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”
FYI:
ROK,
Akismet is the spam filter commonly used by WordPress blogs. (Having had previous problems with it, I am on a first name basis with some of their help people.)
So, kindly tone down the jaundice that distorts your understanding of comments on technical matters made by others.
D
@Dic
“Please note that he has been spreading the slander that Bible-believing Christians worship a blond haired blue eyed white man’s idol….”
There can be no correction to this and you are being rather deceptive and closed-minded about it. You have been worshipping this blue-eyed, blonde-haired man for hundreds of years. There can be no denying it and anybody who tries to deny it in the face of historical and contemporary facts is not one to be believed on anything.
Every church that I have been in has either a crucifix bearing this white man or an image of a white woman as his mother. They are still there for all eyes to see. Just go in a church. Any! This madman wants us to believe what he says rather than what is there that can be seen with the eyes. This man of so little faith that it does not add up to a millionth part of a mustard seed.
Kiki:
On the triune understanding of God, kindly cf here for starters.
D
FYI
Dick,
You calling David an Aksimet. You hinting that he doing it for purpose because there was no reason for the moderation, as you declared, so why else?
You take too much for granted and you can’t see the beam in your own eye.
@ Zoe….
So, is bush tea (the actual herbs, not the BU one) also demonic?
Is a massage evil?
I had a severe sinus infection a few years ago and the only thing that helped was herbal remedies.
I think you try to demonize everything under the sun. Herbal remedies have been used for centuries.
@ ROK..
Check other blogs on the web, I stand corrected here but I am yet to come across any like BU (except of course D’s own blog) where a poster has so many links inserted in his contributions. This might very well be a first for BU so give it time,it will work itself out eventually.
Onlookers:
ROK is, sadly, proving my point.
On Akismet, cf here:
As to the blue eyed blondy haired idol slander, he was already corrected since December in at least two other threads. Cf here for a case in point.
(It is now plain that ROK will not yield to correction by mere inconveniently credible facts, so this is a FYI.)
G’day
D
Sigh: And now, providing links so one can follow up on information is deprecated. (Folks, have a look at any number of blogs and of course Wikipedia if you want to see the significance and value of links!)
@Technician
“Check other blogs on the web, I stand corrected here but I am yet to come across any like BU (except of course D’s own blog) where a poster has so many links inserted in his contributions…”
You see, when you don’t have a good command of the subject matter you do these things so that other people will make the points for you. He has nothing of substance in him. He has to rely on links. He should be a vegetarian, he could do soy links anytime.
@Dic
“Sigh: And now, providing links so one can follow up on information is deprecated.”
You have it wrong as usual. Not that they are depreciated but they are not appreciated. Do you understand the difference?
@Technician
You asked for it.
@ Dictionary..
Seriously though, you have gone to great lengths and effort to show up ROK for what and who you think he is as a person
You yourself (though obviously well gifted and highly educated) comes across as wanting to be the personification of good manners and civility. Now why is it,that if according to you, ROK et al are way beneath you and need prayer, do you continue to pick (like a yardfowl) at every comment? If there is no substance, why even the need to comment?
I mean, AS poked some fun and you went off on a lecture, dont you smile, laugh or have a joke sometime?
Even GP cracks me up at times, put some lol and rofl man and lighten up.
Hi! Found your blog today and really enjoyed it. Thought you did a great job of laying out the foundation of Biblical study. Also thought you might be interested in a brand new pre-publication offer on Old Testament Hermeneutics from Logos Bible Software:http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/6280
Thanks!
Sarah
Hi! I didn’t just find your blog today, but sometimes enjoy it. Also thought you might be interested in a long-running series of thoughtful insights on security by an expert in the field.
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1003.html
Technician:
The just above from ROK shows part of why.
Remember, unfortunately, there are a lot of people taking ROK seriously (just think of his day post . . . ).
So, there is need to correct seriously misleading propafandistic information, and to expose the deep animosity that is plainly warping judgement and misleading those who look to him for leadership.
