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”
@ Pat
That is so kind of you….. Thank you.
You have to understand the BUT. In religious circles it is unheard of for other views to be presented -especially in such a robust manner. It is usually the church’s way or the highway…..
They certainly have no experience in discussing such issues with persons who understand the issues, the challenges. and the overall picture…… I was hoping that BUT would be game for another, more challenging topic – but alas…….
You never know though, it is quite possible that at least part of the BUT may benefit from the exercise…..
On another topic Pat…..any interest in bush baths? it should be a rejuvenating, uplifting experience……. LOL Zoe like he frighten ac…..and after reading ‘True Bajan’ talking about his ‘exploits’ Bush Tea could as well try for at least one chick….especially one that could cook like you..
@ Zoe..
How is BT deceiving anyone?
Has he asked anyone to follow him blindly?
He has asked the hard questions that you and others of your ilk refuse to answer or just determine them to be not important.
Funny, that instead of refuting what BT said, all you do is rant and rave and condemn him to hell.
As David said, we now have the different views and can make up our minds.
@ MME
man cuhdear!! how was I to know that you would read that post? I thought that you were still off somewhere seeking a rational explanation for why chickens decided to convert to reproduction by egg……
MME i was making another point and just tossed that item in as an aside to support my main point. I did it from distant memory….. True the change was made subsequent to the Nicene council, as GP said, where some zealot attempted to ‘assist’ the bible in reporting the truth…. LOL
If I knew you were around I would have crossed my T’s and dotted my I’s …. cause you ain’t easy.
Anyway, since you here -and obviously have been invited as attorney for the BUT, can you assist with some answers that seems to elude Zoe?
like…
– What happened to the Trinity when Jesus was a man?
-Since we are made in God’s image – where is the trinity reflected in man?
@Bushtea
You need to defend yourself man from the slander made about you concerning the bath? Scarey !
@ Bush Tea
“…….he means except for the numerous errors.”
*****************************************************************
Exactly !! What the BUT et al do not realise is that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is CORRECTLY translated. How can anyone really think that after so many different translations -Aramaic?-> Hebrew?-> Greek?-> Latin?-> English? – that mistakes will not have been incorporated with the different translations?
@Zoe
“At the onset, let it be known, that those ‘imposters’ here on BU and elsewhere, who are ‘pettigogger’s’ ‘tricker’s’ in short, ‘foxes’ seeking to deceive innocent observers, by using such terms, as ‘the Holy Spirit’ when in fact, they vehemently DENY and decry *His* very Deity, as the Third Person of the Eternal Godhead, from such Scoffering scammers, be WARNED, stay clear!”
Empty words. To scare who? The only imposters, foxes and deceivers I know on here are you and your ilk.
Mr Zoe,
One point in your favour is your consistency.
in your preemptive strike above about the Holy Spirit, you again go to great lengths to outline what your church tell you to believe – then you list a number of scripture references and apologize for each one as you explain that it does not say what you want it to say – but….
Where to start….?
You say that the holy spirit carries the pronoun ‘HE’ and ‘HIMSELF’ ….. be HONEST Mr Zoe and tell bloggers that in the original language NO PRONOUNS ARE USED. The translators therefore used their JUDGMENT and BIAS to decide whether to use HE or IT. ….. or if you did not know that, ask GP to explain
The bible says that in order to understand the things of man one needs to have the spirit of man. And in order to understand the things of God, one needs to have the spirit of God.
Is the spirit of man a ‘HE?’ … or is it an ‘IT’?
Well Mr Zoe, when God made man ‘in his own image’ he gave man a spirit that is made in the image of God’s OWN SPIRIT.
The ONLY reason that the Holy Spirit is personalized was to allow your Catholic friends to complete the so called ‘Trinity’
The Holy Spirit is the power of the very mind and ways of God. It is that spirit that defines what God is…… just as on the human level, the human spirit defines man and represent the very mind of man.
What He what??!!
Sorry to burst your mystical bubble Mr Zoe…… I really am.
Anonymous asserts “So 1 John 5-7 was added to the Bible by KJV translators !!!! What next…? This house of cards like it’s going to fall!”
Yes Anonymous, you are indeed correct! But it wont be like you think. I John 2:17, 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 17 & 18 predicts and describes that all like now
the house of cards, called the cosmos diabolicus has started to fall.
But with respect to thw Word of God falling or failing, note the teaching of 1 Peter 1:23 25.
THE WORD OF GOD LIVETH & ABIDETH FOR EVER………….
THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURETH FOR EVER. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Mark my word. And when it happens remember that I told you so.
Here are a few thoughts concerning your original post last week end.
If folk in the majority of Christian denominations did not oppose slavery what does that mean, except that it is true that men (including black men) are evil , greedy and like to walk over other people?
Is it not true that even in Barbados PRIOR to 1710 that Anglicans, Methodissts Moravians promoted the teaching of the Gospel to non-European people?
Is it not true that even today that supporting the concept of equal opportunity for women is seen only in countries where the Bible is believed?
