Hellacious Hermeneutics ... or "Why're we so serious about the Bible"?

[2PhiloVoid]

It has been my ongoing experience over the years to observe that most people, Christian or otherwise, have felt a sense of chagrin about the topic of Hermeneutics and Exegesis, especially where the Bible is concerned.

This got me thinking today, and I thought to myself, "Self!" ...and you know you can never be too serious when talking to yourself, and I said further to myself, "...maybe all of this Hermeneutics and Exegesis stuff you've attempted to engage and to learn about these past few decades is all hocus-pocus and amounts to nothing more than sophistry with semantics and frail human words. Why believe any of this? Maybe it's all additive, or worse yet, incorrect, unneeded and otherwise superfluous to the Christian Life on the whole. I mean, you have the Holy Spirit just like all of these other fine people do who identify as Christians. Who needs anything more?"

And so, without further ado, I leave this thread as a space for all other Christians to tell me why I don't need Hermeneutics (or lessons in Exegesis), such as that which is all too briefly described but respresented by Jens Zimmermann in the video below, when engaging the (our) Christian Faith ...

Don't be shy! Go ahead! Rip Jens Zimmermann up one side and down the other ...

 

[spiritfilledjm]

I just took an intro into Hermeneutics class for college. I've never really had much experience with it...at least not as in depth. It was interesting. It seemed like, though, that they take out the Holy Spirit from it all. We're looking at just what the words say, the original meanings of the Greek and Hebrew, context of where it was written to and all the other contexts that may affect the meaning of what the author themselves had intended when writing it.

I understand why it is a good idea, I just think that there should be a healthy balance. Hermeneutics seems to run the risk (though not intentionally) of nullifying scripture by arguing that it wasn't written to us which goes against 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and one of the basis for the argument of what made scripture, well...scripture.

 

[biblelesson]

It has been my ongoing experience over the years to observe that most people, Christian or otherwise, have felt a sense of chagrin about the topic of Hermeneutics and Exegesis, especially where the Bible is concerned.

This got me thinking today, and I thought to myself, "Self!" ...and you know you can never be too serious when talking to yourself, and I said further to myself, "...maybe all of this Hermeneutics and Exegesis stuff you've attempted to engage and to learn about these past few decades is all hocus-pocus and amounts to nothing more than sophistry with semantics and frail human words. Why believe any of this? Maybe it's all additive, or worse yet, incorrect, unneeded and otherwise superfluous to the Christian Life on the whole. I mean, you have the Holy Spirit just like all of these other fine people do who identify as Christians. Who needs anything more?"

And so, without further ado, I leave this thread as a space for all other Christians to tell me why I don't need Hermeneutics (or lessons in Exegesis), such as that which is respresented by Jens Zimmeran in the video below, when engaging the (our) Christian Faith ...

Don't be shy! Go ahead! Rip Jens Zimmerman up one side and down the other ...

Here are some scriptures to consider on the subject:

Titus 3:9, "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain."

1 Corinthians 2:1-2, And I brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." 2, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucifies."

1 Corinthians 2:5, "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

1 Corinthians 2:7, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory."

1 Corinthians 2:13, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

2 Corinthians 3:12, "Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech."

2 Peter 2:3, "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not and their damnation slumbereth not."

For our own sake we must comprehend the word of God ourselves! We must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, Philippians 2:12.

Or else we are faced with 2 Peter 3:16, "As also in all his (Apostle Paul) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I just took an intro into Hermeneutics class for college. I've never really had much experience with it...at least not as in depth. It was interesting.

It seemed like, though, that they take out the Holy Spirit from it all. We're looking at just what the words say, the original meanings of the Greek and Hebrew, context of where it was written to and all the other contexts that may affect the meaning of what the author themselves had intended when writing it.

Yes, I agree. It's definitely an interesting field of study and can give us more to think about than what we may often do when merely left to ourselves. Was your class more of a 'Biblical Hermeneutics' class, one more or less focused upon entering into disciphering the finer points of Biblical Exegesis?

