Hermaneutics, Interpretation of Scripture and General Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are lots of scholars now that want to make a living criticising the Bible and trying to make out its full of errors.
What they do is come across old manuscripts which are obviously copies of the Bible that have been extensively copied and because some have copying mistakes and typos just as anyone would if copying completely by hand and not photocopying it, they then claim oh the Bible is full of errors. Then they takes some of these copied manuscripts, declare they are older and better than what was already there and make new Bibles out of them with new versions which are full of copying mistakes.

Which is crazy because these scholars cant discern this! It would be like if i published a book and died, and then someone found my rough manuscripts and drafts and went back and brought out a new version based on my rough copies. With all my crossing outs and typos. Then tried to pass it off as a new better version. Or worse bought out a knock off Version that imitated the original but changed the ending. And didnt bother to read right through the original that had already been published!
 
Well for the record I dont know what hermeunatics and exegisis really means, either probably someone has explained it on here lots of times but Im not one for big words either, its just flying over my head.

Is there a simple term in english (not greek) that mean the same thing.

Its like when people call the holy spirit the paraclete, and the lords supper the eucharist, and the word is logos, im like can you just stop mixing up the greek with the english. Please, I can only really think in one langauge at a time.
 
There are lots of scholars now that want to make a living criticising the Bible and trying to make out its full of errors.
What they do is come across old manuscripts which are obviously copies of the Bible that have been extensively copied and because some have copying mistakes and typos just as anyone would if copying completely by hand and not photocopying it, they then claim oh the Bible is full of errors. Then they takes some of these copied manuscripts, declare they are older and better than what was already there and make new Bibles out of them with new versions which are full of copying mistakes.

Which is crazy because these scholars cant discern this! It would be like if i published a book and died, and then someone found my rough manuscripts and drafts and went back and brought out a new version based on my rough copies. With all my crossing outs and typos. Then tried to pass it off as a new better version. Or worse bought out a knock off Version that imitated the original but changed the ending. And didnt bother to read right through the original that had already been published!

Hey Lanolin;

I hear you and that is what I'm talking about in my last post. If I had time I would list respectable scholars but the same list of disrespectable scholars.

For example, you and I discussed this some time ago about the dewey decimal system. This was invented in 1876 for a systematic way of looking for a book. Since then it must have been revised many times, no doubt there are many more books and subjects since. I learned this when I was in the 3rd grade. Why couldn't they just call it a "book finder?" I don't take this lightly because there are reasons for the DDS. But there have been criticisms because through the years it has become complicated? I don't know why but my point is there have been pros and cons.

The same thing applies to the scholars who may be responsible for the different denominations of churches, over a disagreement of doctrine or wording. I once was critized for using the word "wine" instead of "fruit of the vine" during communion. Not long after that the couple left our church.

Hermeneutics and exegesis are theological terms, basically defining the careful study of Scripture and understanding its deeper meaning. Why can't they just say, "study the Bible deeper?" I don't know why, but perhaps this may have minimized disagreements between expert scholars and theologians. At the end of the day the Bible is the true Word of God.

God bless you, Lanolin, and your family.
 
Hello Saul Mine;

Your correction of the spelling of hermeneutics is a good point since this topic has been lengthly. Thank you for pointing this out.

There is a distinction between philosophers and theologians. Philosophers analyze existence of reason, values and knowledge. Theologians study and interpret the Word of God and Truth and this is where hermeneutics comes in. Hermeneutics covers the whole field of interpretation and is beneficial to the believer who studies the Bible.

Devotional reading is not the only kind we should do. Hermeneutics does not take God's Truth away from the Bible, instead it helps the disciple understand the deeper meaning of the ancient text.

God bless you, Saul Mine and your family.

oldhermit,
as a teacher, if I was your student, how would you explain going back to the patristic and early church fathers, why these early church fathers had their theological points of views of interpreting the Bible, only to arrive at the end of the day that the Bible is inerrant? In these times, even the most seasoned theologians and scholars may argue errors in the Bible.

