Author's intent hermeneutic

[acts5_29]

Hi,

Quick poll of this board.

So...my preparation for a Revelation Bible study has led me off on a study of hermeneutics. Which frankly might be a more important study, anyway. Learning right and wrong hermeneutics lays the groundwork for studying Revelation.

Let me explain my poll question:

Hermeneutics is basically the "rules of engagement" for interpreting the Bible. Such as, for example, our #1 rule of engagement is that we should sincerely seek God in all our study. After all, if we are not genuinely seeking God in all this, we will never interpret the right meaning out of God's Word.

Now, my question: do you believe it fair to say that whatever the author intended you to read, that is the correct meaning of the book? Put another way: assuming Moses wrote Deuteronomy, do you believe that whatever Moses was trying to say--that is the meaning of Deuteronomy?

OR: is it possible that, once the book became a part of the Bible and 2000 years have elapsed, that the Holy Spirit took over, and now the book, being a part of GOD'S Word, might mean something that the human author did not intend? For example: take Paul's letter to Philemon. When Paul originally wrote the letter, he intended the audience to be Philemon. But then a lot of churches also read the letter, and it became part of the Bible. Now, the letter becomes to ALL of us, and it takes on new meaning. But...does it take on new meaning that Paul never intended?

When I read about hermeneutics, I read that it is the former, i.e. you need to understand the author's intent. And I tend to agree with that. But I am also concerned of the possibility that maybe not everybody may agree with that, and that I am imposing all these "rules" on them which only serve to obscure the Bible's true meaning (which of course is neither my intent, nor that of hermeneutics). I hope I explained my question well?

 

[Benadam]

The author's intent is foundational and leads to the development of deeper understanding of the Faith that the author expressed. Understanding the author didn't know. If the author's meaning is departed from for the sake of deeper understanding then it's not a development of the Faith but the development of another faith

 

[oyster67]

The Holy Spirit is key to understanding the Bible, and each verse should be studied in the context of the rest of God's Word.

I believe that the Spirit will not reveal opposing ideas to true seekers.

I believe that readers will always differ in their opinions about what the writers audience, etc. was, but the Holy Spirit will give what God intends for us to get as a unified body in Christ.

 

[oyster67]

I am also concerned of the possibility that maybe..... I am imposing all these "rules" on them which only serve to obscure the Bible's true meaning

You are very wise.

 

[Dave-L]

Hi,

Quick poll of this board.

So...my preparation for a Revelation Bible study has led me off on a study of hermeneutics. Which frankly might be a more important study, anyway. Learning right and wrong hermeneutics lays the groundwork for studying Revelation.

Let me explain my poll question:

Hermeneutics is basically the "rules of engagement" for interpreting the Bible. Such as, for example, our #1 rule of engagement is that we should sincerely seek God in all our study. After all, if we are not genuinely seeking God in all this, we will never interpret the right meaning out of God's Word.

Now, my question: do you believe it fair to say that whatever the author intended you to read, that is the correct meaning of the book? Put another way: assuming Moses wrote Deuteronomy, do you believe that whatever Moses was trying to say--that is the meaning of Deuteronomy?

OR: is it possible that, once the book became a part of the Bible and 2000 years have elapsed, that the Holy Spirit took over, and now the book, being a part of GOD'S Word, might mean something that the human author did not intend? For example: take Paul's letter to Philemon. When Paul originally wrote the letter, he intended the audience to be Philemon. But then a lot of churches also read the letter, and it became part of the Bible. Now, the letter becomes to ALL of us, and it takes on new meaning. But...does it take on new meaning that Paul never intended?

When I read about hermeneutics, I read that it is the former, i.e. you need to understand the author's intent. And I tend to agree with that. But I am also concerned of the possibility that maybe not everybody may agree with that, and that I am imposing all these "rules" on them which only serve to obscure the Bible's true meaning (which of course is neither my intent, nor that of hermeneutics). I hope I explained my question well?

“The prophets, who prophesied of the grace (divine blessing) which was intended for you, searched and inquired earnestly about this salvation. They sought [to find out] to whom or when this was to come which the Spirit of Christ working within them was indicating when He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow [them]. It was then disclosed to them that the services they were rendering were not meant for themselves and their period of time, but for you. [It is these very] things which have now already been made known plainly to you by those who preached the good news (the Gospel) to you by the [same] Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Into these things [the very] angels long to look!” 1 Peter 1:10–12 (AMP)

 

[acts5_29]

You are very wise.

I should probably clarify. I am concerned about the PERCEPTION.

Let's take the first thing: introducing the words, "Hermeneutics", "exegesis", and "eisegesis" to laymen. Exegesis=good. Eisegesis=bad. First thing somebody's going to ask: Do any of these words appear in the Bible? Well...not really. Instantly, they're turned off. We're "no longer studying the Bible". The Bible's supposed to be this easy-to-learn Word of God that we can all understand, but instead I'm using these big words.

