Steps in Mining a Biblical Passage

[Deleted User]

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:
My posts are on topic. I'm using modern day examples showing how people "strip mine" the bible instead of "step mine" it.

Actually you have gone down a rabbit trail that is RELATED to the topic, but not on topic. Specifically you want to talk about the end times interpretations and how they relate to the Kingdom of God and whether it is physical or spiritual or both.

Exactly ... he does not realize and seems unable to understand to what you are referring about "related to topic, but not on topic" ... thus, it's a waste of time trying to have a meaningful exchange on the topic.

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:
My posts are on topic. I'm using modern day examples showing how people "strip mine" the bible instead of "step mine" it.

Actually you have gone down a rabbit trail that is RELATED to the topic, but not on topic. Specifically you want to talk about the end times interpretations and how they relate to the Kingdom of God and whether it is physical or spiritual or both.

Exactly ... he does not realize and seems unable to understand to what you are referring about "related to topic, but not on topic" ... thus, it's a waste of time trying to have a meaningful exchange on the topic.

I'm on topic but obviously hitting a few nerves.

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:

A Note of Caution In Mining the Scriptures!

1. Everyone approaches the Bible with his or her own assumptions or conclusions.

The more important point is whether those assumptions or conclusions are helpful for or detrimental to a correct reading and study of the Scriptures. In other words, taking a certain theology as basis of one's study and thus reading Scripture through theologically colored glasses will not be helpful, but a hindrance. Having a presupposition of endeavoring to approach Scripture in an as much as possible objective and open way and applying sound principles for a correct understanding of a text will be helpful.

2. Every theological system is based on the presuppositions of their favorite theologian or group of theologians?

I think so ... seems to be the case in many groups, churches, denominations.

3. Unfortunately, all groups believe that their presuppositions are valid according to some standard, whether it be the Bible or the prevailing philosophical system such as Existentialism, Platonic Objectivism, or Subjective Rationalism, etc.

That seems to be the case ... and the "peer pressure" arising from membership and/or affiliation in such group will perhaps be one of the greatest obstacles for a true and as much as possible objective study of the Scriptures.

It is the presuppositions, not the tools, that determine the conclusion.

I think presuppositions ("theological colored glasses") can be subdued and taken out of the picture ... a study without appropriate tools is basically impossible. I would say, the proper use of the correct tools - and NOT any presuppositions - should determine the conclusion.

Just like there are two very different ways of understanding a person.

1. One approach is the analytical, anatomical approach of the physician.
2. Another quite different approach is that of the affectionate friend.

The manner of approach I would consider only secondary, but the careful use of the proper interpretation tools is primary and absolutely necessary - whether one's approach is more analytical or more affectionate is irrelevant.

GaoLu

@Dave_L, please. I am not your mother, but I agree with the others, knock it off.

@C_M_
You were doing pretty good till you said this:

It is the presuppositions, not the tools, that determine the conclusion.

Presuppositions can influence the direction of a conclusion but everyone starts with wrong presuppositions that are corrected by the tools. Based on that, You must be wrong.

That superlative is stated as a fundamental fact and has no valid support. I am forced to reject it. Can you substantiate it to give it authority?

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:
...I think presuppositions ("theological colored glasses") can be subdued and taken out of the picture ... a study without appropriate tools is basically impossible. I would say, the proper use of the correct tools - and NOT any presuppositions - should determine the conclusion...

Thanks for your response. I am in general agreement with your remarks. CM

Dave_L

@GaoLu said:
@Dave_L, please. I am not your mother, but I agree with the others, knock it off.

What good is it to make a claim and not give examples?

GaoLu

Surely you are not going to go all @Bill_Coley and @C_M_ on us now are you? Please?

C Mc

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:
My posts are on topic. I'm using modern day examples showing how people "strip mine" the bible instead of "step mine" it.

I'm on topic but obviously hitting a few nerves.

Dave,
There is a general consensus of the current CD Users Community requesting you pursue your "Kingdom", OT/NT relationships, "related to the topic, but not on topic", etc., in another thread. To be sure one of your concerns are heard, I have taken the liberty to start a new thread on the relationship between the OT and NT. I hope you would appreciate it. There, I do what I can, to help you gain a better understanding of the topic matter there. However, you're free to participate, please do so with a stricter focus here on tools to be used for better biblical understanding. I and others would like to layout some stepping stones as guides, for the average student of the Word. Thanks for your consideration and understanding. CM

Dave_L

@C_M_ said:

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:
My posts are on topic. I'm using modern day examples showing how people "strip mine" the bible instead of "step mine" it.

