Interpretation Methods

ScottA · Oct 2, 2019

Enoch111 said:
Now this is really profound. Which means that Christians should simply sit on their hands and confess ignorance about what God has said in His written Word.

And pray tell, when is this imaginary *appointed time*?????

"That day", which, as it is written, is "the end."

But it is not good to react as a child in school who does not want to listen and learn. God does not need to have us here. It is us who have need, not Him. This is a gift.

Episkopos · Oct 2, 2019

Enoch111 said:
Now this is really profound. Which means that Christians should simply sit on their hands and confess ignorance about what God has said in His written Word.

And pray tell, when is this imaginary *appointed time*?????

Is God imaginary to you? God does have His time. And we are to wait on the Lord for His time in all things.

John Caldwell · Oct 2, 2019

Giuliano said:
So what does "foreknow" mean? Does God foreknow everybody?

Foreknow means prescience. It is a "pre-knowledge".

Yes. God foreknows everyone (some as vessles of wrath and others predestined to life). That is why Scripture can say for those whom God foreknew in reference to the elect alone without selecting another word.

Calvinism (traditional Calvinism reflecting the Institutes and Canons of Dort) defines "foreknowledge" as a "pre-knowledge" based on divine decree. In the Instututes Calvin explained his view that God foreknew those He predestined because God decreed it so. Beza tweaked it a bit (predestination) but remained faithful to the meaning of the word.

But more contemporary Calvinists have gone back to redefine "foreknowledge" to mean something foreign to its literal meaning, usage, grammer, and and historical context. They streach "foreknow" to be relational (like a man "knows" a woman) and gives the word a "biblical meaning".

The reason is not to suppot Calvinism (Calvinists have not historically had an issue with the literal meaning of the word). The reason is to exclude all other interpretations.

Personally I find this dishonest. But, as I already said, I belueve the liberal method dishonest to the text anyway.

John Caldwell · Oct 2, 2019

Anthony D'Arienzo said:
Of course JonC does what he does what he does best,which is to lie and bear false witness.
I do not hold a liberal view of scripture in any way.
That does not matter to a person who lies and seeks to undermine individuals who have pointed out his lies, and errors.
In times past I have repeatedly asked JonC to stop trying to speak for me.
He is a deluded stalker who cannot stop his sinful desire to make personal attacks in his smug condescending way.
Most times his posts are rambling double talk, that has no point except to slander people.
Pray for JonC to be restored to his right mind.

Holding the text of Scripture has a "biblical meaning" separate from its "plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context" IS liberal hermeneutics.

I never said or believed you took a liberal view of Scripture.

marks · Oct 2, 2019

Enoch111 said:
Now this is really profound. Which means that Christians should simply sit on their hands and confess ignorance about what God has said in His written Word.

And pray tell, when is this imaginary *appointed time*?????

When God chooses to reveal His meaning to me.

I keep in the Word, I search the Word, I study, I read, I learn, memorize, meditate, sing, my life is about the Word. And yet, as it is a spiritual book, it truly is the Spirit Who must reveal the Word to me.

But He does, and He will, but I have to say, it's in His time. So so many times I've come to a passage I've known, read, studied, over and over, and on this day it pleases my God to open it's meaning for me.

Not sit on my hands. Not profess ignorance. But not be lifted up in my own conceits.

Much love!

marks · Oct 2, 2019

John Caldwell said:
ut more contemporary Calvinists have gone back to redefine "foreknowledge" to mean something foreign to its literal meaning, usage, grammer, and and historical context. They streach "foreknow" to be relational (like a man "knows" a woman) and gives the word a "biblical meaning".

Hi John,

I think this is one of the best examples. There is no real Biblical argument to change the meaning of this word into other than what the basic word itself means. And when we read it that way, we find there are no conflicts, no . . . "tension".

Much love!

CharismaticLady · Oct 2, 2019

Episkopos said:
A very reasonable approach.

Once we start inventing "biblical" meanings for the words of the bible....we are well on the way to subversion of the biblical message.

A case in point is with the word "impute". The "biblical interpretation" method makes the word to mean the very opposite of what it means in every other usage in English.

