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”
Son Of A Preacher Man lyrics
(The only one who could ever reach me)
Was the sweet-talkin’ Son Of A Preacher Man
FADE
CH:
None of your business, and you full well know that.
My clients, paying and pro bono, have a right of confidentiality.
I note too that your burning issue [over which you were verbally castigating me as arrogant etc], once I answered was suddenly dropped. That suggests that you are simply indulging in rhetorical artillery ranging, trying to find a sensitive target to then whistle up some rhetorical stonks on [artillery term, folks], instead of carrying on a serious conversation on serious matters.
Cho, man, do betta dan dat; especially as Haiti is serious business.
TH:
You are descending into ever less civil behaviour.
Kindly, refrain from vulgar namecalling in future.
It still remains the case that you have turned to personal abuse and polarisation, instead of addressing the serious challenges to the system of thought you have been championing in public. Cf. James 3 on the implications of standing up in public to teach on spiritually-linked matters.
You will see that I have adverted to matters of fact, history and hermeneutics on the LDS system of thought, not personal abuse. It remains the case that Walter martin, in his classic, The Kingdom of the Cults, showed through parallel columns the literary sources for the Book of Mormon etc in a novel. It remains the case that — contrasting sharply with Biblical accounts, archaeology of the New World is utterly at variance with Book of Mormon sites and timelines (as even the Archaeology Dept at BYU will concede). It remains the case that on Mormon sources and testimony of too many who have finally left the system, that Mormonism is polytheistic, teaching that “good” Mormon men become gods with their own planets to populate with spirit children, viewing this planet as a case in point, with Jesus and Lucifer being clashing spirit children. It remains the case that these teachings and many more that credibly trace tot he LDS system of though [e.g. I was around when the ruling came down that darker skinned people — previously thought to be the spirit children that remained neutral in the heavenly clash just described — were able to access such godhood status through the temple rituals etc; including inter alia eternal sealing of marriages . . . ], are utterly at variance with what sound exegesis of the Biblical record will bring out.
And i say that as one who has deeply respected Mormon friends. but, duty tot he truth is the first call of true friendship, which as the Irvine Hall chant says: is everlasting.
Technician:
Kindly, look at the main set focus for this thread, as may be discerned from its topic and focal sentences:
You will see that your remarks are — as with the pattern of much adverse commentary above — tangential at best, and distractive in tendency (if not necessarily so in intent); in a context that sets up hostility-creating, distorting caricatures of ideas, arguments and people.
That pattern — however strongly you may feel about the “Sunday School tickler” questions you have — is not a positive one.
And the pattern, regrettably, is an all too typical one for BU; largely driven by a cluster of frequent commenters with a palpable anti-Christian animus.
Thankfully, you do not seem, on the whole, to share that animus.
And, it seems you have had some painful early life church experiences, for which all i can say is I am sorry to hear.
However, you do seem to have at least personally significant questions, with onward implications that connect to big issues.
As a first stop off, I therefore suggest you work your way through the Blue-Letter Bible Don Stewart FAQ here, and in particular on the matter in question from you, the set of questions on Angelology.
(Rule of thumb: the Christian Faith has been around for some 2,000 years, and has always had in it men of the top rank of intellectual capacity, while being challenged on many points by critics and worse than critics. So, regardless of whether or no the particular Christian in front of you has a good answer to a question you raise just now, there will as a rule be a serious answer to the question. So, do some research.)
The FAQ in question answers on the subject of Evil Angels, beginning:
I trust that he linked and similar pages will be helpful to you.
Further, Zoe has given you a serious answer at March 9, 2010 at 1:11 PM; which seemed to turn into an occasion for only more tangential questions.
All i can say, is try to understand that once we get tot he issue of morally governed creatures, the power to do the right is necessarily conditioned on the power to choose: a pre-programmed robot may be buggy and dangerous, but it cannot be in itself morally good or evil as it is only carrying out a program.
For that matter, the power to reason is — as the root of “LOGIC” — LEG in GK — shows — based on the power to freely choose. Without freedom to choose and to act and think for ourselves, we reduce to robots carrying out potentially buggy software, on processors that are potentially just as buggy. And indeed,t he common evolutionary materialistic frame of thought today is utterly unable to credibly ground reason, not just morality; on its worldview premises. Thus, it inescapably reduces itself to painfully plain absurdity through self-referential incoherence.
Cf here for my notes on this point, and read the whole appendix to my briefing note to see the wider context of the argument; make a particular focus on Liebniz’s Mill analogy. [And I am at base an applied physicist, with focus on electronics, communications, informaiton and digital applications of physical reasoning, here extended into origins science and related issues.]
In short, there are pretty deep waters with some nasty sub-surface rocks lurking quite close to the issues you are raising, and they come out most directly when you do a process of comparative difficulties analysis across live option worldviews.
(NB: Refusal to do such a comparative difficulties analysis across worldview alternatives is a root cause of the problems of selective hyperskepticism. Have you worked your way through my briefing note on that? That note, and the one just linked, reflect literally decades of serious thought and investigation on some pretty hard questions.)
However, we need to return to focus on the set issue for this thread.
G’day
D
Now,
having had to deal with some distractors in another thread:
I think the following clusters of free resources should prove very useful to all who are interested in serious Bible study and exegesis:
Highly recommended.
And free for a download.
D
The quote is an extract from a PDC comment posted to our recent blog, Hindus In Barbados Show Insensitivity. To be frank there is much merit in the comment.
@ Dictionary // March 10, 2010 at 4:22 AM
You said:- And i say that as one who has deeply respected Mormon friends.
**************************************************************************
Well, well, all I can say to that is ……..with friends like you who needs any enemies!!
You see, Mr High & Mighty Dictionary, I already know exactly where you coming from and where you heading with your treatise on the LDS Church!
The reason why you, Walter Martin and the “BU trinity” have problems with the LDS teachings is because you are relying on the knowledge of MAN (your intellect, training, and understanding) to interpret the meaning of the Bible. But I would like to remind you that God has declared that he will communicate with man through His prophets. This has been so from early biblical times even up to this day (Amos 3:7).
So what should we understand by that? We should understand that when God wishes reveal His mind to mankind He will do so through His SERVANTS the prophets. Are you a prophet of God by any chance? Now this is why God has a prophet to lead His people even to day. His servants the prophets will tell His people what He (God) wants to reveal to them. We do not have to rely on others like you or Walter Martin or the “BU trinity” to tell us what God wants us to know. We will continue to look to His SERVANTS the prophets for direction. Of course this is in addition to seeking answers through sincere prayer to God,our Heavenly Father, and also by guidance through His Holy Spirit.
This is exactly why the world is so confused as it is today re God’s laws and wishes for us. Every Tom, Dic(k) and Harry would like to take authority upon themselves to try to interpret God’s word for us when He already has His designated authority, called by Him, the prophet, to be His mouthpiece.
So go figure, you and the rest of the “BU trinity”! Try & see if you can fool those who don’t know better, like little children & incompetents!
@ Dictionary,
By the way, don’t let us forget who betrayed our Lord. None other than Judas Iscariot one of His apostles (one of His FRIENDS)!!
Maybe your Mormon “friends” should rename you a JUDAS!
@BU.David…
With regards to your above, some of us are *very* passionate about the *need* for tolerance and acceptance.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone believing whatever they want, so long as it does no harm to anyone else.
Religion, by definition, is based on Faith. Ergo, it cannot be proven.
Some of us have gone past this, and prefer to work within a believe system which has ***predictive*** capability. This is called Science.
This is not to say that Scientists can’t also be Religious. As I’ve said before, I personally mostly resonate with the Buddhists.
As I’ve also said before, Religion and Science are not actually at war. They are, in fact, entirely orthogonal.
But for some reason *some* religious followers (not just Christians) argue that anyone who don’t believe as they do (with absolutely no proof, since none can be presented) must be wrong, evil and (lately) “milk drinkers”.
Those of us who think for ourselves find this a bit odd, since any Religion has about as much chance of being right (or wrong) as the next.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-03-10/
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Is this not the text which Peter was exegeting in 1 Peter 2:2? or Paul in I Corinthians and Hebrews.
Is this not one example of the Hermeneutic principal that the OT is in the NT revealed and the NT is in the OT concealed?
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Is this not the way that one SEARCHES (John 5:39) & STUDIES THE BIBLE (2 Tim 2:15) ? READING THE WHOLE and then seeking to master the parts bit by bit and linking related pasages to understand the full message on any topic as commanded in 2 Peter 1:20?
Bearing in mind that this is an APPLICATION OF THAT TEXT, and not its full interpretation, as it has not been here exegeted within its context.
Re
The fact is that the true spiritual brilliance of God is revealed in the everyday things around us.
Is this not the precept taught in Psalms 19 and Romans 1? Is this not just a drop of milk that is known by todlers in Sunday School. That is one of the first principles that is taught in serious Bible teaching churches from the very bottom of the Sunday School by all denominations, as determined by the Church School or Sunday School Comittes that meets to pontificate on what precepts children at various ages van comprehend?
Re
The role of the Bible in God’s design is interesting and complex, (much too complex for you trinity boys to understand)
Is this an attempt of a nugget of super gnosticism? How hilarious! If a babbler = seed picker (check etymology of the word in the Greek ) can understand this, can not intelectuals with the aid of the Holy Spirit and approprite books not of learned this?
Is this not why we seek to SEARCH the Scriptures as commanded by Jesus himself or STUDY as recorded by Paul under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit, whom you claim to guide you.
Does not 1 John 2:20 & 27 teach that the Spirit is the resident tutor of the book he wrote? Do you think that he enlightened the scholars whom we read just as he enlightens you?
Re
but to REALLY understand God, is to be able to ‘read’ the many messages written in the physical world all around us.
The bible teaches that to understand or know God one must KNOW JESUS CHRIST WHOM HE HAS SENT (John 17:3)
Sane sound sensible Bible believing Christians stick to this principle.
