Author's intent hermeneutic

[Sagart]

Always consider the audience. In your case I would suggest NOT using the short convenient words like hermeneutics in the bible study.

These words enhance communication among those who are familiar with them but they hinder communication with those who are not.

Words are coined to express concepts, and when expressing those concepts—those words should be used. If anyone attending a Bible study is not familiar with the word hermeneutics, it is time for them to learn the word—and to learn it CORRECTLY!

hermeneutics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)​

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hermeneutics

 

[Scribe]

Words are coined to express concepts, and when expressing those concepts—those words should be used. If anyone attending a Bible study is not familiar with the word hermeneutics, it is time for them to learn the word—and to learn it CORRECTLY!

hermeneutics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)​

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hermeneutics

Acts5_29 described an audience that bristles at the use of theological words. I experience that often. Unless your audience is a bible college, most people require that you take the time to define the word when you use it. For example a church service. Most will not understand the word unless you define it for them. And the next service you would have to define it again. Might as well not use it if people are not going to understand it without the definition. It is more useful when writing than when speaking.

 

[garee]

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.

Really? Its the same kind of signified understanding used in parables when there were kings in Israel (abomination of desolation ) Same kind same kind of signified understanding used in the parable found in Genesis.

The time of reformation came, it brought out the spiritual understanding hid from the pagan foundation of faithless kings . He did not stop using parable the signified language after that . Without them he spoke not and continues .

What is applied for the period of Kings in Israel.(signified understanding hid in parables.) It continues to work in us until the last parable was spoken.

The Holy Ghost this signifying, (mixing the temporal with the eternal not seen) that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure (parable) for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9: 8-10

 

[Sagart]

Acts5_29 described an audience that bristles at the use of theological words.

Two points:

1. ‘Hermeneutics’ is NOT a theological word, and it has absolutely nothing to do with theology!

2. In post #81 of this thread, I presented, for your benefit, the correct meaning of ‘hermeneutics’.

I experience that often. Unless your audience is a bible college, most people require that you take the time to define the word when you use it. For example a church service. Most will not understand the word unless you define it for them. And the next service you would have to define it again. Might as well not use it if people are not going to understand it without the definition. It is more useful when writing than when speaking.

My oral teaching experience has not been limited to university and seminary students. Indeed, I have successfully taught children as young as seven years old. And my oral teaching experience has not been limited to the classroom. I have taught from the pulpit and in numerous other venues. Believe it or not, I have learned a few things about teaching—including the importance of using words correctly, and NOT criticizing people who do!

 

[Scribe]

Two points:

1. ‘Hermeneutics’ is NOT a theological word, and it has absolutely nothing to do with theology!

2. In post #81 of this thread, I presented, for your benefit, the correct meaning of ‘hermeneutics’.




My oral teaching experience has not been limited to university and seminary students. Indeed, I have successfully taught children as young as seven years old. And my oral teaching experience has not been limited to the classroom. I have taught from the pulpit and in numerous other venues. Believe it or not, I have learned a few things about teaching—including the importance of using words correctly, and NOT criticizing people who do!

Google It. LOL

 

[garee]

Two points:

1. ‘Hermeneutics’ is NOT a theological word, and it has absolutely nothing to do with theology!

2. In post #81 of this thread, I presented, for your benefit, the correct meaning of ‘hermeneutics’.




My oral teaching experience has not been limited to university and seminary students. Indeed, I have successfully taught children as young as seven years old. And my oral teaching experience has not been limited to the classroom. I have taught from the pulpit and in numerous other venues. Believe it or not, I have learned a few things about teaching—including the importance of using words correctly, and NOT criticizing people who do!

You say hermeneutics has absolutely nothing to do with theology. But is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible) Then are you saying it is the study different methods?

Like without parables Christ spoke not And how that is used in theology .

 

[Dino246]

Really? Its the same kind of signified understanding used in parables when there were kings in Israel (abomination of desolation ) Same kind same kind of signified understanding used in the parable found in Genesis.

There are no parables in Genesis. There are types and prefigurings, but it is all literal history which precludes it from being parables.

The time of reformation came, it brought out the spiritual understanding hid from the pagan foundation of faithless kings . He did not stop using parable the signified language after that . Without them he spoke not and continues .

Your understanding is deeply flawed because you have rejected the very-relevant context of the statement that Jesus "spoke not without parables".

What is applied for the period of Kings in Israel.(signified understanding hid in parables.) It continues to work in us until the last parable was spoken.