(Don’t forget the slander that stirred Hopi to call for arson against churches. And Hopi, sadly, is another case in point. When we see slanders stirring up the sort of hostility that is one step removed from outright murder, that is serious indeed; and I here speak as one who saw a country in this region ripped apart by this sort of thing. Slander — the big lie tactic — is not a victim-less crime. [Cf this discussion here for more on that, by someone who says it well, and soundly. Don’t ever underestimate the destructive deceptive power of the big lie slander. The ghosts of six million European Jews, Seven million other death camp victims and the rest of ~ 40 million people can tell us all about that.] )
For instance, he knows or should know that I am putting up links in many cases to worked out briefings that I have developed over up to 25 years. Elsewhere I am linking to serious experts and useful references.
He plainly has no cogent answer, but instead of pausing to seriously and fair mindedly investigate for himself, he seeks to use the trifecta fallacy to distract, distort, demonise and dismiss; poisoning he atmosphere of civility that we all need if our region is to become something worth having and keeping.
Unfortunately, such behaviour from such a quarter is damagingly influential.
Worse, t, I fear tha this is a major wave in our immediate future; so we need to expose it ahead of time lest we suffer some very very painful and destructive consequences. For, we are not talking about Gearbox on a soapbox growling away on Swan Street, but a recognised national leader, and other influential people in not only Barbados but the wider region.
“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing.” — Burke
So . . .
G’day
D
@All… LOL…
Dictionary et al are just like the “Energizer Bunny”.
Wind them up, and they just go and go….
PS: Mr Sherman was not poking simple, decent innocent fun and games. He was playing with issues of the greatest moment, for us and for our civilization. You don’t play around like that with the minds of the naive who would not know that a seriously educated person would propagate such misinformation and slanders. For instance, he dismissed the NT especially as fiction, so it is a proper response to demonstrate why that is not a well-founded view, starting from its historical backbone, Lk-Ac. As the frog said to he small boy approaching it, stone in hand: fun fe yuh is death to me!
CH:
You too are playing at mockery when you have not been able to answer to serious issues on the merits; having formerly strutted around, spewing forth reams of selectively hyperskpetical assertions and rhetoric..
That begins to go to character, sir.
D
@Dictionary: “You too are playing at mockery when you have not been able to answer to serious issues on the merits; having formerly strutted around, spewing forth reams of selectively hyperskpetical assertions and rhetoric..
So you claim.
Could you please answer my simple question I have asked many times here on BU:
What does the bible have to say about the double slit experiment?
propafandistic ✱
✱ I ❤ That Word
✞
PS: Onlookers. Cf here on the underlying problem with all of the above: selective hyperskepticism. Notice how over the past week, none of the mocking skeptics — as GP highlighted back in Dec-Jan, predicted in 2 Peter 3 — have not been able to substantiate the attempt to deride and dismiss the significance of exegesis, hermeneutics and key reference works used in Bible Study, much less the underlying point that these take significance because of the keystone warrant behind 1 Cor 15:1 – 11 etc, i.e the Christian Faith and its core gospel message.
But instead of seriously addressing the merits, they have switched form one distractive or dismissive or denigratory, polarising rhetorical tactic to another.
That should be beginning to tell us something serious about the tidal wave of too often mocking and cynically hyperskeptical dismissal of the gospel that has begun to inundate our region, and about those who have championed it and the plainly ill-warranted myths that hey would put in its place.
As to why I would take this sort of thing seriously indeed, I simply point to 2 Cor 10:4 – 5. There is far more going on here than meets the casual eye, and yes, it calls for serious prayer as well as study.
@ D…
Are you saying then, that the leader of NGOs cannot have his own opinion on religion?
Must all leaders be Christian in their views?
Are you saying that as a nonbeliever, he cannot function as the effective leader of A NGO?
If I do not believe in God , Religion etc, does it make me any better or less of a technician.
We are all open to our views and have a right to believe what we want but I dont see how this affects our ability to do our respective jobs.
