Scriptural fundamentalism & literal interpretation

[OzSpen]

Types can be a prophetic symbol in the OT that cast a shadow that comes to light in the NT and can also represent something yet future spoken of in the NT as we cross reference. We can find a lot of this between the OT in Joel, Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel as we cross reference what is written in Revelations. Many types of things written in the OT are literal, but also spiritual in the NT.

There lays another problem right there in 2 Timothy 2:15. The KJV says rightly dividing the word of truth and your ESV uses the word handling the word of truth. To me there is a difference between dividing and handling. Dividing is that of dividing that of the literal to that of the deeper spiritual things, not being undertones, but that of the heavenly things God wants us to understand. That is why I use John 3:12 to show this as to what Jesus said and I believe. Handling the word to me would mean speaking it for the way it is written without adding traditional man made doctrines that give a different interpretation as being a carnal logical understanding.

You say Paul probably was referring, but by using the word probably would mean one really does not know for sure.

The KJV is not the standard of exegesis. The original language is.

I used the term 'probably' because there are various ways one can approach the exegesis of 2 Tim 2:15 (ESV). The KJV's interpretation is only one view but more work has been done on the Greek exegesis of the term since 1611 to arrive at a probable different conclusion to the KJV.

I read and teach NT Greek, so I'm trying to be honest with the Greek text. Do you know NT Greek and do you know how to practise exegesis of the Greek text?

Oz

 

[for_his_glory]

The KJV is not the standard of exegesis. The original language is.

I used the term 'probably' because there are various ways one can approach the exegesis of 2 Tim 2:15 (ESV). The KJV's interpretation is only one view but more work has been done on the Greek exegesis of the term since 1611 to arrive at a probable different conclusion to the KJV.

I read and teach NT Greek, so I'm trying to be honest with the Greek text. Do you know NT Greek and do you know how to practise exegesis of the Greek text?

Oz

The manuscripts were first written in Hebrew, Aramaic and then later after Alexander the Great it was written in Greek and then only written in Latin until around the 1380's when it was hand written in the original English language and later into the more modern English we find in the KJV today. Hebrew and Aramaic are the original language of the OT and Greek the original language of the NT even though Jesus spoke in the Aramaic and the Greek language.

In order for your exegesis to work you need more than just to be able to read and understand the Greek as you also need to be fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic also according to your Greek understanding of scripture. Since most of us do not read or speak these languages then what I have in the KJV of a more modern English (not the NKJV) than the original English, which I have tried to read, but with much difficulty, I will trust that of what the Holy Spirit reveals to me in the literal and spiritual aspects of my KJV Bible as I compare scripture with scripture and OT with NT as I rightly divide the word of God in all truths.

 

[for_his_glory]

When you use a logical fallacy it involves fallacious reasoning. It's an error in reasoning. It is not dealing with an error in factual matters. See HERE.

Maybe I should have not used the word logical, but just having a discussion of that of your OP. The logical (carnal mind) can never comprehend that of the literal nor the Spiritual as Jesus said in John 3:12.

When you use a logical fallacy it involves fallacious reasoning. It's an error in reasoning. It is not dealing with an error in factual matters. See HERE.

Maybe I should have not used the word logical, but just having a discussion of that of your OP. The logical (carnal mind) can never comprehend that of the literal nor the Spiritual as Jesus said in John 3:12.

 

[Edward]

You know what's weird that shouldn't be? Nowadays if a guy likes the kjv, he's one of those...(with a negative connotation) like he's a weirdo fringe type.

 

[reba]

OK Edward i am on the fringe...

Num_15:38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:

 

[for_his_glory]

You know what's weird that shouldn't be? Nowadays if a guy likes the kjv, he's one of those...(with a negative connotation) like he's a weirdo fringe type.

What's up with that anyway!!! I'll take my KJV over any other translation that has been written afterwards. That's alright though as many thought Jesus to be a one of those too and they even nailed Him to a cross. Guess we are in good company Edward.

 

[Free]

The logical (carnal mind)

You seem to be equating being logical with being carnal. Why is that?

I'll take my KJV over any other translation that has been written afterwards. That's alright though as many thought Jesus to be a one of those too and they even nailed Him to a cross. Guess we are in good company Edward

How is it that you think you can compare the reasons that Jesus went to the cross with being thought of as weird for preferring the KJV (although not this thread)? It's one thing to prefer the KJV and quite another to subscribe to KJVOism, which is among the most irrational positions in all of Christianity.

 

[Deborah13]

The KJV is not the standard of exegesis. The original language is.

I used the term 'probably' because there are various ways one can approach the exegesis of 2 Tim 2:15 (ESV). The KJV's interpretation is only one view but more work has been done on the Greek exegesis of the term since 1611 to arrive at a probable different conclusion to the KJV.

I read and teach NT Greek, so I'm trying to be honest with the Greek text. Do you know NT Greek and do you know how to practise exegesis of the Greek text?

