Scriptural fundamentalism & literal interpretation

[for_his_glory]

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:


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

Oz

I miss interpreted what you meant by logical fallacy and that is why I said I probably shouldn't have used the word logical. I know it takes a logical mind to read and to understand the literal, but it also takes a Spiritual mind like that of Christ to understand spiritual.

What you claim to be logical fallacies that I seem to be presenting are only fallacies to those who interpret scripture differently as we will never agree on all things of scripture, but have to draw our own understanding by how we study and by what spirit is teaching us.

There is nothing off my radar when it comes to loving the Lord and even my enemies for that matter. The mind is only part of what Jesus said in Matthew 22:37. Jesus said to love with all your heart, soul and mind. It's logical reasoning that we need to love one another, even those who persecute us as we are to love and pray for our enemies. Our logical mind says yes we need to love because God is love and that is His instruction for us to love, but it is through the Holy Spirit (the spiritual aspect of love) that teaches us how to love from our heart and soul and not only from the mind. there is the literal interpretation and also the spiritual interpretation.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

I've already answered you at #136. Why are you asking again?

 

[OzSpen]

I miss interpreted what you meant by logical fallacy and that is why I said I probably shouldn't have used the word logical. I know it takes a logical mind to read and to understand the literal, but it also takes a Spiritual mind like that of Christ to understand spiritual.

What you claim to be logical fallacies that I seem to be presenting are only fallacies to those who interpret scripture differently as we will never agree on all things of scripture, but have to draw our own understanding by how we study and by what spirit is teaching us.

No, FHG, it takes logic to read your post and mine and to read the sentences of Scripture. To say that it takes the Spiritual mind to understand the spiritual, is to tell me I don't have a spiritual mind. You are incorrect. I have a mind subjected to the Holy Spirit and He has provided logical statements in Scripture for me to understand. The 'Spiritual mind' which you are stating seems to infer that I don't have it and you do have it and it is a special dynamic given to the spiritual like yourself. Is that what you are trying to communicate.

(EDIT)

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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.

FHG,
I was discussing 2 Tim 2:15 (ESV). From where did you gain the information that the MSS of 2 Tim was ' first written in Hebrew, Aramaic and then later after Alexander the Great it was written in Greek'. I note that you provide no documentation of this view.

Oz

 

[Deborah13]

I've already answered you at #136. Why are you asking again?

Humm.....I asked if what I said was a possible interpretation of 2 Tim. You said I wasn't addressing your post about 2 Tim. and said 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."
So I repeated the question making it clear that it was in reference to 2 Tim...
And you say you already answered the question, with your answer above..
Well, OK, great.

One interpretation for 2 Timothy 2:15 would be....
Dividing [handling] the Word of Truth was as Paul rightly handling the Word of truth when he fed milk to young believers and meat to the more mature.

 

[Mike]

Please refrain from repeatedly claiming that other members are presenting red herrings and logical fallacies. Address the position with scripture to support yours, and NOT the person whom you are responding to.

 

[for_his_glory]

FHG,
I was discussing 2 Tim 2:15 (ESV). From where did you gain the information that the MSS of 2 Tim was ' first written in Hebrew, Aramaic and then later after Alexander the Great it was written in Greek'. I note that you provide no documentation of this view.

Oz

I said the whole Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic (OT) and Greek (NT) before it was transcribed into English. Paul who wrote many books of the NT including 2Timothy spoke Hebrew and Greek. Paul, who was born a Jew, spoke and wrote in Greek and Hebrew for he was born in Tarsus and studied under Gamaliel, Acts 21:37,40; Acts 22:2.

http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/4_How_was_Bible_written/

 

[OzSpen]

Please refrain from repeatedly claiming that other members are presenting red herrings and logical fallacies. Address the position with scripture to support yours, and NOT the person whom you are responding to.

Mike,

I only address the issue of logical fallacies when a person has committed one of them. I do it because logical discussion is prohibited when erroneous reasoning is used.

