| 3. Fundamental Integration -> Hermeneutics -> Three Basic Agreements |
Three Basic Interpretation Agreements
I. Exact Meaning and Interpretation are possible. Apart from the necessity of the enlightenment by the Holy Spirit in understanding the meaning and intent of the scriptures, we must also agree that certain realities apply to anyone's understanding of any writing, whether Holy Writ or not:
- Exact statements possible. It is possible to state exactly in language what we wish to say exactly.
- Exact understanding possible. That which is expressed exactly may:
- be exactly interpreted in accordance to the Laws of Thought given in this article, and
- by which all men by instinctive nature may aptly and readily employ.
- Exact "universal" understanding possible. That all persons employing these instinctively perceived laws of thought may thereby unanimously agree to that which has been expressed exactly.
(These basic understandings by which men have conversed and communicated for thousands of years may even be more comfortably applied to the peculiar Koine Greek language in which the New Testament was written. If one would take all the words in any Greek sentence and put them in a hat and shake them up and then place them on a table, the exact sentence could be reconstructed again. This is because the Greek is an inflected language, meaning the words themselves contain extra or different letters which indicate grammatical relationships. In English and many other languages, word order in a sentence gives grammatical relationships.) If we cannot agree to these first pre-suppositions, then we must concede that thinking and language is impossible of definite interpretation, and that Bible exegesis (interpretation) is an impossibility. Also, it would be impossible to converse with anyone, especially one who disallows the above pre-suppositions.
If anyone disallows these presuppositions, you will be talking to what the Bible calls a reprobate, who feels he has free reign to say anything he wishes to mean whatever he privately wishes and will not submit to anything above his own desires. This type of New Ager would attribute, of course, a similar liberty to anyone else. They believe Truth to anyone is whatever you momentarily want it to be. Relativism is in full bloom in our present day New Agers. You must recognize, obviously, that they are totally given to self serving. Those in our society of this perversion are now easily recognized. They are becoming a visible group among us and more bold and politically powerful. Our society is now openly reprobate.1 2
So check these basics out with people with whom you have discussions today. As in no other Age in the history of the world, the world now has multitudes that openly espouse making a lie the truth, and the truth a lie, and switch their meaning at any time to serve their purposes with no conscience or qualm about it.
As an illustration, understand that the present day supposedly higher "scholarly" textual critics of the Greek scriptures for translations, do not believe that God's Holy Word is any different from any other profane book, and that any words in it can mean any number of different things depending upon their own personal biases of understanding of the context. This makes a mockery of child simple pure fixed in Truth scriptures once esteemed by our forefathers and all early Christians and Apostles. These and those who support them are also people that do not conduct rational communications. Words to them may mean anything, depending upon "their" personal context understanding, they say.
II. All reasoning may take only two possible courses, either by deduction or by induction, to determine Truth of anything.
Probability of a Truthful Conclusion Premises --» Conclusion (inferred)
A cat is fat ///Tom is a cat//// Henry is a dog////All dogs are red --» Henry is red. Can't tell if Tom is fat.
Truth of Conclusion depends on all related truthful consistent premises = Law of Non-contradiction with Consistent Comparisons
Only Two Types of Reasoning Possible.
Since we are dealing with scriptures being interpreted, all "premises" are just Bible words or phrases being considered toward a conclusion of meaning. Only two methods to determine meaning: Inductive Reasoning or Deductive Reasoning.
[[[[[ Remember something quite "elemental." These words and phrases (premises) make and give meaning to sentences. One cannot understand any sentence without first learning the meaning of words and phrases that make the sentence. This is the way children learn to speak and read with understanding.
"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 18:3).
"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein" (Luke 18:17). Modern apostate teachers teach just the opposite, they teach that
(1) the meaning of a word is determined by the use it is given in the sentence and the many sentences surrounding it (the context); this immediate context in which the word occurs determines the meaning of that one word; and, therefore,
(2) all words in the Bible are equivocal with many assumed meanings to fit anyones understanding of the many contexts in which the one word occurs, not univocal (one meaning).
No wonder their is apostasy ruling today. Child simple understanding of language is turned on its head today by doctorates in Theology. Just as in Jesus' day.