In English to impute means to attribute a condition based on evidence. As in...the smoke was imputed to a forest fire. That is the usual context of the word "imputed" in English. That is it's CORRECT usage.

But a biblical indoctrination changes the meaning of the word to fit a skewed interpretation of the bible making the word mean that God attributes something to someone that isn't there. IOW a FALSE imputation.

So we are dealing with lies and half truths based on subversion of the English language in order to get the desired meaning out of the biblical text. The word then is changed to mean it's exact opposite. As in...something that is in error attributed to someone or something that has nothing to do with it.

So then using the modern "biblical" usage of the word "impute"...we could say that the invention of television was imputed to Mickey Mouse. (Of course the same level of fiction is involved in this statement as with much of popular Christianity)

Yes, the wrong definition of "impute" takes an erroneous preconceived idea, such as Jesus covers our sins with His righteousness as we keep committing them, and all God sees is Christ's righteousness; whereas Jesus doesn't just "cover" our sins like with an "invisibility cloak" from Harry Potter, but actually takes the desire to sin away, truly making us righteous as we walk in the Spirit.

Davy · Oct 2, 2019

John Caldwell said:
I understand Anthony's method, but I find it flawed. Again, my rejection of the liberal method may be in part my experience in the SBC over a turbulent period.

Words are used biblically, but I do not believe they can be redefined to mean anything other than what they mean. My concern is the damage the liberal method has caused. "Inerrancy" no longer means "without error", "foreknowledge" no longer means "prescience".

For example-

How do you determine the meaning of "so" in John 3:16? The literal meaning is "thusly" (this is the only way the Greek can be interpreted). I define "so" as "thusly".

BUT others view it as "so much". Theologically this is true (in Ephesians 2 Paul soeaks of God's great love for us....with a different word).

But that is not what the word actually means in John 3:16. If we change the meaning of "so" to "so much" we maintain a biblical truth. BUT we miss the truth John 3:16 actually conveys.

Words are SYMBOLS for thoughts. We have to be careful when redefining the symbols others have used to convey their thoughts.

Concentrating on those kind of phrases like "so" compared to the meat of that verse reveals the difference between what we're saying. I don't focus on "so", but on the fact that God's love is shown by sending His Son to die on the cross for those who believe.

Davy · Oct 2, 2019

There is an important matter especially for our times involving this idea of Bible interpretation in today's Churches. It involves one of Communism's strategic 1958 goals for taking over the West:

"27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
Read more at THE 45 COMMUNIST GOALS AS READ INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 1963 - Watchwoman on the Wall"

They want to replace "revealed religion" with their idea of "social" religion.

Revealed religion means the interpretation that God's Word reveals by The Holy Spirit. It is not tethered by men's traditions. Our Lord Jesus warned us against men's leaven traditions.

Social religion means changing what The Bible says and instead supplanting it with men's socialist traditions, which do not originate from God's Word. By doing this the Communists are able to put evil for good, turning God's Truth upside down.

That goal is from ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen's 1958 book The Naked Communist. He worked for the U.S. government during the Lend-Lease program during WWII, and he was one of the agents that debriefed Whitemore Chambers, an American working in the state department that was discovered to be a Soviet spy. Those 1958 Communist goals are from the Soviets who changed their strategy against the West after Stalin's death. They are still being used against the Christian West today.

marks · Oct 2, 2019

We shouldn't stop with English definitions of words.

While "impute" has it's English definitions, that discussion becomes about translation rather than word meanings in Scripture.

When you look at the Greek word that translated "impute" in the KJV, for instance, then we can get closer to what God is telling us. A word study shows that this word is about how things are thought of, what we reckon to be true, what is counted as true.

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

2Co 3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

2Co 10:7 Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

2Co 10:11 Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.

2Co 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.

Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

2Co 11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

1Pe 5:12 By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.

1Co 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

Heb 11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

2Ti 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Php 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Mar 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Mar 11:31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?

Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

1Co 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

All uses of this same word. So whatever meaning we determine for this word, it will naturally harmonize with all of these uses. There are other places, I didn't put all occurances, although when I do my own word studies, I do.

I examine the contexts of each use, to see the range of meaning in a word. For the most part, I find the results to be just like this. As I read every place a word appears, it's meaning becomes plain. And generally speaking, the same as the dictionaries define it for us. Not always the English, but the Greek.