However, I will obey your command. Instead of saying that a person has, say, committed a red herring, I'll have to say something like, 'The issue I raised was that of John 3:3 and regeneration before salvation. Let's get back to that topic'. Would that be a better approach?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I said the whole Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic (OT) and Greek (NT) before it was transcribed into English. Paul who wrote many books of the NT including 2Timothy spoke Hebrew and Greek. Paul, who was born a Jew, spoke and wrote in Greek and Hebrew for he was born in Tarsus and studied under Gamaliel, Acts 21:37,40; Acts 22:2.

http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/4_How_was_Bible_written/

That's not what you said about the OT and NT in #122. You wrote:

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....

Oz

 

[for_his_glory]

No, FHG, it takes logic to read your post and mine and to read the sentences of Scripture. To say that it takes the Spiritual mind to understand the spiritual, is to tell me I don't have a spiritual mind. You are incorrect. I have a mind subjected to the Holy Spirit and He has provided logical statements in Scripture for me to understand. The 'Spiritual mind' which you are stating seems to infer that I don't have it and you do have it and it is a special dynamic given to the spiritual like yourself. Is that what you are trying to communicate.

(EDIT)

Oz

I never said you didn't have a spiritual mind and since I do not know you personally I can only go by what you post. Can we truly reason the spiritual things with logic, no, for they are beyond our deductive reasoning and that is why we need the Holy Spirit to teach us, John 14:26. This is what Jesus said in John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? Nicodemus is a great example of one trying to use logical reasoning as he did not understand that of the spiritual that Jesus was talking about in John 3:1-6.

 

[smaller]

No literal interpretation is going to be able to grapple this subject matter. Flesh and blood are literal. We don't wrestle literal.

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

We don't literally see "gravity" at work, but we know it does work. That would be a power, unseen, yet literal.

How did Jesus know it was Satan speaking from Peter's lips in the Gospels? By the sign of resistance to Gods Words is "how" Jesus saw Satan. Just as Jesus stipulated in Mark 4:15 and other seed parables. IF Jesus conveyed these matters in parables does that mean the parables are not literally really? They are literally real. They can not be discerned in the normal fashions. In normal "literal" fashions everyone would just hear and see Peter, speaking.

So, yeah, different for sure. I don't think anyone can just step into these kinds of shoes on their own. They have to be led by another that is not them. The Spirit.

We all who believe here technically claim that another being that is not us occupies our hearts. The Spirit of Christ.

Trying to make these things into entirely tangible matters is a disservice to the realm of theology.

IF I happen to "hear" with ears that others don't currently possess and I hear Satan speaking, is that a slur to the person? No! But many here do not get this "picture" whatsoever. Unfortunately.

We should understand that Jesus could speak to Satan to our own face just as He did with Peter and it would NOT be an insult to US as Gods children.

Matthew 11:6
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

 

[for_his_glory]

That's not what you said about the OT and NT in #122. You wrote:


Oz

This is what I wrote in post #122
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.

I am only speaking about the history of how the KJV Bible many of us use today came to be written in a more modern English from that of the original writings of Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek to the Old English.

 

[Deborah13]

There is nothing off my radar when it comes to loving the Lord and even my enemies for that matter. The mind is only part of what Jesus said in Matthew 22:37. Jesus said to love with all your heart, soul and mind. It's logical reasoning that we need to love one another, even those who persecute us as we are to love and pray for our enemies. Our logical mind says yes we need to love because God is love and that is His instruction for us to love,

When I read that verse there is only a literal interpretation for that scripture. I know it must be logical because God commanded it. So why does my mind not understand the logical reasoning for it? I try to be rational, so I search the scriptures and find, that especially in the aspect of forgiveness, why it is logical that I should obey this command.

but it is through the Holy Spirit (the spiritual aspect of love) that teaches us how to love from our heart and soul and not only from the mind.

Agreed. It is not natural that I would have a Godly love for my enemy; to forgive my enemy as God has forgiven me. Only by the workings of the Holy Spirit in me can I obey this command.