Upon these two apostate world-wide totally irrational and imbecilic teachings stated above, gullible deceived people are taught the devil's world thinking, deductive thinking, by most all popular teachers and "answer men" today and so-called Bible Schools and Cemeteries (Seminaries). This is total insanity to any rational person upon reflection; "sentences define the words used within them; so we may have as many meanings of a word as sentences in which the word is used". These blind or satanic "c" hristians have gone mad.
One of these Ecumenical nationally acclaimed "answer men", Hank Hanegraaff, after giving this insane "word meaning is derived from the sentence in which it is used" insanity, has said we must interpret these words and phrases (premises) according to the common "Christian world view," and that upon this basis "we should study the Bible for all that it is worth." With these subtle indirect hypnotic statements, given almost daily and repeatedly, while openly teaching that Bible words are "equivocal", having multiple disparate meanings, he is very subtely turning people away from Bible Truth and into the apostate Ecumenical world definitions. Beware of Hank Hanegraaff. He is a dangerous deductive teacher.
Hanegraaff, as all modern textual critics, also says the modern translations are from the oldest known manuscripts which is a monumental lie, proven by John Burgon, Edward Miller, and E. F. Hills, and many other manuscript scholars, and historian J. H. Merle D'Aubigne12 (see this footnote) of 1800's and 1900's.
Modern textual critics are most all Ecumenical unbelievers playing Christian, who say the Bible is just like any other world literature. They are all deductive thinkers. Can you recognize a deductive thinker? ]]]]]
Before proceeding farther one should really understand the one basic Law of all rational thinking. This is found in this section Hermeneutics >>Four Laws of the Human Mind >>"2. Law of Consistent Comparisons." Without comprehending this LAW, no person can clearly comprehend what the two types of thinking are. After you read and understand this, then come back to read the two types of thinking described here.
Inductive arguments or thinking: 100% probability that the conclusion is true if all appropriate consistent premises are true. With ALL appropriate consistent premises being totally true (obeying consistent comparisons, like to like at the same time in the same sense), the conclusion will be totally true. Any one false premise (even half-truth) may give a totally false conclusion. This reasoning follows the Law of Consistent Comparisons. See Hermeneutics >> "2. Law of Consistent Comparisons" for detailed explanation and applications.
So-called scientific thinking can involve only probabilities, since man in natural sciences cannot know "ALL appropriate consistent premises being totally true." This leads to constant improvements in understanding as more true premises are found and false premises discarded.
This is God's method of sound thinking, using man's Laws of Mind legitimately. (See section, Hermeneutics, "Four Laws of Human Mind."
Premises --» Conclusion inferred from premises related (appropriate, consistent) to each other. All scriptures with dog or Henry, will give best logical conclusions about dog or Henry, if at the same time in the same sense, as illustrated above in the heading captions.
Premises need not always be related identically to conclusion, but related only by demonstrated probability of association. Also, they must be consistent, applying to identical subject in kind and time and sense.
Conclusions always changeable upon new evidence (relating premise(s), plural) Mind set: If premises only used to infer conclusion, new premises may infer a new conclusion. Change (growth) is built in and anticipated as more evidence (premise) is learned.
Relevance of premises is necessary for truth of conclusion (Fallacy of Relevance). Premises may later be found to be not relevant to original conclusion, or to each other.
Total evidence, all possible premises, is a condition required for inductive argument to be valid (Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence). Every place in the Bible where the one Greek or Hebrew word or phrase is used must be considered.
No conclusion is guaranteed by inductive arguments, but progressive learning is. Given absolute verbally inerrant Truth (God's Word), we ever grow in knowledge upon a firm foundation of only true premises. We have infallible Truth (premises), but we must use our minds as God intended, by inductive thinking (the little child's thinking AND God's thinking), to arrive at a proper meaning or understanding. Deductive arguments or thinking: Decide upon a conclusion that you prefer (interesting personal reasons), then contrive by whatever means of interpretation to make all premises (words or phrases in the sentence or context) support the starting conclusion. Today, this is proudly described as "interpreting the meaning of a word by the immediate sentence or context in which it occurs." This is the universal teaching of all Seminaries (Cemeteries) and Bible Schools (stories) today, when they think they are teaching "good" Hermeneutics.