Not here to defend ROK but I dont think he got where he is today and is in that position because others worried about his religious beliefs.
The fact that you always harp on his position as leader of an NGO with his beliefs is a worrying trend.
“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing.” — Burke
This statement is relative.
CH:
You know you are simply trying to be distractive and annoying.
You have been cogently and fairly answered on this question many times, over many months, for instance above on March 10.
Just, the answers do not suit what you seem to want to hear, and you pretend never to be satisfied. Sorry, selective hyperskepticism and willful obtuseness are not intellectual virtues, but the opposite.
I leave it to onlookers to follow the link to see the answer above, to satisfy themselves. (And they can follow down on the exchange in which you, CH indulged in sadly supercilious rhetorical games.)
D
Hello Maggie
Re I found your information on the Bible extremely interesting as I did Zoe’s
Thanks for your kind words.
Zoe and I have studied well and teach the Word well as a result.
Despite your not so nice comments which you cannot substantiate, since you do not obviously know me, I must reiterate that “it is indeed very true 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.”
I was just simply stating the truth in plain simple English.
We did have a great sunday school program. All the churches I have worshipped in since 68 have been essentially Bibliocentric (some exceptionaly Christocentric in one of the morning meetings).
Seeing that I know who I am I just teach- I don’t need to show off. Cream always rises to the top. And even when you stand on the side intending to say little, when you do speak…out comes quality on the topic. LOL
If you put quality in you get quality out!
Many a Sunday morning I sit at the back intending to say nothing, but when a brother raises a topic, I often am able to follow.
Recently a brother was pontificating on the verse in John 10 where Jesus asserted that no man could take his life from him but that he he woud give it up.
I was able to support his arguement by showing that Jesus (if just an ordinary man)might easily in his passion have died because of PSYCHOLOGICAL REASONS PHYSIOLOGICAL REASONS OR PATHOLOGICAL REASONS as predicted in Psalms and Isaiah 53..
Oh by the way. Mahhie dear…Which nerve did I get this time? Inferior dental? Trigemminal? Siatic? Or Left recurrent laryngeal?
Actually my students love my teaching.
Here’ s a recent unabridged testimonial to that fact
Professor
Don’t change the way you do things! I have to say you are the best teacher I have had in my 2 1/2 years at this University Your knowledge and the way you provide it actually makes me feel like I understand & I’m not just going through the class w/out learning. You know what you are doing. Some students think they don’t have to “work” for a good grade.
Love you Maggie Keep learning on BU if you can weave through all the debris.
@All… If I may please share…
I recently consulted with a very good friend of mine about my efforts here on BU. I wondered if my efforts were being wasted.
His answer was simply: “Christians cannot admit that they might not know.
Technician:
I am saying nothing of the sort [please don’t make a slander filled strawman out of what I have said], but it is plain that responsible people holding responsible offices should not indulge in slander-filled irresponsible mischief-making, or padlock their minds against all reasonable hope of correcting even blatant errors.
Basic professional ethics should tell us that, and more.
So will basic Caribbean broughtupcy.
Which is what I have already said in fairly specific details.
So, I would appreciate it if you would not put loaded words into my mouth that do not belong there.
D
Onlookers:
CH indulges in yet more dismissive ans denigratory rhetoric, verging on slander.
CH,
why don’t you address what I have said Mar 10, and also what I have put on the table concerning Christian foundations, especially the 12 minimal facts.
The longer you find every dodge to dismiss and denigrate without cogently addressing, tells the astute onlooker that it is highly likely that your position is not at root an intellectually defensible one, but one where you have rationalised a willful decision not to consider the gospel alternative, using what are increasingly shabby rhetorical tactics.
And, it is weeks now that these things have been explicitly on the table in one form or another.
As touching the issues on evolutionary materialism, such I have put on the table at BU for about a year all told.
And it was several weeks ago that you proved unable to make a substantive and positive contribution on a serious proposal for Haiti. (Indeed, at a certain point you seem to have put a rhetorical foot too far and embarrassed yourself when another commenter took you up on a certain date: 1966.)