 

[Edward]

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

Logic is dependant on the carnal mind, I'll give you that. But as for the language being logical and the Bible not being able to be written without logic...

Uh, no. None of the earths languages are logical. (Ok, probably none of them.) But English (was my best subject) is seriously illogical!!

If English was logical, you'd see grammar check alongside spell check. Where is it? Lol the computer can't make grammar check work.

Your example did not demonstrate logic effectively, but I applaud your effort. The lack of logic is apparent all over the English language, there is no hard & fast rules for our language.

Suppose you kiss your wife. Suppose you give her more than one kiss, what's that? Kisses, right.
Suppose you have an ox. Suppose you have more than one ox, what's that? The logical answer is oxes, but English isn't logical, so it's oxen. See what I mean, Brother?

And what's up with silent letters? Either put it in there and pronounce it, or leave it out, geez.

You can demonstrate understanding in language, but not logic. For there is no logic. Where's the word logic, in scripture? In fact, show me anything logical in scripture!

It says what is and it isn't logical...but it's true.
:wink :tongue

 

[Mike]

Would that be a better approach?

Indeed, it would. That would be great. Thank you, brother.

 

[Free]

Logic is dependant on the carnal mind, I'll give you that. But as for the language being logical and the Bible not being able to be written without logic...

Uh, no. None of the earths languages are logical. (Ok, probably none of them.) But English (was my best subject) is seriously illogical!!

If English was logical, you'd see grammar check alongside spell check. Where is it? Lol the computer can't make grammar check work.

Your example did not demonstrate logic effectively, but I applaud your effort. The lack of logic is apparent all over the English language, there is no hard & fast rules for our language.

Suppose you kiss your wife. Suppose you give her more than one kiss, what's that? Kisses, right.
Suppose you have an ox. Suppose you have more than one ox, what's that? The logical answer is oxes, but English isn't logical, so it's oxen. See what I mean, Brother?

And what's up with silent letters? Either put it in there and pronounce it, or leave it out, geez.

You can demonstrate understanding in language, but not logic. For there is no logic. Where's the word logic, in scripture? In fact, show me anything logical in scripture!

It says what is and it isn't logical...but it's true.
:wink :tongue

I can't tell if you're being serious anywhere in that post. And OzSpen said logic is not dependant on the carnal mind.

 

[Edward]

I can't tell if you're being serious anywhere in that post. And OzSpen said logic is not dependant on the carnal mind.

Oh I must've misread that. I realize t sounded as if I were joking, and indeed, it was amusing to write. I was being entirely serious though.

 

[jasonc]

Oh I must've misread that. I realize t sounded as if I were joking, and indeed, it was amusing to write. I was being entirely serious though.

English,a combination of Latin,french,the low German languages of anglo,saxon,jute.the silent letters are from French.btw Greek is very linear and logical.Hebrew isn't as scientific. I noticed it when look at the view as a Jew.

I see it hear in thus thread. Hebrew allows fir both logic and things not so easily stated but are simplistic.

Ie Yud,Hey,Vah,Hey.Literal meaning,the Being,yet so much more.it's not His Name but a title and description on How He deals with men.

 

[for_his_glory]

When I read that verse there is only a literal interpretation for that scripture. I know it must be logical because God commanded it. So why does my mind not understand the logical reasoning for it? I try to be rational, so I search the scriptures and find, that especially in the aspect of forgiveness, why it is logical that I should obey this command.

Agreed. It is not natural that I would have a Godly love for my enemy; to forgive my enemy as God has forgiven me. Only by the workings of the Holy Spirit in me can I obey this command.

I am trying to show both aspects of the logical and the spiritual. The logical is the literal command to love. The spiritual is that of seeking the Holy Spirit to help us love our enemies. The logical is our mind knowing what the command says, the spiritual is our heart for the Lord as we have been spiritually born again and through that spiritual rebirth we can love and forgive our enemies as God loves and forgives us.