Sane sound sensible Bible believing Christians accept and follow the precepts in 2 John 5-11 and 1 John 19-26 concerning seducers who would seek to lead them astray by tenets not presented in God’s Word.
Sane sound sensible Bible believing Christians understand the danger of GNOSTICS This is probably why noviate believers are advised to staet reading the Bible at FIRST JOHN!
Re
If you limit your knowledge to what is written in the bible you could never be more than a babe on milk….
THE HOLY SPIRIT TAUGHT THROUGH PETER IN 1 PETER 2:2 TO DESIRE THE UNADULTERATED MILK OF THE WORD………………not the tenets of Gnostics………not other gospels
You are contradicting what you think you exegeted (drew out) from the passage in Isaiah. Hilarious!
re
This is why the Holy Spirit of God is the ONLY means and the ONLY necessity, for true deep spiritual knowledge.
John 14, 16 1 John all teach that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth.
What is deep spiritual knowledge? It is that about which John was writing in 1 and 2 John GNOSTICISM.
What dep spiritual knowledge what?
You have obviously not searched the scriptures, but come here as a seed picker with basic Sunday School lessons that you seem to have recently heard to teach people and ask them to defend thesis? HIlarious!Hilarious to the point of lachrimation! What bovine excrement! ROTFLMAO!
Why not exegeses Isaiah 28 – especially from vs 9, and let us know what you come up with…. It goes like this
@ Dictionary
The only teachings about polytheism that I have been getting seem only to emanate from the “BU trinity. I have never heard of this doctrine in the LDS Church. However, I have seen in Matt 5:48 ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.’ I do not know what your “hermeneutics/exegesis” will make of that statement but I take it to mean that we should try to be as god-like (PERFECT) as possible. Isn’t God perfection?
Now if you wish to take that belief and try to use it to say that I am teaching polytheism you are quite entitled to so do. The first Article of Faith of the LDS Church states: 1. “WE believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost”. If that statement means polytheism to you, then I guess that all of Christianity must teach polytheism!
As Dictionary would say Onlookers .,
There are two interesting scriptures that one can use to teach in ANY SUBJECT under the sun.
One is 2 Tim 2:2 Which basically shows how the Spirit taught Paul to see how the Christian faith would be perpetuated down the ages from a teacher who would teach his students to teach thier students to teach their students on and on.
The other one is the one of the few verses that our favorite seed picker on BU seems to have grasped, and which to him is DEEP SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE . i.e
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Does any reading this know a lot abbout hat you do in your job or profession? How did you lean it? How did you progrees through school in Maths or Music or English or any subject?
Thats right! You got it! It was by employing the principle that …………For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
If it was music, you started with doh ray me. And that does not change. You come back to that all the time.
If it was Rithmetic the fundamental piece of milk was 1 2 3. If it was Reading it was ABC. Ah lie.
And so it is with Bible.
Many church bulletins have a section with daily readings for the month to try to persuade the membership to read the Bible through once for the year.
Some Bibles (not even Study Bibles) have pages with charts to encourage owners of the Book to read it once a year.
Many believers and Bible readers attempt this yearly; some actually succeed.
This method of Bible Study is called the METHOD OF SURVEY. It is a Hermeneutic tool. If you read your Bible like this you are into Hermeneutics. You are using the “seed pickers” GOD given hermeneutic principle that applies to all pedagogy including Bible pedagogy.
This SIMPLE HERMENEUTIC principle is that ———- For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: Ah lie
If you are an Anglican, and you read the section set out eaxh week for the Epistle and Gospel and if at Evensong and Mattins you point the Psalm(s) appointed for that day, and sin g the Magnificat , Nunc Dimittis, Venite etc regularly, you are still being exposed to the Bible.
If you do this guess what you are engaging in the hermeneutic tenet expoused by my very good friend who is a seed picker! You are actally obeying in part that says ……..For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: Ah lie?
Without knowing this you have actually BEGUN your search of the scriptures as Jesus, himself commanded in John 5:39 & Luke 24 3 on the road to Emmaus.
There is no rocket science here. You dont have to be educated or be bright or even read a commentary to START STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES BY JUST READING IT THROUGH or attempting to do so.
Have you ever STUDIED anything for your O levels or CXC or A evels or CAPE or your degrees? YOU STARTED YOUR STUDY BY READING.
The degree to which you take your SEARCH OR STUDY or the TIME YOU SPENT doing so is another matter.
The Psychology of Learning revolves in part around the principle that REPETITION AND REVIEW PROMOTES RETENTION. i,e the more you read (or search and understand) the MORE YOU UNDERSTAND & RETAIN. This is so with EVERY BOOK & EVERY SUBJECT INCLUDING THE BIBLE!
Dont let anyone fool you. When I read junk written by one of my students in an essay, it becomes abundantly clear to me very quickly that they HAVE NOT READ SEARCHED (or researched) OR STUDIED!
When I hear a man on radio, or tv tryin g to preach and he is talking goo, and when I read the puerile, pithy, pedantic, pedestrian prose by seed pickers and thier assigns and colleagues on BU it becomes abundantly clear to me very quickly that they HAVE NOT READ SEARCHED (or researched) OR STUDIED!
Its easy!
BTW seed picker is the name the fellas called Paul at Mars Hill in Acts when they posited Lets her what this babbler has to say! Learned that in an excellent book by the great Anglican expositor Barclay.
The difference is that Paul had studied! So at Mars Hill he could exegete in the powewr of the Spirit.
Van Impe is on tv now on Eschatology. Now here’s a man who has studied! He is exegeting the scriptures simply. No deep knowledge!
Why would I learn from a seed picker on BU when God through his Spirit has give me such teachers as CLEARLY TAUGHT IN EPHESIANS 4:11?
@All… Please accept my apologies for this in advance.
@Dr. Georgie Porgie…
I have asked you this before (many times). I have never received an answer.
What does the Bible have to say about the “double slit experiment”?
A few quick notres:
1} Faith and proof.
CH full well knows that in fact not even math is without a faith foundation, i.e a point where we accept some things as givens.
Similarly, the Christian Faith is not just a matter of belief, but also it anchors to certain historical events, and so it is a reasonable faith. The 12 minimal facts of a certain historical set of events c 30 Ad are in view.
And, so the Chrtistian faith and worldview are subject to warrant, not just blind belief.
2] TH
he knows tha the has been utterly unable to respond to the set of citaitons from original LDS sources as already given and linked.
3] Christians and civl society.
This one is a complex issue. It is true that many Christians have historically been the quiet in the land, which has much to do with having been from the powerless who know better than to stick the neck out on a non eternal issue, lest it be chopped off over minor matters. (The same people have quite often willingly laid down their lives as peaceful martyrs when others would tyrannise upon their consciences.)
At the same time, as noted above, Bible believing people draw upon the Judaeo Christian prophetic reforming tradition, starting with a slave uprising in Egypt initiated by YHWH, none less. So, we have had more than our fair share of reformers over the ages, Wilberforce, Buxton, Knibb, and others being just a few. Indeed — though it is not usually taught that way these days — The Christian faith and the “back to the Bible” reformation had a lot to do with contributing key ideas and movements that helped create modern democracy and liberty; including in our region.
But also, we must realise that worldview beliefs as dominating a culture, or as institutionalized in a society, have consequences.
This has been well known from the days of Plato’s The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC, where Plato denounced the avant garde evolutionary materialist thought of his day as fomenting amorality and domineering over others on the part of the ilk of an Alcibiades or the like. So important is this often overlooked point, that I will cite from the just noted, as Plato speaks in the voice of the Athenian Stranger:
Your average church member (and even the man in the village rum shop who has a vague recollection of his Sunday School days) might not be able to phrase the matter so learnedly as Plato, but s/he is very aware of what is at stake when men cast off the traces and would make themselves autonomous, not the servants of God duty bound to serve with justice and respect for all.
So, the worldview level debates and the uncivil rhetoric that have come to be so prominent at BU from those who would cast off any allegiance to King Jesus are not at all irrelevant to the issues of justice and building a community worth having. One that people are willing to sacrifice for and if needs be bleed for.
Having said that, I now point to the line of thought I have had over the years on sustainable development, which is of course reflected in the Haiti proposal. (Adjust for Barbados and you will get a pretty good idea of where I think education all over our region needs to go.)
Education integrated into community upliftment, as you will recall from the thread where the undersigned developed the Schools of Hope proposal live here at BU — and in a thread where there was no great prevalence of positive contributions from those who are busily detracting from Christian contributions in all sorts of threads at BU — is a principal means of positive community development.
(And one that long term puts the politicians in the position where they have to respond to an intelligent, independent-minded community that is standing on its own two economic feet. DV, in the next few days I want to blog on ideas tied to the Jakubowski resilient community sustainable development construction set ideas. 1,000 people, 40- odd key technologies and a spirit of independence, and we are looking at a sustainable future based on open source industries backed by university and public benefit institution research. In short he open source software movement’s ideas are spreading. We are looking at Industrial Civilization 2.0 folks: truly sustainable development. And one key step to that is the tech to be used by our Disaster and emergency offices, and of course our education system — but I am not so naive as to underestimate the deep rooted, knee-jerk conservativism of our region’s education bureaucrats. If it was good enough for the 1950’s or the 1970’s [ore ven maybe the 1980’s or 90’s], it is good enough for the 2010’s, sums up the underlying mindset, in too many cases.)
So, I disagree with the dismissal David cites above, in crucial respects; though I do believe it is also true that many church members and leaders do not find themselves sufficiently capable or confident as yet to step decisively into the arena of policy discussion.
For that, there is need for education and training, some of which will have to engage the rough and tumble of the kind of public debate that is now unfortunately all too typical of our region.
As is very familiar at BU.
So, what is needed is an online comm coll that will equip the people of God and members of he general community for effective, godly citizenship and sound leadership.
As, DV, is under development.
In terms of specifics on hot-topic policy and politics of Barbados, as one who is not a Bajan, I respectfully decline comment on the particularly partisan matters.
But, I do think we need to take a sober look at the sustainability issue. (Link to follow.)