Is it not true that long before Christianity that slavery abounded? (Check your history please! Did not the Egyptians enslave the people of Israel for over 400 years according to the Exodus account?)
Is it not true that long before Christianity that the concept of equal opportunity for women was not seen as important, because of the role that societies generally thought that women should play?
Does not the Bible teach the concept of the support of democratic rule? Is this not the reason that one should search the Scriptures so that they can find these answers?
If you read your Church History well you will find that the denomination, now called Baptists when know as the Waldenses, Lollards, Petrobrusians etc encouraged most ordinary people to read the Bible- including women and children?
Is it not true that Tyndale and others of that ilk translated the Bible from the original languages, and that Tyndale’s death wish prayer resulted in the authorization of what generally is called the KJV which translation was made such that folk in England could read the Bible for themselves.
Is it not true that despite this fact that even today many people who speak English, including folk on BU . don’t read the Bible? And the few that do don’t understand what they read though they claim to use the Holy Spirit to help them.
@ The “BU trilogy”
Listen to the words of God”s servants, His Prophets:-
“Every time they persecute and try to overcome this people, they elevate us, weaken their own hands, and strengthen the hands and arms of this people. And every time they undertake to lessen our number, they increase it. And when they try to destroy the faith and virtue of this people, the Lord strengthens the feeble knees, and confirms the wavering in faith and power in God, in light, and intelligence. Righteousness and power with God increase in this people in proportion as the Devil struggles to destroy it.”
President Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe (1954), 351.
And Again…………….“You do not need to worry in the least, the Lord will take care of you and bless you. … He has stretched forth His hand to accomplish his purposes, and the arm of flesh cannot stay it. … It is only necessary for us to try with our might to keep pace with the onward progress of the work of the Lord, then God will preserve and protect us, and will prepare the way before us.”
President Joseph F. Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1905, 5–6.
*****************************************************************
Go right ahead, BUT. The more you try to knock them down the more you help to build them up!!
@BT,
“What happened to the Trinity when Jesus was a man?”
Nothing happened to the Trinity when Jesus was a man… first there is John’s introduction of Jesus as the Word “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” John 1:1… then in Jesus’ words “I and the Father are one” John 10:30… and later when Thomas remarked “My Lord and my God!” to which Jesus replied “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:28-29.
…………………….
“Since we are made in God’s image – where is the trinity reflected in man?”
That’s an easy one… it is reflected in the wonders of Life, Mind and Spirit.
…. and BT, I am still interested in your opinion on “baptizing them into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 28:19. Who are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to which Jesus refers?
Wait… I know I joining this discussion late, but Hood… did you just refer to Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith as prophets? ROTFL
Can anyone please explain to me how could God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost be one entity?
Did I not read in the Bible, Matt. 3:16-17 :-
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
******************************************************************
Am I wrong in understanding from this scripture that:-
1) Jesus is actually in the water after being baptised.
2)The Holy Spirit is fluttering over His head in the form of a dove.
3) The voice of Heavenly Father is emanating from the heavens testifying that this is His Son in the water.
Now are we not dealing with three separate entities in three separate places at the time?
Ok BUT put your “hermeneutics/exegeses” magic to work now and get this to mean whatsoever you guys would like it to mean!!
@MME
Just remember that famous saying………..”he who laughs last, laughs the best!
Were these these prophets FORETELLERS or FORTHTELLERS?
Did they accord to the test of the prophet as taught in Deut 18:18?
The true prophet predicted by the prophet Moses in this passage gave hs predictions about the end times in the Olivett- discourse in Matt 24.
Among his predictions was that as the eshaton approaches there will be an increase in number and intensity of earthquakes.
In 2010 in less than the first 90 days we have had
earthquakes in HAITI CHILE JAPAN TURKEY.
Dont rant! I am just trying to relate the contemporary news to the predictions of THE prophet!
GP
I am somewhat skeptical about this “hermeneutics and exegesis” as a fundamental component of growth in one’s religious experience. It was not until the invention of the printing press in 1440 that books and specifically the Bible could become “.widespread”. Even then paper and books were prohibitively expensive for most people up right until the mid 19th century. So access to the Bible would be difficult for most people. Further even if they could get a Bible, most people were illiterate. Again it was not until the Industrial Revolution (18 – 19 th century) that mass schooling coupled with greater accessibility to books led to greater levels of literacy in societies. Thus it could only have been in the last 200 years that the process of Bible study as you describe could have occurred. Thus for most of the history of the church, it would appear that spreading of the Gospel was mainly done by word of mouth, preaching and by edict of the state.
“Just remember that famous saying………..”he who laughs last, laughs the best!”
LOL Hood… I love a cheesy pun… here’s another nice one “he who laughs last thinks slowest” ROTFL
Afromentals:
Do You think music has a meaning?
Jimi :
Yes definitely it’s good to be a more spiritual soul than anything now.
Pretty soon I believe we are going to have to rely on music to have like some kind of peace of mind, satisfaction – direction actually
More so than politics because politics is a big ego scene. That’s the way I look at it anyway, it’s all a big fat ego scene.
