Hermaneutical Interpretation or Generalization
- Thread starter oldhermit
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
I doubt God gave us a bible only to have us generalise things
We have to take all things into account (which is what hermeneutics attempts to do) because we have a book written over thousands of years all crossing various cultures and languages. If we do nto go back to the place and time it was written to get context not only written but historically. We end up with all kinds of generalisations which miss the true point of the word.
We have to take all things into account (which is what hermeneutics attempts to do) because we have a book written over thousands of years all crossing various cultures and languages. If we do nto go back to the place and time it was written to get context not only written but historically. We end up with all kinds of generalisations which miss the true point of the word.
-
5
-
1
- Show all
I think coming to Christ and Praying for Wisdom and Knowledge and Revelation is the most reliable approach for reading scripture.
This is a good one;
Ephesians 1:17-23
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
This is a good one;
Ephesians 1:17-23
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
-
2
- Show all
I'm not sure what you mean by generalization, or if you mean a specific kind of hermeneutic.
I find I learn most when I understand in a typological sense - in terms of seeing what the passage, whatever it may be, says about the person and work of Christ. The 'Christology' if you will
Seeing Him in the word is primary to me, and drawing from that moral principle in more general application, the secondary thing, tho not to be left off. Secondary because without the proper Christology I don't think I can get the moral lesson right.
That said I don't mean I look go mystical, non literal, parabolic meaning in the words. I look for Jesus in them, and I believe they are true - but I see them testifying about Christ to be the foremost purpose of the Scriptures, even when they are clearly dry historical facts, the reason those facts are included is to show me something about Messiah.
When I do not see Christ in a passage, my understanding is not reliable.
When I see Christ, He is reliable.
I find I learn most when I understand in a typological sense - in terms of seeing what the passage, whatever it may be, says about the person and work of Christ. The 'Christology' if you will
Seeing Him in the word is primary to me, and drawing from that moral principle in more general application, the secondary thing, tho not to be left off. Secondary because without the proper Christology I don't think I can get the moral lesson right.
That said I don't mean I look go mystical, non literal, parabolic meaning in the words. I look for Jesus in them, and I believe they are true - but I see them testifying about Christ to be the foremost purpose of the Scriptures, even when they are clearly dry historical facts, the reason those facts are included is to show me something about Messiah.
When I do not see Christ in a passage, my understanding is not reliable.
When I see Christ, He is reliable.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Tell me what those big words mean and i'll tell you! 
Interpretation is the act of supplying meaning to the text based on human analysis of the world and human experiences. When we read scripture, we have an unfailing habit of trying to interpret the text based on this method. For some reason, we feel this is the only way we can supply meaning to the text. The problem with interpretation is that it always starts with human reason being force onto the text rather than allowing the language of the test to supply its own meaning. This typically results in the straining of the text to change the meaning of the language. I am sure you recognize the fact that the interpretation of any text is as varied as the number of people who read it. This is why I call it an inexact science. Interpretation is always the product of human intelligence operating on the test. Peter says that we do not have the right to approach scripture in this way, 2 Pet. 1:20. "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation," So, the question is this. What other way is there to approach scripture that will allow the language of the text to supply its own meaning.
What we must learn to do is generalize from the text. When you learn how to do this you will find no end to the things you will discover in scripture. Unlike interpretation, biblical generalization will never contradict another generalization, and it will always hold true across the entire spectrum of scripture. Let me give you one brief example of what I mean by generalizing from a text. When you read the story of Abraham and Sariah you discover that because of certain biological circumstances, they are unable to have children. They are too old and Sariah is too baron. In spite of this, God gives them Isaac. There are many generalizations one can glean from this one example but let me just give you two that are immediately apparent. One immediate generalization from this story is that circumstances do not dictate outcome. Circumstances are never determinate. Only God is determinate. Another good generalization is that God stands over and above time, physics, and physiology. These are truths that emerge from the text itself but are not directly stated in the text. Nowhere in the text does not say that God alone is determinate or that he stands over and above time, physics, and physiology. These are truths that are self-evident in the text.
