Rule for Interpreting Scripture

[Murdock]

like gen 2:16-17 eat of any tree but not of the tree of good and evil

gen 9:1-5 eat meat and green herbs but no blood
lev 11:1-47 .. to show that they are holy vs 44
1 tim 4:3-5, romans 14:20-23, 1 cor 8:12

4 different diets .... 4 different groups

one God... teaching humans about themselves and himself with different situations

Then we put them all together and we get; the law is still true and good. But since Jesus fulfilled the law, we are no longer saved by obeying the law but by Jesus Christ our Lord. That makes all food clean.

 

[djconklin]

yet many greek transcripts have different word do to copiers adding or subtraction

Most are quite minor and obvious differences that are due to error in hearing (as I recall one was: oude vs. oute). There has been no fundamental doctrine affected by any of the differences in the text.

 

[djconklin]

But since Jesus fulfilled the law, we are no longer saved by obeying the law but by Jesus Christ our Lord. That makes all food clean.

Here's a good example of wrong theology simply because of simplistic thinking. Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law--i.e., He was righteous. Thus, the demands for righteousness by the Law have been met and we can apply His blood to our failings. That doesn't mean that the Law was done away with--if that could have been done then Christ didn't need to die. Secondly, no one has ever been saved by keeping the Law--that isn't even its function. Its job is to point out when we have failed.

As for all foods being clean--go to a feed mill and look for the large cans of Drano. You'll know them when you see it. The first time I saw one I was wondering "why would anyone need that large of a can of Drano?" Then I read the instructions on the back--on how to flush out a pig. And with the sewage plants not working perfectly, sometimes overflowing I wouldn't recommend eating any of the bottom feeders--snails, claims, oysters, lobsters, etc..

 

[djconklin]

Again, since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, then one must first believe every verse in the Bible, then interpret Scripture through other Scripture.

Excellant point!

 

[djconklin]

Let us take RULE V.
”Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound it to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed or wisdom is my rule, not the Bible.”

This is just another version of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The “proofs” are not proofs at all. Of course there are poor teachers and false teachers as well as good ones. Many of the former are those who think they can discern the meaning of scripture all by themselves, and lead to the multiple interpretation that different denominations expound.

It is precisely because of poor teachers that we have the many different denoiminations. If they had gone by the Word there wouldn't have been the problem. Go by God's Word to man and do not go by what man says. The Bereans checked the Word to see if these things were so. They didn't just take someone's word for it--unfortunately, too many people in the pew do.

 

[djconklin]

RULE II.
”All scripture is necessary, and may be understood by a diligent application and study.”
PROOF
2Tim.iii.15,16,17.

But what does this actually say - and include verse 14

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.
(2 Tim 2:14-17)

In no-way does this say that all scripture may be understood by a diligent application and study. In fact it says the opposite – that Timothy learned it from someone, not that he knew it by personal study, however diligent.

Note the bold section. Are we really to believe that Paul would tell Timothy to do something he hadn't already been doing? Or, what would be contrary to what he had been doing?

 

[djconklin]

RULEI.
”Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible.”
PROOF
Matt.v.18.

So you have to be fluent in Hebrew & Koina Greek. Otherwise you are dependant on other people for a translation – breaking rule V

1) "Koine" means "common"--this was the Greek that would be used by people in the street to communicate with merchants from other lands. It is very simple Greek. There's only about 1,200 words that you need to know so you can read the Greek NT in the original language--and you already know about 150 words! You just don't know that it is Greek!

2) What the rule is saying is that you need to get out a concordance and see how the word in question was used in other contexts that are similar to the one you are looking at. For the most part the KJV is a rather literal translation so you can easily do this.

 

[djconklin]

Jesus and the twelve apostles were Palestinian Jews with an Palestinian, Jewish mindset. They did not think and speak in philosophical terms and give definitions in the style of Socrates or Aristotle but in concrete examples.

Right on!

One correction: Paul was not "of" the Diaspora. He was meeting Jews who were dispersed. He took his mind-set with him.

 

[winsome]

1) "Koine" means "common"--this was the Greek that would be used by people in the street to communicate with merchants from other lands. It is very simple Greek. There's only about 1,200 words that you need to know so you can read the Greek NT in the original language--and you already know about 150 words! You just don't know that it is Greek!

2) What the rule is saying is that you need to get out a concordance and see how the word in question was used in other contexts that are similar to the one you are looking at. For the most part the KJV is a rather literal translation so you can easily do this.

Hmm! Do it yourself translations. Now there's a good chance to go very wrong.