The art of words that mean nothing.. and the Wind cries mary
Onlookers:
Observe that in the onward exchanges above, objectors to the historic triune understanding of God as revealed in the Bible and as stated, taught and defended based on centuries of serious study by world class scholars have got on at length on further dismissals and personalities [note how BT repeats that I am an idiot (Am HD: “A foolish or stupid person”.), as though that is not a plain term of contemptuous and blatantly ill-founded dismissal] , but they have not done the one thing that they need to to warrant their claims.
Namely, to date, after some days now, they have yet again failed to cogently address:
++++++++++++
1 –> The historical, factual warrant on Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection as attested by 500+ witnesses and recorded in the AD 55 1 Cor 15:1 – 11. (This is the core point that shows the Christian faith to be founded on facts, not fancies, decisions imposed by committees, kings or councils, and empty speculations.)
2 –> The context in which this is held to be “according to the scriptures,” e.g. the fulfillment of the specific, point by point 700+ BC prophecy of Is 53. (So direct is this fulfillment that the prophetic passage is a commonly used gospel text, e.g. read the discussion of Philip the evangelist with the Ethiopian Treasurer under Candace in Ac 8:26 ff. In short, this prophetic passage is the foundation of the first national church, and that in Africa!)
3 –> The implications of 1 and 2, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Saviour and Risen Lord of Life, thus also Creator. BTW, in Isa 43 we may read:
4 –> The further implications that the OT prophetic scriptures and the underlying Pentateuch are the proven Word of the God who so controls the course of events that he can prophesy accurately hundreds of years in advance. In the same Isaiah, a taunt and test for would-be gods out there is this:
5 –> The resulting power in Jesus as Ever-Living Lord and Saviour to pour our His Spirit on his chosen apostles, who then carried them along forcefully as the wind at sea carries along a ship, empowering and guiding them to teach and write what we now have as our New Testament, which is equally the Word of God. (Knowledge check: what texts am I alluding to here?)
6 –> The result that we need to study to show ourselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, i.e. that we need to have a sound basis of knowledge and principles of correct reading and interpreting to draw out from the said scriptures accurately.
7 –> The warning by the apostles themselves, and by Jesus, that there will always be those who will wrench and distort the scriptures, partly by ignorance, partly by the spiritual blindness and numbness imposed by life dominating sins, partly willfully in defiance of corrections. (Test: where are some of those warnings, say 5 of the main ones?)
8 –> That those who heed and sit under sound teaching, repenting and putting heir trust in the risen Lord of life and so are indwelt, empowered and led by the Spirit of God will be able to discern the true from the false; the latter being demonstrably — i.e. objectively — inaccurate and twisted. (BTW, can you tell the specific scriptures that are being alluded to in this point, without being told? If you cannot, that is a strong sign that you do not sufficiently know the scriptures to stand up in public to claim to expound their meaning and application to this life with implications for eternity, i.e to teach. And, that includes making many of the sort of ill-informed comments we see above in this blog thread. What does the scripture warn, where, on those who eagerly set themselves up to teach without a clear Divine calling, knowledge base, anointing and empowering to understand, know and explain in depth?)
9 –> The onward consensus view that the historic Biblical understanding of the Godhead is in fact triune, as can for instance be traced at 101 outline level here, in the context of the chain of warrant presented in this online note.
+++++++++++++++++++
That consistent failure is telling on the true balance of the case on teh merits.
That said, I need to speak to the rhetorical games being played surrounding a verse that appears in the KJV which seems to be originally an accidentally copied in marginal comment.
First, GP is in fact wrong — and see, those who would affix on us a blasphemous namecalling derision are hereby shown wrong as we are distinctly different persons and beings: it was not included by a specific decision of the KJV committee, acting on its own volition or instructions of that notorious King.
It had been incorporated in the Erasmus Gk Textus Receptus they used, which had been compiled from then available MSS and which had been dominant in the field for nearly 100 years when the KJV was translated.
As I recall, Erasmus did so reluctantly because he was informed of a Gk text that had it in it, probably because a scribe had translated and back-copied it in from the Vulgate family of Latin Translations. This in turn, is most likely because the scribe thought that the Vulgate was correct and there was an error in the relevant Gk manuscript. Bible.org gives the story (link to follow in a PS):
So, we can see the forces and factors that led to this significant and freely acknowledged and corrected instance of an error of authenticity [not of substance, the teaching is easily supported form scriptures that are in no wise in doubt!] in a particular text family and major translation.