I understand why it is a good idea, I just think that there should be a healthy balance. Hermeneutics seems to run the risk (though not intentionally) of nullifying scripture by arguing that it wasn't written to us which goes against 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and one of the basis for the argument of what made scripture, well...scripture.

Although, admittedly, it does often open up more questions for inquiry than it enables us to answer, I can understand why some individuals will find that an uncomfortable place to be, particularly if those studies take one over into the manifold field of Textual Criticism (of any text, really, and not just of the Bible).

And I can empathize with your concern that some aspects of this area of study can lead to very deep waters of incisive inquiry, so deep at times that for some, it can run the risk of creating doubt about the veracity of various aspects or portions of the Scriptures. But I don't think it has to have that kind of outcome, and if handled correctly, it more often will help us to prevent misuses of biblical statements.

But with all of that, Hermeneutics has also become an umbrella term for a wider category of study that doesn't necessarily pertain to only the Bible, but to many of the things we human beings create in our culture, things that are symbols of meaning that we all to some extent have to grapple with (e.g. a stop sign).

Since there could also be some risks involved with Hermeneutics on the whole, which of the 10 points in the Zimmerman video do you think open a person up most to risks if this kind of mindfulness is applied to the Christian Faith and/or the Bible?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here are some scriptures to consider on the subject:

Titus 3:9, "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain."

1 Corinthians 2:1-2, And I brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." 2, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucifies."

1 Corinthians 2:5, "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

1 Corinthians 2:7, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory."

1 Corinthians 2:13, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

2 Corinthians 3:12, "Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech."

2 Peter 2:3, "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not and their damnation slumbereth not."

For our own sake we must comprehend the word of God ourselves! We must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, Philippians 2:12.

Or else we are faced with 2 Peter 3:16, "As also in all his (Apostle Paul) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Ok. So, I'm not sure how this string of Scriptures addresses the OP, or how it counts as a criticism of it. Could you elaborate? I have to ask because very often, those scholars who tread among Hermenuetics (and textual exegesis) do so to try to better understand a text. In the area of Biblical Exegesis, one of the goals for some biblical interpreters to is avoid twisting Scripture and so, it is seen as a scholarly aid rather than a hindrance.

Of course, we both know that there are scholars for whom the deconstruction of the Scriptures isn't for the purpose of understanding them better, but to dispose of them, or ideas within them that they don't like, so I can understand some of your concern.

But, you may have other experiences with this that I have. So, which points of the video do you think are absolutely unneeded and become a problem if applied to our attempts to "read" the Bible?

 

[Der Alte]

While there is scriptural support for relying on the Holy Spirit but which version of the Holy Spirit guiding should we trust?
There are many heterodox groups around all claiming that their interpretation of scripture is the only true interpretation and anyone who disagrees with them is of the devil ETC. e.g. LDS, JW, OP, UPCI, WWCG, INC et alia. This list in only representative not inclusive.
They can't all be right but they can all be wrong.
In many instances these groups say that some words don't mean what appears in the KJV, or other versions, but really mean something else. And they claim that the spirit told them the true meaning of the word(s). Again each of the groups have their own interpretation what various words "really" mean.
I am multilingual I can't recall the Holy Spirit ever revealing to me what words in another language really mean. I guess that only works for the Bible.
Some folks think the KJV is God's own chosen version. Shortly after the NIV was published I heard one pastor say "There is only only one version, the King James Version, all others are perversions."
My first Greek professor was Dr. Roger Omanson, since deceased, who was on the original NIV committee. He was as spirit led as any person I ever met.
Most folks are not aware that there are about 800 words in the KJV which have changed meaning or dropped out of the language altogether. I have served in Korean churches since '77. For people whose mother tongue is not English the KJV is virtually unintelligible.

 

[Clare73]

It has been my ongoing experience over the years to observe that most people, Christian or otherwise, have felt a sense of chagrin about the topic of Hermeneutics and Exegesis, especially where the Bible is concerned.