 

[OzSpen]

I never said you didn't have a spiritual mind and since I do not know you personally I can only go by what you post. Can we truly reason the spiritual things with logic, no, for they are beyond our deductive reasoning and that is why we need the Holy Spirit to teach us, John 14:26. This is what Jesus said in John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? Nicodemus is a great example of one trying to use logical reasoning as he did not understand that of the spiritual that Jesus was talking about in John 3:1-6.

FHG,

Can I 'reason the spiritual things with logic'? Yep! I need logic to understand the language I speak and to read what you have written here and to read the Scripture. God has invented logic so that we can understand each other when we speak or write. I'm blessed to know that God created logic so that we can communicate with each other and that He can communicate with us.

Now to John 14:26. Its context is John 14:22-29,

22 Judas (not Judas Iscariot, but the other disciple with that name) said to him, “Lord, why are you going to reveal yourself only to us and not to the world at large?”

23 Jesus replied, “All who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with each of them. 24 Anyone who doesn’t love me will not obey me. And remember, my words are not my own. What I am telling you is from the Father who sent me. 25 I am telling you these things now while I am still with you. 26 But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you.

27 “I am leaving you with a gift—peace of mind and heart. And the peace I give is a gift the world cannot give. So don’t be troubled or afraid. 28 Remember what I told you: I am going away, but I will come back to you again. If you really loved me, you would be happy that I am going to the Father, who is greater than I am. 29 I have told you these things before they happen so that when they do happen, you will believe (John 14:22-29 NLT, emphasis added).

You want John 14:26 (NLT) to mean what it does not mean in context. Jesus told his disciples information while he was still with them on earth, but he was going away and the disciples would need reminding what Jesus told them. Obviously they didn't have a perfect memory of all that he had told them. For that purpose, the Holy Spirit (the Advocate, Paraclete) would remind them what Jesus had told them. The Advocate would not be giving them new revelation through teaching (your language is 'that is why we need the Holy Spirit to teach us, John 14:26'). Not so!

Jesus was addressing Judas (not Iscariot) and the other disciples. He was instructing them about what would happen when he left them. He was not giving information for Christians down to the 21st century to follow. This has caused leading evangelical commentator, D A Carson, to write about John 14:26 (NIV):

The promise of v. 26 has in view the Spirit's role to the first generation of disciples, not to all subsequent Christians. John's purpose in including this theme and this verse is not to explain how readers at the end of the first century may be taught by the Spirit, but to explain to readers at the end of the first century how the first witnesses, the first disciples, came to an accurate and full understanding of the truth of Jesus Christ. The Spirit's ministry in this respect was not to bring qualitatively new revelation, but to complete, to fill out, the revelation brought by Jesus himself (Carson 1991:505, emphasis added).

In context, John 14:26 (NLT) is teaching something quite different to what you want to promote. Careful exposition of the text is necessary, rather than cherry picking a verse to make a point that is not in the text in context.

As for John 3:12, Jesus was speaking to a respected Jewish leader, Nicodemus, who did not know the Lord. He needed his spiritual eyes to be opened. This verse is not telling information that you want it to mean. Again, cherry picking a verse aborts the meaning you are pushing.

As for John 3:1-6 (NLT) and Nicodemus, the issue had nothing to do with dumbing down 'logical reasoning' (your language). Nicodemus, a Pharisee, knew Jesus, the Teacher, was sent from God 'to teach us', but he needed his eyes opened regarding being born again (John 3:3 NLT). Then Jesus revealed the truth to Nicodemus of the need to be born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5-6 NLT). This was an issue of proclamation of the Gospel (even though prior to Jesus' death and resurrection). These 6 verses are not teaching antagonism to logical reasoning. They are teaching content - the need to be born again to enter God's kingdom.

If you try these kinds of cherry picking exercises again, I'll not reply as you have demonstrated here that you cherry pick verses to make them say what they do not mean in context.

Oz

Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.