For example, in the book of Ezekiel he pointed out the sins of women who lived in impurity and promiscuity. Scholars went as far as saying Ezekiel was a misogynist (a strong dislike for women.) I find this ridiculous since he was grief stricken over the death of his wife,

Ezekiel 24:15-18,
15 The word of the Lord came to me: 16 “Son of man, behold, I am about to take the delight of your eyes away from you at a stroke; yet you shall not mourn or weep, nor shall your tears run down. 17 Sigh, but not aloud; make no mourning for the dead. Bind on your turban, and put your shoes on your feet; do not cover your lips, nor eat the bread of men.” 18 So I spoke to the people in the morning, and at evening my wife died. And on the next morning I did as I was commanded.

God bless you, old hermit, and your family.
If I understand your question, the idea of appealing to the patristic and so-called early church fathers to defend the integrity and inerrancy of scripture would never occur to me. I would make my appeal to the language of the text itself and discourage the student from the practice of biblical interpretation. Truth lies exclusively in the grammatical structure of scripture independently of the philosophies or opinions of those of antiquity. As far as present day scholars, I place very limited importance on he opinions of commentators or exegetists. In my experience, if you want to know the Bible, then study the Bible, not the opinions of others about the Bible. Having said that, I do realize the value of those who are scholars of the original languages. I do have some background in NT Greek but, I have absolutely no understanding of Hebrew. This does, at times, place me at a disadvantage as a teacher of the the OT because I am forced to appeal to those who have skills in the Hebrew.
 
If I understand your question, the idea of appealing to the patristic and so-called early church fathers to defend the integrity and inerrancy of scripture would never occur to me. I would make my appeal to the language of the text itself and discourage the student from the practice of biblical interpretation. Truth lies exclusively in the grammatical structure of scripture independently of the philosophies or opinions of those of antiquity. As far as present day scholars, I place very limited importance on he opinions of commentators or exegetists. In my experience, if you want to know the Bible, then study the Bible, not the opinions of others about the Bible. Having said that, I do realize the value of those who are scholars of the original languages. I do have some background in NT Greek but, I have absolutely no understanding of Hebrew. This does, at times, place me at a disadvantage as a teacher of the the OT because I am forced to appeal to those who have skills in the Hebrew.

Hello oldhermit;

Yes, you understood my question. Please elaborate regarding studying the text only, and refrain from the practice of Biblical interpretation? As a teacher, I'm surprised you would make this comment.

Understanding the Bible through interpretation is important. It's not just about studying and understanding, but this also impacts the application of our daily walk.

Thank you, oldhermit. God bless you.
 
Hello oldhermit;

Yes, you understood my question. Please elaborate regarding studying the text only, and refrain from the practice of Biblical interpretation? As a teacher, I'm surprised you would make this comment.

Understanding the Bible through interpretation is important. It's not just about studying and understanding, but this also impacts the application of our daily walk.

Thank you, oldhermit. God bless you.
Interpretation is the act of supplying meaning to the text based on human analysis of the world, human experiences, and secondary and tertiary sources. When we read scripture, we have an unfailing habit of trying to interpret the text based on this method. For some reason, we feel this is the only way we can supply meaning to the text. The problem with interpretation is that it always starts with human reason being force onto the text rather than allowing the language of the test to supply its own meaning. This typically results in the straining of the text to change the meaning of the language in order to defend an already accepted theory or position. I am sure you recognize the fact that the interpretation of any text will typically be as varied as the number of people who read it. This is why I call interpretation an inexact science. Interpretation is always the product of human intelligence operating on the test. Peter says that we do not have the right to approach scripture in this way, 2 Pet. 1:20. "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,"
 
Interpretation is the act of supplying meaning to the text based on human analysis of the world, human experiences, and secondary and tertiary sources. When we read scripture, we have an unfailing habit of trying to interpret the text based on this method. For some reason, we feel this is the only way we can supply meaning to the text. The problem with interpretation is that it always starts with human reason being force onto the text rather than allowing the language of the test to supply its own meaning. This typically results in the straining of the text to change the meaning of the language in order to defend an already accepted theory or position. I am sure you recognize the fact that the interpretation of any text will typically be as varied as the number of people who read it. This is why I call interpretation an inexact science. Interpretation is always the product of human intelligence operating on the test. Peter says that we do not have the right to approach scripture in this way, 2 Pet. 1:20. "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,"

Hello oldhermit;

I see. We do agree that this mis-interpretation has been going on forever in the mix of interpretation.

