dorcas had only a sewing kit, but used it in a big way to help the poor in the early church. Acts 9
Again we ask. What is that in your hand?
GP is a mere 3/10 Bible teacher, but he tries his best to share the little he has learned on BU and elsewhere. And he tries to obey the tenets of 2 Tim. 2:15- 16.
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashmed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness
What is that in your hand my friends? Do you have anything to offer? Anything you can use or give?
@All…
Empirically, Dr. Georgie Porgie can’t stand up.
@ CH
But Chris, I thought that it was Dictionary that Hopi referred to yesterday when she said that the Dick had gone flaccid, I didn’t realise that Dr. GP also couldn’t stand up. 🙂
@the hood…
ROTFLMAO…
If you can’t laugh at yourself, then you are doomed.
(IMHO)
LOL….
Jesus Christ on a bike!
Mr. Dickhead has something to say. Here it is: apparently I am “a gateway to evil and a menace to our civilisation.”
Now that deserves an answer. At the moment I have a life to live, and a supper to be eaten, but you can bet that I’ll be right back at Mr. Dick just as soon as real life gives me pause. Christ, that was brain-numbing. Back at you as soon as I have time. Watch this space. I think that “the dick” and I are going to have a rumble.
@ The Hood, The wicked, deceitful attempt by Mormon apologist, Mr & Mrs Brown, to discredit the integrity and scholarship ‘par excellence’ of the late Dr. Walter Martin, a man with one of the finest annalytical and legal minds, with a penchant for research accuracy and detail, whose expose’ on Mormonism stuck in the ‘side’ the LDS, like a ‘sore’ which they CANNOT remove, because Martin’s primary source material was taken directly from within Mormonisn, supported by appropriate secondary source material, which simply CANNOT be refuted by Mormons; nick-picking at minor alterations in footnotes, of subsequent editions of “Kingdom of The Cults’ a veritable masterpiece of research, that WAS and still IS devastating to LDS.
So, what do the Mormon apologist do, unable to refute the substance of Dr. Martin’s book, they attack the man, “kill the messenger” if you CAN’T kill his message; so typical of the BU *SSS*.
Dr. Walter Martin held four earned degrees, including a Masters Degree from New York University. The late Dr. D. James Kennedy confirmed that Martin was a fellow student with him at N.Y. University, and that Martin had completed all of the course work for his doctorate, with the exception of his dissertation.
Dr. Martin subsequently obtained a Ph.D from California Coast University, the institution attacked by the Brown’s
as not being accredited and a degree ‘mill’ a blatant LIE.
Dr. Bear, his degrees are legion, earned and easily veriable, said:
‘We are therefore compelled to concede that Walter Martin does have a real claim on the academic title “Dr” having earned his degree from a ligitimate institution of alternative higher education. It should be noted that Dr. Walter Martin completed all his graduate studies at New York University, a fully accredited school, and simply submitted his thesis at California Coast University. Honesty compels us to reject the Brown’s comparison of Dr. Martin’s degree with the phoney dime-store diploma of Dr. Dee Jay Nelson. There is no comparason!
CCC is a fully accredited alternative institution of higher education, by the California State Department of Education in the California Education Code.
Dr. Martin made certain claims about Mormonism, are they true?
He claimes Mormonism is Polytheistic. IT IS! Plurality of gods is part and parcel of LDS doctrine. Dr. Martin claims Morminism is a system of works, for salvation. IT IS! Dr. Martin claims that the Book of Mormon has NO archaelogical endorsement from non-Mormon scholars. That is entirely true, admitted to even by Mormons.
Hood, stop trying to defend the indefensible, you just make a bigger fool of yourself, when you attempt to link up with these Mormon apologist, who ARE terribly intellectuall dishonest, you are going down the wrong path, IF, you CANNOT, soundly justify, OR deny the claims made by Morminism, as so clearly detailed by Dr. Martin, citing the exact primary sources, then keep quiet!
@ C Halsall, re ‘What does the Bible say about the double-slit experiment?”
It says you are a FOOL…a double-slit one at that!
@ Adam Sherman, You arrogant fool, today one notes certain of the intelligentsia who sneer at Christ and Christianity in their own blinded ignorance. Sherman, you canot know them (ou dunatai gnomai) you are unable to get knowledge. Your helpless condition calls for pity in place of impatience on our part; though such a one, as you, Sherman, usually poses as a paragon of wisdom (unregenerate FOLLY!) and commiserates the followers of Christ; men of so-called intellectual gifts who are IGNORANT of the things of Christ, talk learnedly and patronisingly about things of which you have no knowledge, and are deadly ignorant of!
Sherman, you are (psuchikos de anthopos) a DEAD man spiritually, you are like an ‘ant’ crawling around hopelessly in the epidermis of an elephants foot, in your foolish attempt to berate Dictionary, he being the elephant by analogy.
Your venal, vacuous, venomous, malicious, diatribe, against Dictionary, shows how empty, void, destitute, your abandoned brain is, of any cogent, coherent, logical response, to his challenges to you on the abundance of warranted credible truth; the LIGHT of which cannot penetrate of EN-DARKENED cavity!
These guys are psychos. Birds of a feather. They are no more than a waste of time, but they must be engaged lest some people get the notion that they are true experts.
@Zoe: “It says you are a FOOL…a double-slit one at that!
Really?
The bible names me specifically?
I’m humbled.
Instead of Hermeneutic and Exegesis, this blog should be called Grumpy Old Men!
ROFLMAO!!
@ Zoe
You are one sick, sick decrepit man. Such foul language, such abuse against a person who did not even engage or address you. Do you think anyone reading you or the Dick would want to be numbered with you so called christians? What is christian about you?
Thanks to the devil, this parasite knows where to feed.
@ The Hood, BTW, the temple rituals, initiation, secret handshakes, etc, etc., are extremely similiar to those in Masonic Lodges, Freemasonary, all of which are subtly vieled in Biblical references, just like in Morminism! Interesting, isn’t it?
Freemasonary is very Demonic, of course one would never suspect this as a practicing Feemason! Satan always cleverly covers his deception in much Biblical language and terminology, just as he does in Mormonism’s ritual ceremonies!
@ Pat, Keep on parasiting from the ‘pit’.
Good riddance!
I will here continue to share some more notes on the imminent dispensation soon to be ushered in as a result of carewful exegesis and hermeneutics.
