|
|
Post by PG4Him on May 6, 2019 9:52:19 GMT -5
This is so stupid I can hardly type with a straight face.
Remember when you were in grade school and your teacher taught you what a metaphor was? Remember learning about comparison and contrast? Cause and effect? Did you have that information pretty well down by the age of 12? Guess what, you’re smart enough for Bible college! If you can surmise that Israel’s unfaithfulness caused the Babylonian exile, you my friend are seminary material.
Now go spend money on professors to teach you how to do this. It’s too dangerous for you to be out there on your own finding patterns in Scripture. The parable of the vineyard sounds similar to Isaiah 5? No no, you can’t see that on your own. You need a professor to show it to you.
I don’t know how to say this politely to seminarians. You’re paying good money for someone to teach you what the rest of us call common sense. Your school has taken extremely basic grammar school knowledge, repackaged it as something fancy, and charged you money for the privilege. These are not laws. This is not the stuff of literature. This is the stuff of basic communication.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 7, 2019 12:54:03 GMT -5
This is so stupid I can hardly type with a straight face. Remember when you were in grade school and your teacher taught you what a metaphor was? Remember learning about comparison and contrast? Cause and effect? Did you have that information pretty well down by the age of 12? Guess what, you’re smart enough for Bible college! If you can surmise that Israel’s unfaithfulness caused the Babylonian exile, you my friend are seminary material. Now go spend money on professors to teach you how to do this. It’s too dangerous for you to be out there on your own finding patterns in Scripture. The parable of the vineyard sounds similar to Isaiah 5? No no, you can’t see that on your own. You need a professor to show it to you. I don’t know how to say this politely to seminarians. You’re paying good money for someone to teach you what the rest of us call common sense. Your school has taken extremely basic grammar school knowledge, repackaged it as something fancy, and charged you money for the privilege. These are not laws. This is not the stuff of literature. This is the stuff of basic communication. Like it. And on another note, I am starting to see more were people are coming from when they say stuff like people using context but in a wrong way. I know that some OSAS people tend to use this, but have the OSAS doctrine in mind, and interpret scriptures via that. And I can see many of us have experienced different things, and have had different encounters with people. The kinds of encounters that I have seen many times, is in the sense that there are many who do not care about context, they just pick and choose whatever they want in scripture, and make it say whatever they want. And me and my friend have even talked to this one person who was basically almost spiritualising everything. So many times when people will hear say the word context, or spiritualising something, depending on what you have experienced, it can trigger us into thinking about the experience we have had with such and such a person, but in and of itself, context is not wrong, and there are things which have a spiritual meaning in the bible, or are a metaphor and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 7, 2019 13:11:40 GMT -5
Some times it is good to know were each person is coming from, less we mis judge one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on May 7, 2019 13:26:31 GMT -5
Some times it is good to know were each person is coming from, less we mis judge one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on May 7, 2019 13:28:40 GMT -5
This is so stupid I can hardly type with a straight face. Remember when you were in grade school and your teacher taught you what a metaphor was? Remember learning about comparison and contrast? Cause and effect? Did you have that information pretty well down by the age of 12? Guess what, you’re smart enough for Bible college! If you can surmise that Israel’s unfaithfulness caused the Babylonian exile, you my friend are seminary material. Now go spend money on professors to teach you how to do this. It’s too dangerous for you to be out there on your own finding patterns in Scripture. The parable of the vineyard sounds similar to Isaiah 5? No no, you can’t see that on your own. You need a professor to show it to you. I don’t know how to say this politely to seminarians. You’re paying good money for someone to teach you what the rest of us call common sense. Your school has taken extremely basic grammar school knowledge, repackaged it as something fancy, and charged you money for the privilege. These are not laws. This is not the stuff of literature. This is the stuff of basic communication. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 7, 2019 13:32:48 GMT -5
Some times it is good to know were each person is coming from, less we mis judge one another.