G’day
Dictionary
Ah boy, looks like even two links are enough to trigger moderation now. David, that is not the right direction for Akismet to go.
Anyway, here are my thoughts on sustainability and getting serious change initiatives going on the ground.
Real world stuff.
Onlookers:
CH is plainly playing at rhetorical games, with the underlying line being that he — improperly — demands the right to distract threads though irrelvant rhetorical ranging shots that if they hit something, he then plainly wishes to use to hijack the thread.
On this latest topic he has been directly told — many times — by several people, that the Bible is not a Physics textbook, though it does set the context in which we can be confident that the Creator God of order created a world in which nature is orderly and intelligible. (And, this comes from careful exegesis . . . )
That Biblically anchored view is a basis for doing Science: thinking God’s creative thoughts after him.
Indeed, it is the historically demonstrable framework for the likes of a Newton or a Boyle or a Pascal or a Pasteur or a Kelvin or a Maxwell. This too, for many practitioners of science today who are utterly uncomfortable with the self-referential incoherences and amoral context of the reigning orthodoxy of today’s neo-magisterium, Lewontinian a priori evolutionary materialism.
Indeed, contrary to many secularist myths, it is in Judaeo-Christian worldview soil that modern science was born.
D
David, kindly note that a comment in response to your cite on Christians and involvement in policy issues, is in mod.
@Dictonary: “CH is plainly playing at rhetorical games, with the underlying line being that he — improperly — demands the right to distract threads though irrelvant rhetorical ranging shots that if they hit something, he then plainly wishes to use to hijack the thread.
Why is it that I cannot be given a straight answer to a direct question?
We all already know the answer. It is “nothing”.
Are the BU Trinity unable (or unwilling) to admit that they don’t know everything?
I ask once again: What does the Bible have to say about the double slit experiment?
(As an aside, the moment a teacher won’t (or can’t) answer a question, I begin to question their ability.)
@holy trinity boyo’s
do you believe in racial distinction’s?
ISAAC Newton was the greatest scientist who has ever lived, or in Albert Einstein’s words, the most ‘privileged’ of all scientists because of the discoveries that Newton was permitted to make. Einstein describes Newton as ‘this brilliant genius, who determined the course of Western thought, research, and practice to an extent that no body before or since his time can touch.”
Yet, near the end of his life, Newton said of himself:
“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of TRUTH lay all undiscovered before me.”
In the second edition of the ‘Principia’ in which he published most of his discoveries in physics, Newton writes:
“The true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful being. His duration reaches from eternity to eternity; His presence from infinity to infinity. He govern all things.”
(How Government Corrupts Science, by Arthur Robinson, Ph.D, Wistleblower, Vol 19, No.2, February 2010).
Even the brilliant, yet humble Newton, acknowledged, the self-evident truth of Almighyty God’s created Universe.
“Forever, O Lord. Your Word is settled in heaven. Your faithfulness endures to all generations; YOU established the earth, and it abides. They continue this day according to Your ordinances. For all are Your servants.” (Psa.119: 89-91) emphasis added.
Yet, but as to be expected, some fellow here on BU, stupidly, continues to ask foolish questions about one ‘double-slit’ experiment!
“The FOOL has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt” (Psa. 14:1) emphasis added.
GP says that;
“The Psychology of Learning revolves in part around the principle that REPETITION AND REVIEW PROMOTES RETENTION. i,e the more you read (or search and understand) the MORE YOU UNDERSTAND & RETAIN. This is so with EVERY BOOK & EVERY SUBJECT INCLUDING THE BIBLE!
***********************************************************************************************
GP says that
“For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little”:
Is this not the way that one SEARCHES (John 5:39) & STUDIES THE BIBLE (2 Tim 2:15) ? READING THE WHOLE and then seeking to master the parts bit by bit and linking related pasages to understand the full message on any topic as commanded in 2 Peter 1:20?
************************************************************************************************
Let us now look at what his bible says – just a bit of common sense – no exegeses or anything complicated.
It says:
“Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken”
In modern English /Bajan it reads like this:
Who shall he teach knowledge? and who shall he he allow to understand true spiritual doctrine?
Answer: Those who have matured pass the stage of babies. and who are no longer tied to their mother’s nourishment (ie spiritually immature).
Because the truth will be all mixed up, a little bit over here and a little bit over there. God will speak to his people, but it will be through garbled words and confusing languages.
These peoples are those who he have invited to freely enjoy his gift, to whom he said “just ask and I will give…” BUT THEY WOULD NOT HEAR OF THIS.
…and so the word of God was to them all mixed up, a little bit over here and a little bit over there SO THAT THEY WILL GO OFF AND FALL BACKWARDS AND BE DESTROYED.
So whereas the brilliant scholar GP thinks that the correct method of study is to devise techniques to exegeses precepts that are deliberately mixed up; his bible warns him that these precepts are mixed up SO THAT THOSE LIKE HIM will fall over backwards and be destroyed.
It eludes a simple minded seed picker how a bright scholar can build his confidence on ’40 years of study’ when we all know there are some gurus of many faiths who spend whole lifetimes in exclusive study of spirituality – to what avail?
…but then again, it also eludes a stupid seed picker how a brilliant scholar-doctor in his 50s could find himself in a dead-end job, teaching in some forlorn college; from which he has been actively seeking escape (albeit by sending copies of his passport pages to complete strangers in the age of identity theft….)
All the brilliant doctors that I know in their 50s are millionaires, settled, making solid contributions to their society and employing staff rather than begging ’round for a pick’… indeed, some of them are even wealthier than the bushman LOL.
…but what does a seed picking bushman know?!!
@the hood, to Dictionary,
“The only teaching about polytheism I have been getting seems only to emanate from the ‘BU’ trinity. I have never head this doctrine in the LDS Church.”
“The first article of Faith of the LDS states. 1. “WE believe in God, the Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” If that statement means polytheism to you, then I guess that all of Christianity must teach polytheism.”
Such opening article of Faith, as cited by Hood, in Morminisn, does NOT mean a thing, yes, it is copying historic, orthodox Christian terminology, which is sound in words, BUT, when one examines what the LDS really believe, as taken from their authoritative sources, an entirely different ‘doctrine’ of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, emerges, that can only constitute, ‘Polytheism’ but don’t believe me, let us hear from the LDS, Mormons, themselves, if this is so.
“…Jesus our elder brother, was begotton in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. I, pp. 50 and 51),”
Now in order to understand what “Prophet” Young was saying, another of his pronouncements found in the same context should be considered.
“When our father ADAM came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives with him…He IS our FATHER, and OUR GOD, and the only GOD with whom WE have to do.”
Hood, I challenge you, a Mormon, to deny the above, quoted from authentic LDS writings, and teachings, which says, that, ‘ADAM’ “…he is our FATHER, and our GOD, and the only GOD with whom WE have to do.”
It is patently evident throughout the writiings of Mormon Prophets, that the Mormon doctrine of God, teaches ‘Polytheism’ that there are many gods. Belief in many gods is the cornerstone of their theology, and polygamous gods they are. Parley Pratt, a leading Mormon writer whose books are recommended by Mormon publishing houses as representing their theological views, also writes concerning this doctrine:
“Each of these GODS, including Jesus Christ and his Father, being in possession of not mearly an original spirit, but a glorious immortal body of flesh and bones…” (Key to the Science of Theology, Ed. 1966, p.44).
Hear Joseph Smith Jr yet again, on these gods.
“In the beginning, the head of the GODS called a council of the GODS; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people in it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 349).
“God himself was one as we are now, and is an exalted man….:”(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
And it goes on and on, rampant, crass, Polytheism, convoluted in such a maze of utterly Unbiblical, nonsense, and the article of faith, using Orthodox Christian terminology, is just a PR ploy, to fool new converts, that they are saying the same thing, as Biblical theology.
Almighty God, as He has revealed Himself in His inspired Word, the Bible, IS Eternally, Omnipotently, Omnisciently, Omnipresently, INFINITE, NOT some being as LDS, Mormonism, blasphemously says:
“As a man is, God once was: as God is, man may become” (Prophet Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Throughout the Ages, pp. 105, 106).
HOOD, tell me I have taken the above quotes out of context, that they don;t really mean what they say, that I misunderstood, what was meant by ‘ADAM…he is our FATHER, and our GOD, and the only GOD with whom WE have to do.”
Tell me, that I don’t understand what is meant, by the Mormon doctrine that God the Father is a MERE man, is the root of LDS polytheism, and forces Mormons to deny not only the Trinity of God, as revealed in Scripture, the Bible, God’s Word.
Hood, you are in a mess of polytheistic Mormonisn, fooled by subtl terminology, deceitfully using Christian Orthodox terms, to con new converts into beleiving that LDS are Christians!
Well Zoe,
I will have to admit that bush tea have no idea what Mormons believe. However based on what you just accused Hood of believing, I have to say that it sounds like it makes much more sense than your orthodox doctrines
Do you seriously believe that God is represented by a TOTAL of three individuals?
What do you think Jesus meant when he said that he was merely the firstborn of many ‘brethren’? …or that those who believed in him would become the ‘sons of God’?
Yes GP
your ad hominem is a good one thanks
it also eludes a stupid seed picker how a brilliant scholar-doctor in his 50s could find himself in a dead-end job, teaching in some forlorn college; from which he has been actively seeking escape (albeit by sending copies of his passport pages to complete strangers in the age of identity theft….)
All the brilliant doctors that I know in their 50s are millionaires, settled, making solid contributions to their society and employing staff rather than begging ’round for a pick’… indeed, some of them are even wealthier than the bushman LOL.
it eludes me too
But what does that have to do with the topic?
or that those who believed in him would become the ’sons of God’?
Some one has already explained the concept of huiosthesia in the NT. The NT concept of the adoption of sons.
Perhaps Zoe or Dictionary can explain it again.
@GP
Your expert opinion is required on the Kidney blog.
Thanks!
We seriously believe that God is represented by a TOTAL of three individuals, because that is what the Bible teaches, and we believe the Bible.