This got me thinking today, and I thought to myself, "Self!" ...and you know you can never be too serious when talking to yourself, and I said further to myself, "...maybe all of this Hermeneutics and Exegesis stuff you've attempted to engage and to learn about these past few decades is all hocus-pocus and amounts to nothing more than sophistry with semantics and frail human words. Why believe any of this? Maybe it's all additive, or worse yet, incorrect, unneeded and otherwise superfluous to the Christian Life on the whole. I mean, you have the Holy Spirit just like all of these other fine people do who identify as Christians. Who needs anything more?"

And so, without further ado, I leave this thread as a space for all other Christians to tell me why I don't need Hermeneutics (or lessons in Exegesis), such as that which is all to briefly described but respresented by Jens Zimmeran in the video below, when engaging the (our) Christian Faith ...

Don't be shy! Go ahead! Rip Jens Zimmerman up one side and down the other ...

Great summation. . .

Disagree with him on a lot, the least of which is his referral to fundamentalism, which simply is maintenance, in opposition to modernism, of traditional orthodox beliefs such as the inerrancy of Scripture and literal acceptance of the creeds as fundamentals of Protestant Christianity.

My main objection to hermeneutics, including to its philosophy, is its assumption of objectivity through use of a largely subjective suppositional methodolgy. I see its philosophy as incompatible with the Holy Spirit as enlightenment, retarding it rather than facilitating it.

I would go so far as to say Blaise Pachal would not agree with him at all. . .and that he would advise you sit loosely to it.

I share the opinion that the hermeneuticists' perception of "Scripture taken at its word" as being distorted, is what is actually distorted, and more than anything else, is what needs revision.

There's too much subjecive human philosphy and not enough Holy Spirit in hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics approaches the Bible like an unbeliever--never a good approach--and assumes a subjective suppositional methodology can actually open the word of God to him.

And that's pretty much all I will say about that. . .

 

[biblelesson]

Ok. So, I'm not sure how this string of Scriptures addresses the OP, or how it counts as a criticism of it. Could you elaborate? I have to ask because very often, those scholars who tread among Hermenuetics (and textual exegesis) do so to try to better understand a text. In the area of Biblical Exegesis, one of the goals for some biblical interpreters to is avoid twisting Scripture and so, it is seen as a scholarly aid rather than a hindrance.

I will re-list two scriptures here and will explain how I see this issue, but no one has to believe me. This is just how I see it.

1 Corinthians 2:13, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

I understand that you made reference to the study of Hermenuetics being used for other reasons, but in relation to using that form of science to interpret the bible, there is no need. That was my point of listing the scriptures, which is a caution to treat the word of God with great plainness, and not with man's philosophy and scientific approach.

Hermanuetics is a scientific term created by man, and not by God.

When we get into using a science based approach with reading the bible, we move away from God being the ultimate authority of His own word through the Holy Spirit. God Himself has providing man a way to authenticate the written word, that is through the written word itself. A few ways in particular: If you think about Isaiah 28:10, "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line up line; here a little, and there a little, and know what that scripture means, you will see that throughout the entire bible, the bible interprets itself with no need of elaborate interpretation.

Another form of authentication God has provided in His word, which there are many, is where He says "calling the ending from the beginning," Isaiah 46:9-11, meaning what God has said will comes to pass have been proven to have truly taken place and history has proven it.

Of course, we both know that there are scholars for whom the deconstruction of the Scriptures isn't for the purpose of understanding them better, but to dispose of them, or ideas within them that they don't like, so I can understand some of your concern.

But, you may have other experiences with this that I have. So, which points of the video do you think are absolutely unneeded and become a problem if applied to our attempts to "read" the Bible?

True, and that's the reason for the commandment to be aware. If the caution is given in the bible for these few, that is to depose the biblical truth through such scientific practices, as you stated some do, which is what the bible states that some do, then it's for all believers to steer away from such practices.

Romans 8:16 says "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" There is a spiritual process of transformation throughout the reading of the gospel, the gospel being of Power itself, Romans 1:16, ..."it is the power of God unto salvation to every one thaT believeth..."

Some people don't know that it is the POWER of the gospel that ushers in salvation by hearing, ministered through the Holy Spirit, Galatians 3:5.