Of course, not acknowledged by those who would capitalise on it rhetorically, are:
a –> There is a whole science of studying the text of the Bible as transmitted in copies, textual criticism, which has produced a pretty fair consensus on the 24,000+ MSS we have in hand.
b –> Such a base gives us MORE confidence in the authenticity of the critically assessed text, as it immediately proves there was no collusion or centrally imposed control in the transmission of the text of the Bible. (By contrast, under Uthman, the early copies of the Quran [which varied considerably] were recalled, a standardised version on Hafsa’s copy was issued to replace them, the other copies being destroyed by order. A leading scholar who protested was actually beaten to death, and the original kept by Hafsa, widow of Mohammed, was destroyed by order, after her funeral. Even so, copies of significant variants have survived, but usually non-Muslims are not permitted access. In other words, the Dan Brownesque notion of Constantine making up new scriptures and imposing them by Council is simply not historically credible. At least to those who understand what would happen as a result; as can be seen even in the case of the enfolded marginal note of 1 Jn 5:7 – 8.)
c –> But, if we want specifically trinitarian texts, we are hardly locked up to this particular text. For isntance, teh Great Commission of Matt 28:18 – 20 — not acredible candidate for interpolation or change,a s this will be in common everyday use in a cetnral ritual — tells us that disciples are to be baptised “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (NB, fr Ac we can see from several baptismal accounts — where, who, would-be teachers? Why am I using the 2-letter abbreviation above, which famous Study Bible does it come from, and what is its key feature, how is it used? — that this was held to be synonymous with being baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, a telling view indeed!
d –> In 1 Cor 12, we read — as a by the way, offhand remark on the way to making his main point (i.e. this was plainly not in dispute) — as Paul introduces the then and still now vexed issue of spiritual gifts:
e –> As Paul closes a second “strong” letter to the Corinthians, he gives a closing blessing, which again is a context that will be based on things that are not in controversy:
f –> So, it is quite plain that in the NT, it is understood plainly that God works among us as father, Son and Spirit. Indeed, her eis the incident of jesus’ baptism, agasin not likely to be a controversial matter:
g –> in that context, it is no surprise to see the astonishing statement in the openign of Heb:
______________
In short, the above shows us exactly what Peter warned about when he said: “His [Paul’s] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” [2 Pet 3:16, cf context.]
So, now onlookers, please look and study for yourselves. Don’t let somebody tell you what to believe, using distractors, distortions and demonisation to warp your judgement.
Look into the Scriptures for yourselves like the commended Bereans, to see if these things others and I have said are so. (And where am I alluding to?)
G’day
D
PS: As promised, and to get around the 2 link limit, here is the bible.org discussion on the textually inauthentic — as opposed to substantially inaccurate — verse in the KJV and Vulgate, 1 Jn 5:7 – 8.
PPS: Onlookers, could you kindly ask BT — he says he refuses to read what this “idiot” writes — to explain the evident gap between his “growing family” understanding of the Godhead and this text from Is 43:
PPPS: And those who may tend to overlook the significance of Jesus’ habitual self-reference as “Son of Man” should examine:
Compare that with Isa 52:13 – 53:12, and remember how it was on an allusion to this text that Jesus was condemned as a blasphemer in his trial before the Sanhedrin. His vindication was precisely the same resurrection from the dead with 500+ witnesses that the objectors above are so strangely silent on.
Only a few years later, as Saul stood by as a leadingg accuser of blasphemy, Stephen, stones flying fast and hitting hard exclaimed:
Then only a few years later, as the same Saul, now known as the Apostle Paul, testified before the Trial in Caesarea c. 59 AD:
And to that, this “idiot” can only say: Amen!
Anonymous
You may proceed to buse me as BT did, but I will say that your skepticism
about “hermeneutics and exegesis” as a fundamental component of growth in one’s religious experience is born in your ignorance of the subject.
In the interpretation of any thing whether Bible or interpreting your mommas sweet bread recipe there is eisogesis and there is exegesis. In the first you interpret the recipe by bringing your opinion to the recipe before hand. I the latter you extract what the recipe says.
Exegesis is nothing new. It is as old as the hills. You have been exegeting through out your school days. You are exegeting what you are reading now (although it is quite possible that you are reading in to what I am saying what you think I am saying, just as folk read the Bible and think that they can interpret it with their own intellect.
Exegesis of the scriptures is demonstrated by Ezra the priest and scribe as we read in Nehemiah 8:8 which I now quote.
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
Note that 1
they READ the word to determine what it said- not what they thought it said
then 2 they GAVE THE SENSE. i.e they determined what the text meant
then 3 they CAUSED THEM TO UNDERSTAND THE READING i.e they APPLIED THE TEXT.
That Sir is EXEGESIS. It is as old as the hills.
I discovered this truth for myself long before I ever heard the words exegesis or hermeneutics (methods of Bible Study)
Re Thus for most of the history of the church, it would appear that spreading of the Gospel was mainly done by word of mouth, preaching and by edict of the state.
Whereas this might have been true in the RC church, it is not true of the church that never became part of the established church. The Wadensians and Lollards etc were educating their women and children all through the centuries.
In the churches of whom you speak there were men like Calvin Zwingli Luther etc who could exegete and though teaching by word of mouth as you say, were teaching soundly, as can be determined by reading their works (commentaries and translations.) Men like Darby and the Wesleys were also teaching and producing commentaries and translations.