I'm on topic but obviously hitting a few nerves.

Dave,
There is a general consensus of the current CD Users Community requesting you pursue your "Kingdom", OT/NT relationships, "related to the topic, but not on topic", etc., in another thread. To be sure one of your concerns are heard, I have taken the liberty to start a new thread on the relationship between the OT and NT. I hope you would appreciate it. There, I do what I can, to help you gain a better understanding of the topic matter there. However, you're free to participate, please do so with a stricter focus here on tools to be used for better biblical understanding. I and others would like to layout some stepping stones as guides, for the average student of the Word. Thanks for your consideration and understanding. CM

I'm only using it as an example of how we should mine biblical passages.

C Mc

@GaoLu said:
Surely you are not going to go all @Bill_Coley and @C_M_ on us now are you? Please?

GaoLu,
Please refrain from injecting bias conclusions here. It would also be helpful to avoid comparing me with Bill. He's his own man and I am likewise the same. I don't speak for him nor am I his surrogate and vice-versa. Don't soil this thread with your sly-remarks, as though we're discussing politics. We're not. Let's stay focus here. Even if negative thoughts come to mind, please, refrain from posting them here, for the sake of the topic at hand. Your understanding is appreciated. Thanks. CM

PS. My delay in responding to you was due to computer problems. Just living within means. I must endure until my change comes. CM

C Mc

GaoLu, I started this yesterday. Please forgive my delay. CM

@GaoLu said:
You were doing pretty good till you said this:

@C_M_ said: "It is the presuppositions, not the tools, that determine the conclusion".

@GaoLu said: "Presuppositions can influence the direction of a conclusion but everyone starts with wrong presuppositions that are corrected by the tools. Based on that, You must be wrong."

That superlative is stated as a fundamental fact and has no valid support. I am forced to reject it. Can you substantiate it to give it authority?

Thanks for your response. I believe we're more in agreement on this topic, moving forward, than in opposition. I'm glad you left a foot in the door to let me explain myself before taking polarizing positions.

First, I wanted to make it clear of the heavy influence presuppositions have on biblical interpretations. Regardless of tools, presuppositions ("theological colored glasses") as Wolfgang said above could come up with some of the most unbiblical teachings and practices. Thanks about it, why is there just one Christians Bible and so many denominations and Christian practices?

Secondly, Presuppositions (thought and attitude) even with the right tools can lead one to reject some tools and not even consider certain realities of the revealed Word. e.g.

• Some Doubts about the Bible are Due to Human Pride and Arrogance
• Superficial Reading
• Doubting the Bible is God's inspired Word (2 Pet 1:21).
• The greatest of these: every interpreter comes to Scripture with a certain individual, cultural, and religious biases or prejudices (what scholars refer to as "preunderstandings").

These preconceived ideas or blind spots tend to obstruct the correct understanding of the Word.

In essence, having the right tools and wrong attitude, it leads to wrong conclusions and practices. e.g. Instead of:

• Bringing OUTfrom the text what is already there is called exposition (exegesis).
• One is reading INTO the text one's opinions, ideas, or assumptions are known as an imposition (eisegesis).

The elephant in the room when it comes to understanding the bible is Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) -- Principles For Interpreting The Bible. The vehicle is the Historical-Critical Method.

I really would like to discuss this later and focus on the more basic tools for the average student of the Word. Thanks for your understanding. I hope this helps. CM

GaoLu

@C_M_
Provided that excellent context, I find your assertion tenable and helpful. Thanks.

C Mc

As promised, I will share my preferred approach or vehicle of biblical interpretation in understanding Scripture. I lean toward the principle: Plain Reading of Scripture Approach. a.k.a. -- Historical-Grammatical Method, a term dating to 1788 (See Terry below).

Conversely, this method is "Historical-Critical," a.k.a. = as "Higher Criticism." This can be discussed at a later time or in another thread.

It focuses attention on a detailed analysis of the biblical text in accordance with the original language and historical situation. The Bible is:

• (a) Fully inspired
• (b) Absolutely trustworthy
• (c) Solely authoritative
• (d) Thoroughly consistent in all its parts, since it comes ultimately from one divine mind.

This approach is advanced by the Protestant Reformers:

• The simple, plain, direct, or ordinary sense of Scripture --historical, literary and grammatical identity.

This method should not be confused with a "literalistic" approach which does not take into consideration the following:

• Historical
• Grammatical
• Literary (e.g., poetry, parable, symbol, epistle, etc.) characteristics found in the Bible.

