Source Text, Support Text, rather than Proof Text?

[A.ModerateOne]

Since "Proof Texting" has gained such a disreputable reputation, shall we switch to other terms for our supporting texts. I read an article recently where the author avoided "Proof Text" as the term, preferring "Source Text".

Using a supportive text out of context is of course the most obvious error, or deceit with some groups. So, how strong is a support text if there are significant differences in standard, reputable translations? If one has a personal understanding, but scholars differ, is it still of value as a support text outside of one's own preference?

Must any Christian belief or doctrine have at least 3 clear texts for support?

If one must cherry pick a verse out of a multitude of translations, isn't that support verse thus chosen basically meaningless as a source text for a serious discussion? If the Textus Receptus, the W-H texts or the modern "eclectic texts" are substantively different, does the text lose value as a support? Of course I know the answer from the KJV-only folks, but from a broader view?

Matt 24:34 "this generation" in the Formal Equivalence translations, as I envision the words coming from Jesus' lips to his disciples, definitely means those to whom he was speaking in that day, not some generation ahead of us. Do Dynamic Equivalence translations have value as source texts if several reputable thought for thought translations are in agreement in how I understand Matt. 24:34?

I have notes of Support Texts gathered over the years, most from the KJV. Now that I use a variety of translations and have so many scolarly helps and aids for the English speaker, I'm preparing to re-examine those today in order to see if I must change my mind on any.

Is the "Rule or Law of First Mention" a sound or substantive rule in interpretation, or is it unsound because it ignores context, author and the larger scope of the subject matter?

What are the approaches and thoughts from others? I only used Matt. 24:34 as an example, not as a point to be debated here. I'd like to read input from others.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Since "Proof Texting" has gained such a disreputable reputation, shall we switch to other terms for our supporting texts. I read an article recently where the author avoided "Proof Text" as the term, preferring "Source Text".

Using a supportive text out of context is of course the most obvious error, or deceit with some groups. So, how strong is a support text if there are significant differences in standard, reputable translations? If one has a personal understanding, but scholars differ, is it still of value as a support text outside of one's own preference?

Must any Christian belief or doctrine have at least 3 clear texts for support?

If one must cherry pick a verse out of a multitude of translations, isn't that support verse thus chosen basically meaningless as a source text for a serious discussion? If the Textus Receptus, the W-H texts or the modern "eclectic texts" are substantively different, does the text lose value as a support? Of course I know the answer from the KJV-only folks, but from a broader view?

Matt 24:34 "this generation" in the Formal Equivalence translations, as I envision the words coming from Jesus' lips to his disciples, definitely means those to whom he was speaking in that day, not some generation ahead of us. Do Dynamic Equivalence translations have value as source texts if several reputable thought for thought translations are in agreement in how I understand Matt. 24:34?

I have notes of Support Texts gathered over the years, most from the KJV. Now that I use a variety of translations and have so many scolarly helps and aids for the English speaker, I'm preparing to re-examine those today in order to see if I must change my mind on any.

Is the "Rule or Law of First Mention" a sound or substantive rule in interpretation, or is it unsound because it ignores context, author and the larger scope of the subject matter?




What are the approaches and thoughts from others? I only used Matt. 24:34 as an example, not as a point to be debated here. I'd like to read input from others.

It's difficult to apply intellectual rules to understanding God's word. It is a spiritual book. God could have chosen to give us a comprehensive instruction manual with no room for interpretation. Some have attempted to convert the Bible into just that. I believe that we need to be guided by the Holy Spirit as we study the Word for ourselves. Cherry picking texts to suit ourselves is fraught with danger. The "Prosperity" gospel is an ideal example of that. It is most appealing, much more so than, "Those who want to get rich fall into a snare". "Proof" texts are not much help, as some of the discussion regarding the Sabbath and the Law demonstrate on the forum.
I may be strung up as a heretic, but I do not believe that a wrong interpretation of the Bible is the unforgivable sin, unless it is in the non-negotiable beliefs. Dividing over doctrines such as predestination, the Rapture, the Millennium and so on is wrong. I teach the Bible so accuracy is indeed vital. But I will not get upset if a Christian disagrees with me on non-core issues.

 

[redleghunter]

Since "Proof Texting" has gained such a disreputable reputation, shall we switch to other terms for our supporting texts. I read an article recently where the author avoided "Proof Text" as the term, preferring "Source Text".

Using a supportive text out of context is of course the most obvious error, or deceit with some groups. So, how strong is a support text if there are significant differences in standard, reputable translations? If one has a personal understanding, but scholars differ, is it still of value as a support text outside of one's own preference?

Must any Christian belief or doctrine have at least 3 clear texts for support?

If one must cherry pick a verse out of a multitude of translations, isn't that support verse thus chosen basically meaningless as a source text for a serious discussion? If the Textus Receptus, the W-H texts or the modern "eclectic texts" are substantively different, does the text lose value as a support? Of course I know the answer from the KJV-only folks, but from a broader view?