Prophecy
Main Events That Will Occur
Before the Tribulation
1. Restoration of the State of Israel
The Jewish people return to the land of Israel and re-establish it as a state. This sign has already come to pass and it occurred on 5/14/48. The city of Jerusalem was then regained by the Jewish people on 6/7/67.
2. Miscellaneous Signs
Jesus Himself tells us that the following signs will occur as we approach the end times.
a) Perilous times will come.
b) False Christs and false prophets will arise.
c) Wars and rumors of wars.
d) Nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom.
e) Famines, pestilences and earthquakes.
f) Lawlessness and immorality will abound.
g) Love of many will grow cold.
h) Christians will depart from the faith giving heed to doctrines of demons.
i) Men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, unholy, proud, boasters, blasphemers, unloving, disobedient to parents, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, traitors, headstrong, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God and unthankful.
3. Rise of the Antichrist, False Prophet and a 10 Nation Confederacy From Which They Will Rule This Earth From.
4. Rise of the City of Babylon
5. Russia and Her Allies Will Invade Israel. God Will Then Supernaturally Destroy This Invading Army.
.
Part two of extra notes on the imminent dispensation
Main Events That Will Occur
During the 7 Year Tribulation
1. The Antichrist Establishes a Peace Treaty and a Covenant with Israel
2. The Jewish Temple is Rebuilt
3. God’s Counterbalances:
• The 2 Witnesses
• 144,000 Jewish Witnesses
• Major Outpouring of the Holy Spirit
• Angel of the Everlasting Gospel allowed to preach the gospel
4. The Antichrist Will Destroy the City of Babylon
5. A War in Heaven Breaks Out
St. Michael the Archangel and his angels cast Satan out of the second heaven and onto the earth. The Devil becomes furious when this event occurs because he knows that his time is short.
6. The Abomination of Desolation
Three and half years into the Tribulation, the Antichrist will break his peace treaty with Israel, seat himself up in their rebuilt temple and proclaim himself to be God.
7. The 7 Seal Judgments
These 7 judgments will probably occur during the first half of the Tribulation. They are as follows:
a) The Antichrist will be released and allowed to set out to conquer the earth.
b) The Antichrist will be allowed to take peace from the earth and cause many people to kill one another.
c) The Antichrist will cause slave labor conditions to exist where people will be working for minimum pay just to be able to buy enough food for a day.
d) The martyrs will cry out to God in heaven to avenge their deaths. God says to wait just a little while longer.
e) God causes a great earthquake to hit the earth, causing every mountain and every island to move out of its place. He also causes the sun to turn black and the moon to look like blood.
f) There is silence in heaven for a half an hour. An angel offers the prayers of God’s people to Him to avenge them.
8. The 7 Trumpet Judgments
These 7 judgments will occur during the middle to latter part of the Tribulation. They are as follows:
a) God rains down hail and fire upon the earth – burning up one third of the trees and all of the green grass.
b) God releases a meteor into the sea turning one third of the sea into blood, killing one-third of all living creatures in the sea and destroying one third of the ships that are on the sea.
c) God releases another meteor, hitting one third of the rivers and springs, causing contamination of the water and many men to die.
d) God strikes a third of the sun, a third of the moon and a third of the stars so that they give no light. This causes a third of the day not to shine.
e) The bottomless pit is allowed to open up releasing a huge swarm of locusts to attack all the people who do not have God’s seal on their foreheads. They are not allowed to kill these people, but to just torment them with their bite. These people will be seeking death and will not be able to find it.
f) 4 demonic angels are released from the Euphrates river to kill a third of mankind. These 4 demonic angels will lead an army of 200 million demonic spirits to carry out this mass slaughter of humans.
g) Heaven is now beginning to rejoice because God is releasing His wrath upon the wicked on the earth and extracting His vengeance. God then releases more lightnings, another earthquake and more great hail upon the earth.
9. The 7 Bowl Judgments
These 7 judgments will occur during the latter part of the Tribulation. They are as follows:
a) God causes loathsome sores to fall upon those who have the mark of the Beast.
b) God causes the entire sea waters to become blood – killing every living creature in the seas.
c) God causes all the rivers and springs to turn into blood.
d) God causes the heat from the sun to scorch men with great heat and fire.
e) God causes total darkness to fall upon the kingdom of the Antichrist.
f) The Euphrates river is allowed to dry up so as to prepare the way for the kings of the east to come to the battle of Armageddon. Then 3 demonic spirits are released from the mouths of the Antichrist and False Prophet and they go out to all the kings of the earth to bring all of them to the battle of Armageddon.
g) God causes the greatest and most severe earthquake to hit the earth. The city of Babylon is completely finished off and swallowed up whole. This earthquake causes all of the islands to flee away and all of the mountains to be no longer found. God then rains down great hailstones weighing 135 pounds each. God then says: “It is done.”
10. The Battle of Armageddon
All the nations of the world come against Jerusalem. Half of the city will go into captivity, houses will be rifled and the women ravished. Then deliverance comes!
Part 3 of extra notes on the dispensations to come
Main Events That Will Occur
After the Tribulation
1. The Second Coming of Jesus
Immediately following the Tribulation and right in the middle of the battle of Armageddon, Jesus literally descends from heaven where every eye will be able to see Him. Jesus will land on the Mount of Olives and He will then destroy all of the invading armies who have come against Jerusalem. Their flesh will dissolve while they stand on their feet, their eyes will dissolve in their sockets and their tongues will dissolve in their mouths.
Jesus then throws the Antichrist and False Prophet into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone. Jesus then throws Satan into the bottomless pit where he is kept chained up for a 1000 years. The rest of unsaved humanity is kept in Hades (Hell) until the 1000 Millennium Kingdom is over.
2. The Millennium Kingdom
Jesus will literally rule our earth from the city of Jerusalem for 1000 years with all of the saints ruling the nations of the earth with Him. There will be no more wars ever again. Wild animals and beasts will be tame. People will live long lives – possibly up to a 1000 years. There will be no more weeping or crying.
3. Satan is Let Loose One More Time
After the 1000 years have passed in the Millennium Kingdom, Satan is let loose from the bottomless pit for a little while in order to go out and attempt to deceive the nations of the world for one last time. God allows Satan to tempt and weed out the restless bad apples that were born into the Millennium Kingdom. They will all converge on the city of Jerusalem to go into battle.
Before any battle is fought, God will destroy this invading army with fire. Satan is then cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone where he will now join the Antichrist and False Prophet. All three of them will now remain in this place forever and ever and we will never hear from the devil again.