This necessary contrivance of other word meanings to make supportive premises sound logically coherent, is what we are calling REDEFINITIONS so often apparent. Since we start the reasoning, say of a meaning of a word, based upon ones personal bias of the meaning of the immediate sentence or context, we must then proceed to REDEFINE all words or phrases within the sentence to support the preferred meaning of the word that was defined by our starting bias. This is what we call the "tall-tail sign" of the devil in their doctrinal tall grass explanations.
Any time someone must give redefinitions of plain child simple words, like "all, world, all men, man, every, all the world, all the world, whosoever, etc.," not defined by inductive exegesis but only to support their arguments in only these specific places, we know the devil is at work. Their redefinitions of these words cannot be applied throughout the Word of Truth, because then they would seem nonsensical in many places. This would prove their error but deductive thinkers are irrational, do not regard the Law of Non-contradiction, they do not see this lack of consistency as of any importance. Their necessary lie to uphold, or their whole irrational system fails, is that a single word may have many meanings as suits their purposes. They must insist that Biblical words are equivocal, just like any other profane literature. This is the hall-mark of all errant people in Bible interpretation, like the modern textual critics today, who insist that the Bible must be treated like any other profane world literature.
Other names for this thinking: "circular thinking" because of the circular route of argument to the conclusion being the same as the original statement; or "block thinking" because the imaginatively interpreted premises (perhaps, a preferred meaning picked out of a Lexicon) devised to support the beginning statement may exist as isolated "blocks" of devised assertions which often exist as self-contradictory statements to other such devised premises within the same argument. The conclusion may be totally false (total lie or half-truth) to start, since it is not derived from any premises at the start, only an assertion of something. And this false asserted start must then be supported necessarily be asserted half-truths (lies) or out right lies.
People that become habituated to this type of thinking, are not aware of the great error and irrationality of their thinking. Sincerity becomes only a measure of their deception. They are not aware at all that they are illogical in thinking; they do not conform to the Law of Non-contradiction. This is the thinking of worldly (carnal-flesh driven) people, regardless of their religion or denomination or level of education and piety.
This is the devil's method of thinking, deductive, for all people concerning concepts. Conclusion (asserted possible lie) --» Premises interpreted to support starting conclusion (lie)
Impossible for conclusion to be invalid, since all premises are "interpreted" or redefined to support the the starting conclusion (bias). This is where all the redefinitions of plain words, "tall-tails," are introduced to "define" the premises to make the reasoning seem logical, therefore, acceptable to the undiscerning.
Conclusions are logically unassailable to these deceived individuals, regardless of "new evidence" (any different new premises). Any new evidence or premises will be necessarily redefined to fit the starting conclusion. Mind set: Premises are interpreted to support a conclusion. New premises will also be so redefined.
Therefore, no possibility of change (growth) in future. Biblical definition of Blind. Regardless of their education, numerous doctorates, or extreme piety, the people who think by deductive thinking become totally blind to the irrationality of accepting the contradictions of their devised isolated "blocks" of premises when pointed out to them. They are so blind they proudly excuse them by being only human under a higher inscrutable unknowable God, so we must accept contradictions, they proudly and indignantly say.
Premises are always relevant to conclusion, since always designed by interpretation to give or support conclusion, regardless of any new premises found. Once an argument has been achieved, no further additions can alter conclusion because all premises, whether old or newly discovered, will be devised (redefined) to support the starting assertion. Concerning concepts, guaranteed premises are provided by deductive arguments to deliberately confirm the starting conclusion or lie. Thereby, the devil can never be wrong in his world kingdom.
No one can be as blind as the highest educated and the highest IQ created by God, who's mind is deceived to accept deductive thinking of the devil's kingdom of this world. Their minds become totally reprobate, despite being the most dedicated of religionists for "christianity". They may be used by satan to likewise deceive millions.
Hereby, all the world will become "christian" worshipping the devil. What a victory the devil thinks he will achieve, totally usurping God's Kingdom of Truth. Total deception of extremely sincere people, putting real Christians to death "thinking he is doing God service" (read John 16:1-4).
Further details about reasoning, either by deduction or by induction, since this is important to thoroughly understand. Your Eternal Life depends upon protecting against deception.