But interpretation, a deeper understanding of the Bible is important. What I'm understanding you are saying about mis-interpretation, is the discipline of interpretation is missing.

We also need to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to empower us with discernment of what we are studying. This can clear up much mis-conceptions of the meaning of Scripture and its application in our daily lives.

God bless you, brother.
 
Hello oldhermit;

I see. We do agree that this mis-interpretation has been going on forever in the mix of interpretation.

But interpretation, a deeper understanding of the Bible is important. What I'm understanding you are saying about mis-interpretation, is the discipline of interpretation is missing.

We also need to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to empower us with discernment of what we are studying. This can clear up much mis-conceptions of the meaning of Scripture and its application in our daily lives.

God bless you, brother.
Certainly, an appeal to God for proper guidance in understanding scripture is indispensable. But, I am not really talking about the difference between interpretation and mis-interpretation. Mis-interpretation comes from the practice of interpretation. This of course does not mean that all interpretation is in error, but it is certainly suspect. I simply do not believe interpretation is a viable option for a reading of the text. Peter tells us that scripture does not subordinate itself to private interpretation. I suppose most people engage the practice of interpretation simply because they have never considered any other possibilities for approaching the text. We have become creatures of habit in this regard.
 
Certainly, an appeal to God for proper guidance in understanding scripture is indispensable. But, I am not really talking about the difference between interpretation and mis-interpretation. Mis-interpretation comes from the practice of interpretation. This of course does not mean that all interpretation is in error, but it is certainly suspect. I simply do not believe interpretation is a viable option for a reading of the text. Peter tells us that scripture does not subordinate itself to private interpretation. I suppose most people engage the practice of interpretation simply because they have never considered any other possibilities for approaching the text. We have become creatures of habit in this regard.

Yes, oldhermit;

I hear what you're saying.

God bless you and thank you for sharing.
 
I suppose this brings us to the question that if interpretation proves not to be a permissable option for reading scripture, what other possibility is there?
 
I suppose this brings us to the question that if interpretation proves not to be a permissable option for reading scripture, what other possibility is there?

Hello oldhermit;

If I understand your question, if interpretation proves not to be a permissable option for reading scripture, what other possibility is there?

I've been told by other students of the Bible, "to read it for what it's worth." This is informal, it could be right, or it could be important. This would not be a good possibility for academic discipline of the Bible.

If we were to study Matthew 18:21-22, 21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Lets exclude for sake of example interpretation, hermeneutics, exegesis, allegory, metaphor and inexact science. Could we use the possibility of literal or parables, instead, keeping it simple in understanding the Bible?

Please keep in mind I'm also learning and not just posing questions, but merely having fellowship with everyone here, besides oldhermit.

Would the student understand in this passage that when we apply this Scripture in our lives, are we to forgive that same person
77 times and then thats it? The reason Peter asked Jesus this question is because, according to Jewish teaching we should forgive a brother or sister only 3 times.

Would we know this on a deeper level of the Scripture, or cross reference another translation?

In each passage, verses 22- 35, Jesus teaches the parable about forgiveness but in each verse it arrives at only forgiveness once in each case.

One other permissable option for reading Scripture is the appication of what we read in our lives. If I forgive a certain brother or sister 78 times, we learn that Jesus' "77 times" means we shouldn't keep track, and always forgive those who are truly repentant, no matter how many times they ask.

Thats my position as a student of the Bible. We should "step up" and use other methods of understanding God's Word. We're not just students, but future ministers and teachers.

oldhermit, what other permissable options can you share for reading scripture?

God bless you all and your families.
 