On England Bibles were chained to lecterns in churches for those who could read. And many of the Great Universities of the World were established before 1500 to teach students Hebrew and Greek and Latin so that they could read and teach from the Latin Vulgate and by their understanding of the original languages.
That the Bible was read and understood is clearly adduced (or exegeted) from reading the thousands of hymns written before the period you cite. Much of the lyrics of these hymns are often very good paraphrases of Scripture or present solid sound statements from the sacred scriptures. But you have to know the scritures and understand what is being said.
One of my favorites in this regard is ONCE, ONLY ONCE, and ONCE FOR ALL, HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD HE SHED! The first line indicases clearly to me that the author has grasped the nuances of the use of the word “once” I Hebrews 9 &10, where this doctrine is expounded!
You have your facts wrong and so your conclusion is therefore FALSE.
FYI It was Luther himself who said I study my Bible like how I pick apples. When I pick apples, I first shake the whole tree, then I shake each limb, then I shake each branch, then I look under every leaf.
This indicates that Luther practiced Hermeneutics! He had a method of Bible study!
1- He first shook the whole tree (THE METHOD OF SURVEY).
2- He shook each limb (BOOK BY BOOK STUDY to see how each of the 66 books relates to the whole Bible)
3- He shook each branch (CHAPTER BY CHAPTER STUDY to see how each of the chapters relates to the purpose of the book – see my introduction to Ruth above )
4- He looked under every leaf ( VERSE BY VERSE & WORD STUDIES or exegesis!)
Hermeneutics and exegesis is nothing new!
It may be new to you, and the folk on BU!
But it is not new!
You can perhaps do it too!
@Bush Man, I’m glad that ya good friend MME had to put you in ya lying place, re 1John 5:7, and the Council of Nicea, which came HUNDREDS of years after Nicea. If I had supplied the historic FACTS, it would have been denied by YOU, but, when a good friend, MME, stands on the side of historic honesty and facts, what happens? You are exposed for what you ARE!!
Now, regarding another example of your unlearned folly and ignorance, let us hear from the ‘Bush Bath’ Bush Man!
“You say that the Holy Spirit carries the pronoun “HE” and “HIMSELF”…be HONEST Mr. Zoe and tell the bloggers that in the original language NO PRONOUN ARE USED…”
Well, let’s see BUSH MAN, how informed you really are about the original Greek.
“Howbeit, when HE the Spirit of TRUTH is come, HE will guide you INTO all truth…HE shall glorify ME…
Greek text from which the above is translated:
“When HE the Spirit of truth, is come ( hotan elthei *EKEINOS*, to pneuma tes aletheias). Indefinite relative clause (hotan and the second aorist active subjunctive of erchoman, no futurum exactum), “whenever He comes,” NOTE, (Bush Man) *EKEINOS* (MASCULINE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN, *HE*).
v. 14, “HE shall glorify ME ( EKEINOS, masculine demonstrative PRONOUN, used AGAIN, eme doxasei)
Again in John 15:26.
“But when the Comforter (The Holy Spirit) is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of TRUTH, which proceedeth from the Father, *HE* shall testify of Me.”
Greek text:
“Proceedeth from the Father (para tou patros ekporeutai). “From the Father (para tou patros). “From beside the Father” as in the previous clause. *HE* (EKEINOS), EMPHATIC MASCULINE PRONOUN, not neuter (ekeino) “Shall bear witness of Me (martureses peri emou).
So much for your IGNORANCE, Bush Man!
The Holy Spirit IS spoken of under Personal Titles.
Personal titles are given to the Holy Spirit, which again show that *HE* is a divine Person. He is called “the Comforter” which also means “The Advocate” (John 14: 16, 26; 15: 26; 16: 7). This same title is used of Jesus as a Person, meaning “one who stands alongside” (John 14:26). In John 14: 16 Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as “another Comforter”. The Holy Spirit could not take the place of Jesus personally, if He was an impersonal influence. He came to be PERSONALLY related to the disciples that Jesus was PERSONALLY related to while on earth. The Holy Spirit came to be PERSONALLY in them what Jesus WAS PERSONALLY to them.
The Holy Spirit performs Personal Acts.
a. The Holy Spirit works (1 Cor. 12:110
b. The Holy Spirit searches (1 Cor. 2:10)
c. The Holy Spirit speaks ( Acts 13:2; Rev. 2:7; 11 Sam
23:2; Matt 10:20; 1 Tim 4:1)
d. The Holy Spirit testifies ( John 15:26; Neh 9:30)
e. The Holy Spirit bears witness ( 1 John 5:6)
f. The Holy spirit teaches ( John 14:26)
g. The Holy Spirit instructs ( Neh 16: 8-11)
h. The Holy Spirit reproves (John 16: 8-11)
i. The Holy Spirit prays and makes intercession ( Rom :
8:26)
j. The Holy Spirit leads ( Matt 4:1)
k. The Holy Spirit guides the believer into all truth
(John 16: 13)
l. The Holy Spirit glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ (John
16:140
m. The Holy strives with men (Genesis 6:3)
o. The Holy Spirit convicts men ( John 16: 8)
p. The Holy Spirit sends messengers from God (John16
8).