4. The Great White Throne Judgment
All of unsaved humanity is now pulled up out of Hades (Hell) where they will now all stand before God for their final judgment. All of those whose names are not found written in the Book of Life are thrown into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone where they will all remain forever with Satan, the Antichrist and the False Prophet.
5. The New Heaven and New Earth
Our earth and our atmospheric heaven are now done away with, and in its place we will get a new heaven and a new earth. There will no longer be any seas. There will no longer be any night. There will no longer be any sun or moon because the glory of God will be illuminating the earth.
There will no longer be any more death in any way, shape or form. The curse of Adam and Eve will have finally been broken and done away with for good. There will be no more sorrow, pain, crying or weeping. All things will be made new.
God the Father Himself will now come down from heaven and dwell with man forever and ever in this new heaven and new earth. We will also get a new city of Jerusalem which will come down from heaven itself.
This new city will be like a square and possibly 1500 miles wide. The foundations of the walls will be adorned with all kinds of precious stones. There will be 12 gates with an angel at each gate. The gates will be made of solid pearl and the streets will be solid gold.
There shall no longer be any temple as God and Jesus will be the temple Themselves. All the nations of the earth shall walk in Their light and the gates into this city will never be closed.
Now with Satan, all of his demons, and all of the bad and unsaved people taken out of this new heavenly environment, we will now all live happily ever after with God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, all of God’s good angels and all of our saved loved ones in the most perfect God-environment imaginable – with no more pain, sorrow or death ever again!
This is our final end. This is our ultimate destination. Keep your eyes on this final glorious end as we start to approach and enter into these end time events. It will help get you through the fire.
Remember, God will win in the end and so will you if you keep your faith in Jesus Christ through what may be some very difficult times ahead. Jesus Himself has already told us that those who are the overcomers in this life will be the ones to rule the nations of the world with Him in these coming eras.
Jesus Himself tells us that the following signs will occur as we approach the end times.
a) Perilous times will come.
b) False Christs and false prophets will arise.
Got “b” correct. We seeing three here on BU.
@ The “Bajan Inquisition (aka “Bu trinity”)
Please go read Matt. 10:14, Mark 6:11 and Luke 9:5. Now that is my testimony to you three deceivers! Best of luck to you three, you will need it!
THE PROMISE
“Our earth and our atmospheric heaven are now done away with, and in its place we will get a new heaven and a new earth. There will no longer be any seas. There will no longer be any night. There will no longer be any sun or moon because the glory of God will be illuminating the earth.
“There will no longer be any more death in any way, shape or form. The curse of Adam and Eve will have finally been broken and done away with for good. There will be no more sorrow, pain, crying or weeping. All things will be made new.
“God the Father Himself will now come down from heaven and dwell with man forever and ever in this new heaven and new earth. We will also get a new city of Jerusalem which will come down from heaven itself.”
DREAM ON! Sounds like a little boy at Xmas. You guys in for a hell of a surprise.
GP
Could you expand on the distinction between the Antichrist and the false Prophet. Some have said these are the same person, your post suggests that they are two different people. Years ago I was told that the ten nation confederacy was the European Union which was then 10 nations. Today the EU is more than 10. So any idea who will be in this 10 nation confederacy?
Zoe
You are becoming ridiculous now.
Why cant can you take a leaf out of GP’s book.
GP has been unfairly maligned and mocked and scorned.
He has not responded but just got on with the job with shrinh his knowledge on exegesis and hermeneutics.
You are to preach the word in season and out of season , nit be distracted by the adversary, and resort to attacking them. You are falling into their trap
You are negating the good work that you do by your unwarranted attacks.
Please kindly stop your nonsense
@ Georgie Porgie: “I will here continue to share some more notes on the imminent dispensation soon to be ushered in as a result of carewful [sic] exegesis and hermeneutics.
Wow.
This time 1912 words, spread across three posts.
And yet not a single answer to my simple direct question….
@ Susan
Zoe do good work? Why, his best work are his insults, slanders, damnations and curses! ha ha ha. Where have you been? Just check all the threads.
Pat the pit dweller.
Re
Could you expand on the distinction between the Antichrist and the false Prophet. Some have said these are the same person, your post suggests that they are two different people.
My understanding is that there is an unholy triumvirate at the eschaton. The Beast the False Prophet and the AntiChrist.
Re
Years ago I was told that the ten nation confederacy was the European Union which was then 10 nations. Today the EU is more than 10. So any idea who will be in this 10 nation confederacy?
As you know prophesy is easiest to understand as it is fulfilled . You are quite correct that it was once thought that the ten nation confederacy was the European Union which was then 10 nations.
The European block is now being considered one block of ten blocks of nations. No one knows for sure since things are happening quite quickly.
I have heard a few teachers teach thatrecently. Makes sense at this time, but we will see. We do know for sure from Daniel that there will be a ten nation confederacy
The Beast ? I thought that was another name for the antichrist!
Onlookers:
It is now clear that the hostile and distractive critics trying to hijack this thread have nothing of substance to say, but have resorted to distractions, distortions and denigrations (up to and including now on the part of TH, vulgarities.)
On the part of CH, he simply cannot accept that the answer he wishes to see — without context a statement to the effect that the Bible does not discuss Young’s experiment of 1802 or thereabouts [after all the last biblical book was written AD 95 or so . . . ] is ill conceived, irrelevant, also philosophically ill instructed. Apparently Ch does not realise that positivism is a dead school in philosophy. It is long since conceded that science is a limited endeavour and that scientific knowledge claims are not he last word on truth. Moreover, the notion that unless a claim can be subjected to more or less structurally direct observational test or else is analytic [true more or less by the definitional act of saying he same thing in different words] it is “meaningless, fails its own claimed test and is self-refuting. Similarly, we have seen how since 360 BC, it has been unrefuted record that avant garde evolutionary materialism is inherently, inescapably amoral and so a menace to civilisation and liberty.
But, every time a reasonable and balanced, contextually aware answer has been put — e.g. we have pointed out repeatedly that the Judaeo-Christian worldview not only provides a viable framework for expecting an intelligible, orderly world, the key assumption of science; but that the actual, on the ground founders of modern science by and large were practicing under the still valid understanding that hey were therefore thinking God’s creative thoughts after him, — he refuses to accept it. This is proof of a closed mind and an attitude of contempt to those whose worldview differs with his. not to mention, that he refuses to address the plain self-contradictions that make his preferred evolutionary materialism logically incoherent from the outset as it undermines the credibility of reason, and that it is also destructively amoral.
Instead, he counts words and makes dismissive remarks. Sad.
