languistical, "historical, geographical, and sociological contexts"

[thefightinglamb]

So, distinctiveministry has written that he believes the last three are vastly important to understanding scripture.

I, too, once went this route and sought to understand everything about these areas in order to get at more clearity in things that either confused me or 'where I wanted another meaning' than the one I had been given.

Personally, I think if you study just the Bible in any language you will draw near to God. I do not think you have to go down ten thousand doubtful rabbit trails to try and find 'what the writer actually meant.' I have taken these rabbit trails often and have found they are often just distractions to meeting with a living God.

I think if we are to hold the Word in the BIBLE as sacred and God-given, we have to believe that the Word itself is the message he wanted all generations to hear and understand. Thus, the historical, geographical, and sociological depths needed have to be written in the Word itself if they are needed.

A trite defense of this in my mind is that all the "historical, geographical and sociological" knowledge that you would seek is DEAD knowledge. Its stuff that passed away long ago, and there is no life in it. But if you come to the living God you will find life, and find it abundantly.

I include languistical contexts, because there is a recent movement in Christianity that insists that in order to TRULY understand the Bible you have got to go back to the Hebrew or Greek (or the King James Version for some) and it is only by constantly re-translating the original text that the mind sees what God truly means. I often feel that these people think that we should all speak Hebrew and give up on all the languages that we now speak in order to draw near to God.

I guess I am writing this because I do not think the apostles of Jesus were 'learned men'. I think non-educated men often draw nearer to God than those who become educated--as Jesus said he came to make the wisdom of this world folly--because the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom.

I do think these 'avenues' can be somewhat helpful in understanding the message. BUT I have to believe the essentials are already in the text themselves.

Meaning--I believe you draw near to God and become holy by studying the actual Bible and its words, and the contextual history has no power to make you more holy or draw you closer to God. Afterall, the contextual history that you seek may be wrong. And then you are like that foolish scientest who waits for the latest breakthrough to see and change what he believes in.

You either believe you can draw near to God by reading the Bible and prayer or you can seek to draw near to him by your 'own studies' but I truly don't think our own studies apart from the word lead to anything wholesome--though they can be somewhat helpful.

This is what I have found true.

God bless
tony

[lighthousejohn]

Originally Posted by thefightinglamb

So, distinctiveministry has written that he believes the last three are vastly important to understanding scripture.

I, too, once went this route and sought to understand everything about these areas in order to get at more clearity in things that either confused me or 'where I wanted another meaning' than the one I had been given.

Personally, I think if you study just the Bible in any language you will draw near to God. I do not think you have to go down ten thousand doubtful rabbit trails to try and find 'what the writer actually meant.' I have taken these rabbit trails often and have found they are often just distractions to meeting with a living God.

I think if we are to hold the Word in the BIBLE as sacred and God-given, we have to believe that the Word itself is the message he wanted all generations to hear and understand. Thus, the historical, geographical, and sociological depths needed have to be written in the Word itself if they are needed.

A trite defense of this in my mind is that all the "historical, geographical and sociological" knowledge that you would seek is DEAD knowledge. Its stuff that passed away long ago, and there is no life in it. But if you come to the living God you will find life, and find it abundantly.

I include languistical contexts, because there is a recent movement in Christianity that insists that in order to TRULY understand the Bible you have got to go back to the Hebrew or Greek (or the King James Version for some) and it is only by constantly re-translating the original text that the mind sees what God truly means. I often feel that these people think that we should all speak Hebrew and give up on all the languages that we now speak in order to draw near to God.

I guess I am writing this because I do not think the apostles of Jesus were 'learned men'. I think non-educated men often draw nearer to God than those who become educated--as Jesus said he came to make the wisdom of this world folly--because the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom.

I do think these 'avenues' can be somewhat helpful in understanding the message. BUT I have to believe the essentials are already in the text themselves.

