Hermaneutical Interpretation or Generalization

  • 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.
KnowMe said:
Well I have to ask what do people used to determine a day?
Click to expand...
Morning and the evening.

So what we have is, how long was one rotation of the earth?

We also can see thorugh the law where jesus said he created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh, so we should also rest on the seventh
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mission21 and KnowMe
eternally-gratefull said:
Morning and the evening.

So what we have is, how long was one rotation of the earth?

We also can see thorugh the law where jesus said he created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh, so we should also rest on the seventh
Click to expand...

Truth be said in ancient times the people didn’t know that time frame of twilight and dawn, they didn’t have mechanical clocks, that part of the day when there’s no sun or stars to tell time when the first light of the day is seen but the sun has not risen. the Jewish people started a new day at the first glimmer of the sun rising not at first light. And in the evening the first three stars started the night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eternally-gratefull
Here are some of the inherent problems with the historical approach to scripture. How we understand this book determines how we understand our roles in the universe. For centuries it has been determined that the Bible should be handled as a historical phenomenon. Since the Bible has been handled in such a secular manor, we have come to rely upon secular historical sources to offer their contributions to the text. Through exegesis, we have tried to give history and culture the final word on the meaning of scripture and to define its place within human history. The science of exegesis takes into consideration all of the historical and cultural evidence we can martial and attempts to explain the text based upon this lexicon of evidence. This is actually just another form of intertextuality. If we take this approach to scripture, it would follow that we could never understand anything about the text that could not be supported and collaborated by what evidence we are able to piece together. Our understanding of the text would then be limited to our ability to collect and correctly interpret this evidence. In the exercise of exegesis, our understanding of the text is determined by how well we understand ancient times and cultures. If this is true, the farther removed we are from the time and culture in which it was written the less we would be able to understand it. Our ability to understand the text correctly then would diminish with the passing of time, not increase.

With exegesis, truth is determined by the historical context rather than the language of the text. I have witnessed many over the years who have tried to make sense of the text by the use of exegesis and for many, it has been nothing but a constant source of frustration. Some have even concluded on this basis that truth is unknowable. Since revealed truth is not determined by history, this should not be a surprising legacy for those who rely on an exegetical approach to scripture. The language of the text was not conditioned by the cultures of the time. It was received from the mind of the Holy Spirit who stands outside of human history and culture. If history is allowed to be the canon for determining truth, then we root spiritual truth in the temporal rather than in the eternal. This makes the historian the sole proprietor of what can be considered as truth.

It is a mistake to think that we can ever get into the mind of the individuals who put scripture into written form. Even if we were able by some means to manage such a feat, this will not tell us what was in the mind of the author. Contrary to what Gordon Fee claims, the Bible is not both human and divine. The Bible is exclusively a divine document and was written independently of human intellectual contribution. Man can no more lay claim to any contribution to the biblical text than my computer can to the creation of this post. Man was simply the tool through which the Holy Spirit recorded scripture in written form. Since the Bible is solely of divine origin, we cannot discern truth by trying to delve into what was possibly in the mind of the apostle Paul when he wrote the book of Romans. The apostle Paul is not responsible for the contents of that or any other letter of scripture pinned by his hand.

Scripture was not intended to speak to the common sense of human reasoning. The Bible cannot be understood by bringing human intelligence to bear upon the text. The language of the text must be allowed to influence and transform the thinking of the reader. It is not reasonable from the context of human experience to believe that dead people live again, or that virgins can conceive a child without human intervention, or that three million people can survive in the desert of Sinai for forty years where there were no material resources for sufficient food or water. Scripture is not written to appeal to our sense of reason. Instead, it challenges us to defy reason on almost every page and to learn to see things from the vantage point of God. Scripture does not call men to reason but to faith.
 
KnowMe said:
Truth be said in ancient times the people didn’t know that time frame of twilight and dawn, they didn’t have mechanical clocks, that part of the day when there’s no sun or stars to tell time when the first light of the day is seen but the sun has not risen. the Jewish people started a new day at the first glimmer of the sun rising not at first light. And in the evening the first three stars started the night.
Click to expand...

So in my reasoning, I can conclude that the mentioning of morning and evening was a statement that they understood as being unknown for they didn’t know that time of 18 minutes in the morning and evening. when there is light but nothing to measure it with sun moon stars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mission21
So in those times when the day and night was cloudy, what type of reasoning did they use to determine a day. I’ve always wondered about that with no mech clocks and all in those days hehe...
 
KnowMe said:
So in those times when the day and night was cloudy, what type of reasoning did they use to determine a day. I’ve always wondered about that with no mech clocks and all in those days hehe...
Click to expand...
I do not think they were as dependent on time as we are..
 
  • Like
Reactions: KnowMe
oldhermit said:
Here are some of the inherent problems with the historical approach to scripture. How we understand this book determines how we understand our roles in the universe. For centuries it has been determined that the Bible should be handled as a historical phenomenon. Since the Bible has been handled in such a secular manor, we have come to rely upon secular historical sources to offer their contributions to the text. Through exegesis, we have tried to give history and culture the final word on the meaning of scripture and to define its place within human history. The science of exegesis takes into consideration all of the historical and cultural evidence we can martial and attempts to explain the text based upon this lexicon of evidence. This is actually just another form of intertextuality. If we take this approach to scripture, it would follow that we could never understand anything about the text that could not be supported and collaborated by what evidence we are able to piece together. Our understanding of the text would then be limited to our ability to collect and correctly interpret this evidence. In the exercise of exegesis, our understanding of the text is determined by how well we understand ancient times and cultures. If this is true, the farther removed we are from the time and culture in which it was written the less we would be able to understand it. Our ability to understand the text correctly then would diminish with the passing of time, not increase.