- Deduction: This is reasoning from the general to the particular. This is starting with a believed generalization and interpreting all particulars so that the generalization is thereby supported. It is reasoning from a starting conclusion (generalization) to then redefined specifics. This is what may be called "subjective hermeneutics." Quite well suited for the New Agers who make things whatever they wish them to be.. For some reason all the "me" generations after WWII, which now comprise most all of our Christian pastors today, use this "subjective hermeneutics" like a spiritual endowment. Since we start the reasoning, say of a meaning of a word, based upon ones personal bias of the meaning of the immediate sentence or context, we must then proceed to REDEFINE all words or phrases within the sentence or context to support the preferred meaning of the context that is defined by our starting bias. This is the origin of the "tall-tail sign" of the devil in our doctrinal explanations. Any time someone must give redefinitions of plain simple words, not previously defined by inductive exegesis but only to support their arguments in these specific places, we know the devil is at work.
Obviously, a deductive study of the scriptures is easier and always subject to deceptive and false perceptions, gullibly accepted by teachers and pupils alike. A starting prejudice or a preconceived belief may always find support by any or all particulars found or twisted to support such starting prejudices.
Teachers may start with a conclusion, find many taught previously redefined scriptures that seem to fit this conclusion, and end with the same conclusion. Then they proudly say, "Since all these scriptures support this belief, it must be true; or since I have found a word meaning in a Greek Lexicon (of many word meanings for each Greek word) , it must be true. "This is how you can know that this is the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit," they then conclude. This is nonsense grown into blindness! What is worse all their simple minded sheep in the flock think they are really getting deep exegetical spiritual insight. This is truly a sad spectacle.
This is what may be called circular thinking. You start with a prejudice and you end with the same prejudice. It proves nor interprets no thing. But millions today are deceived by this satanic method.
One of the hall marks of such "teaching" expeditions in deductive reasoning (irrational thinking) is a teacher or pastor who gets definitions of a Greek or Hebrew word used in a scripture by referring to Greek or Hebrew Lexicons (dictionaries) with many meanings and shades of meanings taken from different Greek usages or common Hebrew usages of common daily papyri of social life. Doing this is especially awe inspiring for those blind students listening.
These have no relationship to the Holy Spirits specific single use of each Greek word throughout the scriptures.3 But he then applies these errant meanings to the scriptures that use this Greek or Hebrew word, thinking he is giving real understanding to the verse. In actuality, what he is doing is picking out from among the many offered definitions the one definition that best confirms or explains his starting premise. Then he proudly feels that he has been given illumination and confirmation of his starting premise. Circular thinking, plain and simple.
You can be sure that anyone who makes an appeal to a Greek lexicon as to gain understanding of a scripture is doing deductive circular irrational reasoning, whether they like to admit it or not. We must say that the New Agers with relativism as their creed of life, are much less self deceived in that they say, "Hey, I make it say whatever I want." Instead of choosing on of the many meanings possible in the Lexicon that more suits his wish or bias, an honest person would say, "What am I doing? I am simply choosing my bias to support what I want it to say. How can I know what the truth is?"
An illustration of the error of using Greek Lexicons is in order. Suppose that I want to understand 1 Timothy 4:7 so that I may please God. I want to know what it means when it says, "But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness." I look in a Greek lexicon (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.) and find that the word used here for "exercise" is Strong's number 1128, used 4 times in the NT, a verb "gumnazo." The Lexicon says, NT:1128 gumnazo (goom-nad'-zo); from NT:1131; to practice naked (in the games), i.e. train (figuratively). Further, for word 1131 it says, "gumnos (goom-nos'); of uncertain affinity; nude (absolute or relative, literal or figurative)."
Now, what may I conclude: "refuse fables and go nude as a means of becoming more Godly. " You may say this is ridiculous, and I agree. But the point is that with any tendency to any bias (which is only natural to have), conscious or unconscious, when we go to a Lexicon we may find whatever interpretation, regardless of your good and noble intentions. And what is even worse, if the Lexicon provides multiple possible uses or definitions of the Greek word, the problem is only worsened to satisfy your choice of bias.
The point is this, you really have no means of reference to the choice of "the" truth when you refer to a Lexicon. It is the thinking of a natural man, not only by the writer of the Lexicon, who is just reporting the many linguistic uses of man, but by the reader of the Lexicon. And "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God... neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14), comparing spiritual to spiritual.