Matt 24:34 "this generation" in the Formal Equivalence translations, as I envision the words coming from Jesus' lips to his disciples, definitely means those to whom he was speaking in that day, not some generation ahead of us. Do Dynamic Equivalence translations have value as source texts if several reputable thought for thought translations are in agreement in how I understand Matt. 24:34?

I have notes of Support Texts gathered over the years, most from the KJV. Now that I use a variety of translations and have so many scolarly helps and aids for the English speaker, I'm preparing to re-examine those today in order to see if I must change my mind on any.

Is the "Rule or Law of First Mention" a sound or substantive rule in interpretation, or is it unsound because it ignores context, author and the larger scope of the subject matter?

What are the approaches and thoughts from others? I only used Matt. 24:34 as an example, not as a point to be debated here. I'd like to read input from others.

Context is very important.

 

[A.ModerateOne]

It's difficult to apply intellectual rules to understanding God's word. It is a spiritual book. God could have chosen to give us a comprehensive instruction manual with no room for interpretation. Some have attempted to convert the Bible into just that. I believe that we need to be guided by the Holy Spirit as we study the Word for ourselves. Cherry picking texts to suit ourselves is fraught with danger. The "Prosperity" gospel is an ideal example of that. It is most appealing, much more so than, "Those who want to get rich fall into a snare". "Proof" texts are not much help, as some of the discussion regarding the Sabbath and the Law demonstrate on the forum.
I may be strung up as a heretic, but I do not believe that a wrong interpretation of the Bible is the unforgivable sin, unless it is in the non-negotiable beliefs. Dividing over doctrines such as predestination, the Rapture, the Millennium and so on is wrong. I teach the Bible so accuracy is indeed vital. But I will not get upset if a Christian disagrees with me on non-core issues.

Aussie Pete, you started off stating "It's difficult to apply intellectual rules to understanding God's word. It is a spiritual book." Applying intelligence to the reading and understanding of God's word is my goal. I reject going on feelings, emotions, sentimentality in understanding God's will.

"Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." (1Cor 4:6, ASV)

Jesus answered the devil with Scriptures, "it is written", several times. I'm not a Bible teacher or Pastor, but I have found it beneficial to study up on the principles of interpretation rather than just follow every Tom, Dick or Harry in the pulpits of today.

"I call upon you, therefore, brethren, through the compassions of God, to present your bodies a sacrifice--living, sanctified, acceptable to God--your intelligent (λογικός logikos) service" (Rom 12:1, YLT)

"As newborn babes, desire the rational (λογικός logikos) milk without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation:" (1Pet 2:2, DRC)

The Greek "logikos" is where we get out term "logic" and it is used only twice in the NT, the above texts. We are to use reason, intelligence, and rational thinking as we read the Holy Scriptures. I reject the emotional, mystical spiritualizing of the faith that seems to view the Scriptures as somehow different than other writings expressing truth and facts.

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2Pet 1:20-21, NRSV)

The Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, so I can't go off on my own interpretation, but must rely upon the Holy Spirit indwelling me to help keep me rational and intelligent in understanding His inspired word. Written communication involves accurate definition of words in context, proper grammar, some common sense rules of understanding. I must not only depend on the Holy Spirit within me to guide me, but I must also compare what I believe Scriptures to teach against what the body of Christ, the indwelt assembly of Christians through the centuries have put into creeds, confessions and commentaries of solid men of God out of the past. The Holy Spirit within me is not going to teach me something not stated in the Scriptures, or in contradiction to the history of the faith.
"Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1Cor 2:14, NRSV)

That does not mean the Holy Spirit is whispering in the ear, or giving feelings and ideas to a regenerate child of God. It means a child of God has faith and does not deny the written statements of God. The unregenerate cannot understand because they have no faith and they will claim black is white rather than accept what God says. I may be accused of being a "rationalist" but I accept that rather than swallow much of what is taught in this day.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Aussie Pete, you started off stating "It's difficult to apply intellectual rules to understanding God's word. It is a spiritual book." Applying intelligence to the reading and understanding of God's word is my goal. I reject going on feelings, emotions, sentimentality in understanding God's will.

"Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." (1Cor 4:6, ASV)

Jesus answered the devil with Scriptures, "it is written", several times. I'm not a Bible teacher or Pastor, but I have found it beneficial to study up on the principles of interpretation rather than just follow every Tom, Dick or Harry in the pulpits of today.

"I call upon you, therefore, brethren, through the compassions of God, to present your bodies a sacrifice--living, sanctified, acceptable to God--your intelligent (λογικός logikos) service" (Rom 12:1, YLT)

"As newborn babes, desire the rational (λογικός logikos) milk without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation:" (1Pet 2:2, DRC)

The Greek "logikos" is where we get out term "logic" and it is used only twice in the NT, the above texts. We are to use reason, intelligence, and rational thinking as we read the Holy Scriptures. I reject the emotional, mystical spiritualizing of the faith that seems to view the Scriptures as somehow different than other writings expressing truth and facts.