Re What do you think Jesus meant when he said that he was merely the firstborn of many ‘brethren’?
You dismissed my notes on Ruth as twaddle, but certainly your quote from Hebrews 2 (I think it is) is answered there. In Hebrews 2 Paul is commenting or exegeting on the fact that Christ is our kinsman -redeemer!
To save or reedeem the world of lost sinners, Christ had to come as a man- he had to be a blood relative.
This was one of the primary qualifications of a kinsman-redeemer according to the regulations enunciated in Leviticus, and best illustrated in the book of Ruth by the relationship of Boaz ( atype of Christ ) and Ruth.
Onlookers:
As a first down-payment on the promise to David on Civilisation 2.0, here is a Vimeo video on the Global/ Resilient Village Construction set, based on what is a pioneering open source industry (plus heirloom seeds C21 subsistence farming) research institute led by Marcin Jabukowski, a Polish physicist now based in Kansas, I believe (could be Missouri — it is outside Kansas City).:
How to Build a Post-Scarcity Village from Marcin Jakubowski on Vimeo.
If the embed works, you will see he starts with the Life Trac, which has become somewhat of a symbol of what he is doing. The machine you see cost US$ 4,000 to build, largely from junkyard parts and standard metal tubing etc. The second major machine is an update on the CINVA RAM type compressed earth brick machine. (I think we should look at marrying that with the Auroville Earth Institute of India’s Auram, which makes a wide variety of bricks, blocks and tiles.)
Then there is the potential of bamboo, especially the Guadua “vegetable steel” genus [angustifolia the starring member: 100 ft tall, 10 inches across at base, 5 – 7 years to grow, thorns to discourage praedial larceny; I believe 20 x the productivity of a similar acreage of pine forest . . . and the timber is harder than oak when properly processed], to transform the timber and construction industries.
And if you hear an echo of the Celtic Monastics of the era just past the collapse of the Roman Empire in the W, yes, it is there: we have a proven survivable institution that we can then adapt to modern circumstances.
Now, think about integrating this with the work of our universities and Disaster management Offices. The latter need machines, and the former need seed-plots to do pioneering research. The latter also need to have off-grid energy systems, rapid build housing solutions, easily packed modular furniture, recon machines. [Think here robotic aircraft — some of which (as the Craig Cabey disappearance at sea on a jet ski story reminds me) needs to have long range maritime search capacity — and snake and crawling robots that can go into the sort of pancake collapsed environment we saw on out TVs since January.]
Then we need C21 Schooners capable of moth motor and wind driven travel across our region at reasonable cost, for robust regional trade. Nor have I forgotten the need for sealift and airlift that can move containerised modular equipment and people rapidly.
And more.
And we all need good solid ICTs and access to life-long high quality education that can exploit Internet technology and existing infrastructure to build the capacity we will need.
How does this all fit into the Bible message scheme?
1 –> Ac 17: nationhood is the creation of God, who desires per Gal 3:14 to bless us in Christ with the same promise to Abraham.
2 –> This fits in with the biblical plot line: Creation, fall, restoration, redemption, conversion and transformation through the gospel, blessing, consummation and eternal felicity.
3 –> In this context, God comes to nations in times of kairos — hinges on which the course of history pivots — with his spokesmen [and women!] who bring the counsels of eternal wisdom that we must choose to listen to or reject.
4 –> Here is the wise counsel of king Jehoshaphat on this, as he spoke with 20-20 prophetic vision: 2 Chron 20:20“Listen to me, you people of Judah32 and residents of Jerusalem! Trust in the Lord your God and you will be safe! Trust in the message of his prophets and you will win.”
5 –> Those nations and generations that instead reject the wise and loving counsel of God walk in a path of self-chosen self-destruction, as Eph 4 cautions:
5 By utter contrast, those who have come to know God in the face of Christ are called to live sensibly, in ways that will bring the blessing of God into their lives and communities:
D
PS: CH has had a serious and sensible answer, but alas, in the futility of his thinking, he complains that it is not he answer that sets up the thread-hijack rhetorical stonk he was hoping for.. Sad, and one for prayer.
David, the vimeo embed did not work, and the post is in mod. This is in further response to your post on contribution tot he national development effort.
PPS: Maybe CH needs to learn from the likes of Sir Isaac N, that investigation of the observed world is an exercise first in applied epistemology — they called it natural philosophy. Then, when stable reliable results are produced, these they termed “knowledge.” Knowledge, in Latin of course is the basis for our far less lucid term, science. Consequently, science is deeply embedded with philosophical issues [which is where Scripture has something important to say to science, and it is where the Biblical worldview had a lot to do with nurturing the worldview soil in which modern science sprouted up]. of course, in this context, old, much despised, betrayed by a friend Pope Urban VIII had a point that a certain famous Italian scientist (and sometime friend of the pope) missed: scientific findings are inherently provisional, i.e not certain. Scientific investigation is a case of defeatable reasoning that produces provisional but often empirically reliable knowledge. Lewontin et al could do with a few lessons from the ghosts of the good pope and his — doubtless — now reconciled friend.
–> As to the below the belt rhetorical blow he predictably resorted to, CH knows or should know that I gave a sufficiently responsive answer: the Bible is not a Physics textbook, though it does set the context in which we can be confident that the Creator God of order created a world in which nature is orderly and intelligible (Presumably, CH knows that one will find double-slit expts and results for light, electrons etc reported in physics textbooks. )
–> I then set it in an important corrective context to current science and village atheist rhetoric [which likes to pretend that science is the be all and end all of respectable knowledge and thought], with a key onward link. So, we see that the real problem is the futility of CH’s thinking, not the inadequacy of my remarks. Do, pray for him.
NOTICE:
David et al:
My blog on “1 Chron 12:32 report, 60: Towards Industrial Civilisation 2.0 — the post scarcity, open source, sustainable, resilient village ” is here. (It includes the embedded vimeo video.)
D
David, thanks.
I found this in my archives
I post it here for whats its worth
Why examine the Greek words, the syntactical and grammatical structures, the figures of speech, and change the translation? The best and most eloquent answer is found in the words of Christopher Lasch,
“With the collapse of religion, biblical references, which formerly penetrated
deep into everyday awareness, have become incomprehensible, and the same thing is now happening to the literature and mythology of antiquity — indeed to the entire literary tradition of the West, which has always drawn so heavily on biblical and classical sources.
In the space of two or three generations, enormous stretches of the ‘Judaeo-Christian tradition,’ so often invoked by educators but so seldom taught in any form, have passed into oblivion. The effective loss of cultural traditions on such a scale makes talk of a new Dark Age far from frivolous.
Yet this loss coincides with an information glut, with the recovery of the past by specialists, and with an unprecedented explosion of knowledge — none of which, however, impinges on everyday experience or shapes popular culture.”
As we had to do when studying Shelley and Sheridan and Shakespeare, so it is with Scripture
WORD STUDIES
The smallest part of the Holy Bible that you must examine is the individual word. But you can not look only at the word by itself.
You must compare it with other similar words in the same “necklace” of the Holy Bible.
You must think about how the word fits into the whole of the Holy Bible.
You must think about the kind of word that you would expect to find used by a particular writer in the Holy Bible.
You must consider the individual word, it is true. But you can consider the individual word only in the setting or context of the whole Holy Bible.
“Context” is a word you need to know. It means “that which is written around a word.” The context of a word is the rest of the sentence. The context of the sentence is the paragraph. The context of the paragraph is the chapter. The context of the chapter is the book of the Holy Bible. The context of the book is either the Old or New Testament. The context of the Old or New Testament is the whole Holy Bible itself.
In considering any part of the Holy Bible, you must always think of the bigger context.
If we are to understand the Holy Bible, we must carefully analyze every word. But we must do it with consideration of the various types of context. But where do you start?
Do you start with the examination of the word itself or of the context? Different people do this differently. There are some facts about the context that become clear only on examination of the individual words. And there are facts about the words that become clear only on examination of the context. In fact, you must go back and forth.
As you understand the context, you will better understand the word. As you better understand the word, you will better understand the context.
Each time you better understand the context, the word should be examined again. Each time you understand the word better, the context should be examined again. It is a never-ending process.
Some scholars call it the “hermeneutic circle.” Context helps you understand words which help you understand context which helps you understand words, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Even though hermeneutics “goes in a circle,” you have to start somewhere. You have to pick a point at which to enter the circle of hermeneutics. I would suggest starting with the context of the passage under study. What, then, are the steps in understanding the Holy Bible?
TYPOLOGICAL METHOD OF BIBLE STUDY (TYPOLOGY)
Typology is an important method of Bible Study, because the Scriptures contain a vast storehouse of typical material for our benefit, profit and enjoyment. The word “type” does not occur anywhere in our Bible, neither
does the word “typology”, but the study of types in the Old Testament is one of the most interesting and
rewarding exercises in Bible Study.
Definition of Types
A Bible type is a divinely purposed illustration of some Old Testament scriptural truth that is used to picture
or illustrate a New Testament truth in addition to its literal meaning.
The picture used may be an Old Testament :-
1] person as Adam (Rom.14) also Solomon, Jonah, Aaron, Moses (Mat. 12:42, 12:40, Heb. 3:5-6, 7-11)
2] event as the crossing of the Red Sea (I Cor. 10:11), lifting up the brazen serpent ( Num21)
3] thing as the veil of the temple (Heb. 10:19-20)
4] institution as the tabernacle, priesthood and the offerings (Heb. 9:11-12) or
5] ceremonial as the passover (I Cor. 5:7)
6] historical event
7] ritual
8] objects (the lamb)
9] place (Canaan)
A type is something like a symbol with some very important differences. A symbol usually refers to something either past, present or future, but a type always refers only to something in the future. A type is a special sort
of prophecy. A type is rather like a picture in the Old Testament that is intended to tell us about something which will happen in the New Testament. It is like a shadow of something not yet seen.