As to the much worse disrespectful attempt to dismiss the horrendous price paid by the first generation of the church for their steadfast, brave witness to the truth of the resurrection that they [500+ of them at the core of that church] were direct eyewitnesses to, in the teeth of menacing judicial inquiry (some of which comes up several times in Lk-Ac, for instance), he has not had the decency to say, I am sorry.
(I wonder what CH would be willing to stand up for and attest as truth he knew; with the prospect of being whipped by a multi-corded knout with lead or bone dumbbells embedded in the cords, then nailed up naked on a wood state with cross-bars and left to asphyxiate when he could no linger agonisingly push down on the nail through his feet and up on the nails in his wrists, to breathe, after hours if he was lucky, days if he was not? Or, if he was lucky enough to be a Roman Citizen, to be beheaded, perhaps after being whipped with the same flesh-ripping instrument. He should at least find in himself the decency to read between the lines on Pliny’s inquisition of two female deacons to discover whether the Christians were indulging in the cannibalism and orgies of malicious slanders: they were obviously tortured to death to see if they were lying on the truth they had already readily told, and which Pliny then passed on to Trajan on asking his advice on handling court cases of those accused of being Christians. He said that as a matter of course, those who refused to revert to paganism were put to death for defiance of authority: “pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy surely ought to be punished.” [Onlookers, read the ancient history sourcebook here, about 3/4 of the way down the page.] CH, your superciliousness and disrespect make me sick to my stomach.)
As for TH, he has some pretty serious homework to do, and would be better advised to study the racist history of Mormonism than to try to play at disrespectful and vulgar namecalling..
On the main topic, it is plain that there is nothing further to be heard of significance from those who so arrogantly dismissed the ideas of hermeneutics and exegesis. It turns out that these are glorified common sense approaches to reading documents that we have to realise were not originally written in our language and culture so we have to take extra care in understanding them. And, given the pivotal warrant that the resurrection provides, we need to respect the credibility — or at least, arguable seriousness — of the claim that these documents are the Word of God.
I will put up some remarks based on a primer on group Bible studies I developed some 25 years ago, as a practical help. [GP, the introductory level that complements the more technical level in the original post above.)
For those who are serious.
G’day
D
F/N: Inductive bible Study Tips, 1:
1. How the Bible Works
The Bible:
TEACHES — tells and explains the truth[1];
REBUKES — points out and disapproves wrong;
CORRECTS — helps us change from wrong to right;
TRAINS — helps us develop the skills, attitudes and habits of righteousness.
(All of this helps us grow in God. See II Tim. 3:16,17.)
Truth demands action — we must “hear and do” (James 1:22-26).
We need to hear the truth from God because we are not living it and it is truth that sets us free (John 8:31-36). When God through his Word, points out our wrong and works to correct us, it hurts. If we don’t listen and obey, it will hurt even more.
F/N Cont’d: Inductive bible Study Tips, 2:
2. Why Group Bible Studies?
If you really believe something, you will live it. In order to believe it, we have to first see it for ourselves. Group Bible studies help us discover the truths of God’s Word for ourselves; they bring together different people with different ways of seeing things, thus enriching individual insights.
3. How?
Our approach is INDUCTIVE, using questions to probe the Bible and relate it to our own lives. (Induction is the approach to issues which examines facts by asking who, what, where, when, and why and how questions.) From this, we draw out conclusions and can use them to solve problems. Our questions should be short, clear and specific. They should relate to the passage, forcing us to think and take a closer look at the passage than usual. They should progress from looking at facts, to working out what they mean, to how they should affect how we live:
1. OBSERVE FACTS
— what does the text say?
— who are involved?
— what happens: events, issues, conflicts, and their resolution.
— where and when (backdrop):
+ culture,
+ geography,
+ history,
+ specific setting/situation?
— what points are stressed, conclusions are drawn, examples are set before us (to emulate or to avoid!)?
— how is language used – poetry, prose, figures of speech, illustrations, etc.?
2. INTERPRET MEANINGS
— what does the text intend to communicate?
— how do events unfold, people interact, issues come out, conclusions arise?
— what is significant or stressed in what happens or is said:
* major events,
* key words or ideas,
* important experiences?
* Why?
— what is implied by what happens or is said?
— how does context, both immediate and that of the whole Bible, affect the text?
— what did the writer intend his original readers to understand? (Did he have us in mind? Did God?)
3. APPLY RESULTS
— what points, events, or experiences speak from the biblical setting into our own?
— how should we respond?
* Truths to learn and live;
* mistakes or sins to avoid or turn from;
* corrections, restitutions, confessions, reconciliations to make;
* instructions to be put into practice;
* promises to claim and conditions to meet (cf. 2 Peter 1:2 – 4).]
— where, when, with whom?
F/N cont’d: Inductive Bible Study 3
5. PROTECTIVE FENCES
“You can make the Bible say anything!”
Have you ever been hit with that one and stopped cold? Can you pick up when an alleged interpretation of the Bible is ‘off’, and tell why?
Hundreds of years ago, the Protestant Reformers worked out some principles which serve to guide us in interpretation, and as fences to keep us on safe ground:
1.) The Scriptures Alone: Nothing else is to be held on par with the Bible, whether in principle or in practice. The Bible is God’s written word, and is the basis for what we believe and how we should live. (2 Tim. 3:14 – 17, Deut 17: 18 – 20, and Joshua 1:1 – 9.)
2.) Scripture Clarifies Scripture: Let the Bible interpret itself – scriptures throw light upon one another, and God does not contradict himself.
3.) Take the Natural Sense Seriously: Read the words in their context. If the natural meaning makes sense, do not look for ‘hidden’ meanings. Read poetry as poetry, and prose as prose. Figures of speech are figures of speech. Respect words, language, and logic.
4.) Be Open to Further Light from Scripture: We all make mistakes, so we must be open to correction.
5.) Weigh Facts of Grammar, Language, Culture and History Carefully: These facts can really help us clarify meanings, but sometimes, claimed ‘facts’ are not true. Check such claims with reputable sources and authorities. (Also, authenticate authorities, and remember that they too can make mistakes.)
