Biblical Illiteracy

The word of God is the sole and only standard for faith and practice.

Biblical words should "generally" be Biblically defined...

RexRed wrote:

Biblical words should "generally" be Biblically defined...

This is where you and I don't see eye to eye with many things. Though I don't understand what exactly you're trying to say, I would venture to guess what you're trying to say is that people must come up with their own INDIVIDUAL interpretations of the passages found in the Bible, and ignore the intention of the writers.

We are in agreement I think,

People should let the Bible "interpret itself" rather than interpreting it to fit an ideology.

One should only go to remote sources when there is no other means by which to define a word.

One should first let words interpret themselves by the context, the remote context and where the words were used before.

The first usage of a word in the Bible is significant also.

Figures of speech, customs, orientalisms and history need to be considered in the mix...

But the external should never become so directing so as to obscure the internal way of the word...

RexRed wrote:

We are in agreement I think,

Nope, we aren't in agreement.

It is not because I am not making sense.

RexRed wrote:

People should let the Bible "interpret itself" rather than interpreting it to fit an ideology.

Are you saying that the words in the Bible are not analogies and the linguistic translation are? (Studying the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (English, Latin, German etc.) words are the best we can do to aid the Bible in interpreting itself) Are you saying that the Bible is mistranslated, and the individual is able to translate it…upon which basis do you support such idea?

The Bible is surely mistranslated in places. The Bible is inherently inerrant.

RexRed wrote:

One should only go to remote sources when there is no other means by which to define a word.

What word are you talking about? The translation of the Bible and other texts of literature are translated by the use of linguistic, the study of words that change through out the passage of time. What remote sources are you talking about?

Cultures change over time but words are defined by the context they are placed in. So the Biblical words have to be Biblically defined and not defined by personal interpretation. Not interpreted by error built upon error.

RexRed wrote:

One should first let words interpret themselves by the context, the remote context and where the words were used before.

How can words interpret themselves if not by searching their definitions? That's what linguistic comes about, to find the meaning of the word by its actual use.

You look at the English word and find the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word behind it. Then you study the context of the original word used elsewhere in the Bible. Then if the near context does not help in defining the word then you move to the remote context of the word used yet still in the Bible. If the remote context does not define the word then you go to external sources from outside the Bible.

RexRed wrote:

The first usage of a word in the Bible is significant also.

Lost you here.

Once you have discovered the word translated behind the English word then you go to the first time the word is used in the Bible... this often sets the meaning for the rest of the scriptures.

RexRed wrote:

Figures of speech, customs, orientalisms and history need to be considered in the mix...

Who isn't considering those elements?

Some consider customs and traditions first rather than the simple doctrine of text. They deny the text to keep their traditions.

RexRed wrote:

But the external should never become so directing so as to obscure the internal way of the word...

Lost you again.

It is not because I am not making sense.

(Studying the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (English, Latin, German etc.) words are the best we can do to aid the Bible in interpreting itself)

The Bible is surely mistranslated in places. The Bible is inherently inerrant

Cultures change over time but words are defined by the context they are placed in. So the Biblical words have to be Biblically defined and not defined by personal interpretation. Not interpreted by error built upon error.

One should first let words interpret themselves by the context, the remote context and where the words were used before.

You look at the English word and find the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word behind it. Then you study the context of the original word used elsewhere in the Bible. Then if the near context does not help in defining the word then you move to the remote context of the word used yet still in the Bible. If the remote context does not define the word then you go to external sources from outside the Bible.

Once you have discovered the word translated behind the English word then you go to the first time the word is used in the Bible... this often sets the meaning for the rest of the scriptures.

Figures of speech, customs, orientalisms and history need to be considered in the mix...

Some consider customs and traditions first rather than the simple doctrine of text. They deny the text to keep their traditions.

People spend their whole lives reading AROUND "the word"...

RexRed wrote:

People spend their whole lives reading AROUND "the word"...

And what should they do, not read? Come on, Rex…focus.

RexRed wrote:

The word of God is the sole and only standard for faith and practice.

One presenting that profession of faith, openly declaring self-claimed authority and circular reasoning, perforce removes that one's self from consideration as an objective, intellectually honest discussant of the issues at discussion.