We are unconsciously carrying around all sorts of biases from our backgrounds and this will predispose each of us to think about anything from our preconceived experiences and learnings. This is just another way of saying we all tend to use "deductive reasoning," starting with an assertion, conscious or unconscious. For Biblical interpretation we need a means of guarding ourselves from such conscious or unconscious indulgences of biases. Any starting bias, or any necessitated choice among worldly details, provokes "deductive" thinking
This last sentence is extremely important to remember. It is an important "tall-tail" sign that someone may be using deductive thinking. Whenever one consciously or not uses (1) a bias or (2) a choice from among worldly details, deductive thinking is necessarily being provoked. "Provoked" is the operative word. A choice among worldly details necessarily provokes biases, which may or may not be totally relied upon. See these footnotes for needed details. 8and10
- Induction: This is the process of inference, by which we formulate a general truth only after first finding all the particular applicable facts regardless of what they may indicate. "These are the facts or details; they seem to support this generalization or interpretation." This is the ONLY valid method of reasoning or interpreting anything. Obviously, any interpretation of anything must ONLY be by the induction method in order to arrive at any valid conclusion. This is called "scientific thinking," and is the bedrock of any scientific effort to find the truth relating to the physical world. To use deductive reasoning in a scientific publication would be obvious foolishness and frivolity.
I like to look at lexicons from time to time myself, but I must guard myself from using any of their definitions as opposed to those derived purely from inductive reasoning using scriptures, comparing scriptures to scriptures, and all their associated contexts only. I find lexicons help me to find all related words and any possible grammatical forms of the word. After I have done an inductive meaning search for each of these from the scriptures only, I get a good understanding of all applicable related words in the scriptures as well. Nothing can be trusted outside of Textus Recptus Greek scriptures.
In applying inductive reasoning to scripture interpretation, we obviously must restrict our inquiry to the Holy Spirit's scriptures alone. No lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries, or writings of man could be authoritative. Otherwise, it would be like trying to solve a question about an automobile by going to a zoo and carefully examining a few zebras. What would be the relevance? I don't know either.
The following words of Dean Burgon have been quoted often: "Either the whole Bible is inspired, the Words as well as the sentences, the syllables as well as the Words, the letters as well as the syllables, every 'jot' and every 'tittle' of it, or the whole of it must be abandoned, since no part of it can be certainly depended upon as an infallible guide." As Dean Burgon says,4 "if we do not believe that every single word is inspired and that the one Greek text from which they are derived is inerrant then you have no firm foundation for anything. We must settle in our minds that to understand the Bible as an infallible guide, we must be settled that it comes down to a study of each single pure and infallible word." Well said.
Every [single] word of God is pure. "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times" (Ps 12:6). "And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live" (Deut 8:3). "Every word of God is pure (no mixture, only one meaning, no synonyms): he is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him" (Prov 30:5). But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word (single word) that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matt 4:4 I don't believe these scriptures support the so-called "dynamic translation" we see today.
It should be obvious to anyone that even inductive study of the Bible is impossible if there is not such a fact as verbal inerrancy. If the Bible is not preserved every word pure in the original language, then Bible study would be useless. It would be impossible to say that we can know what the Bible says. See this footnote for a clear explanation of verbal inerrancy and its relationship to teachings today of apostate Ecumenical Bible schools.9
The only way we can discern the Holy Spirit's use or meaning of a word in scripture is to see how He uses the word in all contexts ONLY in His scriptures, to infer His one singular meaning of that word. You cannot understand what a written Russian word means by looking in a Spanish dictionary. "Elementary, my dear Watson." The only dictionary we have of Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit scriptures, and fortunately, the scriptures are self defining because only one meaning is assigned to each word according to the scriptures in the preceding footnote 9. The scriptures then become self-defining. And to find this one meaning, we must follow an inductive process, a three step sequence to reach a conclusion. III. All Inductive (inference) reasoning will be valid only if three steps are completed.: These are exactly the steps by which a good detective or scientist arrives at a conclusion as to any question.
