Posted on 11/14/2005 5:12:54 AM PST by jodiluvshoes
you cite from the Second Universal Epistle of Peter is a case in point: the Holy Apostle writes that 'prophecy' is not a matter of one's own interpretation (I checked the Greek), yet you apply it to all Scriptural texts. A 'literal' reading would lead to the limitation of the principle to prophetic texts.No prophecy of Scripture (pâsa prophêteia ou). Like the Hebrew lo-kôl, but also in the papyri as in I Jo 2:21 (Robertson, Grammar, p. 753). Is (ginetai). Rather "comes," "springs" (Alford), not "is" (estin). Of private interpretation (idias epiluseôs). Ablative case of origin or source in the predicate as with gnômês in Ac 20:3 and with tou theou and ex hêmôn in II Co 4:7. "No prophecy of Scripture comes out of private disclosure," not "of private interpretation." The usual meaning of epilusis is explanation, but the word does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. It occurs in the papyri in the sense of solution and even of discharge of a debt. Spitta urges "dissolved" as the idea here. The verb epiluô, to unloose, to untie, to release, occurs twice in the N.T., once (Mr 4:34) where it can mean "disclose" about parables, the other (Ac 19:39) where it means to decide. It is the prophet's grasp of the prophecy, not that of the readers that is here presented, as the next verse shows.
For (gar). The reason for the previous statement that no prophet starts a prophecy himself. He is not a self-starter. Came (ênechthê). First aorist passive indicative of pherô (verses II Pt 1:17). By the will of man (thelêmati anthrôpou). Instrumental case of thelêma. Prophecy is of divine origin, not of one's private origination (idias epiluseôs). Moved by the Holy Ghost (hupo pneumatos hagiou pheromenoi). Present passive participle of pherô, moved from time to time. There they "spoke from God." Peter is not here warning against personal interpretation of prophecy as the Roman Catholics say, but against the folly of upstart prophets with no impulse from God.
The foregoing would be intimately depended upon the meaning of "prophecy." This English word was translated from prof-ay-ti'-ah (Strong's #4394). A prophecy is something that any believer may proclaim as telling forth God's Word. This, however, does not make him a prophet (prof-ay'-tace [Strong's #4396], which is used in the NT in a very restrictive sense). Prophets are placed side to side with the apostles as the foundation of the NT Church (Eph 2:20; 3:5), and also with the evangelists who were the successors of the prophets (I Cor 12:8; Eph 4:11). A prophet prophesies, but one who prophecies is not necessarily a prophet.
"In the day you eat of it you will die." Either 'day' is not literal in that Divine pronouncement, since the Scriptures record that Adam and Eve lived years and had children subsequent to the day they 'ate of it', or 'die' means spiritual death, separation from the Life of the All-Holy Trinity.The issue is not whether spiritual death occured on that day or not, as some form of death had to have occured (lest God be a liar), despite the fact that Adam's physical death did not occur until many centuries later. My bone of contention is the assertion that the müwlt used in Gen 2:17 pertains strictly and exclusively to spiritual death of man alone, and that physical death is a specific outcome of the fall reserved explicitely for Man. In other words, the death of animals had been occuring all along prior to the fall in the Garden of Eden. Theistic evolution is absolutely dependend on this and completely untenable without. The argument to the contrary has not been satisfactorily adduced and as such is nothing more than assertion. It is either an unfounded conclusion, or it is a presupposition. If it is in fact the former, I challenge that the syllogism be adduced for that conclusion (so that the validity and soundness of it may be assessed and critiqued). If it is not a conclusion, then it is pressuposition, and as such it is epistemologically eisegetical.
Empiricism is contrasted with continental rationalism, which is based on the thesis that human reason can in principle be the source of all knowledge. Rationalists typically argue that, starting with intuitively-understood basic principles, like the axioms of geometry, one could deductively derive the rest of knowledge. Empricists believe that only knowledge of eternal truths - including the truths of mathematics, and the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of the sciences - could be attained by reason alone; other knowledge required experience of the world, aided by the scientific method.
Your assertion is that systemic rational or empirical methodologies for interpretation of Scripture are be rejected out of hand because
different parts of scripture, even different sections within the same book, were written in different time periods for people living in completely different cultural and historical circumstancesand ONLY allegorical method is acceptable is ludicrous. It is for the very reasons you cite that hermeneutics were developed. All communication of any sort must be interpreted. Words are limited and various interpretation can be developed. You seem to be objecting that through the use of hermeneutics the Bible can be made to say anything one wants but the allegorical method is the only way to arrive at the truth. The bottom line is that the Bible presents truth in a fragmented way, and therefor a systemic approach is absolutely required to interpret it, not some fragmented allegorical interpretive method. I can make the phone book say what ever I want if I veiw it as allegory.
And neither does tradition have any bearing on what the Bible says. When we approach an octogon shaped sign in an automobile, we don't stop because we traditionally stop there, we stop because it says STOP on the sign (and its against the law not to). You can view the octogon shaped sign metaphorically as a triangle shaped sign, but you do so at your own risk (and if you clobber or get clobbered by somebody, no matter how insistent you are on your allegory, your interpretation was flawed in that regard).
What does Hebrew have to do with anything. 2 Peter was written in Greek.
Interesting. Thanks for the reference. I'll read more about St. Gregory of Nyssa later this evening, but this morning I have to get moving...
Kalomiros is a Greek physician and lay theologian (we have a long tradition of that in the east: Khomiakov was a layman, and St. Photius the Great was known for his theological prowess before his nomination, while still a layman, to the Partiarchal Throne of Constantinople.) I would note that his works are linked with approving comment by a website of the Serbian Church, which is a good indicator that they are well within the mainstream of Orthodox tradition.
Amen, TRD. Amen.
SD
In other words, you decide when "day" and "die" mean according to your own private interpretation. All this hubbub about hermenueitcs is just a smokescreen.
My bone of contention is the assertion that the müwlt used in Gen 2:17 pertains strictly and exclusively to spiritual death of man alone, and that physical death is a specific outcome of the fall reserved explicitely for Man. In other words, the death of animals had been occuring all along prior to the fall in the Garden of Eden.
Where in Genesis does it say animals did not experience death before Adam fell? Is this in the text or just something you are bringing to it? I believe the passage says that "In the day you eat of it you will die."
Unless "you" is supposed to have some magic meaning that means "you and every other creature on the earth" I don't see where you are coming from.
SD
LOL! You just brought up a topic that brings up great memories of confirmation class and the thinking games we used to play with my old pastor! In short, from the text we don't know for sure about animals, but we can speculate.
Since some sort of food was being used (probably plant based) then at least the plants were dieing. Kind of hard to eat a plant and have it keep living. So it wouldn't be that outlandish to say that there were animals that died prior to the fall.
Of course this assumes that enough time passed from creation to the fall that an animal could grow old and die. I have often thought that the fall happened pretty quickly.
In the creation account in Genesis, the language clearly indicates six literal 24 hour days.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
I never asserted that. Obviously some things are allegorical and some are literal. I only asserted that you can't use the same rules to interpret all of scripture.
Let me more more specific. The rules for determining whether something in the Torah is allegorical or symbolic are very different from whether something in the Gospels is literal or symbolic. That's because the culture that produced the Torah, i.e. late monarchical and exiled Israel, was vastly different than that of the Gospels.
You, of course, seem to think that the rules should be unifom for both, and that's patently absurd on its face.
Nah, typical media hype. A Bishop said that evolution as proposed by Darwin, is not incompatible with God's hand in creation.
It was a joke...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.