I once asked a simple question about ein in Mt 28:19 and got the following:

eis and en were often interchangeable in NT times. The distinctions that Classical Greek made between many prepositions (as well as between regular and prefixed verbs - e.g., ginôskô vs. epiginôskô) was starting to break down by the NT times. Read the appendix by Murray Harris in vol. 3 of New International Dictionary of NT Theology (Zondervan) for a lengthy treatment of NT prepositions.

And

eis governs only one case (the Accusative). Euclid uses eis when a line is drawn to meet another line, at a certain point. Hence, it denotes motion to or unto an object, with the purpose of reaching or touching it (e.g. Matt. 2:11; 3:10. Luke 8:14. Acts 16:10).

From this comes the idea of the object toward which such motion is directed (e.g. Matt. 18:20, 30. 1Cor. 12:13. Gal. 3:27); and for, or with respect to which such action or movement is made.

And it got a lot more complicated than that!

 

[winsome]

Note the bold section. Are we really to believe that Paul would tell Timothy to do something he hadn't already been doing? Or, what would be contrary to what he had been doing?

Well he either

got it from infused knowlege
or
he was a very precocius child
or
someone taught him

I'll go for the last one as Paul says "from whom you learned it."

 

[winsome]

[/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]

It is precisely because of poor teachers that we have the many different denoiminations. If they had gone by the Word there wouldn't have been the problem. Go by God's Word to man and do not go by what man says. The Bereans checked the Word to see if these things were so. They didn't just take someone's word for it--unfortunately, too many people in the pew do.

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation (2Pet 1;20)

 

[A Brother In Christ]

in the context of 1 tim 6:4 -5 who was told gain is godliness ... the Jews yet we as the firstfruit are told something different.

1 John 4:21.... mild hate for brother.... does not have God in him

luke 14:26 ... the 12 disciples had to mildly hate their whole family to follow God to become a disciple

do these to verse contradict .... Different mail

Again, since the bible doesn't contradict itself, then one must first believe every verse in the bible, then interpret scripture through other scripture. Since Jesus is love, then he does not advocate hating people. Therefore when he uses the word "hate" he is using it in comparison to how much we need to love God before our families. So we must not take single verses out of context. And that's why the first rule for interpreting scripture must be that we know that every single verse in the bible is true and cannot therefore contradict any other scripture.

like gen 2:16-17 eat of any tree but not of the tree of good and evil

gen 9:1-5 eat meat and green herbs but no blood
lev 11:1-47 .. to show that they are holy vs 44
1 tim 4:3-5, romans 14:20-23, 1 cor 8:12

4 different diets .... 4 different groups

one God... teaching humans about themselves and himself with different situations

Then we put them all together and we get; the law is still true and good. But since Jesus fulfilled the law, we are no longer saved by obeying the law but by Jesus Christ our Lord. That makes all food clean.

so you are backing off prior statements

 

[Murdock]

so you are backing off prior statements

Which prior statements?

 

[A Brother In Christ]

But the meaning of each verse always remains the same. Quibbling about words leads to 1 Timothy 6:4, "He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction bnetween men of corrupt mind..."

So once again, if one's interpretation agrees with all scripture it's right, no matter how it's worded. If it disagrees with other scripture, it's wrong, no matter how it's worded. So instead of quibbling about words, all we need to make sure is that our interpretation doesn't contradict other scripture.

this one

 

[Murdock]

this one

Quibbling about words is trying to redefine simple words and doubt their meaning. Explaining the old and new convenants isn't quibbling with the words in the bible one bit. It's agreeing with the words in the bible. And one thing I'm not going to do; I'm not going to quibble about the words I've said either. They are perfectly clear. One would have to quibble about their definitions in order to twist them into something else. That just stirs up needless controversies.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Again, since the bible doesn't contradict itself, then one must first believe every verse in the bible, then interpret scripture through other scripture. Since Jesus is love, then he does not advocate hating people. Therefore when he uses the word "hate" he is using it in comparison to how much we need to love God before our families. So we must not take single verses out of context. And that's why the first rule for interpreting scripture must be that we know that every single verse in the bible is true and cannot therefore contradict any other scripture.

like gen 2:16-17 eat of any tree but not of the tree of good and evil

gen 9:1-5 eat meat and green herbs but no blood
lev 11:1-47 .. to show that they are holy vs 44
1 tim 4:3-5, romans 14:20-23, 1 cor 8:12

4 different diets .... 4 different groups

one God... teaching humans about themselves and himself with different situations

so you are backing off prior statements

Which prior statements?

Quibbling about words is trying to redefine simple words and doubt their meaning. Explaining the old and new convenants isn't quibbling with the words in the bible one bit. It's agreeing with the words in the bible. And one thing I'm not going to do; I'm not going to quibble about the words I've said either. They are perfectly clear. One would have to quibble about their definitions in order to twist them into something else. That just stirs up needless controversies.

double talk ....