It is more in the sense that say someone post something, and they are saying something from a certain point of view, but we think they are saying something from another point of view, some times it is good to know there point of view, in how they are saying things, so we do not mis judge what they are saying. |
|
|
|
Post by PG4Him on May 7, 2019 13:36:39 GMT -5
I know what Giller is saying. You come down hard on rhetoric that sounds like hermeneutics because you’ve had more exposure to it. To someone like me who hadn’t debated it much, the rhetoric sounds innocent.
”The Bible is a book and I read it like a book.”
To a casual person, it sounds like you just sit in a chair and start reading. To someone who knows how seminarians operate, this sets of warning bells.
”Stay away from teachers who push context.”
What’s so bad about context? The average person doesn’t see the controversy. But when you’ve dealt with one bad teacher after another who all seemed to do the context thing, you become more suspicious of context.
So Giller could innocently use a phrase that makes him sound similar to a bad teacher, and then he gets jumped on for being “one of them” even though he’s not.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG4Him on May 7, 2019 13:59:49 GMT -5
Perhaps we should start our own Seminary and our leaders can be the Professors. There needs to be a better answer to this system. Seminarians are putting people in two camps: the ‘smart’ people who do hermeneutics and the unlearned, superstitious fundamentalists who don’t. They make it seem like superstition is the only real objection. Anyone who’s halfway intelligent will supposedly see the value of hermeneutics (and eventually adopt Reform theology, of course). Hermeneutics is engineered to strongly push you toward Calvinism. That’s why so many ‘thinkers’ become Calvinist. John I hate to say it, but this goes back to what I mentioned in my testimony. Phony intellectualism based on junk analysis makes Christians look stupid. Outsiders can see through it. You’re better off to just be simple and admit that you’re simple. There’s a difference between simple and stupid. What we need to start with is a message that hermeneutics isn’t the only option for educated people. |
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 7, 2019 23:17:08 GMT -5
I know what Giller is saying. You come down hard on rhetoric that sounds like hermeneutics because you’ve had more exposure to it. To someone like me who hadn’t debated it much, the rhetoric sounds innocent. ”The Bible is a book and I read it like a book.” To a casual person, it sounds like you just sit in a chair and start reading. To someone who knows how seminarians operate, this sets of warning bells. ”Stay away from teachers who push context.” What’s so bad about context? The average person doesn’t see the controversy. But when you’ve dealt with one bad teacher after another who all seemed to do the context thing, you become more suspicious of context. So Giller could innocently use a phrase that makes him sound similar to a bad teacher, and then he gets jumped on for being “one of them” even though he’s not. Thanks for this response sister Candance. And the next thing I want to say, is just for the sake of being careful, and one thing I have learnt is to not put every single person in the same boat. We need to discern each situation. We need to seek God's face on things, some things are obvious, and there are other things that are not so obvious. Let us be careful. Putting every one on the same boat is not discernment to me (which I am not saying you are doing at all), because you can unnecessarily be condemning people for no reason. And I know what that is all about, I have seen it done so many times, were people will do a certain type of correction thinking they are right in their correction, when in that particular case they are not, and then the person feels condemned for no reason and their walk is hindered for a bit, until they get out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by John on May 8, 2019 5:46:51 GMT -5
We either believe that we must obey laws of literature and be obedient to King Context or we don't. I remember Shiloh357 kept claiming that context is king and the Bible obeys the laws of literature, which is absurd. Jesus is my King, not Context, and the Bible doesn't obey laws of literature inspired by a Roman idol named Hermes. That is what must be exposed.
There are good people that get tricked into using hermeneutics, but they are usually believers in the osas heresy, and they use this method to manipulate scripture into agreeing with their false doctrine. On top of that, when necessary, they go away from King Context when they have to while denying they do that. It really is a scam.