Lesson learned: just don't use those big words. But still, the underlying premise remains: what is the correct lens, the correct microscope, to examine the Bible under? Many men have gone before us and formulated a set of rules to go by when reading the Bible. That is hermeneutics. What are bad ways to read the Bible? What are good ways? We learn much faster if we simply learn from other people who have already wrestled through these very issues. Why graduate from the School of Hard Knocks if you don't have to?

So, the intent is not to impose all these "rules" on people which only obscure the Bible's meaning. It's to grease the skids. But I'm concerned about the perception that we are telling people how to interpret the Bible and that "that's wrong." At the very least, yes--I am telling you, you have to interpret God's Word the way God intended it. No apologies for that.

My worry is that if I teach that one rule of hermeneutic is that you need to interpret a Bible passage the way the author intended it, I will get people in the room who don't even agree with that much. Poof, I just turned them off. Thus I posted this poll about it.

 

[acts5_29]

“The prophets, who prophesied of the grace (divine blessing) which was intended for you, searched and inquired earnestly about this salvation. They sought [to find out] to whom or when this was to come which the Spirit of Christ working within them was indicating when He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow [them]. It was then disclosed to them that the services they were rendering were not meant for themselves and their period of time, but for you. [It is these very] things which have now already been made known plainly to you by those who preached the good news (the Gospel) to you by the [same] Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Into these things [the very] angels long to look!” 1 Peter 1:10–12 (AMP)

Excellent, relevant passage. But what is your exegesis of this passage?

My read is that, the Old Testament prophets, when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, they knew there would be a latter day, which we now know as the New Covenant. And so the Holy Spirit revealed to them that their writings were meant for a later time's consumption.

Do we then infer that New Testament prophets did the same? e.g. that Paul's letters to Corinth were not meant for Corinth, but for churches which did not even exist at the time? And that Paul knew that, and in fact THAT was Paul (the author's) intent?

 

[Dave-L]

Excellent, relevant passage. But what is your exegesis of this passage?

My read is that, the Old Testament prophets, when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, they knew there would be a latter day, which we now know as the New Covenant. And so the Holy Spirit revealed to them that their writings were meant for a later time's consumption.

Do we then infer that New Testament prophets did the same? e.g. that Paul's letters to Corinth were not meant for Corinth, but for churches which did not even exist at the time? And that Paul knew that, and that in fact THAT was Paul (the author's) intent?

How did the OT Prophetss know John the Baptist would Elijah? How did they in Hosea 1:11 know Jesus IS Israel according to Matthew? How did they know the kingdom was spiritual only and not physical. To the point many missed it and still look for it, never to show?

 

[Dino246]

Authorial intent is fundamental to interpreting Scripture. Of course, let's remember that God is the Author!

God led the human authors of the various books to write with specific intent and audience in mind, and He used their individual styles. If our purpose is to learn what the passage says and means, we need to take all this into account.

On a related note, I found an interesting YouTube video with Dr. Michael S. Heiser on the subject of exegetical fallacies. It's less than 18 minutes long...

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Let's take the first thing: introducing the words, "Hermeneutics", "exegesis", and "eisegesis" to laymen. Exegesis=good. Eisegesis=bad. First thing somebody's going to ask: Do any of these words appear in the Bible? Well...not really. Instantly, they're turned off. We're "no longer studying the Bible". The Bible's supposed to be this easy-to-learn Word of God that we can all understand, but instead I'm using these big words.

Lesson learned: just don't use those big words.

So instead of using "big words" (if you don't want to), then present it like this:

--[for eisegesis, say instead] "reading ideas INTO the text"

--[for exegesis, say instead] "drawing the idea OUT-OF/ OUT-FROM the text" (the one given)


...then they can see for themselves that the concepts do indeed "relate to the [proper] study of the Bible," see.

= )


I think most people are mature enough to grasp the "definitions" (if they are supplied, and if you so choose to supply them), but either way, they should grasp the "doing" of it (which is your goal, I would think)... if that makes sense.

 

[oldethennew]

the 'Human' authors that our Saviour used to teach and reach our hearts were those whom HE CHOSE,
and NOT the plethora of satan's earthly servants/vessels that he has used to divert and destroy our
lives and Love for Him...
our 'choice', his demonic voice to listen to or not...

 

[CS1]

It is both. You must be born-again to have understanding of God word. If you are studying the word of God then you surely know the method of properly doing so. The "Authorial intent" is trying to Understand what God ( the Author) is saying:

1. who is HE saying it to
2. why did HE say it
3. what was the Time frame in which HE said it
4. how did they apply what HE said then
5. How do I apply it today?

 

[posthuman]

the Author is the Holy Spirit and the intent is to testify of Jesus Christ

 

[CS1]

the Author is the Holy Spirit and the intent is to testify of Jesus Christ

FYI God is the Holy Spirit

 

[tourist]

It is both. You must be born-again to have understanding of God word. If you are studying the word of God then you surely know the method of properly doing so. The "Authorial intent" is trying to Understand what God ( the Author) is saying:

1. who is HE saying it to
2. why did HE say it
3. what was the Time frame in which HE said it
4. how did they apply what HE said then
5. How do I apply it today?