Oz

Was Paul rightly handling the Word of truth when he fed milk to young believers and meat to the more mature?

 

[for_his_glory]

You seem to be equating being logical with being carnal. Why is that?


How is it that you think you can compare the reasons that Jesus went to the cross with being thought of as weird for preferring the KJV (although not this thread)? It's one thing to prefer the KJV and quite another to subscribe to KJVOism, which is among the most irrational positions in all of Christianity.

Many study the word of God will logic that makes sense to them, but yet leaves out the true meaning of what Gods word is conveying to us especially when it needs to be those things that are spiritual and not literal.

It truly doesn't matter to me which Bible one chooses to use as I was responding to what Edward said in post #124 that many like to call us as you have KJV only type of people. As newer versions are written many of them leave out certain words of the KJV and replace them with words that can lead to a different understanding by the definition of the word they use. There is an old saying, "If is isn't broken then why try to fix it". This is how many deem the KJV to be as inadequate as they deem their versions to be more superior and easier to read.

Many deem us as a heretic just as they did Jesus and had Him literally crucified and many of us are in good company with Jesus as we are also crucified, not literally, but verbally for coming against what others teach as they teach a different gospel.

 

[Edward]

What's up with that anyway!!! I'll take my KJV over any other translation that has been written afterwards. That's alright though as many thought Jesus to be a one of those too and they even nailed Him to a cross. Guess we are in good company Edward.

The worst thing about it, is its not from non-believers but the Christians!

The bit about kjvo is over the top, for those who say that. But those who oppose kjvo (rightly so!)...sometimes come across like kjvn (never), that's weird. Like there's a stigma attached. I believe that the Holy Spirit can work through any translation.
Oops, sorry for the thread drift.

You seem to be equating being logical with being carnal. Why is that?..

I think it's pretty much the same thing, isn't it? Logic is the carnal mind in action. A function of the thought process.

Remember, we didn't used to think the same as we do today. Today, we have logic! The knowledge of good and evil. I think our Sister made an accurate assessment.

 

[Free]

I think it's pretty much the same thing, isn't it? Logic is the carnal mind in action. A function of the thought process.

No, they are not at all the same thing. Logic is used regardless of whether or not the mind is carnal. Besides, you are here using logic (it's unavoidable), which would mean you are thinking carnally (according to you). One would have to throw out the Bible if you were correct.

Remember, we didn't used to think the same as we do today. Today, we have logic! The knowledge of good and evil. I think our Sister made an accurate assessment.

Logic has always been around. Meaningful communication is impossible without it; staying alive is impossible without it.

 

[Free]

Many study the word of God will logic that makes sense to them, but yet leaves out the true meaning of what Gods word is conveying to us especially when it needs to be those things that are spiritual and not literal.

But in no way can we equate logic with the carnal mind, as I have just pointed out to Edward.

It truly doesn't matter to me which Bible one chooses to use as I was responding to what Edward said in post #124 that many like to call us as you have KJV only type of people.

I did not do that.

As newer versions are written many of them leave out certain words of the KJV and replace them with words that can lead to a different understanding by the definition of the word they use. There is an old saying, "If is isn't broken then why try to fix it". This is how many deem the KJV to be as inadequate as they deem their versions to be more superior and easier to read.

This is the type of bad argument most often used by the KJVO crowd. They presume that words are left out of other versions, when it could very well be that the KJV has words added in that shouldn't be there. I am quite certain that we have much more manuscript evidence today then when the KJV was first written. It would be wise to consider all evidence available.

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a debate on Bible versions. Another thread can be started if one wants to continue.

Many deem us as a heretic just as they did Jesus and had Him literally crucified and many of us are in good company with Jesus as we are also crucified, not literally, but verbally for coming against what others teach as they teach a different gospel.

It's one thing to teach a different gospel and quite another to prefer one Bible version over another. So no, you are not like Jesus in that regard. As regarding KJVOism, Jesus wasn't crucified for being irrational.

 

[for_his_glory]

But in no way can we equate logic with the carnal mind, as I have just pointed out to Edward.


I did not do that.


This is the type of bad argument most often used by the KJVO crowd. They presume that words are left out of other versions, when it could very well be that the KJV has words added in that shouldn't be there. I am quite certain that we have much more manuscript evidence today then when the KJV was first written. It would be wise to consider all evidence available.

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a debate on Bible versions. Another thread can be started if one wants to continue.


It's one thing to teach a different gospel and quite another to prefer one Bible version over another. So no, you are not like Jesus in that regard. As regarding KJVOism, Jesus wasn't crucified for being irrational.

I don't want to make this a which Bible is better discussion either. What it all boils down to is that of what the Holy Spirit teaches us as we have spiritual ears to hear. What I am speaking about is how Christians come against Christians just as the Pharisees and Scribes came against Jesus and called Him a blasphemer as even many Christians call each other blasphemers and heretics as even I have been called one many times. I am not being irrational, but showing how the Pharisees treated Jesus is the same way Christians treat other Christians.