6. Bible Helps
Over the years, scholars have developed tools which can really help us [NB: Now we can get a great collection of these tools free for a download, just web search on the terms e SWORD, The Word and Xiphos]:
a) Concordances — list where the Bible uses particular words. Strong’s and Young’s are the best. [The tools above integrate these and also Robinson’s Morphological codes]
b) Bible Dictionaries — discuss themes, names, words, concepts and much more. “The New Bible Dictionary,” IVP, is quite good. [Easton’s and Smith’s are classics that are free for a download, the International Standard bible Encyclopedia classic 1915 edn is also very helpful.]
c) Study Guides — give outlines for studies on particular books of the Bible, or themes in the Bible. Scripture Union puts out some good ones.
d) Commentaries — comment on the Bible, or its books, section by section. Devotional ones are more personal, and Interpreter’s commentaries are more technical. [Matthew henry, Jameson Faussett and Brown, Adam Clarke, Barnes Notes, Darby, Gill, and of course classics like Calvin and Wesley etc etc]
e) Bible Atlases — give the geography of the lands in which the events in the Bible happened.
F/N cont’d: Inductive Bible Study — doing a session
7. Presenting the Study
1.) Start with prayer. (1 Cor. 2:9-12.)
2.) Read the passage.
3.) Use an introduction to set the tone – why this study, how we’ll approach it, what we hope to gain by doing it.
4.) Probe the passage, using a well chosen method such as those outlined above.
5.) Guide discussion – but don’t do all the talking.
6.) Let the group answer the questions asked — if you answer, it stops others from sharing and actively interacting with the text.
7.) Learn to ask questions such as ‘Could there be anything else?’ and ‘Could there be another way of seeing it?’
8.) Let the group correct itself by probing the text more closely and examining alternatives.
9.) Be prepared to learn from the group.
10.) If there is something that stumps everyone, note it down and promise to research it for ‘next time’. Move on. (Keep your promise.)
11.) Control time. Make brief summaries and move on, especially if the study is going off on a tangent or bogging down. (What is a reasonable time for the study? For its major sections?)
12.) Make sure the group members have come to clear conclusions and have specific action steps to take. (Sometimes, you can use a personal visit to pick up on this point.)
13.) The main issue is what we grasp and live, not that “we finished the study.” If necessary, finish the study another time.
14.) Evaluate. What happened? How, why? What went well? Poorly? What follow-up actions (for yourself and with the members) should be taken?
15.) Take time.
PS: On warranting the claim that the Bible is and should be treated as the Word of God.
Of course, the mocking skeptics predicted in 2 Peter 3 will stridently object and find occasion to try to hijack discussion. Let us note that for week after week, such have utterly refused to seriously engage on the merits even a 101 level summary such as we may see here.
Recall:
1 –> The pivotal question is the resurrection of Jesus as attested by 500+ eyewitnesses, many of which witnesses faced a little more stringent form of inquiry than would be permitted in a modern courtroom (and in some cases beyond the proper rules for event hose days). Not one was ever broken [such would have been trumpeted], many going to horrible deaths cheerfully standing up for he truth they personally knew.
2 –> In turn, on looking at the now well known 12 minimal facts [and David the over-tight blocks on links are a pain in the neck; remember given the hyperskepticvism out here our side needs to link serious documentation — precisely why the skeptics are pressing for exclusion of links from comments . . . shabby], we can easily see that skeptical theories simply cannot explain them by contrast with the record of those witnesses’ testimony that we may read in 1 Cor 15:1 – 11, AD 55 and documenting a summary tracing to the mid 30’s AD; within 5 years or so of the event.
3 –> That record repeatedly says that these events happened “according to the Scriptures,” i.e the prophecies of the OT [including those implicit in the levitical rituals as Heb discusses]; this shows how, centuries ahead of time the events of Passion week and its aftermath — inclduign resurrection of the dead — were predicted. Thus, this authenticates teh OT.
4 –> Similarly, the Risen lord of Life authenticates his appointed spokesmen and what hey had to write, i,.e the NT is also the Word of God.
5 –> And ever since, for 2,000 years, millions have personally proved it, As Pinnock observes:
@GP….
You are certainly most incorrect in thinking that the educated Bajans outnumber the uneducated ones! That is a MYTH, as is the so called 98% literacy rate. Your theory is certainly not evinced by the quality of the opinion presented on BU.
And it is incredulous to cogitate that one such as I will judge a whole country because of a few on a blog.
Is there the evidence to prove this or is this just your opinion (seriously)?
When I read the two sentences above, they seem to contradict each other.You dismiss my theory by using the quality of the opinion presented on BU. Yet you go on to say……” it is incredulous to cogitate that one such as I will judge a whole country because of a few on a blog.”
What do you mean by “one such as I” in the post?
Onlookers:
Sometimes, as de Bono (ther Lateral Thinking advocate) often suggested, a side-light on an issue can hel us see it more clearly.
So, here is a current news story that helps us understand how ideological manipulation and cultivation of polarised hostilty and accompanying uncivil behaviour are damaging our civilisation, perhaps in the end fatally. This from that avant garde capital of de-Christianising trends in our civilisation, San Francisco:
_________________
>> Pies-in-face attack roils anarchist-vegan world
Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
(03-16) 18:30 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — An ex-vegan [substitute “Ex- X,” including |Ex-defiant rebel against God, truth and right . . . ] who was hit with chili pepper-laced pies at an anarchist event in San Francisco said Tuesday that her assailants were cowards who should direct their herbivorous rage at the powerful – not at a fellow radical for writing a book denouncing animal-free [radical vegetarian — often unhealthy] diets.
Lierre Keith, a 45-year-old Arcata resident, was attacked at 2:15 p.m. Saturday at the 15th annual Bay Area Anarchist Book Fair while discussing her 2009 book, “The Vegetarian Myth.” A 20-year vegan, Keith now argues that the diet is unhealthy and that agriculture is destroying the world. [Note her own spin . . . ]
As Keith stood at a lectern at the Hall of Flowers in Golden Gate Park, three people in masks and black hooded sweatshirts ran from backstage, shouted, “Go vegan!” and threw pies in her face. While they fled, some in the audience cheered or handed out leaflets. [In short, it was pre-planned, an organised act of sub-lethal hooliganism intended to derail and shut down public discussion of ideas they disagreed with, and hurt and humiliate those they hate; in this case a “traitor.” [Compare, because GP is a trained physician and I am a trained applied physicist, and both of us have been practising college level educators, it cannot properly be claimed that we are scientific ignoramuses. This seemingly has intensified the hate and intentional denigration we too often see at BU. As fro poor Zoe, a mere Doctoral level theologian, he is commonly derided as if he were an idiot.]
The attack, midway through a 30-minute talk, was captured on a video posted to YouTube and prompted blistering debates on radical Web sites.
