Recently, I have been studying some work done by a Dr. Cottrell on the IJ and one of the things he brings out is that adventist "proof text" a lot with the Bible instead of using the historist/cultural approach to finding the real meaning of what the Bible is telling us. I'm not sure this is actually all that accurate. Certainly it may go on but he seems to intimate we do it all the time.
First off let's look at what proof texting actually is.
Prooftexting is the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a
document (often, but not always, a book of the Bible) to establish a proposition ...
en.wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext
Here again we are dealing with context in the Bible. I remember studying the Bible for years and always making sure that what I was gleening out of a belief was not taken out of context and I think I have become faily good at it over the years. The reason I did this was because I had seen a lot of this in other denominations. Some primary examples are ones like the vision of Peter making all meats clean now, or the verses in Col 2 to say that the ten commandments were now nailed to the cross of Christ.
Recently, I have been accused of performing eisegesis on some texts which is a fancy term for taking something out of context and ascribing your own interpretation to what you think it should say. I don't want to get into that per se' at this point but I think in a way this thread is tied into that concept.
Anyway, Dr. Cottrell's accusation for us doing a lot of proof texting is based on his in depth research of the Bible and it's original language. His contention is that for us to really understand the Bible we must take a couple of things into consideration. Those being primarily :
1. History of the ancients at that time and how that impacts the context of the study:
2. Syntax of the ancient language: how one word may modify or change the traditional interpretation many have grown to accept.
This is all good and fine and I would be the first to agree that there has to some extent been things lost in translation from the original language to english in several places. That's why we study. However, I disagree that we have to do this in all cases of dispute on doctrine or truths. For one very few of us have ph.d's in ancient hebrew or greek. Also, the gospels are full of places where the author makes mention of Christ's fulfillment of some prophecy in the old testament. Usually, these are one liners taken out of context to great degree. The gospel writers were master's at "proof texting" for sure.
Conclusion: There is a lot to be said concerning context. In some instances the context can contribute to the text/s but that to me is not always required. Unless the contextual narrative specifically invalidates the statement then the truth may remain. As I have said before some text's stand on their own for truth's sake and clarity, i.e. they are "declarative" in nature. Just as the example of the two having a conversation and right in the middle of it one saying something that is totally off the subject, like you have beautiful eyes. The fact that eyes were not part of the afforementioned conversation does not lessen the truth of this declarative statement.
I do not believe we as a church are guilty of "proof texting" to form our doctrines or beliefs.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
First off let's look at what proof texting actually is.
Prooftexting is the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a
document (often, but not always, a book of the Bible) to establish a proposition ...
en.wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext
Here again we are dealing with context in the Bible. I remember studying the Bible for years and always making sure that what I was gleening out of a belief was not taken out of context and I think I have become faily good at it over the years. The reason I did this was because I had seen a lot of this in other denominations. Some primary examples are ones like the vision of Peter making all meats clean now, or the verses in Col 2 to say that the ten commandments were now nailed to the cross of Christ.
Recently, I have been accused of performing eisegesis on some texts which is a fancy term for taking something out of context and ascribing your own interpretation to what you think it should say. I don't want to get into that per se' at this point but I think in a way this thread is tied into that concept.
Anyway, Dr. Cottrell's accusation for us doing a lot of proof texting is based on his in depth research of the Bible and it's original language. His contention is that for us to really understand the Bible we must take a couple of things into consideration. Those being primarily :
1. History of the ancients at that time and how that impacts the context of the study:
2. Syntax of the ancient language: how one word may modify or change the traditional interpretation many have grown to accept.
This is all good and fine and I would be the first to agree that there has to some extent been things lost in translation from the original language to english in several places. That's why we study. However, I disagree that we have to do this in all cases of dispute on doctrine or truths. For one very few of us have ph.d's in ancient hebrew or greek. Also, the gospels are full of places where the author makes mention of Christ's fulfillment of some prophecy in the old testament. Usually, these are one liners taken out of context to great degree. The gospel writers were master's at "proof texting" for sure.
Conclusion: There is a lot to be said concerning context. In some instances the context can contribute to the text/s but that to me is not always required. Unless the contextual narrative specifically invalidates the statement then the truth may remain. As I have said before some text's stand on their own for truth's sake and clarity, i.e. they are "declarative" in nature. Just as the example of the two having a conversation and right in the middle of it one saying something that is totally off the subject, like you have beautiful eyes. The fact that eyes were not part of the afforementioned conversation does not lessen the truth of this declarative statement.
I do not believe we as a church are guilty of "proof texting" to form our doctrines or beliefs.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
Meanwhile, the well-versed Christians from other denominations in the audience look at each other in befuddled bewilderment as they watch this display of Scriptural gymnastics with both humor and disbelief.