The Holy Spirit doesn't work by way of man's scientific theological interpretation of the pure word of God.

 

[Der Alte]

I will re-list two scriptures here and will explain how I see this issue, but no one has to believe me. This is just how I see it.
1 Corinthians 2:13, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
I understand that you made reference to the study of Hermenuetics being used for other reasons, but in relation to using that form of science to interpret the bible, there is no need. That was my point of listing the scriptures, which is a caution to treat the word of God with great plainness, and not with man's philosophy and scientific approach.
Hermanuetics is a scientific term created by man, and not by God.
When we get into using a science based approach with reading the bible, we move away from God being the ultimate authority of His own word through the Holy Spirit. God Himself has providing man a way to authenticate the written word, that is through the written word itself. A few ways in particular: If you think about Isaiah 28:10, "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line up line; here a little, and there a little, and know what that scripture means, you will see that throughout the entire bible, the bible interprets itself with no need of elaborate interpretation.
Another form of authentication God has provided in His word, which there are many, is where He says "calling the ending from the beginning," Isaiah 46:9-11, meaning what God has said will comes to pass have been proven to have truly taken place and history has proven it.
True, and that's the reason for the commandment to be aware. If the caution is given in the bible for these few, that is to depose the biblical truth through such scientific practices, as you stated some do, which is what the bible states that some do, then it's for all believers to steer away from such practices.
Romans 8:16 says "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" There is a spiritual process of transformation throughout the reading of the gospel, the gospel being of Power itself, Romans 1:16, ..."it is the power of God unto salvation to every one thaT believeth..."
Some people don't know that it is the POWER of the gospel that ushers in salvation by hearing, ministered through the Holy Spirit, Galatians 3:5.
The Holy Spirit doesn't work by way of man's scientific theological interpretation of the pure word of God.

None of which addresses my objection in my post [#6] above.

 

[SkyWriting]

It has been my ongoing experience over the years to observe that most people, Christian or otherwise, have felt a sense of chagrin about the topic of Hermeneutics and Exegesis, especially where the Bible is concerned. This got me thinking today, and I thought to myself, "Self!" ...and you know you can never be too serious when talking to yourself, and I said further to myself, "...maybe all of this Hermeneutics and Exegesis stuff you've attempted to engage and to learn about these past few decades is all hocus-pocus and amounts to nothing more than sophistry with semantics and frail human words. Why believe any of this? Maybe it's all additive, or worse yet, incorrect, unneeded and otherwise superfluous to the Christian Life on the whole. I mean, you have the Holy Spirit just like all of these other fine people do who identify as Christians. Who needs anything more?"

That's what I've been explaining to people.

Romans 1:20
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Romans 1:19
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Isaiah 40:26
Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name, by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power not one is missing.

Psalm 33:6-9
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap; he puts the deeps in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him! For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

Psalm 8:3
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,

Romans 2:15
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Deuteronomy 4:19
And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Disagree with him on a lot, the least of which is his definition of fundamentalism, which simply is believing the fundamentals of Christianity. . .seeks objectivity with a suppositional subjective methodolgy.

Well, to be fair, what Zimmerman is calling Fundamentalism in the video is an abstract application of the term "Fundamentalist," one that applies to any group that holds unswervingly to certain ideas without questioning them. So, when he refers in the video to Fundamentalists, he's not primarily refererring to Christians; he could be referring to Fundamentalist Atheists (yes, there is such a thing, although they probably don't think it applies). There's also fundamentalist Muslims, as well adherents of other religions who wont analyze anything precepts that they think are important in their religious views. Communists could also be cited a holding a form of 'Fundamentalism.'

I would go so far as to say Blaise Pacal would not agree with him at all.

Actually, Pascal probably would, at least somewhat, since he wasn't really an epistemological Foundationalist, which is what a lot of Christian Fundamentalist these days are. Or course, there are also different denotations of the term and on some level, I'm a 'Christian Fundamentalist' because I hold to certain Fundamentals of the faith (just not all of them ... )

And that's pretty much all I will say about it. . .