Many people defended Keith – or at least her right not to be attacked. Others said she was dishonest and abusive to vegans and should not have been invited by the event organizer, San Francisco’s Bound Together bookstore. [Aha; she disagtrees with us so we should not have had to have her in a booth int eh market place of ideas. Censorship backed up by hooliganism verging into violence. Do you know what it is like to have chili peppers put into your eyes?]
Police are investigating the incident but have made no arrests, a spokesman said. Keith said she did not go to a hospital and was able to speak at a second engagement later Saturday, but had sore eyes for a few days and developed an ear infection. [So, physical harm was done by reckless behaviour by those too arrogant to allow another side of the story to be heard. Now, let those at BU who have advocated slanders against the Christain church and Christians reflect onthe dfact that when hate is fed, some are going to act it out violently. Worse, we have had unrepentant calls for arson against churches. let those who do that understand that when you burn down buildings like that you often murder people in them, and in any case have done serious damage to the work and giving of many ordinary people who value such buildings and what goes on in them. The arrogance and tyrannical attitudes implied are self-condemning. And, if we the onlookers have any sense of he force of the martin Niemoller poem that is always linked through my name, they will understand that all that is required for evil to triumph is for ordinary decent people to turn a blind eye and find an excuse to do nothing.]
“The whole thing was designed for social humiliation,” said Keith, speaking Tuesday from her sister’s home in Kansas. “We’re supposed to be against sadism and cruelty and domination, and these people were willing to do this to me.” [Yup, prezactly! in other words semi-violent incivility was resorted to . . . ]
Keith said her values are similar in most ways to those of her attackers. She believes in militant action, even property destruction, if it can lead to change. In her book, she said, she railed against factory farming and promoted the restoration of prairies and forests. [In other words, she herself has not seen the connexions between the amoral ends justify means ideologies and the misbehaviour. Nor has she thought through the implications of destroying the agricultural base for the world’s 6.5 billion people.]
“It’s insane. My entire book is about how the world is being destroyed,” Keith said. She said the first pie hit her just after she uttered the sentence, “You should not eat factory-farmed meat.”
Among those rejoicing in the pie attack was the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which often prints communiques from activists taking credit for attacks on animal researchers.
The group said Keith was wrong about veganism, referred to her as an “animal holocaust denier,” and scolded her for calling the “agents of state oppression” – the police. [In short, name-calling turnabout accusations, and rejection of the state as the God-given defenders of the civil peace of justice.]
Her assailants were “masked marvels” who “made their statement very eloquently and succinctly on behalf of the billions of animals she advocates killing,” the group said.
Keith said the attack appeared to have been planned on Internet sites dedicated to veganism. [So, folks, what has been planned in favoured watering holes in Barbados, and/or though email circles or even on other sites we may not be aware of, all because fro a few months some educated evangelical, Bible believing Christians have stood up to the tidal wave of destructive rhetoric that so often has spread across BU and other key sites on the Bajan Internet presence? Do you not notice that so soon as we have brought forth serious challenges on warrant across comparative worldviews analysis, there has been a loud silence on the merits on the part of those who were so loudly declaring their superior ideas hitherto?] She called it a case of infighting that harmed activist causes.
“If this is what is considered radical action,” she said, “this movement is dead.” >>
___________________
So, let us think again, seriously.
D
F/N: T, why not look here, to see some of the built-in holes in our regional education system (on basic critical thinking skills). And, similarly, what I have put up this morning has some few things to say about the gaps in our education on training us to read actively, accurately and comprehensively, doing basic research to back up our findings. The second link, here, speaks to gaps in basic study skills. In a C21 of infoglut and widespread misinformation [including in the classroom and textbooks, BTW], such skills are ever more important. D
@Dic
“So, here is a current news story that helps us understand how ideological manipulation and cultivation of polarised hostilty and accompanying uncivil behaviour are damaging our civilisation…”
That is exactly what you do. Now, when I see statements like this that describes to a “T” what you do, but you are criticising it, it leaves one to wonder about your sanity and/or your ability to think and assimilate. You are either a madman or you know exactly what you are doing. The latter makes you a dangerous charlatan, a deceiver and very dishonest.
Do you realise that Christianity is an ideology; a complete ideology at that as you have demonstrated; an answer for everything under the sun? A complete way of life. There is no difference in application between ideology and religion.
@Georgie Porgie // March 17, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Hi B. Georgie Porgie – (the “B” is for Buffoon) You are fond of saying that people don’t know you. They DO. I know that you know and fully understand the saying “the lady doth protest too much”. You are that lady.
This buffoon persona overwhelms any truth you might speak. So while I enjoy the blog, this includes the assessments of others who allow the discussions to be in the FOREGROUND. Asking you questions would just be feeding your unquenchable ego. No BGP – yours in NOT yet fully developed.
(2) FOOL THE PUBLIC! In your last several decades you have not ROLLED anywhere, be it ON THE FLOOR, with your own TRUE peer group, or with “young people”. You can’t even ROLL with the punches that come on this blog. Your tight and offended language reflects exactly who you are. Nah! you have not TRULY laughed in several of the last few of your decades. No JOY in you.
My assessment of you is spot on. If I can see it other can see it too.
(3) I reiterate – you may never have been criticized IN YOUR HEARING and “students” expecting a good grade would hardly jeopardize that in exchange for the sweet relief of telling you what they truly think. And PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! – no more “testimonials” from “students” at the “university”.
(4) My LAST nerve is found the same place where your siatic (sic) nerve is found. If you roll on the floor you might discover it.
As “young people” of the past might have said – “chill!”
WE’VE BEEN HAD! Climatologist ‘fed us LIES, engaged in scientific and academic fraud, commited criminal acts’
By Walter Williams,
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? -Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committe of the 2008 International Geological Congress.
“New evidence proves that climatologists and environmental-policy advocates have not only fed us LIES and engaged in scientific and academic FRAUD, but commited criminal acts as well.”
“In November, Russian computer hackers obtained thousands of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. CRU has the worlds largest temperature data set. In collaboration with scientist around the world, including the U.S., its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Oanel on Climate Change’s 2007 global-warming report.”
“The e-mails involved communication among climate researchers and policy advocates around the world who BRAZENLY discuss bothe the DESTRUCTION and hiding of data that does NOT SUPPORT their global-warming claims. They discuss CRIMINALLY deleting data rather than complying with Freedom of Information Act request. There’s also discussion of FAKING data for journals such as Nature, conspiring to keep opposing SCIENCE out of peer-reviewed journals (of which they controlled the editorial boards), and using statical “tricks” to hide the cooling period of the last 10 years.” emphasis added.
Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguised Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a nationally syndicated columnist.”
Onlookers:
In response to a corrective on Internet vandalism, we see — surprise [not!] — yet more of same, including here an attempt to create a perceived immoral equivalency through turnabout false accusation. This, from a proved, impenitent slanderer whose slanders have excited a call fro arson in this blog.
Sad.
I simply remind onlookers that correction to wrongdoing is not the moral equivalent of such wrongdoing.
In this case we have had a clear sustained campaign of derailing threads that were going where ROK and co would not wish to see a positive discussion, through tactics of distraction, distortion, defamatory denigration [and just outright coarse, foul-mouthed, foul-minded vulgarity].
Sadly revealing.
G’day
Dictionary
PS: Scroll through above onlookers, and see if you find the comparable contribution here to not just he set of remarks on inductive Bible Study just above, but say this from Mar 9; from ROK et al. And in the last major thread, on Haiti rebuilding, check out what happened as an actual positive proposal was developed live. (Remember, ROK heads a national NGO association.)
F/N: Christianity of course is a Faith, which enfolds a worldview that in the teeth of horrendous persecution, eventually became a key building force in our civilization. A worldview that rests on A KEY WARRANTING ARGUMENT THAT IS PIVOTAL TO THE CORE OF THE GOOD NEWS FOR SINFUL, SELF-DESTRUCTIVE MAN. In short, it is based on truth that can be known, truth that has for 2,000 years positively transformed the lives of millions through the supernatural power of God, whom many have met through the gospel, and have come to know in the face of Christ. And that along the way has done a lot of good all across the world through that transformation. And notice, to date, after weeks of being challenged, the anti-Christian mocking skeptics are plainly utterly unable to address that core warranting argument on the merits. Telling.
POLITICS RULES BIOSCIENCE, TOO, Blatant anti-religion bias at the Smithsonian
By Jack Cashill.
“DR. Richard Sternberg knows all about the kind of abuse global-warming skepics have endured at the hands of Climate Research Unit in the brewing ‘Climategate’ scandal.”
“Five years ago, Sternberg challenged the most vulnerable of the science establishment’s paradigms, namely Darwinism and its derivatives, and learned firsthand the lengths that establishment will go to SUPPRESS dissent.”
“For any number of uneventful years, the evolutionary biologist Sternberg was a member in good standing of that very establishment.”
“Employed by the National Institute of Health in association with the Smithsonian Institution, he served as the managing editor of the Smithsonian-affiliated journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.”
“In 2004, sSernberg chose to publish a tightly argued paper by the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Stephen C. Myer, titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.”
“In brief, Meyer contended that neo-Darwinism has failed to provide a convincing explanation for the relatively sudden massive infusion of new genetic information into the fossil record popularly known as the Cambrian Explosion.”
“Shortly before receiving Meyer’s paper, sternberg had attended an in-service training module on the ethics of peer review.”
“What Sternberg took away from the training is that the “peers” selected to review a given paper be neither prejudiced against the topic nor partial to it for reasons of self-interest.”
“Sternberg identified three such scientists to review Meyer’s paper. They offered some useful revisions, and the paper was published in August 2004.”
“In publishing Meyer’s paper, Sternberg had merely hoped to provide a good discussion. He was “absolutely not expecting” the HELL that rained down upon him with the paper’s publication.”
“The road to HELL was paved with e-mail. But even by Climategate standards, the e-mail campaign to punish Sternberg was a cruel and catty one.”
“One zoologist colleague, for instance, asked their common department head, Dr. Jonathan Coddington, why the heretical Sternberg should be allowed to keep office, especially one with “a name on it.”
“Prejudiced to the point of paranoia, the zoologist demanded that his own office “be re-keyed.”
“Coddington handled the affair with all the courage and conviction of a Pontius Pilate. “At present I am not tossing him out,” he told his colleagues of Sternberg. “Do you want anything done.”
“Coddington’s own plan was to meet with Sternberg and ‘hint that if he had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment.”
“When Sternberg failed to take the hint, Coddington and colleagues settled on a bold plan of petty revenge, death by a thousand cuts.”
“For sternberg to keep his research associate position, he would have to detail every move he made short of bathroom breaks.”
“When sternberg asked if the other research associates were being subjected to the same treatment, Coddington replied, ‘This is not about the other RA’s. This is about you.’
“Coddington continued, ‘You are being treated differently, but you know perfectly well why you’re being treated differently.”
“One obvious reason for Sternberg’s special treatment was what a subsequent House committe report described as ‘a general ANTI-RELIGIOUS culture existing at the Museum.”
“Once the Meyer article was published, Coddington and others began to probe into Sternberg’s background, asking around to see if he were a closeted “religious fundamentalist” or, God forbid, a “Republican.”
“In an e-mail of solidarity sent to Coddington, research associate, Sue Richardson openly complained about her own unhappy tenure in the “Bible Belt.”
“Wrote Richardson, “The most fun we had by far was when my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the ‘under dog’ part.”
“The House report asked rhetorically, “Would similar expressions of disparagement have been tolerated by Smithsonian officials if directed at a racial minority.”
“The answer is obvious. A more pointed question would be whether Smithsonian officials would have tolerated comparable comments about Muslims or even Jews. That answer is obvious, too.”
Thse same officials colluded with the National Center for Science Education, pro-evolution advocacy organization, to discredit the beleaguered editor.”
“I will keep an eye on Dr. (von) Sternberg,” wrote the Smithsonian’s Dr. Hans Sues to the National Center for Science Education’s Eugenie Scott in a not-so-subtle ethnic slur.”
“The extent of the anti-Sternberg collusion – ‘On government time and with govenment resources” – the House committe described as ‘alarming.”
“Nor did Sternberg’s colleagues limit their pique to those who needed to know. Indeed, they sent word of his heresy to scientists around the world.”
“Wrote one Dutch scientist back to a Smithsonian colleague: “These people are coming out and invading our schools, biology classes, museums and now our professional journals. These people to my mind are only a scale up on the fundies of a more destructive kind in other parts of the world.”
“Ah yes, “these people.” Some of them publish papers on intelligent design. Others fly planes into the World Trade Center.”
“The Smithsonian’s continuous refusal to take action in the Sternberg case prompted the House committee to recommend congressional action to “protect the free-speech rights regarding evolution” among those scientist working at federally funded institutions.”
“Now, if Congress would only do the same for honest climate scientists.” emphasis added.
Jack Cashill is an Emmy-ward winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D., in American Studies from Purdue.