 

[Edward]

No, they are not at all the same thing. Logic is used regardless of whether or not the mind is carnal. Besides, you are here using logic (it's unavoidable), which would mean you are thinking carnally (according to you). One would have to throw out the Bible if you were correct.


Logic has always been around. Meaningful communication is impossible without it; staying alive is impossible without it.

So you're saying that logic exists independent of the carnal mind. That it just, is. As if logic (obviously) exists also in heaven and the Kingdom realm.

I don't think that any of us know enough about the Kingdom realm to be able to make that call.

Not everything in scripture is logical. I'm pretty sure logic is carnal.

 

[OzSpen]

Maybe I should have not used the word logical, but just having a discussion of that of your OP. The logical (carnal mind) can never comprehend that of the literal nor the Spiritual as Jesus said in John 3:12.

Logical thinking is also of the Christian mind because God uses logic to communicate to us in Scripture. If Scripture wasn't logical, you wouldn't be able to read sentences, paragraphs and whole books of the Bible. It seems that you have a distorted understanding of the meaning of logical.

What was Jesus' view of logic and use of the mind? Matt 22:36-38 makes it as clear as crystal:

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment.

I am to love the Lord with all of my mind. FHG, it seems as though that is off your radar.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Was Paul rightly handling the Word of truth when he fed milk to young believers and meat to the more mature?

You didn't deal with the issue I wrote that you quoted. Why do you do this?

Of course I agree that it is correct to feed milk to young believers and meat to the mature. However, there's a difficulty you didn't raise. People don't come onto CFnet and say, I'm a new believer so please feed me milk. Or, I'm a more mature believer, so it's OK to feed me meat.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Many study the word of God will logic that makes sense to them, but yet leaves out the true meaning of what Gods word is conveying to us especially when it needs to be those things that are spiritual and not literal.

FHG,

If you don't study Scripture with use of logic, you won't understand what sentences mean. Any sentence, whether in the newspaper or the Bible, requires the use of logic to determine the meaning of its content.

So you realise that logic comes from the Greek work, logos, that is translated in Scripture, often as 'word'. However, it can be translated as sentence, discourse, reason, rule or ratio. However, a basic definition of logic is 'the study of the principles of correct reasoning' (see "What is logic?").

For you to read my posts and for me to read yours, I MUST use logic. To read Scripture I MUST use logic. God is a logical God who invented logic and communicated to us in Scripture, using logical principles.

To use logic is not to engage in a carnal activity.

As for the 'true meaning' of Scripture, we obtain the meaning of it by the use of God-given logical principles. To look for the 'spiritual' meaning underneath the text, it to use another philosophy, Gnosticism.

Oz

 

[jasonc]

So you're saying that logic exists independent of the carnal mind. That it just, is. As if logic (obviously) exists also in heaven and the Kingdom realm.

I don't think that any of us know enough about the Kingdom realm to be able to make that call.

Not everything in scripture is logical. I'm pretty sure logic is carnal.

Premise,logic exists because God thinks and created it and made languages .

Unless you like me posting in really unreadable posts which would be ,far ,far more difficult to understand.

 

[OzSpen]

So you're saying that logic exists independent of the carnal mind. That it just, is. As if logic (obviously) exists also in heaven and the Kingdom realm.

I don't think that any of us know enough about the Kingdom realm to be able to make that call.

Not everything in scripture is logical. I'm pretty sure logic is carnal.

Edward,

Of course, logic - in itself - is not dependent on the carnal mind. There can be carnal philosophers who engage in illogic, but to do that they must have a fundamental understanding of logic to determine it is illogical.

Please tell me if you need logic to interpret these two sentences:

• Jesus rose bodily from the grave.
• Jesus' rose from the grave as an apparition. (apparition means a vision or ghost-like appearance)

Are those two statements true? If not, why not?

You can't read what I write without following the logical rules of grammar, i.e. using logic. In what kind of language was the Bible written? It is not esoteric, spiritual, illogical, out of the realm of reality. The Bible is written in human languages for which we need logical, grammatical rules to understand them.

So, the Bible must be interpreted according to fundamental rules of language and these include logical grammar. The Bible is not written in some super-spiritual lingo that needs the esoteric insight of Theosophy, etc.

Therefore, is not dependent on the carnal mind. It is dependent on the God who invented logic so that we can communicate.

Oz

 

[Deborah13]

You didn't deal with the issue I wrote that you quoted.

My question to you was directly related to the interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:15, which was in your post.
2Ti 2:15 be diligent to present thyself approved to God--a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth;

So here is the question again.....
Was Paul rightly handling the Word of truth when he fed milk to young believers and meat to the more mature?
This is one interpretation that I have heard and I wondered what you thought about that.