The object or event or person used in the Old Testament as a picture of what is to come is called the “type,” and the object or event or person in the New Testament that is being foretold is called the “antitype.” There must be
some easily identified similarity between the type and the antitype. Many feel that the Old Testament type (be it person, event or object) was actually appointed by God to have the particular similarity to the antitype.
Types occur most frequently in the Pentateuch, but are found more sparingly elsewhere. The antitype, or
fulfillment of the type, is found generally in the New Testament.
e.g. (Gen. 2:23).The woman is a type of the Church, the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-321,2 Cor. 11:2-3; cp.
Jn. 3:28-29; Rev. 19:7-8).
A type always bears an unmistakable likeness to the truth which it illustrates. Just as an inventor makes a
working model of the machine he has invented as a more definite and accurate depiction of any word
description, so does a type picture its antitype. Whereas the type is merely a picture, symbol or example
of the real thing, the antitype is the real thing which the type or picture pointed to or prefigured. e.g. Aaron the High Priest in Tabernacle days is a type of Christ our High Priest as is taught in Hebrews ****. Christ is the fulfillment (or antitype of Aaron’s picture). All the tabernacle furnishings is a type of the Person or work of the Lord Jesus Christ or of great truths connected with Him.
A type is an incident or occurrence that is historically true, but points to another person, incident or occurrence
in the future ( the antitype). The type is a shadow of something to come. Often we cannot identify the object
that casts the shadow by the shadow along, but when the object to whom the figure or shadow points all
becomes clear For example, we know that Adam is a type of Christ when he was put to sleep (often used in the
Bible as a picture for death) and from-his wounded side the Lord God builded from him a woman to be an help
meet.-for him. Without the record of the New Testament we could never have known the meaning of that first
surgical operation performed in the Garden of Eden.
Note that in Scripture (as in other literature) words may convey a truth or idea and yet not express a literal fact. For example, when Christ said “I am the door”, he expressed a fundamental truth but not a fact-,” for Christ was not a door. However, the use of the word “door” does express the essential truth that He was “the means” of
entry to the Father. In other words, a type is a mode of expressing an idea by the use of words that suggests pictures or images of the idea.
A good example of a type is the incident recorded in Numbers 21 when the children of Israel had been bitten by poisonous snakes and were instructed to look at a bronze serpent on a pole. God had promised that those who
did so would be healed. The entire experience is a type. It was an actual, historical event that portrayed a New Testament truth. Here is what John has to say about it: “And, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of man be lifted up; That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal
life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:14-16).
At first it might seem strange that of all things, a serpent should be a type of Christ and His saving work on the cross. But it makes sense when we read what Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians:
“Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we beg you in Christ’s stead,
be ye reconciled to God. For He hath made Him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Hiai”(2 Cor. 5:20, 20).
We identify a serpent with sin, and brass or bronze in the Bible speaks of some aspect of God’s judgement. The bronze serpent, therefore, was a fitting portrayal of the Lord Jesus being made sin for us (bearing God’s wrath to pay the price for our iniquity). He made it possible for us to be saved by simple looking to Him in faith. That
Old Testament incident was therefore an outstanding type of the redemptive work of Christ.
Jonah’s experience in the belly of the fish was also a type. Jesus said: “For as Jonah was three days and three
nights in the belly of the great fish, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth”- Matthew 12.40.
Hebrews, Chapter 9, makes reference to the tabernacle, its furnishings, and its sacrifices – replete with types.
The sacrificed animals portrayed Christ as He gave His life for us. The furnishings of the tabernacle and, temple, along with their related rituals, prefigured the Lord Jesus and His redemptive work. And the veil in the
tabernacle and temple separating the holy place from the Holy of Holies was a type of the physical body of
Christ. At the very moment, Jesus died “the veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom” (Matthew 27:51). Through the Saviour’s death in the flesh, a new and living way has been opened into the very presence of God for all who believe in Christ (see Hebrews 10:19, 20).
This is just a sampling of the many rich types one can find in the Bible. Discovering them can be a rewarding spiritual exercise.
The Tabernacle, offerings and the priesthood as described in the Pentateuch is full of types, the anti-types of which are unveiled in the epistle to the. Hebrews. God uses both comparison and contrast to convey spiritual truths.
C. Rules Which Must be Followed when Studying or Interpreting Types
(a) Be sure that you have Bible warrant for your supposed type. Nothing may be insisted upon as a type
without explicit New Testament authority. “Whatever thing is recorded in the Old Testament which is used in
the New Testament in a typical or spiritual sense this can be used without question”. All “types” not so authenticated must be recognized as having only the authority of analogy or spiritual congruity. The Old
Testament is very difficult to comprehend without the New Testament explanation and vice versa. The
“shadow” of the Old Testament demand the substance of the New Testament (Heb. 10:1). There cannot be one without the other.
(b) Begin with simple and evident types. In studying typology, you should begin by studying carefully the ones
that are identified in the New Testament. Next, become well-versed in the great doctrines of the faith as they are taught in the epistles. Then look for other types in the Old Testament, using them as illustrations and examples
of New Testament truth.
(b) Be on guard against the fanciful and overstrained. If you search the types, be careful not to minimize the
historical facts or miss the primary meaning of Old Testament passages. Don’t let your imagination run away
with you. The church has suffered much from the over spiritualisation of the Word of God.
(c) Beware of building doctrines upon types that are not confirmed by the rest of Scripture. It must be kept in
mind that no doctrine can be built upon a type. Types, may and do illustrate doctrinal truth beautifully, but they must be kept in their God appointed place to illustrate doctrine only. We should never base a doctrine solely
on a type. The information given by the type may be part of the overall information used to form the doctrine,
but there must be more than just the type on which to base the doctrine. If the type is clearly explained in the
New Testament, then, of course, the explanation may be depended upon and used with more confidence in the forming of doctrine.
(d) Often the types had symbolic meaning to the people of the Old Testament themselves. Their understanding of
the symbol often gives some clue as to the New Testament meaning of the type. What was the moral or
spiritual truth that came to the mind of the old Testament person when he thought of the person or event or
object that is later (in the New Testament) identified as a type? The point of similarity that the type is trying to foreshadow will not be contrary to its symbolism.
(e) Usually types had only one major teaching. There may be some secondary teachings as well, but there is one
main lesson to be learned in each type. When studying a type, it is easy to look back from our point in time and
fill the Old Testament type with meaning that it did not have. Of course, the antitype will always be clearer than the type. But we should not start with the antitype and go back to the type, inserting meanings the type did not have. If a type is a “shadow” of something to come, it is not right to look back at the shadow, once the real
object is seen, and imagine that you can see all the detail of the real object in the shadow.
(f) We must always realize also that the antitype is always a much higher form of truth than the type. The sacrificial lamb was the type of Christ. But there is really no comparison between a lamb and Christ. Even though the
lamb was a shadow of His obedient death, Christ is much higher than the lamb. The types were earthly pictures
that were foretelling heavenly, spiritual, wonderful, much higher truths yet to come.
(g) Types must be differentiated from illustrations. Although generous use of the Old Testament ought to be made
in making application and in illustrating Scriptural truths care and caution must at all times be excercised.
The Old Testament tabernacle is clearly stated to be a type in Hebrews 8:5. A student with a fertile imagination
however, may easily find many things in the tabernacle that he might want to include in the typology of the tabernacle, whereas there may be only one main teaching to be gleaned from the typology of the tabernacle.
The main teaching probably relates to the fact that the people of God were separated from the presence of God until Christ “tore the veil” and opened up the way to the Holy of Holies. This not mean we are to ignore other interesting parallels that we see in the tabernacle, but we ought to call these other parallels “illustrations,”
rather than call them “types.” Since a type is a God-appointed similarity through which he wants to teach a
specific truth, these other similarities that we see may not be part of God’s intended type; although they may
still be used as illustrations of truths taught elsewhere. For instance, you will find that the boards that make up the walls of the tabernacle were held together by a silver rod that went through the boards but was invisible from the outside. Let us not call that a type, but when teaching about the fact that it is the Holy Spirit who indwells each believer and who binds all believers into the “building” of God (Ephesians 2:21), we can certainly use the rods and boards of the tabernacle as an illustration. There are some who would feel that the similarity is so striking that it must be a type. It seems to me that we can refrain from calling it a type and still use it as an illustration.
(h) Look up all Scripture references that apply.
(i) Study the meaning of the name of persons and places mentioned.
If you follow these guidelines you cannot go wrong, and you will be able to identify types correctly and you will greatly enrich your spiritual life.
Conclusion
The value of the types cannot be over-estimated. Some one has well said that “The Old Testament is largely
a book of unfulfilled prophecies, unexplained ceremonies and unsatisfied longings”, but as one opens the pages
of the New Testament, these prophecies are seen to be fulfilled in Christ; the ceremonies explained by Christ;
and the longings satisfied through Christ. Christ is the Key to all the Types. They cannot be understood
apart from Him. There must bea knowledge of the reality before a type, or picture can be appreciated. Christ is seen in all the types. His character, offices and relations with His Church are presented in these types. Consequently, it is essential that they be studied for a thorough knowledge of Him. In the types, Christ as it
were, is taken to pieces, closely examined, and all His many perfections laid bare for our.soul’s appreciation and worship.
Types are terribly abused by students of the Holy Bible. Folk with vivid imaginations can find what they
Consider to be types on practically every page of the Old Testament. The only limits are the limits of their imaginations. This is not,however, the proper use of types. There are two extremes in the use of types.
There are those who see types everywhere they turn in the Old Testament, and there are those who say that you may properly call something a type only if it is identified as a type in so many words in the New Testament.
There is also an approach between the two which says that things are properly called types if so identified in the New Testament is so clear that it could not have occurred by chance. I personally hold to this latter view but readily warn the student that he must be very cautious or he will be calling things types that are really not. If you are going to err, err on the side of leaving out things that might legitimately be types rather than seeing too many types.
Thorns in the Bible
Thorns are associated with the curse of mankind and nature at the time of the Fall. Man has to contend with thorns in his work and in his spiritual life.