D
@Dictionary…
Why don’t you answer my direct question above directed directly to you?
Are you unable (or unwilling) to do so?
@Dic
“For, we are not talking about Gearbox on a soapbox growling away on Swan Street, but a recognised national leader…”
What a fallacy! I am an advocate for and on behalf of ordinary people. people know that I agitate against issues and matters that are not in the best interest of the ordinary person, especially low-income people.
Even though it would be for their own good, I dare not be telling the average poor person about Christianity; exposing it for what it is, because we will end up with real mad people in Jenkins. It is called respect for the other person’s religion…
but when I come upon people like these 3 on BU, spouting what is not true and going to great lengths to prove the unprovable, I would now be acting against the very people for whom I voluntarily advocate, because what these men putting out closes the door on the hopes of poor people. It is dangerous.
Now look how you keep describing me as slanderous. You say I commit slander against your religion. Yet, all I have done is point out to you that there is no need for proof if you have a “faith”. If you start everything you say with “I believe” it means that you do not know. Yet these men professing that they have proof.
These men (including you) obviously belong to a new rising set of so-called “christians” that have started a campaign to popularise christianity. It is a marketing strategy to get as much converts as possible in their attempt to disinherit the traditional church. So they have all gone their way. They have come up with a means of shifting the goal posts, and people (disciples) like you are put out there, wittingly or unwittingly, to keep their fire burning.
They have intellectualised all of it. Set them out in theories. They have worked out all the answers including that they looking at it in a new way but it is the same old thing. They have it all worked out… but as Bush Tea said, these are wolves in sheep clothing and I can only say that we should seek to forgive them because they are not cognizant of what they are doing.
Again BT spoke about the false prophets that will come in the name of Christ; as true as any other other prophesy that has come to pass, this one is now coming to pass right here on BU. This is nothing for Christians to be alarmed about. You were warned. You were told how to identify them; by their fruits.
They spit vermin, full of intolerance, curse and demean anybody who opposes them. They lie and deceive to try to prove points. Tell stories that never happened trying to draw a tear of sympathy or even of happiness. What they do is lead you away from faith and turn you into a demon like them. Only villians behave this way.
Keep the faith! Stop looking for proof. You either believe or do not believe, that is the choice. Everyman has the right to make his choice and should never be bullied, stigmatised, (made to feel less of a person) into it because demons like these give you no choice. As believing and practicing Christians, you have to pray for people like these. As for Zoe, he reminds me of those hawkers in the market that used to be keeping bare racket and cussing who tell them something they don’t like.
None of these men have displayed what it is to be Christian in their writings here. Their fancy approach to Biblical Interpretation is ridiculous as they try to manufacture proof by linking other wise facts that are remotely related and were in no way meant to support one another. According to the story, each of these books was written by a different author, some who knew nothing about each other and existed at different times and were referring to their current events.
It is not easy to see someone spouting Christianity as evil, but as it was written, ye shall know them by their “fruits”.
How about a truce or people agree to disagree
and why are the Christians getting so assertive?
@kiki: “How about a truce
A truce generally only advantages an aggressor.
No but in the big scheme of things such as the whole universe the bu trinity are just a small speck in the cosmos of life and will die one day like the rest of us as nothing is ever permanent (except for dictionary’s continuous links)
@ CH ❝A truce generally only advantages an aggressor.❞
sorry but that went over my head (i.e. i’m not sure what you mean)
_________________________________________________________
A model for using time out as an intervention technique with families
Abstract Using time out to interrupt escalating conflict is an important first step in treating couples and families where physical and emotional abuse is present. Since a time out failure can jeopardize further treatment, developing effective methods for using time out is a therapeutic priority. By interpreting the family”s failed attempts as skill deficits, their efforts can be reframed to facilitate their acceptance of new time out methods. These methods are integrated into a model which outlines six hierarchical levels of supplemental control needed to inhibit destructive behavior. The model provides guidelines and establishes incentives for developing a time out strategy appropriate to the family”s current level of control. It is designed to guide therapists in helping families strengthen their skills and choose an alternative time out strategy when an initial method fails.
