Historical-grammatical method

[P31Woman]

Can anyone involved in these debates who uses the term "literal" explain to us Christians who hold to this literal view of scripture what it means?

If you want to debate with Christians who hold to the literal view of scripture you need to understand what we are talking about.

 

[Sinthesis]

What are you talking about when you say you hold to the literal view of scripture? Is there only one literal view of scripture?

 

[Butch5]

Can anyone involved in these debates who uses the term "literal" explain to us Christians who hold to this literal view of scripture what it means?

If you want to debate with Christians who hold to the literal view of scripture you need to understand what we are talking about.

Hi P31Woman,

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying hold the view but don't know what it means.

 

[Webb]

My understanding of "the literal view of scripture" is to take any passage of scripture literally ( at first ) and then if the context will not logically and reasonably allow a literal interpretation then consider the symbolic etc. This is my approach.

 

[farouk]

It's what words in their primary, basic sense mean in their context.

 

[Sinthesis]

Aren't words' meanings and rules of context variable, or are they absolute?

 

[farouk]

Aren't words' meanings and rules of context variable, or are they absolute?

S: The theological point that can be made is that truth is divinely revealed, and there is a body of doctrine that is invariable.

But in terms of translations of Scripture into particular languages, over the course of time, linguistic changes can occur. Some languages are more archaic than others; there is a lot of variation.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

If you want to debate with Christians who hold to the literal view of scripture you need to understand what we are talking about.

How literal do you view this scripture as being?



"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." -1 Timothy 2:11-14

 

[farouk]

In Scripture, equality and headship are complementary; and this is true for the relationship between God the Father and God the Son also.

 

[for_his_glory]

How literal do you view this scripture as being?



"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." -1 Timothy 2:11-14

How can we know the literal of these verses without comparing scripture with scripture in order to understand the whole of just these ones given as a proof that they are to be silent. That's like one verse where it says, Jesus wept. We need to compare other scriptures to see why he wept. Hope you see my point here.

 

[for_his_glory]

Can anyone involved in these debates who uses the term "literal" explain to us Christians who hold to this literal view of scripture what it means?

If you want to debate with Christians who hold to the literal view of scripture you need to understand what we are talking about.

Many scriptures hold a literal view, but can also have a Spiritual meaning that outweighs the literal view we see with logic.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

How can we know the literal of these verses without comparing scripture with scripture in order to understand the whole of just these ones given as a proof that they are to be silent. That's like one verse where it says, Jesus wept. We need to compare other scriptures to see why he wept. Hope you see my point here.

My post was addressed to someone who claims to take the Bible literally. If one takes the Bible literally, and they read "Jesus wept", they take it to mean just that . . . Jesus wept. They can read all the context around it. They can go back and read the entire Bible from start to finish, so that they can get a complete picture of why Jesus wept, and that might shed plenty of light as to why Jesus wept, but all the context in the world won't change the fact that Jesus actually wept, if the reader truly takes the Bible literally. I hope you see my point here.

 

[WIP]

My post was addressed to someone who claims to take the Bible literally. If one takes the Bible literally, and they read "Jesus wept", they take it to mean just that . . . Jesus wept. They can read all the context around it. They can go back and read the entire Bible from start to finish, so that they can get a complete picture of why Jesus wept, and that might shed plenty of light as to why Jesus wept, but all the context in the world won't change the fact that Jesus actually wept, if the reader truly takes the Bible literally. I hope you see my point here.

Not to take this thread off topic but I sometimes think Jesus was weeping long before he appeared to mankind in the flesh.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Not to take this thread off topic

I think I can help tie your post more tightly to the topic.

By the way, I think yours was a good post. To me, it gives off an aura somewhat like a famous quote or something. I also think that many others would agree that it has kind of a poetic sprinkle to it, but short enough to hit the point home rather quickly. Good stuff.

but I sometimes think Jesus was weeping long before he appeared to mankind in the flesh.

To anyone:

When I read in my Bible, "Jesus wept", and consider the context around it, I take it literally.

When I read WIP's post that says, "Jesus was weeping", and consider the context around it, I take it allegorically(the weeping, not Jesus).

Does anyone here take any of those two readings differently than I have?

 

[Sinthesis]

Isa 53:3 - He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.​

 

[farouk]

Isa 53:3 - He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.​

S:

Isaiah 53 is a wonderfully searching chapter. (It particularly lends itself to reading during the Lord's Supper, in my view.)

 

[P31Woman]

I think I can help tie your post more tightly to the topic.

By the way, I think yours was a good post. To me, it gives off an aura somewhat like a famous quote or something. I also think that many others would agree that it has kind of a poetic sprinkle to it, but short enough to hit the point home rather quickly. Good stuff.




To anyone:

When I read in my Bible, "Jesus wept", and consider the context around it, I take it literally.

When I read WIP's post that says, "Jesus was weeping", and consider the context around it, I take it allegorically(the weeping, not Jesus).

Does anyone here take any of those two readings differently than I have?

Context deals with more than just reading what come in front and behind a passage. It deals with the genre of passage. Is the literature a letter, psalm, story, letter, proverb, preophey, etx.

 

[P31Woman]

It's what words in their primary, basic sense mean in their context.

Yes!

 

[farouk]

Yes!

P31Woman:

Indeed; it's the basic historical sense of the word.

 

[P31Woman]

How literal do you view this scripture as being?



"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." -1 Timothy 2:11-14

Using the Literal Historical grammatical method to interpet scripture we would want to understanding the historical and cultural background of a passage.