I would agree that there are good people who were genuinely taken in by these deceivers, so we shouldn't be overly condemning of everyone using hermeneutics. We just need to expose it.
|
|
|
|
Post by solid on May 8, 2019 7:31:42 GMT -5
Laws of literature? Why do we need a set of laws to understand what we are reading? You mean that every time we read the Bible, we have a set of rules to follow?
|
|
|
|
Post by PG4Him on May 8, 2019 8:14:05 GMT -5
Let me use an illustration to explain how stupid these “laws” are.
There is this thing called a blender. When you put food in a blender, the device will break it down for you. That’s what a blender is. Now, many kitchens in the modern world have blenders. If your kitchen has a blender, you obey the law of blender.
How did we jump from an object to a rule? Where is the rule? What rule are you “obeying” when you buy a blender?
Then suppose I make a list of some of the things you find in a kitchen. Toaster, coffee maker, microwave, can opener. These are all objects that sit on the surface of your counter. These are the laws of kitchen!
But then I miss the most important things — a stove, a refrigerator, a sink. I draw your attention to the shiny objects on the counter and refuse to explain to you what a kitchen is really for.
This is what they’ve done with these laws. There’s this thing you can do called a comparison, and sometimes the Bible does it too, so voila, the Bible obeys the law of comparison. This list of ‘laws’ is a short list of common devices that happen to appear in the Bible. That’s it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 8, 2019 10:24:07 GMT -5
We either believe that we must obey laws of literature and be obedient to King Context or we don't. I remember Shiloh357 kept claiming that context is king and the Bible obeys the laws of literature, which is absurd. Jesus is my King, not Context, and the Bible doesn't obey laws of literature inspired by a Roman idol named Hermes. That is what must be exposed.
There are good people that get tricked into using hermeneutics, but they are usually believers in the osas heresy, and they use this method to manipulate scripture into agreeing with their false doctrine. On top of that, when necessary, they go away from King Context when they have to while denying they do that. It really is a scam.
I would agree that there are good people who were genuinely taken in by these deceivers, so we shouldn't be overly condemning of everyone using hermeneutics. We just need to expose it.
I agree we need to expose it totally, and we need to seek the Holy Spirit to reveal the word to us, and scriptures can have many meanings, some things are literal, spiritual, and so on. I agree with you that Jesus is king and not context, but also that context has some importance, and in reality, we all look into context, so that does not mean that you are into hermeneutics because you look at context, because every one on Narrow Ways to some degree does it. I think it is more in the way people apply this, and not seeking the Holy Spirit to reveal truth to them, and yes there are some things with deeper meaning. And we still have to be careful how we judge each other, and I mean this in many areas, each situation has to be discerned individually, often times. That is just truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 8, 2019 23:35:12 GMT -5
Just in regards to hermeneutics.
It seems that in some cases, and not all cases, is that they sometimes use even scriptures to justify their method but of course they mis appropriate scripture.
I looked up a bit of stuff on Hermeneutics, and they do mention things like studying the bible, searching the scriptures, and comparing scriptures with scriptures, but form a type of method with these things and many others, but mis appropriate them.
But what I want to ask right now, is this:
First I will mention a scripture:
1Co 2:13
(13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Joh 6:63
(63) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Who has ownership to these verses, God's word? Or the Hermeneutics method?
Act 17:10-11
(10) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
(11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Who has ownership to these verses, God's word? Or the Hermeneutics method?
2Ti 2:15
(15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Who has ownership to this verse, God's word? Or the Hermeneutics method?
|
|
|
|
Post by PG4Him on May 9, 2019 7:51:17 GMT -5
There is no scientific way to find God. These people know this. When they debate atheists, they say God is beyond the reach of science. Then they turn around to their fellow Christians and sell a scientific method.
It’s the same thing they’ve done to other parts of church. They use marketing to figure out evangelism. They bring music consultants to help them do a better concert. Pastors really are business owners using social sciences to develop and sell a product.
|
|
