.

[StTruth]

@StTruth this is the post I did not receive a response from you:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69975223

I did reply to your questions. But as I recall it, there were many other people asking the same questions and I wrote in reply to someone else. But you definitely saw it because you responded to it. My reply is in post # 174 of this same thread. Here's the link: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69976648

If you have any questions that I have failed to answer, please let me know. I'm always happy to answer all your questions. But admittedly, some of them will require some time for me to gather all my facts and provide a comprehensive answer.

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[redleghunter]

I did reply to your questions. But as I recall it, there were many other people asking the same questions and I wrote in reply to someone else. But you definitely saw it because you responded to it. My reply is in post # 174 of this same thread. Here's the link: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69976648

If you have any questions that I have failed to answer, please let me know. I'm always happy to answer all your questions. But admittedly, some of them will require some time for me to gather all my facts and provide a comprehensive answer.

Cheers,

StTruth

That link you provided was not in response to my rebuttal. Here is the link again.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69975223

 

[StTruth]

That link you provided was not in response to my rebuttal. Here is the link again.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69975223

Read that link and you will see that it answers your question precisely. If you want specific questions that are different, try posting them here. It's very hard for me if you refer to a past post because many of them have been answered and you know it too. Let me have questions that have not been answered and which you have not read in my replies to other people. This is not a game. If I have replied to others, you don't just refer me to a past post of yours and make me answer all the questions again. Print whatever question you want here and now and I will answer them. If you are too lazy to do that, I'm too lazy to go back to previous posts.

 

[StTruth]

That link you provided was not in response to my rebuttal. Here is the link again.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69975223

I say this link I provided is in response to your question: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69976648

If you think it's not, post the questions that you want me to answer here. Don't make me read past posts because really, if you examine that link, I have answered your question. Come on, don't be lazy. Ask whatever questions that you think I have not answered. I am ready to take you on. Post your questions here and I will reply. Don't just let this thread fizzle out. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

 

[redleghunter]

Read that link and you will see that it answers your question precisely. If you want specific questions that are different, try posting them here. It's very hard for me if you refer to a past post because many of them have been answered and you know it too. Let me have questions that have not been answered and which you have not read in my replies to other people. This is not a game. If I have replied to others, you don't just refer me to a past post of yours and make me answer all the questions again. Print whatever question you want here and now and I will answer them. If you are too lazy to do that, I'm too lazy to go back to previous posts.

It is customary when making claims, especially bold claims to respond to rebuttals. What you linked was not a rebuttal to the subject I addressed but a gushing endorsement of Ehrman and Bruce.

I went into quite some detail showing how your assertions were unfounded and in error. My post had little to do with Ehrman and Bruce and more about your comments on donkeys and the gospels. Line by line I refuted your assertions with no response. You are at liberty to not respond, tell me to take a hike, etc. but please do not try to claim what you posted below is a response to my rebuttal. It is not.

This is what I wrote in response to your post on Matthew:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69975223

This is what you say is your rebuttal:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69976648

Please let me know how the above is responding to my rebuttal?

Again, you don't have to answer, that is your liberty to not do so. However, please do not tell me the above answers my rebuttal. Clearly it does not.

 

[StTruth]

It is customary when making claims, especially bold claims to respond to rebuttals. What you linked was not a rebuttal to the subject I addressed but a gushing endorsement of Ehrman and Bruce.

I went into quite some detail showing how your assertions were unfounded and in error. My post had little to do with Ehrman and Bruce and more about your comments on donkeys and the gospels. Line by line I refuted your assertions with no response. You are at liberty to not respond, tell me to take a hike, etc. but please do not try to claim what you posted below is a response to my rebuttal. It is not.

This is what I wrote in response to your post on Matthew:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69975223

This is what you say is your rebuttal:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69976648

Please let me know how the above is responding to my rebuttal?

Again, you don't have to answer, that is your liberty to not do so. However, please do not tell me the above answers my rebuttal. Clearly it does not.

Tell me in what way it does not. Show me a question that you want answered. It's easy to copy and paste. Do it and I will write a thesis to show you I'm right and you are wrong.

 

[civilwarbuff]

So, in other words you don't want to be bothered to read what he linked to; you want him to provide all the work so you can just say you answered the questions and if he does not like answers, too bad.

 

[StTruth]

Actually, what I'm going to say below I have already said in this thread but I can't find it. But I'll do it again.