The thing is,can one be born again without the understanding of God's word? Seems like you would need at least a basic understanding of God's word, especially the verses pertaining to being born again. I do agree with you that God is the author. Those that wrote the words down were really just scribes, even if they offered their own personal perceptions, because in all cases they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the words down, whatever they may be or form that they would take.

 

[CS1]

The thing is,can one be born again without the understanding of God's word? Seems like you would need at least a basic understanding of God's word, especially the verses pertaining to being born again. I do agree with you that God is the author. Those that wrote the words down were really just scribes, even if they offered their own personal perceptions, because in all cases they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the words down, whatever they may be or form that they would take.

You have valid point, however, many of us ( christians) have experienced being born-again yet did not know the term. it was after being born-again we learned what John chapter 3 and Jesus with Nicodemus was saying to him. God is the Author through HIS Holy Spirit because the Word of God says that.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

God is the author because Only God has the word of Eternal life because HE God is Eternal.

 

[tourist]

You have valid point, however, many of us ( christians) have experienced being born-again yet did not know the term. it was after being born-again we learned what John chapter 3 and Jesus with Nicodemus was saying to him. God is the Author through HIS Holy Spirit because the Word of God says that.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

God is the author because Only God has the word of Eternal life because HE God is Eternal.

What you have said is true as I was born again but it took a few years of study to realize what had happen to me. The 21st verse seems to confirm that the ones who did the actual writing of the bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit. I love the passage where Jesus was explaining the concept of being born again to Nicodemus.

 

[garee]

Hi,

Quick poll of this board.

So...my preparation for a Revelation Bible study has led me off on a study of hermeneutics. Which frankly might be a more important study, anyway. Learning right and wrong hermeneutics lays the groundwork for studying Revelation.

Let me explain my poll question:

Hermeneutics is basically the "rules of engagement" for interpreting the Bible. Such as, for example, our #1 rule of engagement is that we should sincerely seek God in all our study. After all, if we are not genuinely seeking God in all this, we will never interpret the right meaning out of God's Word.

Now, my question: do you believe it fair to say that whatever the author intended you to read, that is the correct meaning of the book? Put another way: assuming Moses wrote Deuteronomy, do you believe that whatever Moses was trying to say--that is the meaning of Deuteronomy?

OR: is it possible that, once the book became a part of the Bible and 2000 years have elapsed, that the Holy Spirit took over, and now the book, being a part of GOD'S Word, might mean something that the human author did not intend? For example: take Paul's letter to Philemon. When Paul originally wrote the letter, he intended the audience to be Philemon. But then a lot of churches also read the letter, and it became part of the Bible. Now, the letter becomes to ALL of us, and it takes on new meaning. But...does it take on new meaning that Paul never intended?

When I read about hermeneutics, I read that it is the former, i.e. you need to understand the author's intent. And I tend to agree with that. But I am also concerned of the possibility that maybe not everybody may agree with that, and that I am imposing all these "rules" on them which only serve to obscure the Bible's true meaning (which of course is neither my intent, nor that of hermeneutics). I hope I explained my question well?

One author the anointing Holy Spirit the teacher .

In the book of Revelation in verse one reveal the kind of hermeneutics is setup for the entire book as not only inspired but also signified the language of parables . Parables the tongue of prophecy .Right from the beginning there is division whether to seek out the spiritual understand hid in the parables or literalize the parable as lose the unseen understanding.

Revelation 1 King James Version (KJV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

 

[garee]

Excellent, relevant passage. But what is your exegesis of this passage?

My read is that, the Old Testament prophets, when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, they knew there would be a latter day, which we now know as the New Covenant. And so the Holy Spirit revealed to them that their writings were meant for a later time's consumption.

Do we then infer that New Testament prophets did the same? e.g. that Paul's letters to Corinth were not meant for Corinth, but for churches which did not even exist at the time? And that Paul knew that, and in fact THAT was Paul (the author's) intent?

I would say yes. The interpretation of prophecy God's word does not change

What is applied to one body applies to all both sides of the reformation. They looked ahead by the new faith that worked in them in respect to a suffering savior the bloody first born. We look back by the same work of faith. both receiving the end of the promise (the salvation of ones soul). from the beginning of hearing God.

 

[Dino246]

One author the anointing Holy Spirit the teacher .

In the book of Revelation in verse one reveal the kind of hermeneutics is setup for the entire book as not only inspired but also signified the language of parables . Parables the tongue of prophecy .Right from the beginning there is division whether to seek out the spiritual understand hid in the parables or literalize the parable as lose the unseen understanding.

Revelation 1 King James Version (KJV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Revelation 1:1 is relevant to Revelation, not to the entire Bible. Revelation is not a parable, but a vision. Even so, though most of Revelation is symbolic, some parts are not.