Historical-Grammatical Method includes various tools. Among them, figures of speech are utilized to bring out more of the meaning from the biblical writer to his original audiences. CM

SOURCES:

• -- Kaiser, Toward An Exegetical Theology [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1981], pp. 87-88.
• -- Terry Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments [New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1890; reprinted., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1964], pp. 203-242).
• Evangelical scholar Walter C. Kaiser, drawing on the work of Milton S. Terry, attributed the term "grammatico-historical" to Karl A. G. Keil's Latin treatise on historical interpretation (1788) and his German textbook on New Testament hermeneutics (1810). The aim of this method of exegesis is to determine the author's intended meaning by means of the grammar of his language and by the historical and cultural circumstances. While the historical component is self-explanatory, according to Kaiser "The term grammatico-, however, is somewhat misleading since we usually mean by 'grammatical' the arrangement of words and construction of sentences. But Keil had in mind the Greek word gramma, and his use of the term grammatico approximates what we would understand by the term literal (to use a synonym derived from the Latin). Thus, the grammatical sense, in Keil's understanding, is the simple, direct, plain, ordinary and literal sense of the phrases, clauses, and sentences".

Keep studying. CM (4)

PS. What's your preferred method of biblical interpretation? CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:
As promised, I will share my preferred approach or vehicle of biblical interpretation in understanding Scripture. I lean toward the principle: Plain Reading of Scripture Approach. a.k.a. -- Historical-Grammatical Method, a term dating to 1788 (See Terry below).

Conversely, this method is "Historical-Critical," a.k.a. = as "Higher Criticism." This can be discussed at a later time or in another thread.

It focuses attention on a detailed analysis of the biblical text in accordance with the original language and historical situation. The Bible is:

• (a) Fully inspired
• (b) Absolutely trustworthy
• (c) Solely authoritative
• (d) Thoroughly consistent in all its parts, since it comes ultimately from one divine mind.

This approach is advanced by the Protestant Reformers:

• The simple, plain, direct, or ordinary sense of Scripture --historical, literary and grammatical identity.

This method should not be confused with a "literalistic" approach which does not take into consideration the following:

• Historical
• Grammatical
• Literary (e.g., poetry, parable, symbol, epistle, etc.) characteristics found in the Bible.

Historical-Grammatical Method includes various tools. Among them, figures of speech are utilized to bring out more of the meaning from the biblical writer to his original audiences. CM

SOURCES:

• -- Kaiser, Toward An Exegetical Theology [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1981], pp. 87-88.
• -- Terry Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments [New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1890; reprinted., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1964], pp. 203-242).
• Evangelical scholar Walter C. Kaiser, drawing on the work of Milton S. Terry, attributed the term "grammatico-historical" to Karl A. G. Keil's Latin treatise on historical interpretation (1788) and his German textbook on New Testament hermeneutics (1810). The aim of this method of exegesis is to determine the author's intended meaning by means of the grammar of his language and by the historical and cultural circumstances. While the historical component is self-explanatory, according to Kaiser "The term grammatico-, however, is somewhat misleading since we usually mean by 'grammatical' the arrangement of words and construction of sentences. But Keil had in mind the Greek word gramma, and his use of the term grammatico approximates what we would understand by the term literal (to use a synonym derived from the Latin). Thus, the grammatical sense, in Keil's understanding, is the simple, direct, plain, ordinary and literal sense of the phrases, clauses, and sentences".

Keep studying. CM (4)

PS. What's your preferred method of biblical interpretation? CM

I agree with this.

C Mc

CLARIFICATION ON Plain Reading of Scripture Approach:

The Plain Reading of Scripture Approach. a.k.a. -- Historical-Grammatical Method, a term dating to 1788. It focuses attention on a detailed analysis of the biblical text in accordance with the original language and historical situation. The Bible is:

• (a) Fully inspired
• (b) Absolutely trustworthy
• (c) Solely authoritative
• (d) Thoroughly consistent in all its parts, since it comes ultimately from one divine mind.

This approach is advanced by the Protestant Reformers -- The simple, plain, direct, or ordinary sense of Scripture -- historical, literary and grammatical identity. This method should not be confused with a "literalistic" approach which does not take into consideration the following:

• Historical
• Grammatical
• Literary

Conversely, the "Historical-Critical," a.k.a. = as "Higher Criticism" is to be discussed at a later time or in another thread.