In order to learn how to use Generalization, it is imperative that we understand that the grammatical structure of the biblical text is not a human contribution. The grammatical structure of revelation is the unique work of the Holy Spirit who ALONE supplies meaning to the text by the way he constructs the language. There are two hard and fast principles of communication that must be honored. 1. Words have meaning. 2. All grammar, no matter what language is represented, has rules that must be adhered to in order for communication to be successful. When these rules are disregarded, then the meaning of the text becomes distorted and unrecognizable. There is a popular saying that "You can make the Bible say anything you want it to." This is patently absurd. Scripture is not the product of the human mind. It is an exclusively divine document and its contents are completely devoid of ANY human contribution. This being true, one cannot make scripture say whatever one wants it to say. It will only say what God intended for it to say. Anything else is a perversion.
-
3
-
3
- Show all
E
I am going to be honest. This is the exact opposite of what I think the terms mean. So maybe I can see now why you were confused with peoples answers.
To me, Hermeneutics takes all things into account (what humans think are generally not included at least when i consider hermeneutics we may read what others say, but that is not part of at least my determination) if anything, reading what people think by using their writtings of what the bible is trying to say may give us a starting point, Then we take each aspect of hermeneutical forms to then see what the bible says, In doing so. We may find we agree with some of those people. But we do not use the writings of what they aid to FORM our belief. That would be a mistake.
Generalisations is just takign a general reading, and without any study of anything other than what you just read, making a determination of what you think that passage is saying. Ie, You make a general interpretation based on what you know.
Edit, I did not say make this post to say this postor was wrong, only to show that we have differing views. And wonder if others have the same views. And this is what causes so much confusion.
To me, Hermeneutics takes all things into account (what humans think are generally not included at least when i consider hermeneutics we may read what others say, but that is not part of at least my determination) if anything, reading what people think by using their writtings of what the bible is trying to say may give us a starting point, Then we take each aspect of hermeneutical forms to then see what the bible says, In doing so. We may find we agree with some of those people. But we do not use the writings of what they aid to FORM our belief. That would be a mistake.
Generalisations is just takign a general reading, and without any study of anything other than what you just read, making a determination of what you think that passage is saying. Ie, You make a general interpretation based on what you know.
Edit, I did not say make this post to say this postor was wrong, only to show that we have differing views. And wonder if others have the same views. And this is what causes so much confusion.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Here is how I understand "hermeneutics":
Hermeneutics is looking at a text of Scripture and analyzing what it says - or better - what the author who wrote it meant when he wrote it. The biggest "problem" with the world of hermeneutical interpretation in our day is that men interpret the Bible from the standpoint of human wisdom and the Holy Spirit does not enter into the interpretation at all. I think that is what OlddHermit is saying by his definition of "hermeneutics". And from that viewpoint I would agree that "hermeneutics" is the wrong approach.
I would say that true hermeneutics will be hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit to properly interpret what the human author meant when he wrote the passage under the inspiration of the Spirit. (The Spirit wrote the word and He must interpret it).
OldHermit's description of Generalization if close to what I would call Application of Scripture.
Hermeneutics is looking at a text of Scripture and analyzing what it says - or better - what the author who wrote it meant when he wrote it. The biggest "problem" with the world of hermeneutical interpretation in our day is that men interpret the Bible from the standpoint of human wisdom and the Holy Spirit does not enter into the interpretation at all. I think that is what OlddHermit is saying by his definition of "hermeneutics". And from that viewpoint I would agree that "hermeneutics" is the wrong approach.
I would say that true hermeneutics will be hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit to properly interpret what the human author meant when he wrote the passage under the inspiration of the Spirit. (The Spirit wrote the word and He must interpret it).
OldHermit's description of Generalization if close to what I would call Application of Scripture.
-
1
- Show all
E
The only problem I have with this, Is you have 3 people all believing different interpretations. All saying they were led by the Holy Spirit.
That is why proper hermenuetics (at least the way I interpret hermeneutics) is essential. It usually leads us to truth without taking into account biases..
That is why proper hermenuetics (at least the way I interpret hermeneutics) is essential. It usually leads us to truth without taking into account biases..
-
1
- Show all
Whatever one's definition of hermeneutics may be we all understand how this process works. It invariably involves an appeal to time, history and culture to give meaning to a given text. This is the approach I am talking about. This is what we call exegetical hermeneutics and everyone does it. What I am doing is questioning the legitimacy of this approach.
-
1
- Show all