OK, if you want me to explain why St Matthew cooked up about Jesus and the two donkeys, I can do it. You see, you totally miss the point. You are employing what apologists love to resort to whenever they see a discrepancy in numbers in the Bible. Always pick the larger number and say that the person who mentions the smaller number was zooming in on the smaller number and isn't really bothered about the rest. That's what they do all the time.

When you use this same ploy, you will of course say that Jesus told the disciples to fetch two donkeys. The other evangelists zoomed in on only one donkey. But that simplistic answer won't work because we know that Zephaniah uses parallelism in Hebrew poetry where the last line repeats what the first part of the poem is saying. St Matthew, because of a misunderstanding of the poetic device mistakenly thought there should be two donkeys - a donkey and a foal. But the rest knew there should only be one donkey and so they mentioned only one.

Do you also want me to show why there is a discrepancy between St Paul's account of his conversion and Acts' account? I did mention (I can't remember if it's this thread or another) that St Paul was actually in enmity with the real apostles and he was stressing his independence of them while Acts, trying to smooth over all the quarrels, wrote a different story.

Or do you want me to talk about examples of the evangelists cooking up more stories to fit Jesus into OT prophecies which are not applicable to Jesus or have I already said that and you can remember it? You see it's very hard to remember what I've written when you suddenly refer me to a post that's so long ago. It would be better if you re-post whatever questions that you would like to hear my answers on afresh here.

 

[StTruth]

So, in other words you don't want to be bothered to read what he linked to; you want him to provide all the work so you can just say you answered the questions and if he does not like answers, too bad.

See what I have written above. I need to know what answers he wants, what answers he can remember from me etc. That's because there are MANY errors and contradictions in the Bible and I can't remember which I have brought up and which I have not.

What biblical errors does he want me to talk about? The almah-parthenos mistranslation that led to our Virgin birth doctrine or the Acts 15 mistranslation or the John 3:3 story which couldn't have taken place according to one scholar. Or does he want me to go on the contradictions in the crucifixion account and the resurrection account? Or have I already dealt with some of these?

You see, that is the problem with someone suddenly resuscitating an old post. It's hard to remember what I've said and what he can remember. It's much easier for him to narrow down what it is that he wants to hear.

 

[redleghunter]

Tell me in what way it does not. Show me a question that you want answered. It's easy to copy and paste. Do it and I will write a thesis to show you I'm right and you are wrong.

Sir, it is all in the link I posted three times. Line by line.

 

[redleghunter]

OK, if you want me to explain why St Matthew cooked up about Jesus and the two donkeys, I can do it. You see, you totally miss the point. You are employing what apologists love to resort to whenever they see a discrepancy in numbers in the Bible. Always pick the larger number and say that the person who mentions the smaller number was zooming in on the smaller number and isn't really bothered about the rest. That's what they do all the time.

When you use this same ploy, you will of course say that Jesus told the disciples to fetch two donkeys. The other evangelists zoomed in on only one donkey. But that simplistic answer won't work because we know that Zephaniah uses parallelism in Hebrew poetry where the last line repeats what the first part of the poem is saying. St Matthew, because of a misunderstanding of the poetic device mistakenly thought there should be two donkeys - a donkey and a foal. But the rest knew there should only be one donkey and so they mentioned only one.

You are restating your original assertions without considering the exegesis I provided for the verses in question. Your assertions will remain just that until the exegesis provided is found in error. So far your responses have read like book reviews and not an argument.

Not trying to be difficult. Biblical exegesis takes some patience and time to consider all the factors relating to the text. This may help:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

Also of value is this:

Question: "What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?"

Answer: Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

Second Timothy 2:15 commands us to use exegetical methods: “Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

To illustrate, let’s use both approaches in the treatment of one passage:

2 Chronicles 27:1-2
“Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. . . . He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did not enter the temple of the LORD.”

EISEGESIS
First, the interpreter decides on a topic. Today, it’s “The Importance of Church Attendance.” The interpreter reads 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 and sees that King Jotham was a good king, just like his father Uzziah had been, except for one thing: he didn’t go to the temple! This passage seems to fit his idea, so he uses it. The resulting sermon deals with the need for passing on godly values from one generation to the next. Just because King Uzziah went to the temple every week didn’t mean that his son would continue the practice. In the same way, many young people today tragically turn from their parents’ training, and church attendance drops off. The sermon ends with a question: “How many blessings did Jotham fail to receive, simply because he neglected church?”

