I use hermeneutics in my exposition of Scripture. I translate from the Greek manuscripts into our English language. If you have an "authoritative hermeneutic" outline, I'd appreciate it if you could post it for all of us who study the Scriptures. Then one could not find fault with our methods.
Thanks in advance...
(Didn't Herman Utick play shortstop of the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1953? Okay, maybe not.)
What I am trying to say is that "sola scriptura", in the (possibly overly) strict sense of relying on Scripture alone is kind of a red herring.
I would think that the wild diversity teachings about dispensationalisms and adventisms of various sorts would be sufficient to show that. But if it isn't, before I get to a more substantive effort, I note that the Jehovah's Witnesses prefer their own translation,while others think that the line determined by the two points of Textus Receptus and the Authorized Version is itself inspired by God -- a teaching I do not think one will find in Scripture.
The Witnesses' "New World" translation, in one example, looks at the lack of a definite article before θεος in the last clause of John 1:1 (και θεος ην ο λογος) and concludes that it means, "the word was a god." So THEIR interpretive principles support their Arianism.
The KJV translation of τα υστερηματα Col 1:24 suggest to me that the notion that Paul could suggest that something was somehow lacking in the sufferings of Christ was just unacceptable to the translators.
In general, we will come across apparent contradictions in Scripture. How we resolve them will sooner or later involve principles of interpretation which are extraneous to Scripture. That is a first attempt at a general statement of what I am arguing