I hope this is a better layout for fuller comprehension. CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:

CLARIFICATION ON Plain Reading of Scripture Approach:

The Plain Reading of Scripture Approach. a.k.a. -- Historical-Grammatical Method, a term dating to 1788. It focuses attention on a detailed analysis of the biblical text in accordance with the original language and historical situation. The Bible is:

• (a) Fully inspired
• (b) Absolutely trustworthy
• (c) Solely authoritative
• (d) Thoroughly consistent in all its parts, since it comes ultimately from one divine mind.

This approach is advanced by the Protestant Reformers -- The simple, plain, direct, or ordinary sense of Scripture -- historical, literary and grammatical identity. This method should not be confused with a "literalistic" approach which does not take into consideration the following:

• Historical
• Grammatical
• Literary

Conversely, the "Historical-Critical," a.k.a. = as "Higher Criticism" is to be discussed at a later time or in another thread.

I hope this is a better layout for fuller comprehension. CM

For clarification this does mean literal when literal makes sense correct?

C Mc

@reformed said:

For clarification this does mean literal when literal makes sense correct?

Not to get ahead of myself, would you keep these things in mind:

1. The Bible is seen as a whole.
2. The Bible doesn't contradict itself.
3. Consider the writers, audience, or the fable of that day.
4. Above all, the context will determine.
5. Until we get there, do miracles make sense?

Remain hopeful. Keep studying. CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:

@reformed said:

For clarification this does mean literal when literal makes sense correct?

Not to get ahead of myself, would you keep these things in mind:

1. The Bible is seen as a whole.
2. The Bible doesn't contradict itself.
3. Consider the writers, audience, or the fable of that day.
4. Above all, the context will determine.
5. Until we get there, do miracles make sense?

Remain hopeful. Keep studying. CM

I'm not sure that answered my question.

1. Yes, the Bible must be interpreted against itself.
2. Absolutely, there are no contradictions in Scripture.
3. Yes, original audience understanding is the proper interpretation starting point.
4. Context will determine what? Do you mean it will determine the type of literary device? I agree with that if that is the case.
5. Miracles do make sense if you believe God can do anything.

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:
1. The Bible is seen as a whole.

This is what I refer to as the overall scope of Scripture

2. The Bible doesn't contradict itself.

I consider this to be true regarding the original God-inspired writings, it is not true of later copies and/or translations; actually when there appears to be a contradiction in a translation between passages in Scripture one should check in order to detect where the error is ... the contradiction could be caused by an error in the transmission of the text during the process of hand written copies made, it could be caused by an incorrect translation of an otherwise correct source text, it could be in a reader's false understanding of what is actually a correct translation, etc.

3. Consider the writers, audience, or the fable of that day.

Indeed ... who wrote when what to whom, etc. I sometimes refer to this also as the historical and cultural context of a passage

4. Above all, the context will determine.

I consider this a very important principle ... the meaning of words in a given passage is always determined by the context of the immediate passage.

5. Until we get there, do miracles make sense?

Why should miracles not make sense? Perhaps some miracles don't make sense when someone tries to understand them from an incorrect premise?

C Mc

Thanks, Reformed & Wolfgang,
I think we're moving in the right direction with a reasonable understanding of getting the most from the study of Scripture. CM

C Mc

Let's build upon our understanding of the "Plain Reading of Scripture Approach". a.k.a. -- "Historical-Grammatical Method".

Methods of Bible Study:

a. Select a Bible version for a study that is faithful to the meaning contained in languages in which the Bible originally was written, giving preference to translations done by a broad group of scholars and published by a general publisher above translations sponsored by a particular denomination or narrowly focused group. Exercise care not to build major doctrinal points on one Bible translation or version. Trained biblical scholars will use the Greek and Hebrew texts, enabling them to examine variant readings of ancient Bible manuscripts as well.

b. Choose a definite plan of study, avoiding haphazard and aimless approaches. Study plans such as the following are suggested:

1. Book-by-book analysis of the message.
2. Verse-by-verse method.
3. A Study that seeks a biblical solution to a specific life problem, biblical satisfaction for a specific need, or a biblical answer to a specific question.
4. Topical study (faith, love, second coming, and others).
5. Word study.
6. Biographical study

c. Seek to grasp the simple, most obvious meaning of the biblical passage being studied.

d. Seek to discover the underlying major themes of Scripture as found in individual texts, passages, and books. Two basic, related themes run throughout Scripture:

1. The person and work of Jesus Christ.
2. The battle between Christ/Satan involving the authority of God's Word, the fall of man, the first and second advents of Christ, God's law, and the restoration of the divine plan for the universe. These themes are to be drawn from the totality of Scripture and not imposed on it.

So much more can be bought to light when the Bible is allowed to speak for itself. It's a way forward for better understanding. Stay tuned... CM