Much love!

Willie T · Oct 2, 2019

I am thankful for someone doing the work to try their best to show us what verses mean, rather than us acting like we use the antiquated language of the KJV all the time and are comfortable with it.
Romans 4:4 mentioned above is a good example:
KJV:
Rom 4:4 "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."

TPT:
Rom 4:4 "When people work, they earn wages. It can’t be considered a free gift, because they earned it."

Enoch111 · Oct 2, 2019

Willie T said:
I am thankful for someone doing the work to try their best to show us what verses mean, rather than us acting like we use the antiquated language of the KJV all the time and are comfortable with it.
Romans 4:4 mentioned above is a good example:
KJV:
Rom 4:4 "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."

TPT:
Rom 4:4 "When people work, they earn wages. It can’t be considered a free gift, because they earned it."

So you sincerely believe that a paraphrase (which even omits the word "grace") is good enough for Christians???? And the real spiritual meaning of that verse has been totally obscured.

And if you have a beef with the so-called *antiquated language* of the KJV, get yourself a King James 2000 Bible.

Willie T · Oct 2, 2019

Enoch111 said:
So you sincerely believe that a paraphrase (which even omits the word "grace") is good enough for Christians???? And the real spiritual meaning of that verse has been totally obscured.

And if you have a beef with the so-called *antiquated language* of the KJV, get yourself a King James 2000 Bible.

Can you show me one place where even the "Authorized" (what a joke!) KJV shows Jesus using the word "grace"...… since it seems to be so necessary to use it?
I want to know what the Bible actually meant, NOT religious words to try to make something sound Holy.

Jesus Christ did not actually use the word grace in His earthly ministry. Only two verses reference this word in the four gospels, and these were both spoken by others. Luke tells us the grace of God was on Jesus as a child. John taught: “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17, King James Version of the Bible). Therefore, our understanding of the word grace comes from others. (web)

Enoch111 · Oct 2, 2019

marks said:
While "impute" has it's English definitions, that discussion becomes about translation rather than word meanings in Scripture.

The word *impute* means far more than *think*. It is firstly a divine action of God's grace, no matter what anyone thinks. God places the righteousness of Christ supernaturally on the one who believes on Him. This is far more than thinking. Paul equates *imputed* with *accounted* when speaking of imputed righteousness. Which means that the righteousness of Christ is put into the sinner's spiritual *account*.

To illustrate this one could say that the one who was bankrupt at one moment has now received a hundred million dollars into his account. And that too, purely by the grace of the divine Benefactor.

In spiritual terms, the one who was a very evil criminal -- fit for the death penalty -- has suddenly become as righteous as God and Christ. And all his sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ. This is the true meaning of *imputed righteousness* and it is hated by those who believe that they can add something to God's salvation.

Enoch111 · Oct 2, 2019

Willie T said:
Can you show me one place where even the "Authorized" (what a joke!) KJV shows Jesus using the word "grace"...… since it seems to be so necessary to use it?

Jesus did not have to use the word "grace". He was GRACE AND TRUTH personified (John 1:17,18). Every word and every action of His was an expression of the grace of God. And that is why we have the Gospel of Grace.

John Caldwell · Oct 2, 2019

marks said:
Hi John,

I think this is one of the best examples. There is no real Biblical argument to change the meaning of this word into other than what the basic word itself means. And when we read it that way, we find there are no conflicts, no . . . "tension".

Much love!

Thank you.

There are other words we could examine (although unnecessarily), like "world", "whole world", "propitiation", perhaps even "expiation".

I have been thinking of this on my ride home.

The use of "biblical meanings" is without question liberal hermeneutics and stands in opposition to traditional methods of interpretation (not only biblical interpretation but literary interpretation in general...in fact, I doubt the practice would even fly with less important materials).

BUT it is not liberal theology. I wonder if this liberalism (in hermeneutical methodology) is a reaction to past abused within liberal theology. The reason I think it may be so is this liberal method has been adopted by conservative theology in order to exclude any other interpretation (regardless of the legitimacy of the interpretation to the actual text).

In a way, it is like lying to people in order to keep them on the correct path.

