Your personal rules of Bible interpretation

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/CHAOS4.HTM

DHK </font>[/QUOTE]AWESOME STUFF ALL THE WAY!

check out this sermon from John

http://www.gracechurch.org/shepnew/audio/shepintro.mp3

 

Even though Paul, Peter, James and Jesus did so when they interpreted certain passages from the Old Testament--we must never do so!!!

Hmmm. Does that make sense?

Tim

 

Even though Paul, Peter, James and Jesus did so when they interpreted certain passages from the Old Testament--we must never do so!!!

Hmmm. Does that make sense?

Tim </font>[/QUOTE]I only briefly stated the points for lack of space. He spends an entire chapter elaborating on each of these. If you go to the link provided he will answer your objections. Yes there are times when certain passages use allegories, or must be spiritualized. Case in point: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." What is meant by the "eye of a needle," especially keeping in mind that the stainless steel needles that we are used to had not been invented yet?

What did Peter mean when he said "gird up the loins of your mind?"

Paul said: "Have your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace."

However: How do you take Genesis chapters one and two??
DHK

 

DHK sez:

Boy, this ought to open a can of worms!

For me, no problem; just take as stated, pure & simple!

 

DHK,

I take Gen. 1 & 2 as historical accounts of a seven day creation. There is no other scripture to lead me to any other conclusion.

However, I can't say the same of many OT prophecies. NT comments about them make many seem far more "spiritual" than "literal".

Tim

 

I think you should read the entire article Tim. It should only take you five minutes or so.
No one principle stands alone, in and of itself.
With the prophetic examples you mentioned, that would be where both the historical context, and also comparing Scripture with Scripture, would come in. All the principles he gives work together.
The Roman Catholics allegorize Eve to be a type of Mary. They also allegorize Revelation 20 in such a way, that even though the term 1,000 years is mentioned 6 times in the first 7 verses, they deny that a thousand years means a thousand years, but will spiritualize it to mean something else.
The J.W.'s spiritualize the very Resurrection of Jesus Christ, saying that He arose in spirit only.

When common sense makes good sense, why make it nonsense? I think that that is all he is trying to say here. We take the Bible literally, and read it in a normal way as it was intended to be. Certainly there are figures of speech, and portions of the Bible that have obviuos spiritual applications, and there are even some allegories. The statement was stated as a general rule--not a hard and fast rule without any exceptions.
DHK

 

DHK sez:

A very good premise; only problem is too many people want the scripture to verify their beliefs, rather than letting scripture form the beliefs.

Can you just imagine how much more rational many of these threads would be if only this simple premise were followed?!