Ok. Thanks for the comments, Clare!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's what I've been explaining to people.

Romans 1:20
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Romans 1:19
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Isaiah 40:26
Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name, by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power not one is missing.

Psalm 33:6-9
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap; he puts the deeps in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him! For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

Psalm 8:3
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,

Romans 2:15
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Deuteronomy 4:19
And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

Ok. So, you're leaning on the "All I need is the Holy Spirit!" side of the continuum, I take it? There's no need to learn or implement either Hermeneutical studies or apply more educated measures to our reading(s) of the Bible?

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your insinuation here. Thanks!

 

[hedrick]

To me the main point of exegesis is to see what the author meant. That requires study and skill or at least two reasons:

• Language isn't math. It's a complex enterprise that involves a lot of context. Understanding something written 2000 years ago requires us to realize what words and concepts would have meant in a very different culture.
• It's very easy to read our own ideas in a text. Exegesis is in large part an attempt to avoid that.

People who don't do careful exegesis typically read the Bible as supporting whatever they currently think.

 

[Clare73]

Well, to be fair, what Zimmerman is calling Fundamentalism in the video is an abstract application of the term "Fundamentalist," one that applies to any group that holds unswervingly to certain ideas without questioning them. So, when he refers in the video to Fundamentalists, he's not primarily refererring to Christians; he could be referring to Fundamentalist Atheists (yes, there is such a thing, although they probably don't think it applies). There's also fundamentalist Muslims, as well adherents of other religions who wont analyze anything precepts that they think are important in their religious views. Communists could also be cited a holding a form of 'Fundamentalism.'

Actually, Pascal probably would, at least somewhat, since he wasn't really an epistemological Foundationalist, which is what a lot of Christian Fundamentalist these days are.

I think Paschal's note in the lining of his coat tells you what he was. . .God's truth didn't come to him through human methodology.

Or course, there are also different denotations of the term and on some level, I'm a 'Christian Fundamentalist' because I hold to certain Fundamentals of the faith (just not all of them ... )

The five which "fundamentalism" holds to are:
1) the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture,
2) the deity of Christ,
3) his virgin birth and miracles,
4) his penal death for our sins, and
5) his physical resurrection and return.

Ok. Thanks for the comments, Clare!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think Paschal's note in the lining of his coat tells you what he was. . .God's truth didn't come to him through human methodology.

Partly; but I'd aver that more so, it's what we find in Pascal's Pensees that indicates what he REALLY thought, Clare.

And yes, I've read the Pensees ... It's one of my favorite books, next to C.S. Lewis', The Screwtape Letters.

The five which "fundamentalism" holds to are:
1) the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture,
2) the deity of Christ,
3) his virgin birth and miracles,
4) his penal death, and
5) his physical resurrection and return.

Well, I guess I score a 4.5 on the 'basic' Fundamentalist test, then. Not bad ... !

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I will re-list two scriptures here and will explain how I see this issue, but no one has to believe me. This is just how I see it.

1 Corinthians 2:13, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Ok. So, what are the specific things that the Holy Spirit teaches us to which Paul is referring?

Colossians 2:8

, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Ok. And which aspects of philosophy was Paul warning the Colossian church about? Any and all philosophy of his time? Or just some ideas floating around in the culture at large? How do we know what the referent is to which Paul is pointing?

I understand that you made reference to the study of Hermenuetics being used for other reasons, but in relation to using that form of science to interpret the bible, there is no need. That was my point of listing the scriptures, which is a caution to treat the word of God with great plainness, and not with man's philosophy and scientific approach.

So, I may be incorrect here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost sounds like your implying that when scholars (and they HAVE to be scholars) who translate the original manuscripts into English for us, they're ALL being led by the Holy Spirit to do so, to transcend the need to interpret within the translation process? Is this what you're implying?

Hermanuetics is a scientific term created by man, and not by God.

