Why did David take Goliath's head to Jerusalem?

[Ronald Nolette]

Right. It is my approach to hermeneutics. The advantage of my approach is that if all the participants agree to follow it, there will be less argumentative bickering. It is a more disciplined and logical approach to hermeneutics.

I have a much simpler approach! Its fancy term is the literal/historical/grammatical hermeneutic.

1. god said what He meant and meant what He said.
2. When god used metaphorical or apocryphal language, it is defined in SCripture.
3. God did not go philosophically deep.
4. Believers are called to exercise child like faith-- not delve deep into philisophical and logical training.

1 Corinthians 1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

 

[TonyChanYT]

I have a much simpler approach! Its fancy term is the literal/historical/grammatical hermeneutic.

1. god said what He meant and meant what He said.
2. When god used metaphorical or apocryphal language, it is defined in SCripture.
3. God did not go philosophically deep.
4. Believers are called to exercise child like faith-- not delve deep into philisophical and logical training.

1 Corinthians 1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

Sure, will your approach gurantee that the arguing will stop?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Sure, will your approach gurantee that the arguing will stop?

Yours won't either. No approach will stop the arguing as long as man is man with a sin nature and satan and his demons are free to roam around deceiving people.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Yours won't either. No approach will stop the arguing as long as man is man with a sin nature and satan and his demons are free to roam around deceiving people.

H1 = the hermeneutic approach specified in A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics.

Let proposition P1 = If the debaters adhere to H1, the arguing will eventually stop.

Is P1 true?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

H1 = the hermeneutic approach specified in A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics.

Let proposition P1 = If the debaters adhere to H1, the arguing will eventually stop.

Is P1 true?

Maybe the arguing will stop, but if it stops on something less than biblical truth- it is a useless end to the arguing.

 

[TonyChanYT]

if it stops on something less than biblical truth

That precisely is the question. How does anyone decide? I proposed my approach, and you proposed yours. Are you claiming that your approach is the only way to decide what biblical truth is and that all other approaches are false? That's not my claim. In fact, my approach uses all other approaches, including yours, and weighs them.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That precisely is the question. How does anyone decide? I proposed my approach, and you proposed yours. Are you claiming that your approach is the only way to decide what biblical truth is and that all other approaches are false? That's not my claim. In fact, my approach uses all other approaches, including yours, and weighs them.

I have become convinced it is the best- not infallible way of understanding truth. We use this method to understand all writings, videos and speech and conversations.

God made language and gave man the ability to determine specific meanings to specific words.

God seeks the humble and lowly, not the high minded, sophists and high intellectuals. Thoughthe hig e ducated can find Jesus.

We do not question words people say.

Different cultures have differing euphemisms and differing understanding of events. We must seek to understand how the writers wrote in their times and not bring our understanding to the passages.

Every symbolic passage and apocryphal passage using non -literal terminology is definedin Scripture so we do not have to seek answers outside of Gods Word to determine meaning.

I could go on and list numerous more advantages of the literal/historical/grammatical approach to understanding Scripture, but I think you see why I trust it the most.

I do not consider it infallible, but the most logical and the one that amkes the most sense in light of how God made us and expects us to seek and obey HIm. Simply, honestly and with trust.

God does not play philosophical hide a word games.

 

[TonyChanYT]

God does not play philosophical hide a word games.

Who says that he does?

 

[Wick Stick]

Why did David take Goliath's head to Jerusalem?

David's hometown of Bethlehem is less than 10 miles from Jerusalem. The road home led to the larger city first.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Who says that he does?

Too many Christians! Those who hold to an allegorical hermeneutic tend to search for the meaning behind the meaning.

 

[TonyChanYT]

I have become convinced it is the best- not infallible way of understanding truth. We use this method to understand all writings, videos and speech and conversations.

What exactly is this method?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What exactly is this method?

It is known as the literal hermeneutic but is completely known as the literal /historical/grammatical method of understanding SCripture.

Its rules are as follows:

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”–Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),
founder of The Biblical Research Society

This has often been shortened to “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.”

It also recognizes that Scripture must be understand in the historic time it was written.

It also recognizes that as God is the author of grammar, grammar is critical as well.

It also recognizes that wqhen a conflict of understandings happens, going back to the original languages most often can resolve the conflict.

 

[TonyChanYT]

This has often been shortened to “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.”

Sure, that's a good rule of thumb. I use that as well in my approach. It is part of Occam's Razor.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Sure, that's a good rule of thumb. I use that as well in my approach. It is part of Occam's Razor.

Well I could care less about Occams razor and all the names, It is far better than a rule of thumb, it insures the least human interference with understanding Gods Word.

Man has complicated understanding Gods word by adding their own reasonings and philosophies in interpreting Gods Word

 

[TonyChanYT]

It is far better than a rule of thumb, it insures the least human interference with understanding Gods Word.

Try your approach on Who was the high priest when David ate the holy bread? and follow up there.

 

[Jim C]

Because he knew King Saul would say, "Proof, or it didn't happen," and phone cameras and Instagram hadn't been invented yet.

 

[TonyChanYT]

This has often been shortened to “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.”

Who decides what is common sense?

 

[O'Darby]

He forgot it was in his luggage. I had the same thing happen with a .38 Special at the airport once.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Try your approach on Who was the high priest when David ate the holy bread? and follow up there.

Easy----Abiathar

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Who decides what is common sense?

Do you really not know the answer to that question?