Reason to Believe, a very interesting website

Therefore, you do not follow that concept of interpretation which is taught in today's colleges/universities as fundamental thought.

I asked how you interpreted scriptures, and I got "except" and "the better approach is"...


that, to me is a "pick and chose" method... it is the interpretation according to "Vance".. and not the interpretation which is taught in schools of thought in fundamental colleges.


You are entitled to your opinion, I don't subscribe to your opinion.

~malaka~

Do you, by any chance, have something by him which is more specific in this regard?

__________________


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."~Elbert Hubbard
_______________________

"Between impulse and action there is a realm of good taste begging for your acquaintance."~Voyager's Holographic Doctor
_______________________

"I do not understand their humor, either."~Lt. Commander Worf
_______________________

Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam, K'Ehleyr!

If you don't accept God's Creation as a book, aren't you saying that God did not create?

The story doesn't change every day. We discover more about the story every day. For instance, matter is made of atoms. That hasn't changed. We discovered that atoms themselves are made of smaller particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. That hasn't changed. Recently we discovered that these particles are made of still smaller particles called quarks. The Book of Creation doesn't change; it's just that we haven't finished reading it. God left an open-ended book for us to read. I hate to challenge one of your prime beliefs, but God is not immutable. As just one example, God changed His mind about the dietary laws when He sent the dream to Peter and changed them. And who created the world? Science is simply the study of God's Creation, so in a very real sense God did create science. Besides,young creationism is itself a scientific theory. It is only partly based on Genesis. It is also based on the writings of Plato and Aristotle and the findings of naturalists in the 1700s. So, being of man, even by your rules young creationism can be disproved by man.

We are back to the question you haven't answered yet: why do ignore God's Creation?

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

So what do you do with Luke 2:1? The literal and normal reading of the words is that the whole world was taxed. Therefore we are supposed to conclude that it literally was? We are prevented from "overlaying biblical truth with personal thoughts" based on history that Japanese, Sioux, and Laplanders were not taxed?

It doesn't seem to me that the principles are applied consistently.

Here is another set of principles for interpretation:
" Principles of Bible Interpretation1. Listen to Your Teacher!
Approach your study with a teachable, expectant attitude, desiring to be taught of God.
2. Discover the Writer's Intent
Put yourself in the writer's sandals, and setting aside your preconceptions, aim to recover the writer's intent--including the intent of the ultimate Author, which sometimes goes beyond even the understanding of the human writer (e.g., 1 Peter 1:10-12 on the prophets).
3. Interpret Literally
Accept the usual, literal sense of the words unless you have reason to believe they are figurative or allegorical. Interpret figurative language in the same way we use it in normal speech.
4. Observe the Context
Interpret in the light of the setting. Harmonize with the local and larger context, also the total context of biblical truth.
5.Relate to the Historical/Cultural Setting
Interpret with the historical and cultural setting in mind. It can make a great difference as to how we understand what is being said.
6. Consider the Literary Mold
The literary mold in which the language is cast is often crucial to our interpretation. Is it poetry? If so, that makes a difference, e.g., the Psalms.
7. Observe the Author's Scope and Plan
Every portion of the scripture does not cover every subject, so we must interpret in accord with the author's scope and plan, being consistent with the aim of God's total revelation.
8. Compare Scripture with Scripture
View corollary passages alongside the passage you are studying. Clear up problem areas with the clear teaching of other passages relating to the same subject.
9. Study Word Meanings and Grammar
Our normal tendency is to assume more than we really understand, thus arriving at a superficial view. We must observe word meanings and grammatical relationships carefully.
10. Remember, God Speaks in Human Terms
Recognize God's gracious accommodation of our limited, finite understanding by the use of human language in terms that men can grasp.
11. Use the Original Languages
In difficult interpretive problems, check the original language as the final authority. Many times (though not always), this will give the added light we need." http://www.pbc.org/dp/smith2/ch4.html

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Here is what I was looking for. The 8 general rules of interpretation. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html

"We can't have a "sure word" about the meaning of Scripture (or anything else) unless we have a sure method to interpret the words. The following eight rules are the center of all grammatical interpretation. They have been accepted and used by scholars from Socrates to the present. While my hope is that they will be used to "rightly divide the word of truth" of the Holy Bible, they are equally applicable to legal, historical, and other such language.

Here are 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."

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Thank you, Lucaspa.


These guidlines are so thorough as to apply equally to any potentially difficult ancient or modern work, eg. Locke, Pascal, the poetry of T.S.Eliot, the plays of Sophocles; Finnegan's Wake.

__________________


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."~Elbert Hubbard
_______________________

"Between impulse and action there is a realm of good taste begging for your acquaintance."~Voyager's Holographic Doctor
_______________________

"I do not understand their humor, either."~Lt. Commander Worf
_______________________

Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam, K'Ehleyr!

I am not sure what is so magical about something being taught in "fundamentalist colleges". Any Christian organization which doesn't fully teach *all* the various methods of interpretation, even if it favors one particular method and says so, is not worth the designation of college or university.

Malaka, while we stand on the shoulders of our forbears in a lot of areas, and I am all in favor of learning from others' wisdom (I do it every day), you might want to consider what your approach to interpretation is based on a study of all the options, not what the particular group you belong to teaches you. Now, you may have already done this, and if so, then the method you ended up choosing is, indeed, "Malaka's Method".

I tend to not take *anything* presented to me by another human being as gospel, whether it be a dogma, a particular interpretation, or even a method of interpretation.