Hermaneutical Interpretation or Generalization

Well, it really does not matter because they all use the same process and typically arrive at contradictory conclusions.

Lol. Well there goes the hermeneutics!

Well, is this a hermeneutic: I view the OT in light of the NT. Would that be a hermeneutical thingie of some sort?

How else can one understand what somene is tryign to say outside of historical context which is what I call it

Would it not be a danger to try to interpret someones words without looking at the historical context?

How many different types of hermeneutics there actually will depend on whom you ask. All follow the same process.

I would not call that a hermeneutic. This is simply allowing scripture it agential authority to supply its own meaning.

Hermeneutics takes everythign into account

1. Language (necessary to rule out translational issues and issues with the english language)
2. Biblical context (what is the author trying to say in the particular passage)
3. Historical context (what would the readers of the letter understand the writer to be saying)

I think all are necessary,,otherwise it is to easy to insert our opinion based on out belief into the text.

The real question is: Isnt Hermit a lonely person in english? Like a guy who lives alone in the woods? Is that a nickname, or are you actually a single guy living in the backwoods of Texas, if i may ask?

Are there alligators in texas btw? I've seen on TV there is a bunch in Louisiana and Alabama and Florida!

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there is no value to understanding the history and culture of the times in which events occurred. These do have some value. What I am saying is their contribution is minimal at best.

If you would, could you give us an example of where the historical and cultural context is absolutely essential to understand the truth of any given text of scripture.

Well, that pretty well sums me up.

They have some big one in the swamps of east Texas

You're a tough guy! God bless you

How do you know all this stuff about hermeneutics? And the other day you posted a very good article you wrote with someone.

I have been a Christian for a decade and ive never studied nor learned of hermeneutics until I joined this forum!

It wasn't hard. Just took 65 years of study.

Are you talking about the study on Romans 1?

A few examples

The word baptize

If we just use a generalisation. We think of christian baptism, Immerse in water So using a generalization in interpretation everytime we see the word. We assume the word immerse in water (christian baptism) must be the interpretation

Using hermeneutics

1. (Historical context) How did the people in Jesus day use the word baptizo (use the writtings of the day to see how the word was used)
2. (Language) - what does the word literally mean in the language used (greek)
3. (Biblical context) - What is the author tryign to say (is he speaking of spiritual baptism or physical baptism)


Also. Romans 9, There are generally 2 views One view uses what I believe to be generalisation interpretation

The other view uses hermenuetics to ask the questions I posed.

I believe the one who used proper hermenueitics is the correct view

Anything of jewish nature in the OT, I would believe we would need proper hermeneutics to understand what is being said, and again, not just a generalised view. Which leads to so many different interpretations.

Atonement, What does the word mean, What did it mean according to the law (historical context)

Redemption same questions (I actually was suprised when I found out what it meant to people back in OT times and even christ day)

Even the modern day use of tongues in the english bibles. Taken from an english interpretation in the 1600’s where the word had much different meaning than it does today.. Historical context as to when that word was used would help greatly in solving alot of arguments.

Since truth always rests in the language of the text, the study of the language is an absolute essential to maintaining the integrity of the text. The use of bap-tid'-zo in scripture is not just used in connection to water. For example, In Matt. 20:22, Jesus asked his disciples, "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able." Jesus was not talking about being baptized in water. They had already done that. What he was talking about was an immersion in suffering and death. He was on his way to the cross. Now, you can examine the history and culture of the time to see how the word was used but, historical and cultural context is not necessary to understand this. This meaning is supplied by the language of scripture itself.

The example of baptism

In Jesus day, A person who baptized was a person who took garments, and dyed them (gave them color) by baptizing them in the dye (Ie, their state was changed permanently for whatever color it was to the new color)

A soldier would baptize his swoard by immering it in blood (ceremonial)

In literature, we see creatures baptizing things with their blood, we also see a ship sinking (baptized) or being plunged in water (even scripture says jesus will baptize with his blood on his return)

We then have religious baptism or cleansing of things which belonged in temples (cermonial baptisms)

We then have christian baptism (which actually was practiced by Jews, the first baptism being when Moses took arron and his sons abd baptised or washed them in the jordan river,) A person is literally immersed in water)

We also have John differentiating the baptism in water he was doing, with a baptism of the sprit, which Jesus would do. (Spiritual baptism vs physical baptism)

These alone are not enough. You also have to use scriptural context. Ie, what is the author trying to say

Now while hermit may have a point, we can still use our belief systems and many can still intepret many ways, I do believe it helps alot more than just generalising the interpretation to always mean water, Which is not the case.

Yes I agree, But I hope you see from my last post how it helped. Although yes, it still could lead to mistranslation, I doubt there is a full proof way,, other than biblical context (if it contradicts another passage, something must be wrong with your interpretation of one of the passages.

Another good example that floored me was jesus words “it is finished” in the greek tetelestai, which means to bring to an end or it is finished, But it was also a judicial term. People who had finished or carried out their sentence of punishment for a crime, would carry a sign on them which used this same words, It means “Paid in full” if anyone questioned them, they could prove they paid their debt and could never be tried again.


This was jesus purpose for going to the cross. Again, using historical context opens up a world of understanding..

The historical context adds almost nothing to the use of the language of Jesus on the cross. The context is not historical, it is eternal. What was finished was the plan formulated in the mind of God in eternity for this moment. However this phrase may or may not have been used in the judicial culture of the time adds nothing to the understanding of this statement. I can cite examples like that all day long but in the end, what knowledge is added to one's understand of truth from the language of the text is negligible.

Considering the fact that many people do not think the work of the cross is a finished concept, and that we have to add to the work of Christ to be saved, I disagree..

It made a huge affect on seeing what was done in my mind, and alot of people I know.
Most of my views I grew up with which I no longer believe was changed not because people convinced me I was wrong, But that they convinced me to study myself and look at all things including historical context. And make sure EVERYTHING agrees.

When I saw things like redeemed meant to pay for someones freedom (pay their debt) and was actually used quite a bit in biblical history, and many other things like it, It opened a world of understanding to me I have never seen before.

Thats why I ask, why is it a bad thing.

Again, It might not be needed by you to see. But it has helped many a people see what they could not see before.

Would these be similar, to look at scripture with inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. which would be correct.

I would say that the "appeal to time, history, and culture" is an essential part needed to give meaning to the text. So my view is that the legitimacy of hermeneutics is not the problem. The problem is when hermeneutics becomes disconnected from the Holy Spirit.

Another problem (which I think you may be hinting at) is when the application of the text to our daily lives is not talked about. Doing only exegetical hermeneutics to find correct doctrine becomes stale and useless if the faith is not lived out. Any unbeliever can give mental assent to a list of doctrines just as well as a seasoned, mature saint of God can.

However, a person must understand the meaning of the verse before the proper application can be found. Otherwise your application may be coming out of wrong doctrinal premises.