Kings is literal history, not parables. Again, there are types and prefigurings, but no parables except for Nathan's to David after he sinned with Bathsheba (and perhaps one other).

The Holy Ghost this

signifying, (mixing the temporal with the eternal not seen) that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure (parable) for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9: 8-10

Your additions to Scripture are not Scripture. A parable is a type of figurative language, but not every case of figurative language is a parable.

There are two key problems with your position: you think everything is a parable, and you don't know what a parable actually is. I have given you accurate information on both, and you have rejected it.

 

[Dino246]

You say hermeneutics has absolutely nothing to do with theology. But is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible) Then are you saying it is the study different methods?

Like without parables Christ spoke not And how that is used in theology .

But He DID speak without using parables. Hermeneutics would involve determining when He is using a parable and when He is not. If you erroneously assume that He is always speaking in parables, you cannot interpret Scripture correctly.

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

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?

Moses did not understand how passover was going to be fulfilled and ended.
Moses didnt understand that the parting of the red sea was a foreshawdowing for water baptism.

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.

of course

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

Hi,

Quick poll of this board.

So...my preparation for a Revelation Bible study has led me off on a study of hermeneutics.

You are not going to understand Revelation in a few months . You must be patient. It may take many years.

Man is not to be trusted, especially on "end times" and prophesy. This area has been so over-polluted with man-made dogmas and doctrines and theories. I would encourage you to stay away from even learning them. Keep your mind free from these man made rules and stipulations, because all they do is pigeonhole you and confound you.

And most of all TEST EVERYTHING. If someone says, "oh that view or that camp has been proven wrong", don't believe them. If someone lays a stipulation on you like, "that hasn't happened yet", or "this must happen first", question it, test it, or even better throw it out.

First Two Rules to follow for Revelation:

Psalm 118:8
It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man

1 Thessalonians 5:21
but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Forget hermeneutics!!!

 

[Scribe]

You are not going to understand Revelation in a few months . You must be patient. It may take many years.

Man is not to be trusted, especially on "end times" and prophesy. This area has been so over-polluted with man-made dogmas and doctrines and theories. I would encourage you to stay away from even learning them. Keep your mind free from these man made rules and stipulations, because all they do is pigeonhole you and confound you.

And most of all TEST EVERYTHING. If someone says, "oh that view or that camp has been proven wrong", don't believe them. If someone lays a stipulation on you like, "that hasn't happened yet", or "this must happen first", question it, test it, or even better throw it out.

First Two Rules to follow for Revelation:

Psalm 118:8
It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man

1 Thessalonians 5:21
but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Forget hermeneutics!!!

Testing everything in the context of what the bible says in other scriptures is one of the rules of hermeneutics so...you just told him to use one of the rules and then you told him not to.

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

Testing everything in the context of what the bible says in other scriptures is one of the rules of hermeneutics so...you just told him to use one of the rules and then you told him not to.

Talmudical hermeneutics (Hebrew: approximately, מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) refers to Jewish methods for the investigation and determination of the meaning of the Hebrew Bible,

The jews apply hermeneutics and how well does that work in understanding God's Word?

 

[acts5_29]

Testing everything in the context of what the bible says in other scriptures is one of the rules of hermeneutics so...you just told him to use one of the rules and then you told him not to.

Irony: Gordon Lee actually thinks laying out the fleece is an example of Gideon's LACK of faith in God. He believes God delivered the Israelites in spite of Gideon's lack of faith, and that if we read Gideon's story and think the narrative tells us that we should lay out the fleece for God, that we are decontextualizing the story.

I don't think I concur with Gordon Lee on this one. I John 4 also says to test the spirits--which [irony] goes back to the same hermeneutic you just cited.

 

[acts5_29]

Talmudical hermeneutics (Hebrew: approximately, מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) refers to Jewish methods for the investigation and determination of the meaning of the Hebrew Bible,

The jews apply hermeneutics and how well does that work in understanding God's Word?

Possibly, about as well as applying Gematria to the Hebrew Bible. Which is not well.

 

[Scribe]

Irony: Gordon Lee actually thinks laying out the fleece is an example of Gideon's LACK of faith in God. He believes God delivered the Israelites in spite of Gideon's lack of faith, and that if we read Gideon's story and think the narrative tells us that we should lay out the fleece for God, that we are decontextualizing the story.

I don't think I concur with Gordon Lee on this one. I John 4 also says to test the spirits--which [irony] goes back to the same hermeneutic you just cited.

