King James Bible
King James Version (KJV)
All Discussion PAGE 527
Viewing page: 527 of 6006
< Previous Discussion Page Next Discussion Page >
517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Therefore, I reiterate the three rules of Hermeneutics: a literal interpretation (unless a non-literal one is clearly called for); an historical, grammatical & contextual usage to understand the environment & language of that writing; & of course, using Scripture in other places within the Bible to help interpret the portion we're reading. Outside of this defined & confined meaning of 'biblical hermeneutics', we might open ourselves to erroneous understanding & teaching. If we believe that the Holy Spirit assists us in our understanding, then He would not disregard proper interpretative conventions, rather make that Scripture meaningful to us as well as applicable to our lives.
Then going back to our 'Lake of Fire' example, 'Fire' may be the common word that is seen, in say in 1 Kings 18:19-40 & in Revelation 20:14,15, but the whole context is very different between the two. Where 'fire' consumed the sacrifice on the altar in the one, & then in the other, 'fire' doesn't consume, but is eternal & tormenting (even as Jesus spoke of this in Mark 9:43-48). If we don't apply these rules, we can then make the Revelation account anything we want it to mean (or support our belief); such as being a fire of purification (purgatory), or only a spiritual (not actual) fire to demonstrate God's hatred of sin, but the soul be saved. If any of these (& other) interpretations are used, we in the first instance violate the proper understanding of the given Word & secondly, apply our own principles which ultimately makes the Word meaningless & worthless. The Holy Word is to be rigorously guarded from anything that would lead the reader to distraction & departure of the Truth.
2. A second crucial rule of biblical hermeneutics is that passages must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. Interpreting a passage historically means we must first seek to understand the culture, background, and situation that prompted the writing. For example, in order to understand Jonah's flight, in Jonah 1:1-3, we should learn of the history of the Assyrians as it related to Israel.
Interpreting a passage grammatically requires one to follow the rules of grammar and recognize the nuances of Hebrew and Greek. For example, when Paul writes of "the great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" in Titus 2:13, the rules of grammar state that God and Savior are parallel terms and they are both in apposition to Jesus Christ; in other words, Paul clearly calls Jesus "our great God" & not identifying the two Persons separately in the Deity. Interpreting a passage contextually involves considering the context of a verse or passage when trying to determine the meaning. The context includes the verses immediately preceding and following it, the chapter, the book, and indeed the entire Bible. For example, many puzzling statements in Ecclesiastes become clearer when kept in context; the book of Ecclesiastes is written from the earthly perspective 'under the sun' ( Ecclesiastes 1:3). In fact, the phrase 'under the sun' is repeated many times in this book, establishing the context for all that is "vanity" in this world.
3. A third rule of biblical hermeneutics is that Scripture is always the best interpreter of Scripture (& this you believe & stated clearly). For this reason, we always compare Scripture with Scripture when trying to determine the meaning of a passage. For example, Isaiah's condemnation of Judah's desire to seek Egypt's help and their reliance on a strong cavalry ( Isaiah 31:1) was motivated, in part, by God's explicit command that His people not go to Egypt to seek horses ( Deuteronomy 17:16).
Thanks for asking that good question David0920 concerning our understanding & use of correct biblical hermeneutics.
Biblical hermeneutics then, is the study of the principles and methods of correctly interpreting the text of the Bible. In 2 Timothy 2:15 we see this instruction to properly read & understand the Bible & this is the sole purpose of biblical hermeneutics.
1. The most important rule of biblical hermeneutics is that the Bible should be interpreted literally. We are to understand the Bible in its normal or plain meaning, UNLESS the passage is obviously intended to be symbolic or if figures of speech are used (as you shared about several accounts in The Revelation). The Bible says what it means and means what it says. For e.g., when Jesus spoke of having fed "the five thousand" ( Mark 8:19), the law of hermeneutics says we should understand five thousand literally: there was a crowd of hungry people that numbered five thousand who were fed with real bread and fish by a miracle-working Savior. Any attempt to "spiritualize" the number or to deny a literal miracle is to do injustice to the text and ignore the purpose of language, which is to communicate. Of course, there are lessons to be learned from that event, lessons which you mentioned, but before we arrive at those personal lessons & applications, we must ensure we actually understand what the Bible is saying & not replace words with other words, e.g. the fish or people to mean something else that God wants to tell us.
Some make the mistake of trying to read between the lines of Scripture to come up with esoteric meanings (i.e. only a special few are blessed to understand it), that are not really found in the text, as if every passage has a hidden spiritual truth that we should seek to decipher & then connect the dots. Biblical hermeneutics keeps us faithful to the intended meaning of Scripture and prohibits our allegorizing Bible verses that ought to be understood literally.
Thank you
Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:1-4; 1 Timothy 5:8.
I say amen to that! Submitting ourselves to Gods humbling process is what we are to do.
1 Peter 5:6 says Humble yourselves therefore, and here's a translation change:
Instead of humble yourselves, I understand it to be "be humbled." I see it as Passive Voice in the Greek text.
I don't humble myself. That would be considered pride if I were doing the humbling. So we are to be humbled therefore under the mighty hand of God.
So we are to submit to Gods humbling process under His mighty hand. As He keeps trying to push us down every time we pop up in whatever area of life we're popping up in, because we have a tendency in our self-sufficiency to try and do things our way instead of surrendering to Christ, but we are to submit to His humbling process under His mighty hand, and He will exalt us in due time:
In 1 Peter 5:7, there's a Modal Participle explaining what it means to be humbled under the mighty hand of God:
We are told to cast all our care upon him; for He is concerned for us. It's when we become self sufficient in our circumstances that Gods brings us low in order to cause us to trust Him and cast all of our cares on Him. That's how we are humbled, and it is God doing the humbling!
I see no reason to believe that Job ever divorced or remarried. I believe that Job remained married to his wife and they both had more children after God restored all that he lost ( Job 42:10-13).
We see in Job 42:11 that all his previous acquaintances came back to him. It does not mention his wife but I would have to think she would be included, or perhaps, she never left him?
This is true of many non-westernized cultures where formula, bottles, baby food are not used. Often a new baby will be
born about the time the child is weaned at the ages mentioned. Many times a mother will continue to nurse the older child until
he/she weans. This was common practice. Babies were spaced about 2 years apart if the mother had normal fertility and would
not have long periods of months of menstruating between pregnancies. This is healthier than how we do things today. God's
design is better than what we have "progressed to today. Babies and toddlers get the best food/nutrients from momma's milk
and other foods gradually become a part of the child's normal meals. With scarcity of food or variety not guaranteed, the longer
the child consumes mother's milk the more nutrition he/she receives and thus the child is more healthy. Also, mothers would
end up having far fewer cycles of fertility than women do now and thus their bodies would not have as much flux of hormone
changes across time, which is healthier for the mother, especially for the prevention of breast cancer.
I acquired this information when I was planning our first child as I studied the subject so I could make the best choices for my
kiddos and avoid some of the common issues that inhibit breastfeeding success in our culture. We are lucky to live in a culture
where food is readily available to both mom and babies, but in other cultures in our world, food scarcity and reliance on formula
often lead to malnutrition for both mom and baby as mom does not get enough nutrients to sustain her during pregnancy and
babies do not get enough nutrition because formula is often watered down with unsanitary water to make it last longer.