q. The Holy Spirit calls men into ministry (Acts 13:2; 20:
16)
r. The Spirit directs men in the service of Christ ( Acts 8:
29; 10:19; 16: 6,7)
s. The Holy Spirit also imparts spiritual gifts to the
members of the Body of Christ ( 1 Cor 12:7-11)
The Holy Spirit IS spoken of as having Personal feelings that could NOT be attrivuted to an impertsonal force.
a. He can be grieved ( Eph. 4:30)
b. He can be insulted ( Heb 10:29)
c. He can be lied to ( Acts 5:310
d. He can be blasphemed (Matt 12: 31-32)
e. He can be resisted (Acts 7:51)
f. He can be tempted (Acts 6:9)
g. He can be vexed (Isa. 63: 10)
h. He can be quenched ( 1 Thess 5:19)
The Holy Spirit IS a divine Person. He Is God indwelling the redeemed, justified believer, and working within them to fulfil the will of God. It is the blessed and glorious privilege of ALL Justified believers to HAVE the conscious joy and knowledge of the Holy Spirit within.
Singing Songs of Freedom : Thank You Lord , Stir It Up …
It’s been almost mesmerising to watch the truly dull on this thread, the crossword-puzzlers and word-game playing dullards with their overweening and ignorant arrogance, while they try to have an argument that is the equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (For those who don’t know, the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is precisely zero.)
It serves absolutely no purpose (except to nourish the explicit, preening vanity and conceit of the dunces) to take them seriously in any way.
Playing word games with bits of bits of ancient fiction that were mostly set down as text for the edification of illiterate bronze-age desert nomads who had precisely zero idea of how the world works is, on the face of it, unobjectionable.
Everybody should have a hobby. Some people collect stamps. Some people go scuba diving. Some people collect miniature porcelain figures of Scots terriers and put them on a shelf in their homes. And that’s fine. You do what you want to do, even if I think it’s deeply boring to collect miniature porcelain figures of Scots terriers and put them on a shelf in your home.
But hobbies are things that you should keep to yourself, or share only with your fellow-hobbyists. Doubtless billions of people would find it very boring (though I love it) to read the writings of the Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa. For that reason, I do not force Don Mario on people in a public forum. I do not, even metaphorically, grab people by the lapels and shout at them: “You’ve got to read this stuff! It’s amazing fiction!”
If your hobby consists of literary criticism (the hobby of the dull on this thread), please pay due respect and avoid inflicting the jaw-dropping tedium of your hobby on others.
And by the way: stay away from my kids. Do not even attempt to inflict your hobby on my kids, not in school, not in any avenue of public life. They need your hobby the way my dog needs a harmonica.
All best wishes, and may your gods go with you.
Onlookers:
We observe Mr Sherman’s attempted argument by personal denigration and declaration that credible historical works are fiction.
Fiction, evidently because they do not happen to fit in the evolutionary materialist worldview.
(So much the worse for that self-refuting worldview that cannot account for the credibility of Mr Sherman’s mind, much less the origin of complex specifically functional organisation and algorithmic, code bearing information in life forms in the distant past! of language before — and as a condition of — biological life!)
He needs to take time to examine and substantially address the repeatedly linked discussion on the historical foundation of the Christian faith and worldview, and while he is at it, he also needs to do some basic homework on — just for starters — the classic studies on the historicity of especially the Acts ever since Ramsay went to the actual regions and dug up the evidence that blew up the Tubingen school’s skeptical, dismissive theories a hundred and more years ago.
An excellent first task would be for him to give us a better explanation — on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power — for the 12 minimal facts accepted by the majority of current scholarship on the life of Jesus, not just conservatives but skeptical ones, that he can show is superior tot he one we may read in the 55 AD primary source document commonly available in translation as 1 Cor 15:1 – 11:
Other wise, we are simply seeing selective hyperskpeticism strutting about and trying its usual self-refuting turnabout rhetorical tricks.
G’day
D
Divine Attributes ascribed to the Holy Spirit.
1. Essential Attributes
a. The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5: 3,4; 1 cor 3:16;
12:4-6)
b. The Holy Spirit is Eternal (Heb. 9:14)
c. The Holy Spirit is Omnipotent ( all-powerful) Luke 1:
35)
d. The Holy Spirit is Omniscient (all-knowing) John 14:
26: 16:12,13: 1 Cor. 2:10; Rom 8:26,27).
e. The Holy Spirit is the life source ( Rom. 8:2)
Moral Attributes of the Holy Spirit.
a. The Holy Spirit IS the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13)
b. The Holy Spirit IS the Spirit of Love (Rom. 15:30).
c. The Holy Spirit IS the Spirit of Holliness (Rom 1:4;
Eph. 4:30).
The Holy Spirit in the Life of the Justified Believer.
1. The new birth is brought about by the Holy Spirit
(John 3: 5,6)
2. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer’s spirit ( Rom.