Key words family violence – physical abuse – time out – therapy methods
I have long ago come to the conclusion that the “BU trinity” need some very close administration/medication of the type dispensed by the professionals down there in Black Rock at a place commonly know as “Jenkins”. It is possible that they may even be already contained therein and are by some mischance gaining access to the computers there for their blogging purposes!
Anyone here agree with me on this?
Onlookers:
Continued distractions, distortions, denigration/demonisation.
Does that not tell us that after all the huffing and puffing and prating on dismissive rhetoric regarding first hermeneutics and exegesis as credible disciplines, and latterly the underlying warranting framework for the gospel, the hyperskeptics have no good case?
[And BTW, I have long since pointed out that I and millions of oters have no need for “proof” of the reality of God any moreso than for the reality of my mom; for we have met and known him in the face of the risen Christ. But — and as we are directed in 2 Cor 10:4 – 5 and 1 Pet 3:15 — we do need to correct misleading and deceptive arguments that would create unnecessary doubt and confusion and in some cases even hostility on the authenticity and truthfulness or reliability of the scriptural witness to he same Christ, especially on the part of those perplexed by what is turning out ever so plainly to be utterly empty skeptical rhetoric.]
D
PS: CH is pretending that a sufficient and responsive answer that also corrects the underlying problem behind his loaded question has not been given these many months, and again on and after Mar 10 above. Sad but revealing, a la Rom 1:18 – 32.
Hi Mr. Porgie – (Re your statement – “Despite your not so nice comments which you cannot substantiate…”)
I do enjoy reading the information – I find it very interesting. You are correct – I do not know you. However, I do not know what you mean that I “cannot substantiate”. There IS nothing to substantiate. I was and am merely commenting on your attitude; the impression you give. So far you have only as much knowledge and understanding as GOD gave you. You have so far not created a living thing except by the permission and grace of the God you speak about. Your gifts in other words, however you name them – come from Him. And you further make my point for me with your statement that “Cream always rises to the top. And even when you stand on the side intending to say little, when you do speak…out comes quality on the topic. If you put quality in you get quality out!”
It is a good thing that your “quality” and “cream” was not the quality and cream of which Jesus spoke. He spoke about the QUALITY that came out of the widow (the one who had the mite – not the MIGHT) and the Samaritan CREAM that rose to the top after priest and Levite and perhaps even the G.P’s walked by. But I must admit that the Bible does include you specifically by description in Proverbs 26:12.
If I were in one of your classes – I would probably be too afraid to tell you that I do like the information you give but I hate your arrogance. The 2 observations are not mutually exclusive. Many of us are intimidated by knowledge and the appearance of power. It is the way we were raised. Take it easy. Remember, He is God, you are not.
PPS: TH would be better advised to refrain from slanderous insinuations of insanity, and deal with the exposed holes in the LDS system he has advocated, from e.g. CARM’s collection of exposes. This, here on Mormonism’s historic position on black people until they made a change in 1978; it is said (as I recall from discussions at the time) mainly because of the problem of the racial mixtures in Brazil so that pure strain whites were almost impossible to identify as fit for the priesthood, thence eventual godhood over their own planet after death on earth. (All that god is a growing family stuff . . . )
@ maggie // March 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM
You said………”Take it easy. Remember, He is God, you are not.”
******************************************************************
Maggie, are you really sure? GP and the “BU trinity” are not GOD!!! But how can you say such a thing? You like you want to bust up some egos here on BU!
@All…
Just a bit of advise…
If you ever find yourself answering questions “under outh”…
“I’ve already answered that question” doesn’t generally count as an answer.
Particularly if you haven’t actually answered the question previously….
F/N: Have a look here at a diagram of the Mormon plan of eternal progression. Observe especially the block on Godhood- Exaltation.