Jason you seem to miss every point...

If just to yank my chain...

Take for instance the last statement...

Instead of reading AROUND the Bible or "not reading" (as you propose) maybe people could try the third option, reading the Bible itself? Yet that last option you, if not purposely, overlook?

Is it because I am not being obvious or you are unwilling or incapable of seeing?

Would God allow a lie to be recorded in his word and still call the Bible "holy"?

I say, yes... There can be lies in the Bible and it can still be holy.

A lie can sometimes be more revealing than the truth...

RexRed wrote:

Jason you seem to miss every point...

If just to yank my chain...

Take for instance the last statement...

Instead of reading AROUND the Bible or "not reading" (as you propose) maybe people could try the third option, reading the Bible itself? Yet that last option you, if not purposely, overlook?

Nevertheless, Rex…you seem to not understand the premise of this discussion. Why not learn literature and then understand what the Bible conveys? Don't you think that it would be a good, darn option? It all comes down to learning literature in order to understand literature…bar none.

RexRed wrote:

Is it because I am not being obvious or you are unwilling or incapable of seeing?

Obvious about what? See what? You have suggested that the process of translation should follow an ideal system, which includes a list of necessary procedures…but guess what, such processes are implemented in linguistics…so why don't you tackle that instead of focusing on irrelevant statements?

RexRed wrote:

Would God allow a lie to be recorded in his word and still call the Bible "holy"?

I say, yes... There can be lies in the Bible and it can still be holy.

A lie can sometimes be more revealing than the truth...

Why don't you provide examples of lies in the Bible? Let's test your knowledge...

timberlandko wrote:

RexRed wrote:

The word of God is the sole and only standard for faith and practice.

One presenting that profession of faith, openly declaring self-claimed authority and circular reasoning, perforce removes that one's self from consideration as an objective, intellectually honest discussant of the issues at discussion.

Good try,

By stating the inerrancy of the word one only challenges others to try to break the word. The word cannot be broken.

It can be misinterpreted and misunderstood but it cannot be broken.

The message of the word of God is still just as true today as it was when it was written. Every last syllable, every inflection, every tone, every bit of fervor and every word.

The word reveals the heart of man/woman versus the heart of God.

We see this and choose which path we will go down.

The Bible reveals a God made into in man's image and man in God's image like no other book on this earth. It is the source of so much truth that out of this very book the universe was created. The Holy Bible is the blueprint to the cosmos.

To break one single word of the Bible would be to break all of creation as we know it and bring it tumbling down into the abyss of despair and human vanity.

Tomorrow the word will still reveal this, it will be forever revealed in the minds of believers and it will be just as true tomorrow as the day it was was written by God.

. . .Religion and truth are not synonymous words...

RexRed wrote:

. . .Religion and truth are not synonymous words...

I can't help you in this thread, Rex.
"For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice." (John 18:31-32)

RexRed wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

RexRed wrote:

The word of God is the sole and only standard for faith and practice.

One presenting that profession of faith, openly declaring self-claimed authority and circular reasoning, perforce removes that one's self from consideration as an objective, intellectually honest discussant of the issues at discussion.

Good try,

By stating the inerrancy of the word one only challenges others to try to break the word. The word cannot be broken.

It can be misinterpreted and misunderstood but it cannot be broken.

The message of the word of God is still just as true today as it was when it was written. Every last syllable, every inflection, every tone, every bit of fervor and every word.

The word reveals the heart of man/woman versus the heart of God.

We see this and choose which path we will go down.

The Bible reveals a God made into in man's image and man in God's image like no other book on this earth. It is the source of so much truth that out of this very book the universe was created. The Holy Bible is the blueprint to the cosmos.

To break one single word of the Bible would be to break all of creation as we know it and bring it tumbling down into the abyss of despair and human vanity.

Tomorrow the word will still reveal this, it will be forever revealed in the minds of believers and it will be just as true tomorrow as the day it was was written by God.

I'm sure you don't realize how or why your response concisely exemplfies that aspect of manner of discourse to which I directed my criticism. Whether or not such intellectually bankrupt fallacies are all you have, they are all you bring to the discussion. Good job, though, even if you don't know what you did or how you did it (itself not at all surprising).