8:9; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:17; 1 John 2:27)
3. The Holy Spirit gives ASSURANCE of salvation
Rom 8:16)
4. The Holy Spirit fills the justified believer with Himself
(Acts 2:4; Eph 5:18)
5. The Holy Spirit, by baptism in the Spirit, enables the
believer to speak in unknown languages (Acts 2:4;
10:44-46; 19: 6; Mark 16:17; 1 Cor 14: 2,4,18). The
expression “baptism in or with the Spirit” is a
Scriptural expression and experience (Matt 3:11;
Acts 1:5; 1 Cor 12:13; John 1:33; Luke 3:16)
6. The Holy Spirit speaks to the believer (Acts 8:29; 1
Tim 4:1; Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29).
things of God ( 1 Cor 2:12)
7. The Holy Spirit opens the believer’s understanding
to the things of God (1 Cor 2:12)
8. The Holy Spirit teaches the believer and guides him
in all truth (John 16: 13; 1 John 2:27)
9. The Holy Spirit imparts life (John 6:63; 11 Cor 3:6)
10. The Holy Spirit bring about renewal (Titus 3:5)
11. The Holy Spirit strenghtens the believer’s inner
being
12. The Holy Spirit enables the believer to pray (Jude
20; Rom 8: 26-28)
13. The Holy Spirit enables the believer to worship in
spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24; Phil 3:3; 1 Cor 14:
15)
14. The Holy Spirit enables the believer to put fleshly
deeds to death ( Rom 8:13).
15. The Holy Spirit gives a calling to the believer for
special sevice (Acts 13: 2-4)
16. The Holy Spirit guides the believer into their
ministry (acts 8:29; 16: 6,7)
17. The Holy Spirit empowers the believer to witness
(Acts 1:8)
18. The Holy Spirit will bring about the Resurrection and
Immortality to the believer’s bodies in the last day
(Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15: 47-51; 1 Thess 4: 15-16).
The amazing, supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Eternal Godhead; without *HIM* all that the True Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, has achieved over the last 2000 years, all OVER the earth, in every nation, to every colour and class, would simply NOT have being possible; for *HE* alone, who empowers the Justified believer’s for the work and ministry that *HE* imparts to them, is the miraculous work of the TRIUNE Godhead, working out His plan and purpose, and NO unbelieving MAN, or demon from Hell, can STOP IT!
Adam Sherman
As I said before… “we know thee who thou art!” You are CH. And as usual, you have nothing of substance to add.
No one fusses about all the political blogs………or the other topics on this forum. And we have not seen you as a regular over there either “Mr Sheman”. So why do you want to cause strife here. Either read and learn or go jump into either side of either of the bridges in the nation’s capital!
This is) for the (music) leader.
(It is) for the *sons of Korah.
(It is) a psalm.
He is the one that makes *wars finish all over the world.
He breaks bows; he destroys *spears; and he burns *shields in a fire.
This debate is priceless.
You just cant pay for this anywhere else in this world…long live BU!!
I am learning so much…. continue guys..and gals.
PS: Onlookers, Mr Sherman might find it useful to begin his readings on the historicity of Lk-Ac here and here. (The first of these is a well-known name in action, the second what looks to be a well-written long paper . . . monograph length . . . that discusses precisely the sort of “fictional” theses that Mr Sherman advances; with the difference being that Mr Price does his homework seriously.)
Why keep searching for god when (s)he is all around you
(i.e., “The Truth Is Out There,” “Trust No One,” “I Want to Believe”)[*]
*=[The X-Files science fiction television series]
________________________________________________________
Chilling like Bob Dylan
The Answer my friend is Blowin’ In The Wind [**]
**=[Unlike some who are just blowin’ wind]
What I find very amusing is that a lot of the teaching on this thread is basic basic stuff which I learned in Sunday school in the late 60’s and early 70’s before I left Barbados to go the Jamaica to study at age 22.
Because the Bible does not change like say my Basic Sciences texts have, Basic Bible teaching is just reinforced whenever you hear it taught. Hence Harry Ironside taught if its new it aint true,and if its true, it aint new! It might be new to you, but does not make it new.
Hence when you hear error, it is so easy to discern. Its like when a doctor listens to heart sounds with his stetoscope. A third sound is wrong (except a gallop rhythm in children). Varyinng intensities of the first and second sounds or absence of the first and second sounds are also incorrect. We have not even got to murmurs yet.
Mr. Dictionary says things that can be debated. That circumstance has value, and Mr. Dictionary is to be applauded for it
Mr. Zoe does nothing but spew nonsense from ancient literature and his “intellectual” contribution can be dismissed in a heartbeat. Unlike Mr. Dictionary, Mr. Zoe does not have a single worthwhile thing to say. He is, demonstrably, a dunce, and his views can be disregarded for ever.
Just a few things for Mr. Dictionary …
First, Mr. Dictionary is wont to include hyperlinks in his messages, perhaps unmindful that almost nobody will ever click on the link.