Hey Lanolin;

I hear you and that is what I'm talking about in my last post. If I had time I would list respectable scholars but the same list of disrespectable scholars.

For example, you and I discussed this some time ago about the dewey decimal system. This was invented in 1876 for a systematic way of looking for a book. Since then it must have been revised many times, no doubt there are many more books and subjects since. I learned this when I was in the 3rd grade. Why couldn't they just call it a "book finder?" I don't take this lightly because there are reasons for the DDS. But there have been criticisms because through the years it has become complicated? I don't know why but my point is there have been pros and cons.

The same thing applies to the scholars who may be responsible for the different denominations of churches, over a disagreement of doctrine or wording. I once was critized for using the word "wine" instead of "fruit of the vine" during communion. Not long after that the couple left our church.

Hermeneutics and exegesis are theological terms, basically defining the careful study of Scripture and understanding its deeper meaning. Why can't they just say, "study the Bible deeper?" I don't know why, but perhaps this may have minimized disagreements between expert scholars and theologians. At the end of the day the Bible is the true Word of God.

God bless you, Lanolin, and your family.
Yea why make it more complicated than it has to be.
With the dewey decimal system ..well its a system that I reckon can creates more work lol. Good for library of congress and catalguing not so good for circulating libraries.
Good for the mathematically minded, a pain in the ...for the rest of us to figure out.

I cant just find the books on gardening..I have to go to the 635s. One library I manage I havent even put spine labels and categories. The only order is the childrens books in one section, the adults in another. As long as they arent shoved in upside down I am happy.
 
Hello oldhermit;

If I understand your question, if interpretation proves not to be a permissable option for reading scripture, what other possibility is there?

I've been told by other students of the Bible, "to read it for what it's worth." This is informal, it could be right, or it could be important. This would not be a good possibility for academic discipline of the Bible.

If we were to study Matthew 18:21-22, 21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Lets exclude for sake of example interpretation, hermeneutics, exegesis, allegory, metaphor and inexact science. Could we use the possibility of literal or parables, instead, keeping it simple in understanding the Bible?

Please keep in mind I'm also learning and not just posing questions, but merely having fellowship with everyone here, besides oldhermit.

Would the student understand in this passage that when we apply this Scripture in our lives, are we to forgive that same person
77 times and then thats it? The reason Peter asked Jesus this question is because, according to Jewish teaching we should forgive a brother or sister only 3 times.

Would we know this on a deeper level of the Scripture, or cross reference another translation?

In each passage, verses 22- 35, Jesus teaches the parable about forgiveness but in each verse it arrives at only forgiveness once in each case.

One other permissable option for reading Scripture is the appication of what we read in our lives. If I forgive a certain brother or sister 78 times, we learn that Jesus' "77 times" means we shouldn't keep track, and always forgive those who are truly repentant, no matter how many times they ask.

Thats my position as a student of the Bible. We should "step up" and use other methods of understanding God's Word. We're not just students, but future ministers and teachers.

oldhermit, what other permissable options can you share for reading scripture?

God bless you all and your families.
Argh this is when it gets complicated cos my bible version says seventy times seven, which if you do the maths is 490 times. Its not 77.

Although theres something symbolically significant in the number 7 and 70 if you go deeper into it. Everything Jesus said would also reference back to the OT often he would quote from it too.

Much of the differeing bible interpetations come acount because people read from different versions, which I somethimes find annoying, because we then come up with different interpretations! If we all read from the same version, I imagine it would be a lot easier and less questions. Yea fruit of the vine, and wine. Mine KJV says fruit of the vine.
We know that can mean wine, but it could also just mean grape juice! But maybe not tomatos, that grows on vines too, as do cucumbers.
 
Hello oldhermit;

If I understand your question, if interpretation proves not to be a permissable option for reading scripture, what other possibility is there?

I've been told by other students of the Bible, "to read it for what it's worth." This is informal, it could be right, or it could be important. This would not be a good possibility for academic discipline of the Bible.