Meaning--I believe you draw near to God and become holy by studying the actual Bible and its words, and the contextual history has no power to make you more holy or draw you closer to God. Afterall, the contextual history that you seek may be wrong. And then you are like that foolish scientest who waits for the latest breakthrough to see and change what he believes in.

You either believe you can draw near to God by reading the Bible and prayer or you can seek to draw near to him by your 'own studies' but I truly don't think our own studies apart from the word lead to anything wholesome--though they can be somewhat helpful.

This is what I have found true.

God bless
tony

Tony,

I cannot disagree with you. I have found that through personal study (reading) of the Bible, God makes it clear to me what He wants me to learn. I avoid commentaries because they offer opinions based on years of study of the linguistics, cultures, and sociologies of the times.
I remember a professor of theology from Fuller Theologic Seminary telling me that he had taught for years a particular part of theology that was based on what he had been taught in seminary. He was amazed when one of his students challenged him on the topic and proved him wrong. He realized that relying on what other scholars think or say does not make them right.

God has the power to make the invisible visible. He also intends for us to give away what He has taught us. This is where we must apply His words to the real world thru practical witnessing, not theological studies.

In Christ,
John

[VW]

No matter how much one studies the bible, if they are not relying upon the Spirit to teach them, they are not becoming closer to God. God is able to make even one who cannot read to understand, and from that understanding to draw near to Him. I have a brother, who was functionally illiterate. He could read on about the second grade level. We talk, about Jesus and the Spirit and what we are in Him, for many months. This dear brother wanted to understand what was written and so taught himself to read, just so he could read the scripture. If his motives in this had not been what they were, (to read and to hear God from His written word, and not to become an expert in the scriptures,) then I would have discouraged him. As his motive was only to hear God in His word, I helped him in every way, explaining words and passages when he had trouble. He now reads as well as any high school graduate, and better than some.

Our God is a wonderful God, of course, He is also the only God.

vic

The gospels of Matthew and John are the first acts of interpretation, since the "native" langauge of the writers was Aramaic and the setting was in an Aramaic culture. I do not believe that you must learn Hebrew and Greek to understand scripture and I do not believe that the word of God is less than holy when it is in English. I also believe that the work of the Holy Spirit on your heart is essential to truly understanding scripture.
Having said that, I do not believe that you should abandon cultural or linguistic considerations. The issue is not the studies themselves, but those who use them. The basic two steps that we take when reading in understanding scripture are these: Understand what the human author was saying to his contemporary audience. Then understand what God is saying to us. Those steps are taken by everyone, whether they read the original language or not, whether they know much about the culture or not. But if we do not love the word of God, or if we approach the word of God with hard hearts, or if we come to the word of God with our own agenda, then it doesn't matter what level of background information we have, we will not hear or see and we will do injustice to scripture.

[VW]

Originally Posted by charisenexcelcis

The gospels of Matthew and John are the first acts of interpretation, since the "native" langauge of the writers was Aramaic and the setting was in an Aramaic culture. I do not believe that you must learn Hebrew and Greek to understand scripture and I do not believe that the word of God is less than holy when it is in English. I also believe that the work of the Holy Spirit on your heart is essential to truly understanding scripture.
Having said that, I do not believe that you should abandon cultural or linguistic considerations. The issue is not the studies themselves, but those who use them. The basic two steps that we take when reading in understanding scripture are these: Understand what the human author was saying to his contemporary audience. Then understand what God is saying to us. Those steps are taken by everyone, whether they read the original language or not, whether they know much about the culture or not. But if we do not love the word of God, or if we approach the word of God with hard hearts, or if we come to the word of God with our own agenda, then it doesn't matter what level of background information we have, we will not hear or see and we will do injustice to scripture.

This is true, but there comes a point when what God is saying to us, personally, becomes much more important that what He was saying to those it was written to.

I believe that the Spirit makes scripture alive, so that it is written to us, on a deeply personal level, a level that brings us to the conclusion that God wants us to be open to developing a relationship with Him, a relationship which is deeper than anything which can be expressed in words, written or otherwise.