Your entire worldview being so heartbreakingly tendentious, Mr. Dictionary, perhaps you would pay us all the due respect of arguing it yourself, rather than linking to even-more-tendentious texts that simply support your already-tendentious argument. To do what you constantly do is, with all due respect, just a little bit pathetic.
Second, you’ve been getting away with this bollocks for a long time haven’t you, Mr. Dictionary? For much too long. The thin varnish of (always terribly awkward) academic prose to beguile the gullible, the people whose education has failed them so much that they can’t paint varnish on obvious garbage. But you can. How many years have you been fooling and fleecing the gullible, Mr. Dictionary? Do you have no shame, sir? At the end, do you feel no shame?
Do NOT tell me, Mr. Charlatan, what my first task should be. Just keep you, and your dull hobby, and your dull hobbyist friends, very far away from my children. You are much more than a little bit creepy.
May you god go with you, sir, and may your rivals’ gods go with them, too. And may you and your fellow creepy hobbyists please stay several light-years away from my childrens’ lives.
Bless you.
Mr. Dictionary has many things to say. Here’s one of them:
“We observe Mr Sherman’s attempted argument by personal denigration and declaration that credible historical works are fiction. Fiction, evidently because they do not happen to fit in the evolutionary materialist worldview.”
That’s Mr. Dictionary.
There are so many things to say here that it’s hard to know where to start. But let’s make a try.
First, Mr. Dictionary, who did I “personally” denigrate?
Second, at which point did I say (and please quote me on this, since you seem to be an expert on quotations) that what you believe is fiction “evidently because they do not happen to fit in the evolutionary materialist worldview.”
Third, you are a laugh-out-loud charlatan joke peddling nonsense to the under-educated and fleece-able gullible. Now that, Mr. Dictionary, is personal denigration.
Looking forward to you reply. Could you try to reply without hyperlinks? Thanks. And bless! May you have a blessed balance of your day. May the people you’ve scammed as a charlatan have an even better day.
Anon // March 15, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Adam Sherman
As I said before… “we know thee who thou art!” You are CH. And as usual, you have nothing of substance to add.
As a Technician, it always confounds me how people can tell who is who by a post.
Unless you are the owner of the blog and can verify (to some extent) the IP addresses, or, have some major technical equipment, you are no closer to predicting the weather as to telling who a poster is.
How do you know for certainty Anon?……or did someone tell you this?
ROFLMAO!!
@Technician: “You are CH.
For the record, I am I. And no other.
I do not know who Adam Sherman is. I am not posting as AS.
As I’ve said before many times, I never post except using my own (real) name.
You might want to consider it some time “Technician”…
It can be quite empowering.
@ CH….
No need to put my name or face on BU to feel empowered guy, I feel that way every morning I wake and give thanks for doing just that (waking).
I keep saying, you all using the wrong yardsticks for measurement.
ROFLMAO!!
@Techie… (ROTFLMAO)….
What “yardsticks” would you suggest?
Just a quick consultation … in the second decade of the twenty-first century, people who STILL write “ROFLMAO” [like Technician] are, irrefutably, ludicrous twats, right?
Hey Techie, how’s that tie-died T-shirt and Grateful Dead music and appalling 1970s thinking working for you? Well, I trust.
@Adam Sherman, You are an IGNORANT, fool!
If the light that be in YOU, is DARKNESS, O’ how great is that DARKNESS!
Professing yourself to be wise, YOU are nothing but a FOOL!
Christopher Halsall claims that he is not me.
But Mr. Technician KNOWS that Mr. Halsall is me.
The mind-bending idiocy of the commenters on this board is a gorgeous wonder to behold.
May your god bless you, Mr. Technician. May your god bless anyone who has the misfortune to live with you. And may god bless, always, the products of the blessed Barbados education system.
All best wishes to you and yours, Mr. Tech.
I sit quietly by and wait for BU to implode under the weight of so many bogus Sherlock Holmes. The various factions will ans suspicions of each other will be the ruin of BU. Et Tu David?
Stupse who the hell is this Adam Sherman! Oh how sarcastic can thou be?
Another anonymous dullard has this to say:
“The various factions will ans suspicions of each other”.
Meaningless, and thus to be disregarded out of hand. Do you lack Spellcheck, sir, or are you simply too dull to use it?
Whatever the case, a pointless contribution from you.
Thanks anyway, and may your god(s) go with you.
Pastor Zoe says:
“@Adam Sherman, You are an IGNORANT, fool! If the light that be in YOU, is DARKNESS, O’ how great is that DARKNESS!Professing yourself to be wise, YOU are nothing but a FOOL!”
Now that’s a major bummer. I’m not sure I’ll be able to sleep tonight. But then I ask myself: if there really is an invisible guy in the sky, would he really choose a sublitereate and endlessly boring twat like Zoe to be his mouthpiece?
I pose the question, no more.
Oh hell…..AS and CH may not be the same BUT..they have both misread my post, what a laugh today. In both their haste to be “smart”….well…judge for yourselves.
Priceless!!
They say Christopher Columbus invented Jamaica
But I discovered music
jamaican heroes
Sometimes I wonder
Sometimes I ponder