Well, the English language was created by man and not God, so what do we do then with the English language (or any modern language that isn't akin to either ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek)? I guess I'm not understanding how the Holy Spirit deposit 'right interpretations' in so many Christian minds when...so many Chrsitian minds end up reading the translations OF the Bible and then disagree with one another about what it is that the Holy Spirit is seemingly teaching in certain portions of the Bible. How are we to discern that our own "plain reading" is Holy Spirit inspired but that of Sally Sue at the other church down the street isn't when she also "plainly reads" the Bible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

It's kind of a modern confusion that I'm trying to sort out ...

When we get into using a science based approach with reading the bible, we move away from God being the ultimate authority of His own word through the Holy Spirit.

Why?

God Himself has providing man a way to authenticate the written word, that is through the written word itself. A few ways in particular: If you think about Isaiah 28:10, "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line up line; here a little, and there a little, and know what that scripture means, you will see that throughout the entire bible, the bible interprets itself with no need of elaborate interpretation. [/qutoe] ok. So, what does Isaiah 28:10 mean in practical terms? You've quoted it as a place by which to be informed, but what is it telling us to do exactly in everyday terms?

Another form of authentication God has provided in His word, which there are many, is where He says "calling the ending from the beginning," Isaiah 46:9-11, meaning what God has said will comes to pass have been proven to have truly taken place and history has proven it.

Ok. Well, why are so many Christians disagreeing on the essence and meaning on Eschatology in the Bible? Aren't they all being led by the Spirit?

True, and that's the reason for the commandment to be aware. If the caution is given in the bible for these few, that is to depose the biblical truth through such scientific practices, as you stated some do, which is what the bible states that some do, then it's for all believers to steer away from such practices.

I don't know. I've found that sometimes at least, we have to keep in mind the contexts and the flow of thought positied by an author in order to better understand what that author is attempting to convey. And that's not even just talking about the Bible but with any text or act of human communication.

Romans 8:16 says "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" There is a spiritual process of transformation throughout the reading of the gospel, the gospel being of Power itself, Romans 1:16, ..."it is the power of God unto salvation to every one thaT believeth..."

Ok. Well, I can't say that I disagree, but aren't you interpreting the meaning of this bit from Romans 1:16 in order to understand what Paul is saying?

Some people don't know that it is the POWER of the gospel that ushers in salvation by hearing, ministered through the Holy Spirit, Galatians 3:5.

Sure. That much seems to be clear to all of us Christians universally, or else we wouldn't all value the Bible as a main, central text which informs our faith in Jesus Christ, right?

The Holy Spirit doesn't work by way of man's scientific theological interpretation of the pure word of God.

So, help me out here, because I don't want to misinterpet what your saying, but are you again implying that if the Holy Spirit is involved, we have no need for anyone else in the church to teach us? If that's the case, I guess I don't need to listen to any more sermons from any pastors or evangelists or prophets. I mean, if I have a Bible, then there's no need for teachers and preachers and all that, right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

While there is scriptural support for relying on the Holy Spirit but which version of the Holy Spirit guiding should we trust?

That's exactly what I'm wondering. Everyone but me seems to know best ...

[qutoe]There are many heterodox groups around all claiming that their interpretation of scripture is the only true interpretation and anyone who disagrees with them is of the devil ETC. e.g. LDS, JW, OP, UPCI, WWCG, INC et alia. This list in only representative not inclusive.[/quote] And here I've been told by them that "they don't interpret the Bible, they just read it plainly."

They can't all be right but they can all be wrong.

Yeah, I'd rather just say, "Wow, I'm not sure what that passage or verse means! I better look into (and maybe pray about it, too, while I'm at it).

In many instances these groups say that some words don't mean what appears in the KJV, or other versions, but really mean something else. And they claim that the spirit told them the true meaning of the word(s). Again each of the groups have their own interpretation what various words "really" mean.
I am multilingual I can't recall the Holy Spirit ever revealing to me what words in another language really mean. I guess that only works for the Bible.
Some folks think the KJV is God's own chosen version. Shortly after the NIV was published I heard one pastor say "There is only only one version, the King James Version, all others are perversions."
My first Greek professor was Dr. Roger Omanson, since deceased, who was on the original NIV committee. He was as spirit led as any person I ever met.
Most folks are not aware that there are about 800 words in the KJV which have changed meaning or dropped out of the language altogether. I have served in Korean churches since '77. For people whose mother tongue is not English the KJV is virtually unintelligible.