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and you shall eat the herb of the field (Genesis. 3:18)
Thorns are used in connection with man’s failure. The thorn is a symbol of man’s negative will toward God. So thorns are used to designate divine chastisement
But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. (Numbers. 33:55)
Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you. (Judges 2:3)
In 2 Corinthians 12:7, Paul’s thorn in the flesh was something aggravating enough to bother him. God permitted a fallen angel of great ability to penetrate the wall of fire around Paul and to bother him.
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2 Cor. 12:7-9)
Paul prayed for it to be removed, but his prayer was answered in the negative. God said, “No! My grace is sufficient for you!”
However, Paul was persistent, praying this erroneous prayer three times. Paul was in fellowship, but the suffering was still there; however, it was suffering designed for blessing.
The thorn is a sign of Satan’s power; but even Satan’s evil designs result in good when God’s power is employed.
Thorns are used to designate the administration of the final cycle of discipline to a nation.
They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom, but none shall be there, and all her princes shall be nothing.
And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls. (Isa. 34:12-13)
Topic: Chastisement (Divine Discipline)
Thorns are related to economic depression and recession under an agricultural economy. Depression is brought on by man’s bad decisions or sins in the field of economy.
They have sown wheat, but shall reap thorns: they have put themselves to pain, but shall not profit: and they shall be ashamed of your revenues because of the fierce anger of the LORD. (Jer. 12:13)
The unconquered Canaanites in the promised Land were thorns to the nation of Israel.
Num. 33:55 (above)
Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you. (Josh 23:13)
And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?
Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you. (Judges 2:2,3)
God had ordered Israel to destroy all the Canaanites. But the Jews did not obey that mandate, so God permitted certain Canaanite groups to live as thorns to the nation Israel.
Thorns are used to describe the results of not accepting Bible truth.
The reward of humility and reverence for the Lord are riches and honor and life; thorns and snares are in the way for evil ones, but he who guards his soul stays far from them. (Prov. 22:5)
Like a thorn bush in a drunkard’s hand is a proverb [a piece of doctrine] in the mouth of a fool. (Prov. 26:9)
Thorns are used to describe the distractions to positive volition toward Bible truth.
In Matthew, “thorns” refer to the man who hears the Word, but the worries of this life (e.g. peer pressure) and the deceitfulness of riches choke out the Word.
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them . . .
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that hears the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he become unfruitful. (Matt. 13:7,22)
Thorns are used to describe the results of being involved in Satan’s domain cosmic and negative volition toward the plan of God.
But that which bears thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. (Heb. 6:8)
Jesus Christ wore a crown of thorns on the cross, which signified the fact that He was made a curse for us.
Matt. 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24
In the millennial reign of Christ, nature will be delivered from the curse of the Fall.
This is expressed by the removal of thorns in Isa 55:13 and Ezek 28:24.
People love to talk about people!
And there are certainly a lot of people in the Bible to talk about.
Judges, I & 2 Kings, 1&2 Samuel, 1 &2 Chronicles certainly have a lot of folk and events that is best studied by what is knows as the Biographical Method of Bible Study.
Here is an example using Gideon
A. Scriptures referring to Gideon: Jgd.6-8, Heb.11:32, Jgd.6:36-40
B Ancestry: He was the son of Joash the Abiezrite of the tribe of Manasseh (jgd.6:11) resided at Ophrah in Gilead beyond the Jordan.
Manasseh = “causing to forget”
The elder son of Joseph and his Egyptian wife Asenath (Gen.41:51; 46:20) Manasseh and his brother were both adopted by Jacob upon his deathbed who however gave the first place and the birthright blessing to Ephrahim.
Fell into idolatry, worshiped gods of the Amorites
C Analyze his character: Gideon saw himself as his family saw him, small (Jdg.6:15)
Followed his family into idolatry, but pulls it down at mid night (Jdg.6:25)
Was fearful what man would say.
His father was a man in high rang. (?)
Doubt was in his heart, he ask for signs
1. Jdg.6:17, he received his sign Jgd.6:21
2. Jdg.6:37, flees that is wet with dew and the ground around try.
3. Jdg.6:39, flees that is try and the ground around wet.
Gideon did not have full confidence that the Lord had called him, (Jdg.7:10)
D. Advantages of training: Did not have training from his father, his family was in idolatry worship.
E Work accomplished: Removed the altar from Baal, and set up the altar for the Lord.
Defeated the Midianites, (Jdg.7:15 – )
F. Crises of his life: (Jdg.6:27) being afraid of his family, so he tore down the altar at night. Faced the critics from the Ephraimites
G. What type of friends did he have?
H. What influence did he have on others? (Jdg.8:22) The Israelites wanted him to be King over them.
I. What growth does the character show? Learn to trust the Lord, did only what the Lord told him to do. Did not exalt himself after the victory.
J. Note elements of power and success. Only power with God who gave it to him
K. Note elements of weakness and failures. (Jdg.8:27) by making an ephod which he place in Ophrah his town, Israel start worshipping an idol again instate worshipping the only one and truth God.
L. Note difficulties overcome. Overcame unbelief for a season,
M. Helps to success. The hand of the Lord
N. Note privileges abused. (See O)
O. Note opportunities neglected. Following the Lord also after the victory,
P. Note opportunities improved. Obeyed God for a season
Q. Note mistakes made. (Jdg.8:27)
R. Note perils avoided. Turn from God back into idol worship
S. Note Types if any.
T. What lessons can one learn from him?
Never to turn from God after victory, in time of peace even there to see the Lord as the one and true God, not to created an idol (how does someone know?)
To seek the face of God at all time. Not only in bad times but also in the good times.
What exactly does the term ‘The first born’ mean in “Scripture as it is applied to the Lord Jesus Christ?
“For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be ‘the FIRST BORN’ among many brethren.” (Rom. 8:29) emphasis added.
“He (Jesus) is the image of the invisble God, the FIRSTBORN over ALL creation.” (Col. 1: 15).
And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the FIRSTBORN from the dead, that in all things He may have the PREEMINENCE.” (Col. 1: 18).
“And she (Mary) brought forth her FIRSTBORN Son, (Jesus)…” (Luke. 2: 7a).
The Greek word from which is translated ‘firstborn’ is “Prototokos” gen, ‘prototokou, masc. noun from ‘protos (4413), first, and ‘tikto (5088) to bear, bring forth. Firstborn, Preeminent.
(1) Particularly the firstborn of a mother (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7). It also includes the firstborn of animals (Sept.: Gen. 27: 19, 32; Ex. 12: 12, 29).
(11) Of the saints in heaven, those formally highly distinguished on earth by the favor and love of God, such as patriachs, prophets, apostles (Heb. 12:23; Sept.: of israel, Ex. 4:22).
(111) ‘Prototokos’ is applied to Christ in Luke 2:7, “And she brought forth her firstborn Son.” Here the word carries NONE of the theological load which it bears elsewhere when used of Christ. Jesus is simply identified a the first child born to Mary. To be sure, this was NO ordinary birth. As the Scripture records Mary’s conception was wrought by the Holy Spirit and God Himself was the Father of this child (Luke 1:26-35). So in this text the word is quite ordinary and means simply firstborn.
(IV) ‘Ptototokos’ however, is a theologically significant tutle used of Christ in five NT passages.
(A) Rom. 8:29, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be comformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the FIRSTBORN among many brethren.” The predetermined goal of salvation for those whom God foreknew is stated to be conformity (summorphos) [4832] to the image (eikon [1504] of God’s Son. The stated purpose of this task is that the Son might be (eis to einai [eis {1519], unto, for; ‘to’ {3588}, the; ‘einai’ {1511}, to be ], in order to be ) the firstborn among many brothers. ‘Prototokos’ presents Christ as the PREEMINENT or ranking member of the group. Therefore, the conformity of sinners, redeemed by Christ, into the glorious image of God’s Son, places Jesus christ in a position of PREEMINENCE and glory amomg them.
The ultimate goal of salvation, the gloty of God, is thus achieved. Yet, some find it difficult to understand how the conformity of God’s elect would serve to bring about Christ’s position as firstborn. How is it that the salvation of sinners makes Christ the firstborn? Is Jesus Christ not so upon His own merit and in consideration of His own sinless character? It can be replied that the effect in view is NOT one that has reference to Christ Himself or the Father’s estimination of Him. Rather, the effect has reference to Christ before man. God’s design in original Creation was to reflect His glory in man and the world. The FALL of Adam defaced the ‘imago Die’ and consequently God’s preeminence among humanity WAS LOST, when Adam, volitionally SINNED. Therefore, salvation through Christ, is the restoration of man to His original purpose, and it was Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us in Death and Resurrection, so that we, who repent and accept Him into our hearts and lives, can be ‘conformed’ to His image, through His Preeminence, as BEING the FIRSTBORN from the dead; through His Glorious Resurrection.
This reference to being FIRSTBORN, is that *HE* Jesus, as the Second Person of the Eternal Godhead, became man, DIED in our stead, on our behalf, and WAS, the *Prototokos* FIRSTBORN, from the DEAD, Resurrection, otherwise there would be NO promise of any resurrection for any of us, which is WHEN we receive the Gift of *Immortality* that is our ‘glorified’ bodies, reunited with our ‘souls/spirits’ which were given the ‘gift’ of Eternal Life, at the point of being, Saved, Justified, Born Again.
In Col. 1:18, we have the use of both ‘arche’ and ‘Prototokos’ together in regard to the Resurrection. “And He (Christ) is the head of the body, the Church: who is the beginning (arche) the FIRSTBORN [prototokos] from the DEAD; that in ALL things He might have the preeminence.” ‘Arche’ means the FIRST cause. Hence, ‘arche’ in the clause “who IS the beginning [i.e., cause or originator], is parallel to ‘prototokos’ in the clause “firstborn of all creation” in 1;!5. Both of these expressions assert Christ’s supremecy and preeminence OVER creation. Why then does Paul add that Christ is the “firstborn from among the dead? Is this not redundant? Not at all. While it should suffice to say that Christ is the firstborn of the entire universe without qualification (heaven/earth, visible/invisible), a question may arise regarding the order of things in the new creation, that IS, those things cleansed of Sin and renewed by Redemption. Recall, that the Colossian church was being threatened by incipient gnosticism. The gnostics taught that Christ was only one of these aeons, that the universe was was created by a kind of lessor god and not the highest essence of deity. God it was believed by gnostics, was a ‘pleroma’ (4138), a fulness, from whom a succession of lessor beings, called aeons, emanated. The gnostics taught that Christ was only one of these aeons. Paul had to sternly and soundly refute this false, erroneous gnostic nonsense. Therefore, Paul emphatically sets the record straight.