If we were to study Matthew 18:21-22, 21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Lets exclude for sake of example interpretation, hermeneutics, exegesis, allegory, metaphor and inexact science. Could we use the possibility of literal or parables, instead, keeping it simple in understanding the Bible?

Please keep in mind I'm also learning and not just posing questions, but merely having fellowship with everyone here, besides oldhermit.

Would the student understand in this passage that when we apply this Scripture in our lives, are we to forgive that same person
77 times and then thats it? The reason Peter asked Jesus this question is because, according to Jewish teaching we should forgive a brother or sister only 3 times.

Would we know this on a deeper level of the Scripture, or cross reference another translation?

In each passage, verses 22- 35, Jesus teaches the parable about forgiveness but in each verse it arrives at only forgiveness once in each case.

One other permissable option for reading Scripture is the appication of what we read in our lives. If I forgive a certain brother or sister 78 times, we learn that Jesus' "77 times" means we shouldn't keep track, and always forgive those who are truly repentant, no matter how many times they ask.

Thats my position as a student of the Bible. We should "step up" and use other methods of understanding God's Word. We're not just students, but future ministers and teachers.

oldhermit, what other permissable options can you share for reading scripture?

God bless you all and your families.

Hey there guys. I am enjoying the conversation. However on this interpretation thing and exegesis, I would point out to you that we all have followed someone else's interpretations or explinations at one time or another. I don't see how it would be possible not to have done that.

I am assuming that we have been to seminaries to further our education. When we do that we are in fact opening ourselves to the teachings of those universities professors. Many people have had very Biblical and conservative outlooks and been transformed by a liberal staff of teachers.

What I am saying I guess is that when we study the Bible where someone else teaches us what we are reading, at some point we must make the choice that the person at that particular time is NOT teaching us what we already know to be true to God's Word.

Then we have to choose to tell him what he wants to hear or we move on to another school of learning. Because someone tells you that IN HIS OPINION....."There in No such thing as a place called Hell"........does not mean we have to accept that opinion/interpretation.

Of course if we have done our homework on the school before enrolling in it, that particular problem probably will not happen.
When it happens in a church setting and we hear a preacher teach his opinions instead of the actual Word of God, we can and should choose to leave and look for the place where the Word id preached with authority without excuses.
 
Hello oldhermit;

If I understand your question, if interpretation proves not to be a permissable option for reading scripture, what other possibility is there?

I've been told by other students of the Bible, "to read it for what it's worth." This is informal, it could be right, or it could be important. This would not be a good possibility for academic discipline of the Bible.

If we were to study Matthew 18:21-22, 21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Lets exclude for sake of example interpretation, hermeneutics, exegesis, allegory, metaphor and inexact science. Could we use the possibility of literal or parables, instead, keeping it simple in understanding the Bible?

Please keep in mind I'm also learning and not just posing questions, but merely having fellowship with everyone here, besides oldhermit.

Would the student understand in this passage that when we apply this Scripture in our lives, are we to forgive that same person
77 times and then thats it? The reason Peter asked Jesus this question is because, according to Jewish teaching we should forgive a brother or sister only 3 times.

Would we know this on a deeper level of the Scripture, or cross reference another translation?

In each passage, verses 22- 35, Jesus teaches the parable about forgiveness but in each verse it arrives at only forgiveness once in each case.

One other permissable option for reading Scripture is the appication of what we read in our lives. If I forgive a certain brother or sister 78 times, we learn that Jesus' "77 times" means we shouldn't keep track, and always forgive those who are truly repentant, no matter how many times they ask.

Thats my position as a student of the Bible. We should "step up" and use other methods of understanding God's Word. We're not just students, but future ministers and teachers.

oldhermit, what other permissable options can you share for reading scripture?

God bless you all and your families.

And here is where study and learning and good teachers come in. 70 x 7 did not just appear in Matthew.

Genesis 4:24, where the very same words are used -...…...
"If any man kill Lamech, he shall be avenged seventy times seven."

But in Matthew 18:22, Jesus came with a very different paradigm, one of grace in which he says just the opposite of Lamech.