| First: P |
Pertinent. All Pertinent applicable words and individual applicable scriptures are gathered. We mean that first we gather: all verses containing the same subject (a word) in question and all verses containing key words used to describe the subject (a word) in question |
| Second: H |
Exclusions. All contradictions or disturbing dissimilarities between all pertinent verses using the word must be Excluded by reasonable inference to a single specific meaning of the word to fit all instances of the word's occurrence. This is what is meant in the Overview above by saying, "Antinomies and contradictions are never acceptable." If a detective is trying to solve a crime (come to a valid solution), he must see if all the evidence indicates the same thing. Otherwise, he will be overlooking the correct solution. Criminal appeals to a conviction (a conclusion) are won on just such a demonstration of such negligence on the part of detectives or the prosecutor. This applies in rational reasoning (Inductive Inference) of anything, even understanding the scriptures.
The single meaning may be a single word or multiple words, sometimes as many as four or five words are necessary, but this is uncommon. Most meanings are single or two or three word meanings at most. We must remember that the Greek is an extremely precise language, and each single word conveys a very specific and concise meaning. For instance in the single words pertaining to English "mind" (as mental process), there are over 18 different specific and distinct Greek words (lemmas), each with their specific nuance of single meaning, referring to different mental processes. Yet in the KJV, and certainly in modern translations, so many different meanings are given to each of these specific Greek lemmas that very little real coherence of understanding is possible, concerning the Holy Spirits references to mental processes.
This often means that looking up a word, as "mind" in an English Concordance (or any language), will give such many Greek words (lemmas) translated as mind that true understanding is really impossible. But the sincere person thinks he is getting a comprehensive use of the English word mind, when he is really getting useless gibberish.
It is of extreme interest that the Bible plainly teaches that every single word used has a single pure meaning, not multiple as in the languages and dictionaries of men (and unfortunately translations). This means it is ideally suited for the rational understanding of men endowed with the "common sense" intuitive understanding of thinking possessed by a little child, as our Lord said.
This makes all the scriptures self-defining. and in the final analysis, scriptures becomes extremely simple to understand. It is written to be self interpreting. Therefore, we are without excuse, who look to another (worldly Lexicons, Dictionaries, and translations available) for single word (lemma) explanation. |
| Third: G |
Generalized. With only consideration of the above harmonized pertinent circumstances, a valid Generalization may be inferred. | An illustration is in order: Let us try to interpret a Bible verse in the New Testament.. Let us say, the meaning would obviously be clarified if we understood the meaning of a certain word.
[ Using a Strong's or Young's Greek and Hebrew English concordance or Englishman's Greek-English Concordance or any number of appropriate computer software available in Bible bookstores (see footnote 7 ) today, by which we may have displayed before us all verses and surrounding context of all scriptures containing any one Greek word or Hebrew word in question. We are using these books or software as tools, not for any meaning stated in them. These are to be used only as tools for consistent comparison of all scripture contexts of the one word to derive by inference the one meaning of the word that would make sense in all the contexts in which it is used. Obviously, one must use a consistent word for word translation, not a dynamic, like NIV, or idiomatic, like Living Bible, translation. We prefer the KJV for the use of established doctrinal words and word structing in translation, among other reasons. ]
So, first of all, we look up all the scriptures and only in the scriptures (not consult man's opinions as to the meaning in a Lexicon) in which the Greek word actually occurs. The meaning then can be reasoned (inferred) from the way the Holy Spirit uses it in context of all the scriptures in which it occurs. This inference is checked out by seeing if the meaning makes sense in all the scriptures used. This is self-proving by using the scriptures themselves.
This is much like proving a math solution by working backwards in simple math or by substitution in algebra. If the single meaning substituted gives coherence in all its scriptures used, we can assume as much as possible that the inference is correct and that all other meanings are not acceptable as to consistent Truth.
To do this, of course, we must look up all instances of use of the one Greek word (not all instances in which any Greek word could have been given that particular translation). Again, it means that we do not derive our meanings from consulting man's opinions in Greek Lexicons or historical writings or papyri of everyday life. These many and varied uses are simply compilations of just that, varied meanings as in a translation or every day usage of the time, but may not be the Holy Spirit's usage of the one specific word. This is an area where much abuse of God's consistent pure words occurs, by which one picks whatever of many available meanings that fit one's preferred doctrine. Of course, this is obvious fallacious deductive "interpretation" from the start.