@Dictionary // March 16, 2010 at 4:48 PM
***************************************************************
Seems like you may have even more additional problems,Sah!!
Who de heck is “CARMS” anyway? A bunch of “intellectuals” trying to prove something with worldly knowledge? And, who would give them the authority to denigrate things of God in any case???
F/N 2: similarly, here, on a compilation of mormon teachings. Note the clear mis-alignment with warranted, trustworthy scripture warranted through the prophesied resurrection of our Lord and Saviour from the dead..
Dictionary man that is propafandistic.
@ Dick
I might be LDS but I surely ain’t headed for the loony bin!! From the attitudes and statements (the fruit of the evil spirit?) of the “BU trinity” I cannot help but suspect your intentions. I have not seen any of the fruit of the Holy Spirit emanating from either of you three over the many months of your posturing here. Where is the love, patience, meekness, etc etc that Gal. 5:22 tells us to look for in the Holy Spirit. Absolutely non-existent. Going by the spoutings, bad attitude (conceit, egotistical, pridefulness, etc, etc) even if the LDS church was taking me straight to hell I would much rather stick with them than entertain any direction from you, the “BU trinity”!!
Mr. Dictionary (can I call you “dick”?):
On second thought, I don’t need the permission of a transparently obvious charlatan dickhead to call him “dick”. So I’ll do it.
How are you doing, Mr. Dickhead? Well, I trust. I trust that you and yours are doing as well as can be, given your comical dick-headedeness. Being a laugh-out-loud comical dickhead has GOT to be unhelpful in a life well lived. It must be an absolute bitch. I can barely imagine how much that must suck.
Normally, of course, like anyone who makes a living by thinking, I would dismiss your smile-inducing mythology out of hand. People who believe in Zeus and all the other fairies on Olympus, after all, deserve our sympathy, not our condemnation.
But I have chosen not to be silent, dickhead, because you addressed me by name. By NAME. Always a tricky option, Mr. Dickhead, unless you’re entirely sure that you’re dealing solely with your fellow dullards, the gullible and the not-too-bright, your followers.
For how many years have you been getting away with this, Mr. Dickhead? For how many years have you been boring the gullible, using terms that I learned to suspect when I was ten years old, but that people with an abbreviated and poor education will never challenge, because it is beyond them.
You are a disgrace, a disgrace with no shame. Do you feel no shame, sir? None at all? May your invisible guy in the sky forgive you. May we all forgive you, without hyperlinks.
@ Bu family
Here is a quote from Bruce R. McConkie (late General Authority of the LDS Church).
“In every age the Lord sends forth clearly discernible signs and warnings so that those who are spiritually inclined can know of his hand-dealings with men. . . . Where the gospel is, there will be opposition and persecution, for Lucifer will not stand idly by while the work of God rolls forward.”[84] Critical “decrees” and “directives” by our non-LDS contemporaries should not offend us but, rather, should serve as gentle reminders of what we have covenanted to be, and whose errand we are on.
****************************************************************
Non-LDS contemporaries = “BU trinity” et al
@ Adam Sherman (aka Jack Bowman?)
Looks like you have hit Dick for six out of the grounds!
Evah body pun por Georgie tail. Last week it was BT
Now its maggie!
But maggie the cream does rise to de top for trute
Maggie quality does only come out when quality go in for trute. You evah bake a cake or a sweet bread?
Georgie is a boss chile. You and BT can say wunnah like. I learning from he and others learning too .
@Bush Tea
Man if you are promoting the bush bath you should be forceffuly inclined to defend it’s use. Now Zoe has left no stone unturned in to using terms such as’occult’ to demonise the bath, and you just sit idlly by and dismiss it. By the way Hell would freeze over before anyone has any influence on what i think or say
I am still interested in the footbath massage.
Oh Boy! Here goes.
Cream does rise to the top, but so does, plastic, oil, fat and air bubbles. Because you rise to the top, it does not make you cream. Steupseeeeeee!