My I share with all of you that in Matt. 18:21 when Peter asked about the forgivness of a brother 7 times, he was being magnanimouse.

You see, according to the Jewish rabbis you only forgave a person 3 times. But old Peter was showing his good side and volunteered 7 times and that is when Jesus corrected him with the 70 x 7 teaching.

Now did He really mean 70 x 7 is the question which would as has been said 490 times ?????

Now by that time, things between two people should be pretty well worked out. However, if they aren't then both of them would have reached an old age and whatever it was wouldn't have amounted to much anyway.

IMO.....in my interpretation the Lord Jesus is telling us to go the limit and that there is actually NO LIMIT of forgiveness.

Now then the question must be, would a student wanting to learn exegesis, and or hermeneutics understand that without someone teaching it to him??????????

Now that is pretty simple and easy example, but now apply that same question to Scriptures concerning "Prophesy" and we can see how easy it would be for a student to be confused and be led to some serious mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Hey there guys. I am enjoying the conversation. However on this interpretation thing and exegesis, I would point out to you that we all have followed someone else's interpretations or explinations at one time or another. I don't see how it would be possible not to have done that.

I am assuming that we have been to seminaries to further our education. When we do that we are in fact opening ourselves to the teachings of those universities professors. Many people have had very Biblical and conservative outlooks and been transformed by a liberal staff of teachers.

What I am saying I guess is that when we study the Bible where someone else teaches us what we are reading, at some point we must make the choice that the person at that particular time is NOT teaching us what we already know to be true to God's Word.

Then we have to choose to tell him what he wants to hear or we move on to another school of learning. Because someone tells you that IN HIS OPINION....."There in No such thing as a place called Hell"........does not mean we have to accept that opinion/interpretation.

Of course if we have done our homework on the school before enrolling in it, that particular problem probably will not happen.
When it happens in a church setting and we hear a preacher teach his opinions instead of the actual Word of God, we can and should choose to leave and look for the place where the Word id preached with authority without excuses.
Unfortunately, we are all the product of our social environment. When we approach any text, we must train ourselves to set aside ALL personal conviction as well as our lexicon of personal experiences and allow the grammatical structure of the text to formulate our ideas. This is true no matter what biblical text we engage.

Though I am no scientist or historian, I very much enjoy the study of history, archaeology, astronomy, and psychology. A person should be well informed in many areas of study. When I study scripture, I make a concerted effort to never allow what I know or think I know of any other field to influence how I approach the text. For example, I never begin the study of any text and ask what does history or psychology or science or archaeology have to say about this text. One should ever allow this to distort one's reading of the text. We must NEVER allow what we understand of any of the nine fields of inquiry to determine how any text of scripture should be understood. It is well and good that we bring scripture to bear on the various fields of knowledge but NEVER bring those other fields of study to bear upon the text. The world relies upon the nine fields of inquiry as the anthology of all socialized knowledge. This is all knowledge that comes about as a result of full socialization but, true knowledge cannot begin within the social conscience.

The people of God must be dedicated to the proposition that the Word of God relativizes all knowledge that comes as a result of full socialization. The Word of God reveals the inherent short comings of human intelligence by comparing it to what God has revealed to us of His own intelligence. The Word of God must be allowed to relativize what society thinks in all matters. Intelligence is looked upon as a product of social engendering. We allow society to pronounce upon us what it believes must be regarded as the standard for an intelligent pattern of thinking. The Word of God exists in a state of hostility with what society regards as knowledge. What the world operates on as a base for knowledge is not what God regards as true knowledge. The problem that faces the world is that when the Word of God is brought to bear upon social knowledge, it produces friction within that society. The Word of God renders the wisdom of man as foolishness. Human knowledge cannot be accepted on the same par with the revelation of God, (Act.19:19 the burning of books). The Word of God cannot prevail in the mind of man unless there is a conscious effort on the part of the individual to render the mind subject to the language of scripture. All other forms of knowledge must be rendered subordinate to revelation. The two cannot function together in the same mind at the same time. As long as we allow human knowledge to assume an elevated position in our thinking it will always dominate over the Word of God. NEVER approach any text of scripture and ask what does the historian or the philosopher or the clergy etc... have to say about this text. Truth always rests exclusively within the language of the text, not outside of it.