We are not always going to agree on every interpretation. However, what I would do in a case like this is to examine the text and determine at what point (which rule) did the author make his mistake. I will have to read the example you have given over again to tell you my interpretation. This can be a fun example of applying the rules and determining why we differ on interpretations, is it context, authorial intent, word meaning, theological context, cultural customs at the time. Where are we getting thrown off or where is the author (Gordon Fee) departing from the rules?
I will read it now and get back with you if I see something interesting that should be examined closer.

 

[acts5_29]

I believe that was Chapter 6 of Reading the Bible for All It's Worth.

And the book of judges, of course.

 

[Scribe]

I believe that was Chapter 6 of Reading the Bible for All It's Worth.

And the book of judges, of course.

19And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him under the oak, and presented it. 20And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so. 21Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight. 22And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face. 23And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die

It seems pretty obvious using our own sense of human reasoning that Gideon should not have needed additional miraculous signs after this event. And as you read the rest of the chapter there is a momentum of faith actions performed on Gideon's part that brings him to the brink of the battle, but then...

36And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said, 37Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said. 38And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water. 39And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew. 40And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.

So without the text saying it we get the natural idea that he is nervous... needing confirmation. For whatever reason he is second guessing everything he has experienced prior to this. He needs another sign and "then he shall know" so that does seem like he does not yet know and I would call that doubt. I think there is every reason to call this fleece request an act of doubt.

I would agree that God is granting his request in spite of his second guessing what God had already told him. An act of grace on Gods part but you naturally feel a little uncomfortable when you read it. You want to tell Gideon, "Dude! God already had an angel visit you and miraculously burn up your offering why are you asking for more?" But God in his grace does it anyway. That is an awesome thing and we sort of sigh in relief that God did not make one of his hands leprous or strike him dumb and unable to speak until the battle was over or something like that.

Do we really see any precedence here for making this a method for knowing Gods will on a matter? After all God had already told Gideon what to do. If Gideon had never asked for this fleece we could have told him "Gideon.. you know what to do, just do it". So nothing new was added to Gideon concerning what God wanted him to do by going through this fleece test. Do we have the authority to take this story and use it to support the idea that we should ask God to make something happen for us to confirm what he has already told us is what we should do?

Does this story tell us that this is Gods method for how to get confirmation from God? Why or Why not?

And if it is, then do we have the authority to change the method. Should we ask God a question and tell him if the answer is yes make my coat dry but the grass around it wet. And then check it in the morning? And if it is dry, ask again for it to be wet this time. Is that what we should do? That is what he did and we are claiming this as our scriptural authority.

 

[acts5_29]

Most people have never taken on 100,000 men with 300 men. Gideon did. If/when God calls me to do something equally insane, I guarantee I will be posing a few tests myself. Call it a lack of faith, or whatever.

I heard a story about 10 years back from Rebecca St. James' agent. Apparently, she got in her fan mail at least 5 proposals from men, all of them saying Rebecca St. James was the woman he was to marry. The agent said he was inclined to believe they were wrong.

 

[Scribe]

Most people have never taken on 100,000 men with 300 men. Gideon did. If/when God calls me to do something equally insane, I guarantee I will be posing a few tests myself. Call it a lack of faith, or whatever.

I heard a story about 10 years back from Rebecca St. James' agent. Apparently, she got in her fan mail at least 5 proposals from men, all of them saying Rebecca St. James was the woman he was to marry. The agent said he was inclined to believe they were wrong.

At the time of the fleece he had no idea God was going to reduce the number of men he was to use. The interesting thing is that by that time his faith seem to be settled and he did not require another fleece after the reduction of the men

 

[Scribe]

Most people have never taken on 100,000 men with 300 men. Gideon did. If/when God calls me to do something equally insane, I guarantee I will be posing a few tests myself. Call it a lack of faith, or whatever.

Anyway the question of the hermeneutical interpretation being that one may use what Gideon did with the fleeces as a normal method of how to get direction from God based on this passage. Is that sound hermeneutics? Is that the correct way to interpret the reason that this story has been given to us? Or is the authorial intent (in this case the Holy Spirit) that we learn something other than that from this passage?
If one were to say that this is for us to follow and do the same when we need to know if God wants us to do something then wouldn't we want to stick to the pattern as exact as possible. For example the coat in the yard overnight idea. Or maybe how about asking God to not let it snow on one side of our windshield. It seems to me that if we are going to use it as an example we would need to make the fleece as challenging as Gideon did. If we just say God show me your will if the answer is yes have a bird sing in the back yard in the morning when I go out for coffee, and this happens most mornings anyway, are we following this example we are claiming we got from the bible? I think not.