Broad Question- A Intrepretive Map of Christian Theology based on Construction

[Person Man]

How should the Bible be interpreted?

Are there any translative properties or canons of construction that are held? How does this mold into a general theology?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How should the Bible be interpreted?

Are there any translative properties or canons of construction that are held? How does this mold into a general theology?

1) understand that the bible was written for you, and not just the leadership of the church, in order to lead you into victory in life and victory over death
2) allow scripture to interpret scripture
3) don't form any doctrine unless it is supported by 2 or 3 different passages of scripture....in accordance with the new and old testament rule not to base anything without 2 or 3 witnesses.
4) Be an adult when reading it:  don't assume contradiction and make sure your conclusions are in agreement with the whole of scripture.
5) understand that the bible is very repetitive in that the major themes are presented over and over again from different angles

if you follow those guidelines, then I think you will end up with very balanced doctrine

[afleitch]

How should the Bible be interpreted?

Are there any translative properties or canons of construction that are held? How does this mold into a general theology?

Two of the key things to note unfortunately are not accessable at first hand for the vast majority. They are (for NT specifically) the acceptance of the primacy of the Greek prose and the need to pursue and accurate translation and secondary to that the conditions of the use of that language at the time with reference to other, contempoary uses of Greek text and language structure. Then (and jmfcst will probably be suprised at this) you 'allow scripture to interpret scriupture' ensuring that what you are reading in English is a respectful and faithful 'impress' if you will of the Greek.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How should the Bible be interpreted?

Are there any translative properties or canons of construction that are held? How does this mold into a general theology?

Two of the key things to note unfortunately are not accessable at first hand for the vast majority. They are (for NT specifically) the acceptance of the primacy of the Greek prose and the need to pursue and accurate translation and secondary to that the conditions of the use of that language at the time with reference to other, contempoary uses of Greek text and language structure. Then (and jmfcst will probably be suprised at this) you 'allow scripture to interpret scriupture' ensuring that what you are reading in English is a respectful and faithful 'impress' if you will of the Greek.

So, God intended the Gospel to be preached to the whole world over a span of at least 2000 years, yet didn't make it general enough (in both terminology and setting) to be interpretable by the world's various languages and cultures?   

As if no one can know God's requirements unless he studies Greek?  That doesn't float.

Give me ANY commonly known translation of the bible in English (NAB, NIV, KJV, NASB, etc, etc), and even though they were ALL assembled by different groups of Greek interpreters, I would arrive at the exact same doctrine across the board regardless of which translation was chosen.

[afleitch]

How should the Bible be interpreted?

Are there any translative properties or canons of construction that are held? How does this mold into a general theology?

Two of the key things to note unfortunately are not accessable at first hand for the vast majority. They are (for NT specifically) the acceptance of the primacy of the Greek prose and the need to pursue and accurate translation and secondary to that the conditions of the use of that language at the time with reference to other, contempoary uses of Greek text and language structure. Then (and jmfcst will probably be suprised at this) you 'allow scripture to interpret scriupture' ensuring that what you are reading in English is a respectful and faithful 'impress' if you will of the Greek.

So, God intended the Gospel to be preached to the whole world over a span of at least 2000 years, yet didn't make it general enough (in both terminology and setting) to be interpretable by the world's various languages and cultures?   

As if no one can know God's requirements unless he studies Greek?  That doesn't float.

Give me ANY commonly known translation of the bible in English (NAB, NIV, KJV, NASB, etc, etc), and even though they were ALL assembled by different groups of Greek interpreters, I would arrive at the exact same doctrine across the board regardless of which translation was chosen.

I was going to add that we damn well better find someone who can translate things adequately They can't seem to find common ground on quite a few interesting words as you know. And that's just the English language Bibles for a start...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I was going to add that we damn well better find someone who can translate things adequately They can't seem to find common ground on quite a few interesting words as you know. And that's just the English language Bibles for a start...

granted there are translational differences, but I have yet to find an example where the extent of the differences between the translations changes a single doctrine.  If you know of one, then bring it forth.

Otherwise, to state that none of the modern translations adequately translates the Greek enough to derive God's requirements is tanamount to claiming exclusivity...which is simply cultish.

[afleitch]

I was going to add that we damn well better find someone who can translate things adequately They can't seem to find common ground on quite a few interesting words as you know. And that's just the English language Bibles for a start...

granted there are translational differences, but I have yet to find an example where the extent of the differences between the translations changes a single doctrine.  If you know of one, then bring it forth.

I have brought it forth before.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I was going to add that we damn well better find someone who can translate things adequately They can't seem to find common ground on quite a few interesting words as you know. And that's just the English language Bibles for a start...

granted there are translational differences, but I have yet to find an example where the extent of the differences between the translations changes a single doctrine.  If you know of one, then bring it forth.

I have brought it forth before.

are you referring to the time you claimed that the term eunuch in Matthew Chapter 19 excuses the practice of homosexual sex, when the vast majority of even the social liberals on this forum thought your interpretation of that passage was insane?

IIRC, your interpretation of Matthew Chapter 19 is not supported by any other passage of scripture, and therefore you are left with an interpretation that is alien to the rest of scripture, both old and new testament.

[afleitch]

Well it is related to Deuteronomy 24:1 hence the reasons why the disciples get hot under the collar. And I did not suggest it had anything to do with sexual activity, but exemption from marriage (taking the man-wife definition of marriage as he evokes Adam and Eve). He is challenging convention. Though considering gamesai can also mean 'to f-ck' not just 'marriage' it can also be argued that he is exempting born eunochos from not only marrying women but having sex with women.

You know, whatever's your poison.

[Јas]

I'm thinking of starting a pool for the first mention of gay/homosexual in all threads on religion from now on.

[afleitch]

I'm thinking of starting a pool for the first mention of gay/homosexual in all threads on religion from now on.

I put my hand up. I raised it and in the context of this thread it should simply stand as an example only.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well it is related to Deuteronomy 24:1 hence the reasons why the disciples get hot under the collar.

actually, Jesus expained the reasoning behind the divorce allowance in Deut 24:1 (since their hearts were hardened, God allowed divorce because he understood divorce is less spiritually damaging than staying in an unloving marriage)...Jesus then went on to explain the original pattern given in Genesis (a man and a woman become one through a loving marriage) is God's will since divorce has it's own spiritual troubles.

---

And I did not suggest it had anything to do with sexual activity, but exemption from marriage (taking the man-wife definition of marriage as he evokes Adam and Eve).

Actually, Jesus brings up Adam and Eve as the picture of how God created and intended marriage to be.

---

He is challenging convention.

Challenging convention?  Only in the sense he was challenging the overuse of divorce:

Mat 19:3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

And as a means to challenge this question placing divorce as the solution to each and every marital problem, Jesus used the original picture of marriage to illustrate how God created and intended marriage to be.

---

And I did not suggest it had anything to do with sexual activity……….Though considering gamesai can also mean 'to f-ck' not just 'marriage' it can also be argued that he is exempting born eunochos from not only marrying women but having sex with women.

And in your attempt to justify your lifestyle, you’re taking the eunuch’s celibacy (his freedom from the pitfalls of marriage due to the fact that he doesn’t have sex) to excuse your homosexual activity.

Your theory is as twisted sounding now as it was months ago.

Why don’t you create a poll and provide a link to Matthew chapter 19, let each poster read it and decide for themselves….in fact I’ll create the poll myself so that we can stop cluttering this thread.