That, Christ IS supreme in redemption, as well as in creation. All this IS so that Jesus Christ, might have “preemenence,” the pres. part, ‘proteuon’ from ‘proteuo’ (4409), to be FIRST, to have preeminence. ‘Proteuon’ is used only in Col. 1:18 and indicates NOT an acquired right to be ruler, preeminent, BUT, an inherent RIGHT by virtue of His very nature, God of very God. He being the Creator, deserves to have the preeminence. “All things were made by Him; and WITHOUT Him was NOT any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). The present tense indicates permanence and perpetuity. Therefore, He, the Lord Jesus Christ, IS always preeminent.
In Hen. 1:16 we have another reference to Christ as ‘prototokos’, And again, when He bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith,’And let all the angels of God worship Him.” In this verse and Rev. 1:5 (kjv) ‘prototokos’ is translated “first begotten.” Heb. 1:6 refers to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus into the inhabited world (oikoumene) [3563]. as angels were present at His ascension, so will they be at His return, and must worship Him then. Christ’s preemince IS cosmic. He is exalted OVER even the higest order of celestial creatures.
The last verse where ‘prototokos’ is used of Christ is Rev. 1:5 and it follows the idea of Colossians 1:18.
(The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament, Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D, pp. 1249-1251) emphasis added.
Now, we don’t expect the *SSS* on BU to understand nor appreciate the above, as they obviously do NOT know or have Christ as Saviour and Lord, hence they likewise, will NOT have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, who alone can confirm the Word of God, that He inspired, when ‘rightly divided’ from the original language Greek!
Biblical Hermeneutics.
The Context Principle:
1. Definition
The principle by which the interpretation of any verse is determined upon consideration of its context.
11. Amplification.
The word “context” is composed of two Latin words: “con,” meaning “together”, “textus,’ meaning “woven”, and denotes something that is woven together. In literature it refers to the connection of thought runnung through a portion or the whole of a writing. In relation to Scripture, it signifies the connection of thought running through either the whole of Scripture, a Testament, a book of the Bible, or a particular passage.
In being used of God to weave the Biblical context, the writers of Scripture utilized two methods; writing fresh revelation, and weaving together previous revelation.
Fresh Revelation Context – The writers of Scripture were inspired by the Holy spirit to write thoughts previously unknown to them. Some examples of this are: Jeremiah’s revelation concerning the New Covenant (Jer. 31: 31-34), and Paul’s revelation of the mystery of the body of Christ (Eph. 2: 11-3:21). This method of writing context substantiates the need for ILLUMINATION of the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture. That which the Spirit inspires, the Spirit MUST also interpret.
Woven Revelation Context – Under inspiration, the writers of Scripture at times wove together thoughts already known to them. For example, to establish the universality of guilt Romans 3: 9-19 Paul weaves together five quotations from the Old Testament, and to prove the Son to be greater than the angels, the writer to the Hebrews (Heb. 1: 4-14) weaves together seven quotations from Psalms. This method of writing context substantiates the NEED for a CONTEXT principle of interpreting Scripture. If the Holy Spirit used Scripture to write Scripture, then HE will also use Scripture to interpret Scripture.
The evaluations of the two methods above, lead us to the conclusion that the ‘method’ by which the CONTEXT was WRITTEN gives rise to the PRINCIPLE by which the CONTEXT may be interpreted. The involvement of *Inspiration* in the writing of Scripture, necessitates the interpreter receiving *Illumination*. The weaving together of CONTEXT necessitates the interpreter using the context principle.
These two principles are somewhat implied in I Corinthians 2:13, where Paul states that “we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, BUT which The Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spirirual.” the phrase “the Holy spirit teacheth” implies the inspiration and illumination of the Holy Spirit. The phrase “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” implies the use of scripture in interpreting Scripture, as other translations indicate (“interpreting spiritual truths with spiritual language” – Amplified Bible).
One of the oldest and most highly regarded adages of hermeneutics is: “Scripture interprets Scripture.” This communicates to us that the Bible, to a large extent, is self-explanatory and that the Holy Spirit will use Scripture to illumine Scripture. This underscores the value of the CONTEXT principle as the “First Principle of Hermeneutics.”
A further amplification of the context principle would be to say that a PART can never be understood without the WHOLE. This balances the burden of Exegesis which contends that the WHOLE cannot be understood without knowing the meaning of the PARTS. This paradox has been referred to by interpreters as the “hermeneutical circle” which rotates from part to whole, and from whole to part.
Therefore, the interpreter must interprert the WHOLE with a knowledge of its PARTS and interpret each part in the light of the whole.
The context of Scripture falls into four categories:
A. The Whole of Scripture Context: The context of any specific verse is the whole of Scripture. No one verse should be used on its own apart from its relationship to the whole body of Scripture. The phrase “Scripture interprets Scripture” means that the best interpreter of a Scripture is the Scripture.
B. The Testament Context: Within the whole of Scripture the context of any verse is the Testament in which it is found. Each of the two Testaments has its own distinctive character and emphasis. The general emphasis of the Old Testament is law; the emphasis on the New is grace. That which is the dividing point between the Testaments, IS the Cross. As a general rule, the New is the interpreter of the Old.
“The New is in the Old contained, the Old is in the New explained.”
C. The Book Context: Within the Scripture and the Testaments, the context of any verse is the specific book in which it is contained. Each of the sixty-six books of the Bible has its own particular purpose, message, and style. (e.g., The general theme of Romans is ‘justification’ by faith, while the general theme of James is justification by works. Any verse in either book must be interpreted within the context of its respective message).
D. The Passage Context: Within the whole of Scripture, the Testaments, and the books of the Bible, the context of any verse is the passage in which it occurs. Each book of the Bible is divided subject-wise into passages, each consisting of a group pf consecutive verses pertaining to a particular subject. Any single sentence or verse within a passage MUST be interpreted in the light of the subject-context of that passage. (e.g., Romans 11:26 must be interpreted in the light of the subjeccontext of Romans 9-11, which constitutes the passage.)
The four categories can be illustrated by four concentric rings showing context within conyext:
The context of a verse is the passage.
The context of the passage is the book.
The context of the book is the Testament.
The context of the Testament is the whole Bible.
Therefore the old adage “a text out of context is a pretext” must be rephrased to say, “a text out of the context of the whole Bible, is a pretext.” the context of any verse is not only the passage, but also the book, the Testament, and the whole Bible.
In conclusion, the literary method of ‘weaving together context’ used in writing Scripture, gives rise to the ‘context principle’ of interpreting Scripture.
(Interpreting The Scriptures, A Textbook on How to Interpret The Bible, pp. 51-53) emphasis added.
What is blatantly evident throughout the ‘rise’ of false doctrine, over the centuries, and especially the emerging of the various Cults, within the last 200 hundred years, is this. When anyone examines the twisted, convoluted, perverted false ‘doctrine’ of these ‘Cults’ masquerading as Christians, and seriously compare these heresies, point by point, with the obviously sound, context principle, with IS common sense, and Logical, as one examines any literature, as Almighty God, who created language, used the very principles in the language He gave us, to Communicate His Word to mankind, which IS based on the valid, logical principles of communication.
What then, is glaringly obvious, with these Cults, Is, that they are NOT lead by the Holy Spirit, the very One who inspired the writing of Scripture, and is the Only One, who can ‘illuminate’ His Scripture to the heart and mind of anyone.
If one rejects the Word of God, the Bible, as the final authority of God’s revelation to man; THEN, that person HAS started out on the wrong footing, and is BAIT for the arch-deceiver, Satan, to come in with all kinds of extra-Biblical so-called, new revelation, and, the Devil’s sole intent and purpose IS to DECEIVE, twist, and pervert the TRUTH of God’s Word, the Bible.
And, he Satan, has a vast following, in a variety of false religions, and modern day Cults.
As I have said before, ‘The Structure of justification, in defending any propositional TRUTH claim, IS *coherence* which is our sole criterior for TRUTH.
The Bible, when properly read and studied, using the fudamental “First Principle of Hermeneutics” the CONTEXT principle, reveals that, God’s Word, contained therein, IS very *COHERENT* which is absent from the maze of false doctrine we finds in Cults, and other religions.
WARNING
Not everyone that saith unto me Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven.
I read some where that the devil also believes and trembles. Is this a correct quote fellas. And does that mean that devils quote scriptures too? Is this true?
One thing that I have learned for sure in life is that those who know little, usually talk most.
It is completely beyond comprehension why an individual post needs to go on and on and on…
…..saying almost nothing.
Why can’t such alleged learned linguists just get to the point and then click SUBMIT? Quantity does not substitute for quality.
It really is little wonder that ‘church’ is a place where a few people – mostly female, go to be bored to death, while some hopeless preacher (who likely just could not land a better job) roll off a bunch of twaddle that neither he nor them really understands…and performs social rituals like funerals and weddings…..
Now a ‘seed-picking, idiotic, bush maniac’ ask Zoe a few simple questions;
Wanna really feel dat God is just THREE individuals?
Why is Jesus called a firstborn of many….?
Hear the great learned answer from the mighty GP; “Dum is only three – cause the bible say so” HUH???
WHERE DOES IT SAY SO? – what happened to your references?
If that is indeed the case, how many individuals comprised God when Jesus was on earth as a man?
Did Jesus not become God again after his resurrection?