@Dick
“F/N: Christianity of course is a Faith… In short, it is based on truth that can be known, truth that has for 2,000 years…”
Only a madman would sit and wilfully write such junk in the same paragraph. Here you are asserting that it is a faith, yet saying it is truth. Which one is it? Is it not the former?
A FAITH CANNOT BE A TRUTH!
Dictionary
Thanks for your simple notes on the subject being discussed. I have seen submissions of this sort in some books here and there.
I will transmit your summary to friends and Christian leaders, who might find that they can conveniently print out such a summay for the novitiates and milk drinkers in thier group.
It is great to read something on this thread that is on point and not aimed at denigrating the messengers.
Techie ma boy
Re What do you mean by “one such as I” in the post?
You can insert any of the nasty things said about me in the last week on BU. OK? LOL
Maggie ma dear
I can say that folk don’t know me because they don’t.
I can also say JUDGE RIGGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT AND NOT BY THE APPEARANCE, and quote that verse applying it correctly since it was uttered by the Lord in exactly the same context. How ironic.
Jesus also said that a prophet is not without honor save in his own country! That quotation should inflame your neurones some more thou pseudo psychologist!.
I am glad that you enjoy the blog, and realize that I have a natural command of the language.
I care nothing about your opinion about my persona or about the assessments of those who allow the discussions to be posted on BU .
If my submissions are posted on BU or not, I will continue to live until I die or the rapture occurs. I will lose nothing at all. If you want me to stop posting on BU say so plainly, and I might just comply. Or if you can influence BU to ban me do so! I will still eat!
FYI, I don’t some to BU to punch or be punched or to roll with any punches. I come and read at my leisure. I comment on those things about which I know “a little bit”. I ignore those whom I consider to be irritants. If you consider me to be an irritant, IGNORE ME, because your pseudo psychology assessments will not change me, or the tone, tenor and tenets in my treatises! (How you like that alliteration, Maggie? English too sweet, nuh!)
I am me. I don’t plan to change to please you or the BU detractors. I don’t plan to change anyone either. If you folk could contradict what I say on BU in Medicine or Theology, you would be all over me.
With respect to and “students” expecting a good grade Students will not succeed by telling me what they think I want to hear, because that will not work. I begin by laughingly telling them of the marking system of the legendry “Kingo” from Foundation in the 60’s.and abide by that. “All the facts, all the marks; half facts half marks; no facts no marks! And there really can be no dispute about MCQ exams, can they? As the late FNA Fields would say at HC “it either right or it wrong!” Simple!
And by the way I once rsponded to a Pharm student who came with her buttery sweet talk with a smile as big as hers. “Young lady I know all about what you are able to offer BELOW your eyes. However, the object of this exercise, is to ascertain what you have ABOVE them!”
I am still wondering why it is that Last, Grey, Netter et all have not listed a “LAST nerve” in their texts.
I wont give you more testimonials from “students” at the “university”. Here’s one from a church leader in the spirit of true buffonary
“I first became acquainted with Dr. in 1981, in my capacity as pastor of the above assembly.. He had recently completed his studies and was undertaking regular teaching assignments in our church group..
Dr soon became ‘a sought-after’ Bible teacher in conferences, camps and weekly Bible Studies held by our church group throughout the island. In 1985, he assisted me in coordinating and conducting a training course for over 50 ministering brethren at which he efficiently participated in teaching: Doctrine of the Second Coming and Methods of Bible Study. Indeed, his contribution, in terms of information dissemination, in addition to his communication skill and warm class rapport, was highly commended by fellow-staff and participants.
He also assisted me in the mid-eighties by conducting a Choir on our annual appearances on national television in the Hymn Singing Program Time to Sing, and was instrumental in helping our choir to attain the enviable status of being one of only two choirs that were invited on the program, rather than having to apply and audition for the opportunity to participate.
He actively served among the young people in organising United Youth Meetings, which were well attended and at which a wide range of topics and Scriptural passages were thoroughly discussed.
Prior to his emigration to the USA in 2003 we again worked together in significantly reshaping the progress of our Senior Citizens Home. In this project, Dr. brought his analytical ability and clinical knowledge to bear in assisting me to prepare an operational manual for the home.
Despite the fact that he is far away, he is always readily available to make a meaningful contribution to our assembly life by giving counsel etc. online.
Besides his solid academic and professional development and record, Dr. is a very affable, reliable and dependable person. He can be relied upon to complete an assignment not only on time but also at a very high standard. He is a good team-player, and would be an asset in the function of any evangelical church. I have no reservations in strongly recommending him as an acceptable candidate in this endeavour.
How ya like that one Maggie? Did that hit your nerves too?
“JUDGE RIGGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT AND NOT BY THE APPEARANCE…”
JUDGE NOT AT ALL! NOT YOUR DOMAIN TO JUDGE.
“Jesus also said that a prophet is not without honor save in his own country!”
NEITHER IS A CHARLATAN!
@ GP…
Georgie Porgie // March 18, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Techie ma boy
Re What do you mean by “one such as I” in the post?
You can insert any of the nasty things said about me in the last week on BU. OK? LOL
What kind of answer is that man?
It was not me that mash you corn sO I really don’t see the need to be like this….cha.
You ignored the other questions and responded to what you chose. I guess you are all upset now and thinks everyone the same.
Well, so much for that!
@ D
I would appreciate if you would leave the answers to the one asked. When I want you to answer, I would ask you.
Not being rude but their answer would reflect their personal thoughts and opinions on the matter (since the question is in response to their statements) hence the reason for the question being directed at them.
Techie ma boy
I am a simple honest fella.
And I gave you a simple honest answer, as I usually do to you. You are one of few persons whose comments I respond to.
I said and I mean that you can insert any of the nasty things said about me in the last week on BU. OK? LOL
Man you can even change from a Techie to a pseudo psychologist. Man if you were not so far away we could hook up and drink a malt, and you would see for yourself what I am like. I just cant seem to get back up to NY
I know that you have not insulted me. And I am not lashing out at you, or anyone else.
I am not at all upset about the things said man. I get upset about things of greater import- things that really affect me personally, like things that affect whether I can pay my bills on time, or buy things I want to buy for my grand children.
Be good
@ GP…
LOL…..it’s all good bro.
Man you can even change from a Techie to a pseudo psychologist.
No way, ports, routers, cables, servers etc dont talk back..lol, I like it that way.
Looking forward to that drink though…..malt, better be Tiger, buy local, JWB and coconut water for me.
Respect.