Second, we infer by all the ways the Holy Spirit uses the one word in each of its verses used as to the one meaning that would satisfy all instances of its use. Now we have good reason to believe that we have arrived nearest to the meaning of the pure word as the Holy Spirit of Truth ( Unchangeable, in Whom there is no shadow of turning, James 1:17) used it in His Word.
These First and Second steps may seem too rigorous and restrictive. But in scripture our effort should be to determine the single meaning the Holy Spirit uses when He inspired His Word. Since every (single) word of God is pure, as purified by fire seven times, Prov 30:5 and Psa 12:6, we can rely on finding only one meaning which may be applicable within every verse of its' use.
Even in everyday life let's say as a detective trying to solve a crime, we must make all applicable facts reasonably indicate the same meaning, otherwise we can have no valid inference or conclusion. "Elemental, purely elemental, my dear Watson," says Holmes.
This second step must not allow contradictions, multiple meanings, or synonymous meanings. Just think, if multiple meanings for any one word, or even a synonymous meaning was allowed, then language in the Bible could be subject to any number of interpretations. There could be no way of knowing what anything really meant. This is what all cults and many denominations concerning certain doctrines do, they simply redefine words to support their doctrines, circular deductive reasoning. A single pure meaning for each word is mandatory by considering all the contexts in which that one word is used.
Third and last, we then apply that inferred single meaning to the verse in question to understand the way the Holy Spirit uses the term in that scripture. This and only this is Truth of that verse or verses despite all your previous beliefs and doctrinal teachings by men. This is why the admonitions in the Overview at the beginning are so important: (1) you must never be goverrned by a theological predisposition or school of thought, and (2) truth always stands in judgment of each one of us and our belief systems.
Scriptural Application: The believer who would diligently pursue the inductive study must be filled with a passionate desire to know "the whole counsel of God." and only the counsel of God. He must of necessity ignore all sectarian prejudices, theological doctrines, and man-made theories; in order to coolly decipher, analyze, and classify the total body of details to find their true inter-relationships as they, in fact, do exist in the Scriptures. This takes some helpful study books as mentioned. Also, it takes discipline to discard all of man's Studies in Theology textbooks and doctoral dissertations and all his preconceived beliefs, with their doctrines of men. 5
For the first time, Bible school, starts and ends on your own desk with your Bible doing its own teaching to you, with the Holy Spirit illuminating His meanings and scriptures. You have the scriptures (with the best Greek text and the best verbal translation you can find) and the Holy Spirit to reveal His word to you. "Even a child...... And you have the anointing, and have no need that any man teach you." "And no prophecy is of any private interpretation." Scriptures themselves are their own interpreters, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word (rhema) be established" (Heb 10:28, 1 Tim 5:19, Matt 18:16, and 2 or 13:1).
J. Carnell set forth something called "systematic consistency" as the final test of religious truth.6 We may say that in summary this is our test of "the" Truth of scriptural interpretation. This is a test of "means" of interpretation as well as "result" of interpretation. It is a test of the entire process of arriving at Truth.
A Summary View of Scripture Interpretation
Aristotle, Logic = the organ of all science and meaningful discourse
Contradiction = Unintelligible = By definition: not factual, not reality We intuitively affirm there is no contradiction in reality.
Non-contradiction RELATING TO REALITY IN DIFFERENT CULTURES. Western, Law of non-contradiction is accepted as dogma: either/or Logic, true or false, right or wrong, good or evil, black or white, inside or outside, etc..
Truth by definition is exclusive = Reality = non-contradictory. Reality (truth,the way things really are) is knowable, definable, and exclusive.
A "fact" in reality is the way things really are. All true "facts" must be non- contradictory. If there is a contradiction, we don't have the facts right. We intuitively know that a contradiction of any facts means we don't have the truth.; This is called "inductive" thinking. [Find all contexts of all scripture with the single word in question, infer the one single meaning of that word that makes sense in all its scripture contexts, then read the starting scripture in question (conclusion).] Eastern, Dialectic thinking, a both/and . Whenever have two opposed ideas ,accept both or something else, as a both/and. The Yin /Yang thinking. Not yea or nay, but yea and nay. Truth is to be discovered, it is unknowable by human mind, not to be understood.