Oh yeah. I'm familiar with that. And this is one reason all of the reading of the bible becomes such hard work for all of us. Or well, it's hard work for me anyway... ... which is one reason folks don't see me just laying out scripture quotes left and right. I'd want to be fairly confident that I have a reasonable handle on the most likely intended meaning of a biblical author before I commit to it in written or verbal affirmation.

So, here's a question: What's is the source text on either Biblical Hermeneutics or Biblical Exegesis that you either like these days OR was a favored one back when you were in the university?

 

[spiritfilledjm]

Since there could also be some risks involved with Hermeneutics on the whole, which of the 10 points in the Zimmerman video do you think open a person up most to risks if this kind of mindfulness is applied to the Christian Faith and/or the Bible?

It was a class for my biblical and theological studies degree at Regent University. So, yeah, it was a Biblical Hermeneutics class.

I've always put value in understanding the context of scripture, whether that be reading the scriptures preceding and following or understanding the culture of the time. I also stake a lot of value of attempting to understand the meanings of the words used, where they come from, things like that. However, that class, and it seems hermeneutics in general seems to remove any part of the Holy Spirit showing somebody the truth of the scripture itself. It just seems like hermeneutics is meant to study the Bible without relying on the Holy Spirit to guide someone at all.

Zimmerman's video (which I just watched) was not bad overall and was a good quick insight into what hermeneutics is. If anything though, his last point is the one that worries me the most. It sounds like he's saying that hermeneutics cures fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is not something that needs to be cured and coming up with any excuse that one can make to claim that a word in the Bible does not mean what generations of Christian scholars have understood it to mean is laughable at best. Studying the Bible but leaving the Holy Spirit out of it is like driving the wrong way down an interstate with a blindfold on.

 

[Clare73]

Partly; but I'd aver that more so, it's what we find in Pascal's Pensees that indicates what he REALLY thought, Clare.
And yes, I've read the Pensees ... It's one of my favorite books, next to C.S. Lewis', The Screwtape Letters.

Well, I guess I score a 4.5 on the 'basic' Fundamentalist test, then. Not bad ... !

Proud of you!

And I yield to your superior philosophical acumen. . .

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It was a class for my biblical and theological studies degree at Regent University. So, yeah, it was a Biblical Hermeneutics class.

I've always put value in understanding the context of scripture, whether that be reading the scriptures preceding and following or understanding the culture of the time. I also stake a lot of value of attempting to understand the meanings of the words used, where they come from, things like that. However, that class, and it seems hermeneutics in general seems to remove any part of the Holy Spirit showing somebody the truth of the scripture itself. It just seems like hermeneutics is meant to study the Bible without relying on the Holy Spirit to guide someone at all.

Ok. I can understand your concern in this, but I've never had the experience where my study cause me to relinquish the Bible. I know there are different Hermeneutical angles of approach in handling and reading the Bible, so some of your concern may hinge upon just one or two of those select approaches. Other angles may actually compliment whatever it is the Lord would like for us to get out of our reading and response to His Word.

Zimmerman's video (which I just watched) was not bad overall and was a good quick insight into what hermeneutics is. If anything though, his last point is the one that worries me the most. It sounds like he's saying that hermeneutics cures fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is not something that needs to be cured and coming up with any excuse that one can make to claim that a word in the Bible does not mean what generations of Christian scholars have understood it to mean is laughable at best. Studying the Bible but leaving the Holy Spirit out of it is like driving the wrong way down an interstate with a blindfold on.

Well, as I related to Clare above, what Zimmerman 'means' in reference to Fundamentalism isn't exactly pointed at Christians. It can be a citation, in general, to any form of hyper-statsis upon some unjustified adherence to value or meaning of some text or symbol---so his reference can apply to an atheist, or a Muslim, or even a Communist, or anyone else who holds a position without reflection and mindfulness.