If he then became the FIRSTBORN of many when he was resurrected – does that not suggest that MORE ARE TO FOLLOW? (and if GP plans to answer, I would suggest that you have a look through Romans before you make a fool of yourself as you did with Isaiah 28)
All in all, it seems to me so far, that Mr. Hood’s “criminal beliefs” are more in line with what the bible ACTUALLY says than is your misinformed (but lengthy) speculations….
‘Ignorance when voluntary, is criminal’
If this mental ‘criminal’ disorder and deficiency were on our statute books, a certain commenter, on BU, among other candidates, would be confined to a life sentence…without doubt…!!!
‘There is no more terrible sight than ignorance in action.”
And the arrogance, to qualify this ignorance on a public forum!
….I take it that you trinity boys are busy looking for some reference in your various texts that says that God is comprised of three individuals….LOL
…..none exists.
I would really have thought that Mr Zoe could have explained to us the fact that the word translated as ‘God’ is really a collective word (much like family, crowd etc) and that whereas there are references in the bible to specific individuals within that collective, NOWHERE is there any reference to a set numerical size of the ‘family’ called God.
Indeed, the VERY BASIS of the gospel of Christ means that God CANNOT be a trinity.
@ Zoe
‘There is no more terrible sight than ignorance in action.”
And the arrogance, to qualify this ignorance on a public forum!
***********************************************************************
Confession is indeed good for the soul Mr Zoe, however we would much prefer you to deal with the specific points raised rather than bash yourself……
The main point is to honestly discuss the word is it not….?
…..found and bible support for your Godhead yet…..?
…and we do appreciate your concise post….
@Bush Tea
Don’t get too smug in believing that there is not
Bibilcal response to the God Head.
@ ac
It is not a matter of ‘smugness’, it is just that there is NO biblical or logical explanation for the belief. Besides, when one gets to understand the whole picture it becomes very clear that these ‘doctrines’ are completely off base.
This nonsense was contrived by the Nicene council back in the middle ages in order to try to come up with a common ‘understanding’ of doctrine of Christianity.
@Bush Tea
I think the BU trinity might use references in which Jesus said “If you have seen me you have seen the Father and in another text he is saying “In my Father’s
House their are many mansion. Then he told his disciples He would send them the comforter which is refered to as the Holy Spirit,/Ghost
So to summariize Jesus>FATHER
Jesus>SON
Jesus>Holy Ghost.
GP, Zoe, Onlookers (and other participants):
I think you are starting at too high a level . . .
The first point of relevant ignorance is basic grammar and the systematic parsing of sentences so that we can read with instructed understanding of words — what types there are, and how they work together to form a sentence that makes structural sense. (Making meaningful sense builds on that, and beyond lies the issue as to whether what is asserted, assumed or implied — each of these is different — “says of what is, that ti is, and of what is not, that it is not.”)
And, I am not talking of doing so in Greek or Hebrew. I am talking of doing that in good, plain standard English.
I therefore now point us to the classic 1877+ Reed-Kellogg sentence diagramming technique, which is very helpful indeed (though of course the technical linguists have a few fine point issues with it).
You will find that this graphical tool, which long ago used to be taught down in grade school, and in my day I learned in High School (in a variant form, thank you Fr Francis Ryan; you were right that we would appreciate it later on . . . ), but now is being introduced in College.
That alone tells us something about the real nature of the “progress” that is happening with our education system in our civilisation. DUMBING DOWN AND NUMBING DOWN. (Cf Eph 4:17 – 24.)
(Nor is it just on the W side of the Atlantic; some years ago in the UK, there was a scandal when it was discovered that in an A Level Math exam, all but verbatim, one could find a question that had some years before been set for O Level maths! Nigh on 100 years ago, then cadet Rommel memorised log tables and basic manipulations so that he could do several powerful transformations in his head. In my day, we learned only how to do the tables in a book [and in A levels learned a bit more on the significance of exponents and logs, the truly awesome power being reserved for degree level, don’t even bother about Fourier and Laplace analyses in the frequency and complex frequency domains . . . ]. When I first taught A level physics, in introducing log-linear and log-log transformations as an experimental graphical analysis technique [for y = k* x^n, and for y = k* e^x]; I remember the coughs behind me, when I simply said, now let us take logs. The kids did not know what “log” meant!]
BTW, I understand that Logos Bible Software has a Kellogg module for analysing the original language. Part of what you pay for I suppose. (Value added over and above what you will find in eSWORD and The Word. THAT is where the economy is moving folks — basics are free or near free, you pay for real value added.)
The basic idea is that a statement addresses a subject and an action that usually has a target, the object:
Once we have English straight, we can then think about Greek and Hebrew.
But, my rule of thumb for those who wish to hold forth in public on bible related matters is this: if, when you hear a significant scripture read, you do not automatically also internally hear the parallels, and do not automatically recognise the key concepts, ideas, issues and onward connexions to other themes and applications, you do not know enough to stand up to teach. (This is where software like eSWORD etc are ever so helpful, as aids to that inner active search engine and knowledge base. But I figure on personal experience and observation that it is about the third time reading the Bible through that you begin to get to that level, once you are also doing serious book, topical and character studies and background readings etc) And commenting more or less “definitively” — as opposed to asking and suggesting while being open to clarification and correction — in public in a blog on these matters is at least attempted teaching. James 3 warns us that [would-be] teachers are subject to a stricter judgement.
Fair warning.
This is serious, eternally weighty business we are about here, and the Dominical warning is that those who mislead the naifs would be better off if they had put a millstone around their necks and had fallen into the deepest sea instead.
So, let us have done with over-confident and too often dismissive or distorting, ill-instructed assertions on that which is deep and deeply serious, with profound individual and community level consequences. So, let us heed instead the Apostles Peter and Paul:
Words to the wise, and to the wise in training.
Grace
D
PS: Bush Tea et al, you might consider first trying to understand clearly without deriding strawman caricatures. I suggest you take a look here, as a 101 level intro on the Scripturally based, philosophically profound and satisfying doctrine that the heart and ground of reality is Complex Unity, whom we meet in the Faces (remember how I used that word before? I did so on knowing what “persona” means in the Latin formulation of the concept of Triune MONO-theism, which is not tri-theistic polytheism) — personae — Eternal Father, Eternal Son, Eternal Spirit. In fact, it is credibly arguable that the ONLY major worldview option we have that answers cogently to the challenge of the one and the many in a cosmos in which our hearts tell us we have significance, is Redemptive Trinitarian Monotheism, first implicit in Judaism and the OT scriptures — right from the opening verses of Genesis and rising to a crescendo in Isa 43 – 45, then explicit in the NT, and finally formulated in scripturally rich creedal summaries — I especially love to compare “light of light” with Heb 1:1 – 4 and Jn 1:1 – 14 — by deeply knowledgeable students of the scriptures (who also lived and breathed in a world where every educated person understood and had grappled with deep philosophical nuances and issues that today’s so-called educated are all but totally ignorant of . . . just think of how Paul used a subtle opening salvo to blow away the pretensions of pagan polytheism and associated speculative philosophy in his opening words in Ac 17 and echoed in 1 Cor 1 – 2, Rom 1 etc etc: if your system of thought and knowledge base are unable to cogently address the ground of being and root of all true knowledge, then it is fatally cracked in its foundation; and — Bible Coll folks — he did so without a single explicit Bible reference, indeed his only cites in the speech were from pagan poets!).
@ Dictionary
There may be much merit in your statement “I think you are starting at too high a level” as it is quite apparent from the statements made that we are not only dealing with spiritual babes (brephos) and milk drinkers but as was pointed out already by those with spiritual lactose intolerance and galactosemia.
They speak much about the Holy Spirit, but do not evince that they have the spiritual lactase that he gives to digest the sincere milk of the Word. They speak much of the Holy Spirit, but yet they demonstrate that they have not inherited the enzymes to metabolize the spiritual galactose. Consequently therespiritual mental retardation is clearly seen.
This being the case they must revert to ad hominems while at the same time indicating that they have not clearly imbibed the tenets of John 7:24 which clearly teaches that one can not properly adjudicate without all of the facts.
Dictionary
Again, you are again correct when you opine that “The first point of relevant ignorance is basic grammar and the systematic parsing of sentences so that we can read with instructed understanding of words — what types there are, and how they work together to form a sentence that makes structural sense. (Making meaningful sense builds on that, and beyond lies the issue as to whether what is asserted, assumed or implied — each of these is different — “says of what is, that ti is, and of what is not, that it is not.”)
And, I am not talking of doing so in Greek or Hebrew. I am talking of doing that in good, plain standard English. Once we have English straight, we can then think about Greek and Hebrew.
All this is very true. But don’t you think that in the Barbados of 2010, where “free education” has been available since 1962, that all my so called literate Bajans should be able to think straight in English, and do with out nasty ad hominems?
Don’t you think that sane sensible seedpickers ought to know that thy DON’T KNOW and that they ought to heed the advice of James or of Paul in 1 Timothy 1:7.
Have you been anywhere and met any one scoff at persons who have studied any subject that they expound or enjoy. Don’t doctors study? Don’t every one else study? I have not anytime in the last 42 years heard any one anywhere except on BU scoff at the tenets of 2 Timothy 2:15.
To quote your translation…… Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately.
When we started to study the Bible in Sunday School in 1969 in the Baptist church where I was discipled, we all understood the English language and could do the things of which you speak. So even at that age we could understand the principle that the Bible was a translated book and that as such the sense might be lost in translation. We were able like true babes to understand that when we have misunderstandings that we might get help by reading a commentary, a word study or some relevant aid.
Never in 42 years have I met in the church environments in which I have moved (including some backward blacks in Virginia) the nonsense that I have heard spewed out on BU.
And Church history has bee revised by these BU would be teachers. It seems that EVERY DECISION IN THE CHURCH WAS MADE AT NICEA AND THAT THERE SEEMED NOT EVEN TO BE A CHURCH PRIOR TO NICEA.
Hilarious! I can clearly see who is really doing all this strange teaching on BU.