Principles of Literal Bible Interpretation

Bible Truth ^ | Revised, Aug 2001 | Cooper P. Abrams, III

[Corin Stormhands]

Of course, I might point out that you Premillennialists...

Not sure what possessed you to ping me on this one. But I don't believe I've identified myself definitely in any camp...Not that I'd particularly care about anything you pointed out anyway...

[SoothingDave]

So, you don't believe in the Resurrection of the Body? OR isn't the body "fleshly" in nature?

I believe in the resurrection of the body and that that body most likely, would be fleshly. My comment was made in regard to JESUS' own statement ...

It is His statement. Ask Him about it. I merely accept it within the context in which it is given.

I'm terribly sorry. I thought you were willing to examine your beliefs and to attempt to understand the apparent contradictions between what you say and what is said elsewhere. My mistake. OK. So wouldn't it behoove us to take Jesus' WORDS very seriously? To find out and investigate what He means? Why am I supposed to believe that because He says that His Words are "Spirit" that I am supposed to then simply ignore the meaning of what He says? Does saying something is "spirit" mean that it is "metaphorical?"

Once again, it is JESUS' own statement you are asking about. I suggest that you check with Him.

I'm terribly sorry. I thought you were serious about an exchange of ideas. But I see, rather, that you are one who insists that others accept his interpreations without being capable of examining or defending them. My mistake.

SD

[BibChr]

If either, it should be a thread of its own, since you ask. It's substantial.

Dan

[theAmbassador]

Weren't you one of the one's who mocked Woody for pointing out this principle of Biblical interpretation?

As for insinuating that I am possessed, I'm not particularly interested in anything that an AOG Pentecostal would have to say any more than I'd care to watch a bunch them get into a howler monkey huddle and babble in strange tongues. How's that for throwing your argument back at you?

Now, I'm willing to be civil in a discussion, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't insinuate that I am possessed, even if you think that you are being funny. And I, in turn, will not have mental visions of you jumping on a trampoline with a howler monkey huddle preparing for the rapture.

[Corin Stormhands]

Now, I'm willing to be civil in a discussion...

Your actions often speak louder than your words.

I merely said that Woody's argument was weak. I thought he could do better.

And, if I've learned anything here on these threads, it's that I'd much rather cast my lot with a bunch of pew-jumping holy rollers than (most of) the Calvinists that frequent these threads.

[Quester]

I'm terribly sorry. I thought you were willing to examine your beliefs and to attempt to understand the apparent contradictions between what you say and what is said elsewhere. My mistake.

I have been examining my beliefs for the last (20) years or so and I persist in continuing to do so. I believe that understanding what God has to say to me is my most important occupation.

Consequently, I believe that when one has questions about what JESUS meant when He said ... that it is best to ask Him about it.

That's what His disciples did in this passage. They, apparently, were satisfied with His explanation. I am also satisfied. If you are not satisfied with His explanation, the best thing to do is to ask Him about it.

I'm terribly sorry. I thought you were serious about an exchange of ideas. But I see, rather, that you are one who insists that others accept his interpreations without being capable of examining or defending them. My mistake.

I am less interested in an exchange of ideas or a defense of my ideas than I am about understanding what it is that God is saying to me. When I believe that it might be helpful, I will share my understanding with others.

However, I do not insist (or even suggest) that you or anyone accept my interpretation or understanding of anything. I would much rather that you accept JESUS' understanding. I, ultimately, am not the right person to ask.

Seriously, ... have a little talk with JESUS. It'll do you good.

[SoothingDave]

That's what His disciples did in this passage. They, apparently, were satisfied with His explanation. I am also satisfied.

You are satisfied with your own interpretation and are also quite satisfied that it contradicts your beliefs about a bodily resurrection.

I am not satisfied with holding conflicting thoughts in my mind, nor am I satisfied when someone answers a question with a "ask Jesus."

Like I said, if you don't want to examine your beliefs, that is fine by me. Just don't pretend to, and then cut off any inquiries.

All I did was ask you if Jesus saying something is "spirit" means that it is "symbolic." You have not been able or willing to entertain the thought. You accept that "spirit" equals "symbolic" dogmatically. That is fine.

I, however, will attempt to understand what Jesus said, instead of accepting my own interpretation as dogma.

Good luck with your journey.

SD

[theAmbassador]

I merely said that Woody's argument was weak. I thought he could do better.

A Principle of Literal Bible Interpretation

NEVER BASE A DOCTRINE ON ~ONE~ PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

• 2Cr 13:1 In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

What you are really saying is that arguing that a doctrine should NEVER BE BASED ON ~ONE~ PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE, that is ~NOT~ established on at least 2 witnesses, is a ~WEAK~ argument. This is despite the fact that the "Principles of Literal Bible Interpretation" say that this is wrong and the Bible itself demands that a word be established on by 2 or 3 witnesses. And that argument you are calling weak.

Yet, the reason that all of you Premillennialists said that Woody's argument was weak is precisely because it is so sound and it absolutely makes an iron clad argument against Premillennialism. The Premillennialists is a hypocrite for BASEING A DOCTRINE ON ~ONE~ PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE when he tells us about the 1000 year reign of Christ on this earth before the new heavens and new earth.

If you dispute this, then take the Woody challenge:

• Demonstrate the Biblical validity of a 1000 year reign of Christ on this earth without the use of Revelation 20

And, if I've learned anything here on these threads, it's that I'd much rather cast my lot with a bunch of pew-jumping holy rollers than (most of) the Calvinists that frequent these threads.

Fine with me!

[St.Chuck]

Now, ... is there any other way that this passage (in it's totality) could be faithfully interpreted, other than this ?

Yes; there is another way and apparently the disciples themselves understood it in another way. Are you suggesting that they were mistaken?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Very good post

Becky

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Could you show me from scripture how the apostles thought Christ meant this passages to be interprated as?

Becky

[TopQuark]

Infinite and singular are logically incompatable. Yours is a very informative statement: in one short sentence you conveyed to us that you have no idea about logic and are unfamiliar with the notions of singulairty and finiteness.

The human mind can not conceive infinite in any realistic manner.

Small minds should speak only for themselves.

[Quester]

Yes; there is another way and apparently the disciples themselves understood it in another way. Are you suggesting that they were mistaken?

Could you elaborate ?

[Iowegian]

As for insinuating that I am possessed, I'm not particularly interested in anything that an AOG Pentecostal would have to say any more than I'd care to watch a bunch them get into a howler monkey huddle and babble in strange tongues.

Just exactly what are you an ambassador for? It sure isn't Christ.

[onedoug]

Ethical Monotheism

I also like what Prager has said about the Commandment not to "Take the Lord's name in vain," as an admonition for religious people to refrain from doing bad things.

[xzins]

The impression I always got as a kid was that "don't take the Lord's name in vain" meant "don't cuss."

I see it more now as "Don't use His name unless you really are serious about it."

What do you thinK?

[St.Chuck]

Could you elaborate ?

Sure. The earliest Christians did believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Romans considered them cannibals because of this. This belief was passed down through Christ's apostles to the present. So to conclude that your interpretation is the only faithful one would be an historical inaccuracy.

[xzins]

I like pew-jumpers even though I've never seen one.

Charismatic doesn't bother me as long as the bible is correctly interpreted.

I think that Charismatics are among the few groups that are told by conservative Christianity that they must "practice correctly" or get out of Dodge. Why do we say that to Charismatics but not to Baptists?