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with preaching about church attendance or the transmission of values. And a cursory reading of 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 seems to support that passage as an apt illustration. However, the above interpretation is totally wrong. For Jotham not to go to the temple was not wrong; in fact, it was very good, as the proper approach to the passage will show.

EXEGESIS
First, the interpreter reads the passage and, to fully understand the context, he reads the histories of both Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chronicles 26-27; 2 Kings 15:1-6, 32-38). In his observation, he discovers that King Uzziah was a good king who nevertheless disobeyed the Lord when he went to the temple and offered incense on the altar—something only a priest had the right to do (2 Chronicles 26:16-20). Uzziah’s pride and his contamination of the temple resulted in his having “leprosy until the day he died” (2 Chronicles 26:21).

Needing to know why Uzziah spent the rest of his life in isolation, the interpreter studies Leviticus 13:46 and does some research on leprosy. Then he compares the use of illness as a punishment in other passages, such as 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chronicles 16:12; and 21:12-15.

By this time, the exegete understands something important: when the passage says Jotham “did not enter the temple of the LORD,” it means he did not repeat his father’s mistake. Uzziah had proudly usurped the priest’s office; Jotham was more obedient.

The resulting sermon might deal with the Lord’s discipline of His children, with the blessing of total obedience, or with our need to learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeat them.

Of course, exegesis takes more time than eisegesis. But if we are to be those unashamed workmen “who correctly handle the word of truth,” then we must take the time to truly understand the text. Exegesis is the only way.


http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html

 

[redleghunter]

I did mention (I can't remember if it's this thread or another) that St Paul was actually in enmity with the real apostles and he was stressing his independence of them while Acts, trying to smooth over all the quarrels, wrote a different story.

Yes please link that conversation too. I remember refuting it at least twice.

 

[StTruth]

You are restating your original assertions without considering the exegesis I provided for the verses in question. Your assertions will remain just that until the exegesis provided is found in error. So far your responses have read like book reviews and not an argument.

Not trying to be difficult. Biblical exegesis takes some patience and time to consider all the factors relating to the text. This may help:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

Also of value is this:

Question: "What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?"

Answer: Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

Second Timothy 2:15 commands us to use exegetical methods: “Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

To illustrate, let’s use both approaches in the treatment of one passage:

2 Chronicles 27:1-2
“Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. . . . He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did not enter the temple of the LORD.”

EISEGESIS
First, the interpreter decides on a topic. Today, it’s “The Importance of Church Attendance.” The interpreter reads 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 and sees that King Jotham was a good king, just like his father Uzziah had been, except for one thing: he didn’t go to the temple! This passage seems to fit his idea, so he uses it. The resulting sermon deals with the need for passing on godly values from one generation to the next. Just because King Uzziah went to the temple every week didn’t mean that his son would continue the practice. In the same way, many young people today tragically turn from their parents’ training, and church attendance drops off. The sermon ends with a question: “How many blessings did Jotham fail to receive, simply because he neglected church?”

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with preaching about church attendance or the transmission of values. And a cursory reading of 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 seems to support that passage as an apt illustration. However, the above interpretation is totally wrong. For Jotham not to go to the temple was not wrong; in fact, it was very good, as the proper approach to the passage will show.

EXEGESIS
First, the interpreter reads the passage and, to fully understand the context, he reads the histories of both Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chronicles 26-27; 2 Kings 15:1-6, 32-38). In his observation, he discovers that King Uzziah was a good king who nevertheless disobeyed the Lord when he went to the temple and offered incense on the altar—something only a priest had the right to do (2 Chronicles 26:16-20). Uzziah’s pride and his contamination of the temple resulted in his having “leprosy until the day he died” (2 Chronicles 26:21).

Needing to know why Uzziah spent the rest of his life in isolation, the interpreter studies Leviticus 13:46 and does some research on leprosy. Then he compares the use of illness as a punishment in other passages, such as 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chronicles 16:12; and 21:12-15.

By this time, the exegete understands something important: when the passage says Jotham “did not enter the temple of the LORD,” it means he did not repeat his father’s mistake. Uzziah had proudly usurped the priest’s office; Jotham was more obedient.

The resulting sermon might deal with the Lord’s discipline of His children, with the blessing of total obedience, or with our need to learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeat them.