Willie T · Oct 2, 2019

Enoch111 said:
Jesus did not have to use the word "grace". He was GRACE AND TRUTH personified (John 1:17,18). Every word and every action of His was an expression of the grace of God. And that is why we have the Gospel of Grace.

Jesus openly and clearly said He was "the Truth".... why not also say He was "Grace?" (I wonder if it was because that was not something He intended for us to put such emphasis upon?)

John Caldwell · Oct 2, 2019

Anthony D'Arienzo said:
Of course JonC does what he does what he does best,which is to lie and bear false witness.
I do not hold a liberal view of scripture in any way.
That does not matter to a person who lies and seeks to undermine individuals who have pointed out his lies, and errors.
In times past I have repeatedly asked JonC to stop trying to speak for me.
He is a deluded stalker who cannot stop his sinful desire to make personal attacks in his smug condescending way.
Most times his posts are rambling double talk, that has no point except to slander people.
Pray for JonC to be restored to his right mind.

To clarify, I am not saying @Anthony D'Arienzo has a "liberal view of Scripture" or that he holds to liberal theology. This is something he inferred from or perhaps misread in my posts.

I do not understand why he is so abusive.

What I am saying is that @Anthony D'Arienzo employs a liberal hermeneutical method, whitch is miles apart from the false accusation he levied against me.

And this goes to prove my point. Suppose @Anthony D'Arienzo is as careless with Scripture as he is with my posts. From there he could come up with any definition and clain it the "biblical meaning". But words HAVE meaning. They are not subjective to the listener but chosen by the author to convey meaning.

If one cannot be trusted with the little things one cannot be trusted with the larger things.

Berserk · Oct 2, 2019

Willie T said:
I'll bet some of you guys have trouble with camels.... being swallowed, and passing through the eye of a needle. LOL

Once it is recognized that Jesus' primarily spoke Greek, it becomes clear that Jesus originally had in mind the elegant but still hyperbolic image of a trying to pull a rope (not a camel) through the eye of a needle. The underlying Aramaic word for "camel" in Matthew 10:24 is "gamla" which means
The early translator's confusion may have also been increased at the stage of oral transmission of Jesus' sayings, when the Greek word "kamelos" ("rope") was misheard as "kamelos" ("camel"). Knowledge of the original Aramaic exposes other Gospel translation errors as well.

Beyond that, there is no substitute for knowledge of the original languages in understanding biblical texts because there is often no one-to-one correspondence in meaning between the English translation and the original Hebrew and Greek word. So in some ways, a good paraphrase translation like the New Living Translation is preferable to more literal translations. But I actually recommend this compromise: use both a literal translation like the NIV (2011 edition!) and the New Living Translation. But please flee the KJV like a plague, not just because of its archaic language and translation inaccuracies, but especially because of the corrupt later Greek manuscripts which serve as the basis for its translation.

John Caldwell · Oct 2, 2019

Berserk said:
Once it is recognized that Jesus' primarily spoke Greek, it becomes clear that Jesus originally had in mind the elegant but still hyperbolic image of a trying to pull a rope (not a camel) through the eye of a needle. The underlying Aramaic word for "camel" in Matthew 10:24 is "gamla" which means
The early translator's confusion may have also been increased at the stage of oral transmission of Jesus' sayings, when the Greek word "kamelos" ("rope") was misheard as "kamelos" ("camel"). Knowledge of the original Aramaic exposes other Gospel translation errors as well.

Beyond that, there is no substitute for knowledge of the original languages in understanding biblical texts because there is often no one-to-one correspondence in meaning between the English translation and the original Hebrew and Greek word. So in some ways, a good paraphrase translation like the New Living Translation is preferable to more literal translations. But I actually recommend this compromise: use both a literal translation like the NIV (2011 edition!) and the New Living Translation. But please flee the KJV like a plague, not just because of its archaic language and translation inaccuracies, but especially because of the corrupt later Greek manuscripts which serve as the basis for its translation.

He did not primarily speek Greek

(He would have spoken Aramaic).

But I agree knowledge of Hebrew and (IMHO) especially Koine Greek are important.

Interpretation Methods

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heaven Sent

Well-Known Member

Heaven Sent

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heaven Sent

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads