The top three rules of hermeneutics (the art and science of biblical interpretation)

[darin]

Interesting read speaking to proper application of biblical teachings in light of context and original audience.

One problem not spoken of in the piece below - Humans want easy answers. We want a pill. We want a pithy quote or saying from which to form an opinion. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!" is a favourite saying that simply flies in the face of intellect and probably offends God. Sad fact - applying critical thinking to Scripture tends to be too much work.


It seems that much of contemporary evangelical preaching is so concerned with the practical application of Scripture that we treat the Bible as a lake from which to fish application for today’s Christians. All of this is done at the expense of proper exegesis and interpretation.

The top three rules of hermeneutics (the art and science of biblical interpretation) are 1) context; 2) context; 3) context. Before we can tell 21st-century Christians how the Bible applies to them, we must first come to the best possible understanding of what the Bible meant to its original audience. If we come up with an application that would have been foreign to the original audience, there is a very strong possibility that we did not interpret the passage correctly. Once we are confident that we understand what the text meant to its original hearers, we then need to determine the width of the chasm between us and them. In other words, what are the differences in language, time, culture, geography, setting and situation? All of these must be taken into account before application can be made. Once the width of the chasm has been measured, we can then attempt to build the bridge over the chasm by finding the commonalities between the original audience and ourselves. Finally, we can then find application for ourselves in our time and situation.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-apply-today.html

[bullypulpit]

Art...? A definite "Maybe". Science...? Not by any stretch of the imagination. As for the top three rules of hermeneutics being "1) context; 2) context; 3) context", it is important to remember the context in which biblical scripture was written...The world as it was more than 2,000 years ago. It was 325 A.D. when the Council of Nicea which unified Chrisitan doctrine and dogma. The thing most people don't realize about the interpretation of religious doctrine is that they are interpreting fundamentally subjective interpretations of experiences which were inherently subjective. While this process can provide a broad, general guide by which to live one's life, to treat the conclusions drawn from it as absolutes is folly.

[darin]

Art...? A definite "Maybe". Science...? Not by any stretch of the imagination. As for the top three rules of hermeneutics being "1) context; 2) context; 3) context", it is important to remember the context in which biblical scripture was written...The world as it was more than 2,000 years ago. It was 325 A.D. when the Council of Nicea which unified Chrisitan doctrine and dogma. The thing most people don't realize about the interpretation of religious doctrine is that they are interpreting fundamentally subjective interpretations of experiences which were inherently subjective. While this process can provide a broad, general guide by which to live one's life, to treat the conclusions drawn from it as absolutes is folly.

That's just about perfectly said. Just-about. People find lots of absolutes - and for good reason - within scripture.

[revelarts]

Art...? A definite "Maybe". Science...? Not by any stretch of the imagination. As for the top three rules of hermeneutics being "1) context; 2) context; 3) context", it is important to remember the context in which biblical scripture was written...The world as it was more than 2,000 years ago. It was 325 A.D. when the Council of Nicea which unified Chrisitan doctrine and dogma. The thing most people don't realize about the interpretation of religious doctrine is that they are interpreting fundamentally subjective interpretations of experiences which were inherently subjective. While this process can provide a broad, general guide by which to live one's life, to treat the conclusions drawn from it as absolutes is folly.

one of the problems is that some like yourself seem to begin with assumptions about history, biblical and church, that are false. Slip shod and distorted pop culture, bar room atheist history of the earlier church . Dan Brown Da Vinci Code-eqse even. And never take time to study the details and correct yourself.As well as assuming the most negatives view of all involved past and present as a starting point for your unbiased :rolleyes:"understanding" the Bible. And any approach to it.

BP it seems you can't even take the Bible as a document of history 1st, like the many ancient works. Documents that people CAN use the typical art and science of language and forensic archeology to make REAL determinations of textual meaning. And simply READ the words in context etc and derive real meaning. The same as anyone reading your words today.. or 500 years from now. Your view seems so negative you seem to assume the Bible words meaning can't even be rationally known. But I suspect you and others do think there's an art and science of truly understand the works of Plato or Aristotle. Or the histories of the Greeks and Romans. And many of the writings of Egyptians and Babylonians. somehow those documents and stones are understandable but the Bible can't even communicate anything that in you mind is not COMPLETELY subjective or applicable to life today.
Is 'Love your Neighbor' and the like really so incomprehensible?

[darin]

one of the problems is that some like yourself seem to begin with assumptions about history, biblical and church, that are false. Slip shod and distorted pop culture, bar room atheist history of the earlier church . Dan Brown Da Vinci Code-eqse even. And never take time to study the details and correct yourself.As well as assuming the most negatives view of all involved past and present as a starting point for your unbiased :rolleyes:"understanding" the Bible. And any approach to it.

BP it seems you can't even take the Bible as a document of history 1st, like the many ancient works. Documents that people CAN use the typical art and science of language and forensic archeology to make REAL determinations of textual meaning. And simply READ the words in context etc and derive real meaning. The same as anyone reading your words today.. or 500 years from now. Your view seems so negative you seem to assume the Bible words meaning can't even be rationally known. But I suspect you and others do think there's an art and science of truly understand the works of Plato or Aristotle. Or the histories of the Greeks and Romans. And many of the writings of Egyptians and Babylonians. somehow those documents and stones are understandable but the Bible can't even communicate anything that in you mind is not COMPLETELY subjective or applicable to life today.
Is 'Love your Neighbor' and the like really so incomprehensible?

Do you take any issue with the canonized scripture being done in a political forum? With trades for votes and all that? Does it really matter if the Bible is not the final authority on who God is?

[revelarts]

Interesting read speaking to proper application of biblical teachings in light of context and original audience.

One problem not spoken of in the piece below - Humans want easy answers. We want a pill. We want a pithy quote or saying from which to form an opinion. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!" is a favourite saying that simply flies in the face of intellect and probably offends God. Sad fact - applying critical thinking to Scripture tends to be too much work.


The assumption that "evangelicals" do not use the tools of Biblical interpretation is in my experience FLASE outright.
that's where i LEARNED of the practice. But In the biblically "liberal" or "mainstream" Churches you get the most wishy washy melly mouthed "interpretations" i've ever seen. My Daughter went to a liberal/mainstream Luthren Church School for a few years. i visited during a few of the Pastors chapels sermons and i've never seen Scripture pulled out of context and bent into benign baby food like proverbs in the same way in by Pastors of conservative Reformed, Fundamentalist, or even most Pentecostal Churches .

If the writer wants to accuse some TV preachers, well that's another story.
It's a 60 to 40% chance you'll get some loosy goosy message if you pick someone program at random. That's why the scripture encourages us all to read it for ourselves and do the hard work. And to check the words of of pastor and teachers against the scriptures.

But look one of the things I listened to as a young man was a radio program call "Thru the bible radio." There an evangelical pastor daily took the Bible book by book for 5 years doing EXACTLY what your writer outlines. Giving the historical context, the culture of the people and the times, looking at the original languages and changes of meaning IF ANY.
that's ONE radio Program there are tons more here are a few more
"Thru the Bible radio."
"Grace to You"
"Insight for Living"
"Ligonier Ministries"
"Let My People Think"
"Turning Point"
"the White Horse Inn"
"Reasonable Faith"
"the John Ankerberg Show"
In terms of "critical thinking" there a few of the above are STELLAR.
But the above hand full of radio programs does not even start to touch the 10s of thousands of "evangelical" Books of the past 700 years that go into GREAT depth into the Bible's interpretations using contextual hermeneutics.

the attacks on "evangelical"/fundamentalist/conservative Biblical interpretations have been incessant over that time and the defense has been ROBUST, for anyone willing to look.
DMP If the guy writing your commentary is assuming that EVERY sermon or comment from an evangelical is contextually Biblical accurate. The answer is of course, no. No pastor's of any background is.
But in general the overall view of the issue is that some areas of the Bible are very clear and universally understood, orthodox if you will. While some areas are a matter of honest in-house honest debate. And some areas the Bible only gives hints at views on issues, and some areas the bible is silent on. And honest people make statements and actions they hope are inline with God's mind and heart in those grey/silent areas, or keep silent as well. But there are far fewer of those areas in public controversy than some would assume.

[revelarts]

Do you take any issue with the canonized scripture being done in a political forum? With trades for votes and all that? Does it really matter if the Bible is not the final authority on who God is?

If i can point out the fuller, older historical setting of "canonization" that negates the pop-history "political forum" mantra will you stop repeating it as a basis to doubt the canon?

[darin]

Sometimes I think you take things as a personal attack. Little too often. I speak in general terms.

It's not MY commentary. It's his. I found it interesting. I know - like you from personal experience - Lots? Many? Too Many? Pastors preach things from the bible that are simply untrue when the thing they are preaching is viewed in context. We could name a few things that are often misconstrued - firstly, the idea of Eternal Torment in Hell, speaking in tongues, use of alcohol, women's roles in the church, divorce...probably could come up with many more. I heard pastor talk about "Xtians should ONLY hang-out with or associate with the same people they will see in heaven!"

Oh man. Just awful.

Historical, traditional Christianity NEEDS to be scrutinized because what Western culture has done to Christianity at times can be perfectly horrid.


If i can point out the fuller, older historical setting of "canonization" that negates the pop-history "political forum" mantra will you stop repeating it as a basis to doubt the canon?

If I tell you the canon is flawed based on fuller, older historical setting of the process, will you stop associating me, personally, with what I discuss?

[Abbey Marie]

Do you take any issue with the canonized scripture being done in a political forum? With trades for votes and all that? Does it really matter if the Bible is not the final authority on who God is?

I guess the question for me is, if not the Bible, then who or what is the final authority that we mortals can access here on Earth? The Pope? Is each of us subjectively deciding preferable? I think the harm that can ensue from "demoting" the Bible, so-to-speak, is far greater than any that our being a bit wrong can achieve. But then I have long thought that picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are true, and which are not, is a bad idea.

[revelarts]

Sometimes I think you take things as a personal attack. Little too often. I speak in general terms.

maybe i'm to strait forward or blunt in my comments.
but I saw that you posted a few comments from someone that ONLY paints "much of evangelical preaching" as not looking at "...context, language, time, culture, geography, setting and situation".. etc.

I simply pointed out that there is PLENTY of evangelical preaching and teaching that take ALL of those factors into their work... for centuries. that there's no dearth of VERY GOOD hermeneutics in evangelicalism.

Why you think i consider your post a "personal attack" when i'm just making a clarifications to your commentary that you or others might not be aware of I'm not sure. I'm just rounding out the conversation with MORE CONTEXT. historical and contemporary on your quote and your own comment after it.



It's not MY commentary. It's his. I found it interesting. I know - like you from personal experience - Lots? Many? Too Many? Pastors preach things from the bible that are simply untrue when the thing they are preaching is viewed in context. We could name a few things that are often misconstrued - firstly, the idea of Eternal Torment in Hell, speaking in tongues, use of alcohol, women's roles in the church, divorce...probably could come up with many more. I heard pastor talk about "Xtians should ONLY hang-out with or associate with the same people they will see in heaven!"

Oh man. Just awful. ...

I think we agree in principal that ALL preachers from time to play a bit loose or horribly loose with scripture to often. But in general you do tend to ride a this type of commentary onto the board that brings into question CERTAIN Evangelical/Conservative/Traditional understandings of scripture.
namely the items you mention below.

"Eternal Torment in Hell, speaking in tongues, use of alcohol, women's roles in the church, divorce.... etc"

And you say "firstly Eternal Torment in Hell.."

this , it seems to me, is one of your main horses and I think it's POSSIBLY one of the reasons why you find the words you quoted from the commentary "interesting".

following that the traditional Biblical views concerning various social issues also fall under your scrutiny and displeasure. So to question the hermeneutics of those who hold those views, generally evangelicals (not me personally), seems to be a tactic to get your own view into ascension.

I could be wrong, but it sure seems like that's were you're coming from.
I mean i do the same with certain science issues. But i don't try to misrepresent or broad brush those that promote other views.

[revelarts]

I guess the question for me is, if not the Bible, then who or what is the final authority that we mortals can access here on Earth? The Pope? Is each of us subjectively deciding preferable? I think the harm that can ensue from "demoting" the Bible, so-to-speak, is far greater than any that our being a bit wrong can achieve. But then I have long thought that picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are true, and which are not, is a bad idea.

exactly.

[bullypulpit]

I guess the question for me is, if not the Bible, then who or what is the final authority that we mortals can access here on Earth? The Pope? Is each of us subjectively deciding preferable? I think the harm that can ensue from "demoting" the Bible, so-to-speak, is far greater than any that our being a bit wrong can achieve. But then I have long thought that picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are true, and which are not, is a bad idea.

There are as many names for the divine as there are people to utter them. Because that spark of divinity lies within each of us to find. Not in the pages of a book edited and redacted to suit the desires of the Council of Nicea. Not in the utterances of some self-righteous, self-proclaimed messenger of the divine.

[Abbey Marie]

There are as many names for the divine as there are people to utter them. Because that spark of divinity lies within each of us to find. Not in the pages of a book edited and redacted to suit the desires of the Council of Nicea. Not in the utterances of some self-righteous, self-proclaimed messenger of the divine.

I'll just stick with Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible.

But I will let you find "the Divine" in everyone, if you want.


http://f.tqn.com/y/history1900s/1/L/l/E/1/manson.jpg


http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/12/joseph-stalin-AB.jpeg



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Osama_bin_Laden_portrait.jpg


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Fnk_Kuzdeck/UQzt9lcok0I/AAAAAAAAEZM/1JR_5I2f29U/s640/Muammer+Kaddafi.jpg


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/k0GZIg8pvjM/hqdefault.jpg


http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Hillary-Clinton1.jpg

[revelarts]

There are as many names for the divine as there are people to utter them. Because that spark of divinity lies within each of us to find. Not in the pages of a book edited and redacted to suit the desires of the Council of Nicea. Not in the utterances of some self-righteous, self-proclaimed messenger of the divine.


Do you take any issue with the canonized scripture being done in a political forum? With trades for votes and all that? Does it really matter if the Bible is not the final authority on who God is?

the problem with your statement is that it's historically false. the Council of Nicea Did Not settle, edit, redact or vote on the canon. They didn't even write about it. We have the written records of that Council and there's nothing there about the canon. That idea was popularized by piss poor part-time historians, the fiction book the Da Vinci Code and lazy internet atheist.

The reality is that the PRE-Roman churches and church fathers had 100 years plus earlier all ready recognized the New Testament books, and of course the old testament was a given in the 1st century.

We have the letters and sermons beginning at least AD 62, and more from AD150 through 250 that all clearly point to the exact same letters and books as "scripture" that make up our current new testament. The main criteria was known apostle authorship. That church practice made clear distinctions between the writings of the church fathers, the bogus works that were floated and true "scripture". The canon was settled LONG before Nicea, where that question never came up.

[revelarts]

There are as many names for the divine as there are people to utter them. Because that spark of divinity lies within each of us to find. Not in the pages of a book edited and redacted to suit the desires of the Council of Nicea. Not in the utterances of some self-righteous, self-proclaimed messenger of the divine.

It's always odd to me,

people toss around terms like
--"spark of divinity"
--"lies within us all"
--"to find"

Each Phrase is LOADED theologically and is it's own simple "religion" just as much and any other utterances or writings. And you did just write that down didn't you, maybe even edited it before you sent it out to the world? Are you a self-proclaimed messenger of the devine then?



the main question here is what is true. Some writings can in fact be shown to be false for many "religions", other can be shown to be off the cuff statements with no backing. While some have the backing of history and evidence internal and external.

as Dmp mentioned if we take the time to honestly look.

[darin]

the problem with your statement is that it's historically false. the Council of Nicea Did Not settle, edit, redact or vote on the canon. They didn't even write about it. We have the written records of that Council and there's nothing there about the canon. That idea was popularized by piss poor part-time historians, the fiction book the Da Vinci Code and lazy internet atheist.

The reality is that the PRE-Roman churches and church fathers had 100 years plus earlier all ready recognized the New Testament books, and of course the old testament was a given in the 1st century.

We have the letters and sermons beginning at least AD 62, and more from AD150 through 250 that all clearly point to the exact same letters and books as "scripture" that make up our current new testament. The main criteria was known apostle authorship. That church practice made clear distinctions between the writings of the church fathers, the bogus works that were floated and true "scripture". The canon was settled LONG before Nicea, where that question never came up.

That's true, except the times they did. They voted for inclusion based on things that weren't necessarily of God. They captured a picture of God through a lot of writings, and framed it in the way they wanted to see. Some folks disagreed, some agreed. Some folks held-holy other scriptures which very well may be good for folks to know about.

The Bible does not nor should not present the final authority on who God is. Nobody comes to God via the bible - it happens only through Christ - it 'happened' only through Christ because his work is done. We see it only from our perspective on time. For God? It's all over and complete and there's no issue anymore with sin nor death.