Of course, exegesis takes more time than eisegesis. But if we are to be those unashamed workmen “who correctly handle the word of truth,” then we must take the time to truly understand the text. Exegesis is the only way.


http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html

This is all a waste of time. All you did was to copy and paste from the internet a whole lot of rubbish that is totally irrelevant. If you have a legitimate question, ask it. If you want to post some irrelevant garbage, please don't waste my time. I only argue real relevant points.

This is one reason why I wanted you to write out your questions. Too often, those who debate with me tend to copy and paste rubbish from the internet that does not address the issues at hand. It's really a waste of time. They expect me to read pages of garbage just to distil parts of the internet article and apply it to what is really pertinent in our discussion.

I will not have that. Write and use your own words. If you have something to ask, ask in your own words. Don't copy and paste from the internet because when you do that, 90% of the posts consists of passages that are irrelevant to our discussion. And don't give me links to read. Write what you want to say here and discuss properly.

 

[redleghunter]

This is all a waste of time. All you did was to copy and paste from the internet a whole lot of rubbish that is totally irrelevant. If you have a legitimate question, ask it. If you want to post some irrelevant garbage, please don't waste my time. I only argue real relevant points.

This is one reason why I wanted you to write out your questions. Too often, those who debate with me tend to copy and paste rubbish from the internet that does not address the issues at hand. It's really a waste of time. They expect me to read pages of garbage just to distil parts of the internet article and apply it to what is really pertinent in our discussion.

I will not have that. Write and use your own words. If you have something to ask, ask in your own words. Don't copy and paste from the internet because when you do that, 90% of the posts consists of passages that are irrelevant to our discussion. And don't give me links to read. Write what you want to say here and discuss properly.

Deflection noted. I provided you with some resources which may help you properly respond on a Christian site.

I directly addressed your assertions on the Matthew passage in the link I provided three times. I don't need to write out questions for you, because everything you need to respond to me is in that post. Here is the link again:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69975223

 

[civilwarbuff]

See what I have written above. I need to know what answers he wants, what answers he can remember from me etc. That's because there are MANY errors and contradictions in the Bible and I can't remember which I have brought up and which I have not.

What biblical errors does he want me to talk about? The almah-parthenos mistranslation that led to our Virgin birth doctrine or the Acts 15 mistranslation or the John 3:3 story which couldn't have taken place according to one scholar. Or does he want me to go on the contradictions in the crucifixion account and the resurrection account? Or have I already dealt with some of these?

You see, that is the problem with someone suddenly resuscitating an old post. It's hard to remember what I've said and what he can remember. It's much easier for him to narrow down what it is that he wants to hear.

He has linked you to them; all you have to do is go back and read. If you already answered them it is real simple to copy paste or direct link to your answer. It took me about 5 minutes to read them and redleghunter has a good point. Your answers are, at best, inadequate, especially your references to "theologians', "scholars" and "they" without ever giving names or the writings that you are making reference to.....without that it comes across as opinion.

 

[StTruth]

He has linked you to them; all you have to do is go back and read. If you already answered them it is real simple to copy paste or direct link to your answer. It took me about 5 minutes to read them and redleghunter has a good point. Your answers are, at best, inadequate, especially your references to "theologians', "scholars" and "they" without ever giving names or the writings that you are making reference to.....without that it comes across as opinion.

OK, I know what I'm going to do. I keep having to repeat a lot of what I have said on the many threads that I'm on. This is what I will do. I will write on my own website details of some of the biblical problems I have encountered and I will give a link to it any time someone asks for it. Part of the problem is many of the things are said on other threads and I might have assumed that I have answered them here.

OK, be patient. StTruth will post his most definitive, comprehensive and complete thesis on biblical problems and I'll supply a link here. If redleghunter has more questions, he's always at liberty to ask. But please don't refer me to a buried post.

 

[redleghunter]

If redleghunter has more questions, he's always at liberty to ask. But please don't refer me to a buried post.

No problem. I will just cut and paste what I linked when you get to Matthew. Too easy.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[Lulav]

​

 

[Lulav]

MOD HAT
This thread has had a
cleaning of Off Topic and
Flaming and Goading posts.
If your post is missing,
that is the reason.
To avoid incurring a violation
Please remember to address the Post
and not the poster.
Further violations
will be actioned.

​