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2Pet 1:20-21, NRSV)

The Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, so I can't go off on my own interpretation, but must rely upon the Holy Spirit indwelling me to help keep me rational and intelligent in understanding His inspired word. Written communication involves accurate definition of words in context, proper grammar, some common sense rules of understanding. I must not only depend on the Holy Spirit within me to guide me, but I must also compare what I believe Scriptures to teach against what the body of Christ, the indwelt assembly of Christians through the centuries have put into creeds, confessions and commentaries of solid men of God out of the past. The Holy Spirit within me is not going to teach me something not stated in the Scriptures, or in contradiction to the history of the faith.
"Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1Cor 2:14, NRSV)

That does not mean the Holy Spirit is whispering in the ear, or giving feelings and ideas to a regenerate child of God. It means a child of God has faith and does not deny the written statements of God. The unregenerate cannot understand because they have no faith and they will claim black is white rather than accept what God says. I may be accused of being a "rationalist" but I accept that rather than swallow much of what is taught in this day.

"The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him? So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." 1 Corinthians 2, 10-13. It is helpful to read the preceding verses for context.

 

[A.ModerateOne]

"The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him? So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." 1 Corinthians 2, 10-13. It is helpful to read the preceding verses for context.

The Matthew Henry concise commentary gives the understanding of this passage well, and I underline important points.

10-16 God has revealed true wisdom to us by his Spirit. Here is a proof of the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, 2Pet 1:21. In proof of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, observe, that he knows all things, and he searches all things, even the deep things of God. No one can know the things of God, but his Holy Spirit, who is one with the Father and the Son, and who makes known Divine mysteries to his church. This is most clear testimony, both to the real Godhead and the distinct person of the Holy Spirit. The apostles were not guided by worldly principles. They had the revelation of these things from the Spirit of God, and the saving impression of them from the same Spirit. These things they declared in plain, simple language, taught by the Holy Spirit, totally different from the affected oratory or enticing words of man's wisdom. The natural man, the wise man of the world, receives not the things of the Spirit of God. The pride of carnal reasoning is really as much opposed to spirituality, as the basest sensuality. The sanctified mind discerns the real beauties of holiness, but the power of discerning and judging about common and natural things is not lost. But the carnal man is a stranger to the principles, and pleasures, and actings of the Divine life. The spiritual man only, is the person to whom God gives the knowledge of his will. How little have any known of the mind of God by natural power! And the apostles were enabled by his Spirit to make known his mind. In the Holy Scriptures, the mind of Christ, and the mind of God in Christ, are fully made known to us. It is the great privilege of Christians, that they have the mind of Christ revealed to them by his Spirit. They experience his sanctifying power in their hearts, and bring forth good fruits in their lives.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Best way to interpret God's Word:

#1. Ask God for the understanding of His Word, i.e. "Give us this day our daily bread" (Sometimes this is a repeat process).

#2. Context (Looking at the surrounding words, chapters).

#3. Read the most plainest meaning of the words in a text first in the English, unless the context and or other cross references indicate a meaning otherwise. Looking at the original language should be a last option and not as a way to read or interpret the Bible. The English should not conflict with the original languages. But some think otherwise. They think they know a dead language or that scholars are right, when this is not the case.

#4. Cross references (By 2-3 witnesses God's Word is confirmed) (But this is not always the case) (For example: Folks can point out the prosperity gospel with Scripture or Eternal Security with several verses, but this does not mean that such beliefs are true).

#5. Interpretation must be in line with basic morality (It disturbs me greatly when folks have an interpretation that ignores basic morality, like "Eternal Conscious Torment," or "Future Sin is Forgiven Us", or "Unconditional Election," etc.).

#6. Keyword search studies (This is doing a search on how a particular word appears in the Bible and how it is used elsewhere as a way to determine other difficult passages or verses that are commonly taken out of context by others; I use BlueLetterBible, and PureKingJames software when I look up words to study sometimes).

#7. Topical studies.

#8. Looking at what other believers have to say (I am not talking about the popular Bible commentators; I usually read a ton of articles on a particular verse or passage from Sola Scriptura Trinitarian believers by scouring the internet and in praying to find the right answer).

#9. One needs a nailed down final word of authority or one Bible that is the pure Word of God (Note: I believe this to be the circa. 1900 Cambridge King James). The KJV lines up with the original languages (i.e. the Textus Receptus).

#10. Use Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English from the KJV, but do not always put your trust in Modern Translations because they make changes in God's Word that are clearly in error.

#11. One needs to be born again by the Spirit and born by water (i.e. being born by water = being born by the Scriptures in the fact that we received the Word of God not as the words of men, but in fact as the very divine words of God Himself; Meaning, His Word is perfect and without error, and we have been broken and transformed by them with a godly sorrow in accepting Christ as our Savior and in believing in Christ's death and resurrection on our behalf).

#12. We need to agree with true godly living as the Bible describes it, and we need to be walking the talk; 1 Timothy 6:3-4 says that if any man does not agree with the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine according to godliness, he is proud and he knows nothing. 1 John 2:3 says we can have an assurance in knowing the Lord if we find that we are keeping His commandments. The closer our walk in knowing the Lord, the closer we will be in our understanding of God's Word. For if we are not loving according to God's Word, we cannot have the depth of understanding of the deep things or treasures within God's Word.