With exegesis, truth is determined by the historical context rather than the language of the text. I have witnessed many over the years who have tried to make sense of the text by the use of exegesis and for many, it has been nothing but a constant source of frustration. Some have even concluded on this basis that truth is unknowable. Since revealed truth is not determined by history, this should not be a surprising legacy for those who rely on an exegetical approach to scripture. The language of the text was not conditioned by the cultures of the time. It was received from the mind of the Holy Spirit who stands outside of human history and culture. If history is allowed to be the canon for determining truth, then we root spiritual truth in the temporal rather than in the eternal. This makes the historian the sole proprietor of what can be considered as truth.

It is a mistake to think that we can ever get into the mind of the individuals who put scripture into written form. Even if we were able by some means to manage such a feat, this will not tell us what was in the mind of the author. Contrary to what Gordon Fee claims, the Bible is not both human and divine. The Bible is exclusively a divine document and was written independently of human intellectual contribution. Man can no more lay claim to any contribution to the biblical text than my computer can to the creation of this post. Man was simply the tool through which the Holy Spirit recorded scripture in written form. Since the Bible is solely of divine origin, we cannot discern truth by trying to delve into what was possibly in the mind of the apostle Paul when he wrote the book of Romans. The apostle Paul is not responsible for the contents of that or any other letter of scripture pinned by his hand.

Scripture was not intended to speak to the common sense of human reasoning. The Bible cannot be understood by bringing human intelligence to bear upon the text. The language of the text must be allowed to influence and transform the thinking of the reader. It is not reasonable from the context of human experience to believe that dead people live again, or that virgins can conceive a child without human intervention, or that three million people can survive in the desert of Sinai for forty years where there were no material resources for sufficient food or water. Scripture is not written to appeal to our sense of reason. Instead, it challenges us to defy reason on almost every page and to learn to see things from the vantage point of God. Scripture does not call men to reason but to faith.
Click to expand...
I will just say I disagree

Even using language can get us into trouble. People look up defenitions and chose the one which supports their beleif system. There has to be other means of checks and balances.
 
Like this verse

gen 1:14
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and to mark the seasons and days and years.

would it be safe to say it’s a generalization, because in those times back then when it was cloudy day and night using lights in sky is all but impossible.
 
KnowMe said:
Like this verse

gen 1:14
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and to mark the seasons and days and years.

would it be safe to say it’s a generalization, because in those times back then when it was cloudy day and night using lights in sky is all but impossible.
Click to expand...
No, because clouds or not. You can differentiate between day and night.
 
KnowMe said:
Like this verse

gen 1:14
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and to mark the seasons and days and years.

would it be safe to say it’s a generalization, because in those times back then when it was cloudy day and night using lights in sky is all but impossible.
Click to expand...
The Lord said that the evening and the morning constituted one complete day. The Hebrews recognized the passing of days by the same standard of measurement. When the sun went down, that was the end of one day and the beginning of another. This was not contingent upon man's perception of it or his being able to witness the sunset or the stars. Even if man was unable to see the sunset or the stars because of whatever obstruction, the sun still went down at the proper time and the stars still appeared at night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eternally-gratefull
eternally-gratefull said:
No, because clouds or not. You can differentiate between day and night.
Click to expand...

Ok what if you lived in Alaska where day light can be as long as 6 months, even today if you lived in those parts of the world with no mechanical clock to look at and it was cloudy for 2 weeks, I think you would have a hard time figuring out how many days went by.
 
oldhermit said:
The Lord said that the evening and the morning constituted one complete day. The Hebrews recognized the passing of days by the same standard of measurement. When the sun went down, that was the end of one day and the beginning of another. This was not contingent upon man's perception of it or his being able to witness the sunset or the stars. Even if man was unable to see the sunset or the stars because of whatever obstruction, the sun still went down at the proper time and the stars still appeared at night.
Click to expand...

Well they didn’t use the same measurements as we do today, the sun changes time as it goes down each and everyday either it’s adding three minutes a day or subtracting three minutes a day. the moon is the only thing around us that is constant in its rising and setting 12 hours. Like today the sun can go down at 5:30 in the evening during winter or 8:30 in summer
 
KnowMe said:
Ok what if you lived in Alaska where day light can be as long as 6 months, even today if you lived in those parts of the world with no mechanical clock to look at and it was cloudy for 2 weeks, I think you would have a hard time figuring out how many days went by.
Click to expand...
Man's location on the earth does not have any effect on the rotational constance of the earth. When the earth completes one revolution on its axis, that is one day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KnowMe
KnowMe said:
Well they didn’t use the same measurements as we do today, the sun changes time as it goes down each and everyday either it’s adding three minutes a day or subtracting three minutes a day. the moon is the only thing around us that is constant in its rising and setting 12 hours. Like today the sun can go down at 5:30 in the evening during winter or 8:30 in summer
Click to expand...
It does not matter. The setting of the sun still marks the end of one day and the beginning of another. However we may arrange our record keeping of hours and minutes changes nothing.
 
oldhermit said:
Man's location on the earth does not have any effect on the rotational constance of the earth. When the earth completes one revolution on its axis, that is one day.
Click to expand...

Yes that is true but what is also true is standing on earth in Alaska you wouldn’t be able to use the sun as a reference it can be light for 6 months, another example is the moon rises and sets 12 hours eveyday but when there is a new moon it is still rising and setting at 12 hours but you can not see it doing that.
 
a day in those days was about 23 hours and 24 minutes long they didn’t include that 18 minutes in the morning and evening on their daily clock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back