Having said all of this, am I always 100% successful in this endeavor? No. Obviously not. This is a learned discipline. It takes many years of discipline and practice to learn to do this well, an I still struggle with it. We are all products of our environment and there will always be some measure of social influence that creeps into our studies. The goal is to minimize this influence even further each time we open our Bibles.
 
Argh this is when it gets complicated cos my bible version says seventy times seven, which if you do the maths is 490 times. Its not 77.

Although theres something symbolically significant in the number 7 and 70 if you go deeper into it. Everything Jesus said would also reference back to the OT often he would quote from it too.

Much of the differeing bible interpetations come acount because people read from different versions, which I somethimes find annoying, because we then come up with different interpretations! If we all read from the same version, I imagine it would be a lot easier and less questions. Yea fruit of the vine, and wine. Mine KJV says fruit of the vine.
We know that can mean wine, but it could also just mean grape juice! But maybe not tomatos, that grows on vines too, as do cucumbers.

Hello, Lanolin;

In my post I referenced the ESV and NIV, both indicating Jesus said seventy-seven times. The KJB reads seventy times seven. The interpretation is we shouldn't keep track, and always forgive those who are truly repentant, no matter how many times they ask.

God bless you.
 
Unfortunately, we are all the product of our social environment. When we approach any text, we must train ourselves to set aside ALL personal conviction as well as our lexicon of personal experiences and allow the grammatical structure of the text to formulate our ideas. This is true no matter what biblical text we engage.

Though I am no scientist or historian, I very much enjoy the study of history, archaeology, astronomy, and psychology. A person should be well informed in many areas of study. When I study scripture, I make a concerted effort to never allow what I know or think I know of any other field to influence how I approach the text. For example, I never begin the study of any text and ask what does history or psychology or science or archaeology have to say about this text. One should ever allow this to distort one's reading of the text. We must NEVER allow what we understand of any of the nine fields of inquiry to determine how any text of scripture should be understood. It is well and good that we bring scripture to bear on the various fields of knowledge but NEVER bring those other fields of study to bear upon the text. The world relies upon the nine fields of inquiry as the anthology of all socialized knowledge. This is all knowledge that comes about as a result of full socialization but, true knowledge cannot begin within the social conscience.

The people of God must be dedicated to the proposition that the Word of God relativizes all knowledge that comes as a result of full socialization. The Word of God reveals the inherent short comings of human intelligence by comparing it to what God has revealed to us of His own intelligence. The Word of God must be allowed to relativize what society thinks in all matters. Intelligence is looked upon as a product of social engendering. We allow society to pronounce upon us what it believes must be regarded as the standard for an intelligent pattern of thinking. The Word of God exists in a state of hostility with what society regards as knowledge. What the world operates on as a base for knowledge is not what God regards as true knowledge. The problem that faces the world is that when the Word of God is brought to bear upon social knowledge, it produces friction within that society. The Word of God renders the wisdom of man as foolishness. Human knowledge cannot be accepted on the same par with the revelation of God, (Act.19:19 the burning of books). The Word of God cannot prevail in the mind of man unless there is a conscious effort on the part of the individual to render the mind subject to the language of scripture. All other forms of knowledge must be rendered subordinate to revelation. The two cannot function together in the same mind at the same time. As long as we allow human knowledge to assume an elevated position in our thinking it will always dominate over the Word of God. NEVER approach any text of scripture and ask what does the historian or the philosopher or the clergy etc... have to say about this text. Truth always rests exclusively within the language of the text, not outside of it.

Having said all of this, am I always 100% successful in this endeavor? No. Obviously not. This is a learned discipline. It takes many years of discipline and practice to learn to do this well, an I still struggle with it. We are all products of our environment and there will always be some measure of social influence that creeps into our studies. The goal is to minimize this influence even further each time we open our Bibles.

You are preaching to the choir brother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top