Reality (truth,the way things really are) is unknowable and indefinable. The person can only try to conform himself to oneness of mind with "unknowable" by accepting the teaching (assertions) of ascended masters. This is called "deductive thinking." This is the thinking of "the satan' and his method with us,get us to accept an asserted idea of any kind.
Ecumenicalism today and New Age thinking in our recent culture have accepted this Dialectic thinking, both/and. An acceptance that Truth is unknowable and anyone's ideas or neither right or wrong. Differences in behavior or doctrines are unimportant. No longer any need to conform to Law of Non-contradiction (Consistent Comparisons) or any laws of human logic. It is of SPECIAL NOTICE!! Whenever this "deductive thinking" occurs with the Bible, there must necessarily be a special redefinition of words and synonyms used to support to others the "logicalness" of the interpretation. Otherwise, the pure Word becomes obviously illogical to others, because a lie has been asserted and needs the pure Words to be redefined.
All men are created with an intuitive knowledge of the rightness of Logic. He cannot understand anything unless it is "logical" to him. Otherwise he is simply accepting someone's assertion. Unless someone accepts an assertion and reasons upon that accepted assertion, he will be looking for a conclusion to his thinking by intuitively employing "logical" means which eliminates "contradiction," making redefinitions unnecessay. Therefore, multiple definitions for one word, or synonyms for different words, are the tall "tail" sign of the devil in the high grass of their doctrines. Look for it !!
Since we are dealing with the pure (no mixture) single words in the Word of Truth, there can be no synonyms or contradictions or inconsistencies between any words, or doctrines. Redefinitions of docrinal words like faith, believe, repent, salvation, Christian, flesh, etc., are an obvious give-away to the false doctrines being taught.
Parables Scriptures --we can find the truth interpretation of a scripture by :
- Find all the scripture single words within the scripture considered (OT or NT), harmonize them to eliminate contradictions, then infer the one correct meaning of each. Then read the sentence with understanding.
- The interpretation cannot contradict other scripture interpretations (or doctrines) or we have accepted an assertion (lie) somewhere.
Figures of speech,forms of symbolic expressions. There are over 200 different figures of speech with specific names.11
Metaphors, implict comparisons; ie, "evening of life." Simile,explicit comparisons; ie, die like a dog Etc. Allegories, a figure of speech employing a word or story for symbolic intent. [Origen (185-254 AD), in Alexandria Egypt popularized interpretation of any scriptures as just allegorical. This means that any interpretation may be as good as another. What do you think it symbolizes? No literal] Parable, an earthly story with instructional Heavenly meaning, concerning ONE subject conclusion. Parables are scripture stories using all the literal words of scripture to describe the one subject of the parable. These are the pure instructional single words spoken by Christ, used throughout scripture by Holy Spirit. The words are of same meaning everywhere. Therefore, parables are interpreted as any other scripture by:
- Find all the scripture single words within the parable, harmonize them to eliminate contradictions, then infer the correct meaning or meanings, BUT relating to the one subject conclusions. Ask what are the conclusions? Does it contradict any of your doctrines.
- The one subject conclusion, cannot contradict other scripture interpretations (or doctrines) or we have accepted an assertion (lie) somewhere. If the conclusion relating to the one subject contradicts a doctrine, then the doctrine must be wrong or the meaning to the subject of the parable is wrong! NO CONTRADICTIONS.
Doctrine,a teaching of scripture (by Holy spirit) given on any subject. Doctrines (teachings) can only be derived from direct instructional, teaching, or prophetic scriptures.
DOCTRINES CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM:
- Figures of speech
- Parables ,parables are instructional teachings which are consistent and supportive of proper doctrines. However, the one subject conclusions meaning must be emphasized. Other aspects of any parable cannot be used to relate to any doctrine. For instance, p. of talents means to put money in a bank to draw interest, or P. of virgins means we should always have light available, or p. of vine means need to lift the vine up off ground, or the wide and narrow way means message is not understood, prodigal son, the lost and dead son was always acceptable to his father.
- Narratives; ie, Naaman washed in Jordon to cure leprosy, we can do the same. All the narratives in the book of Acts; Ie, Gentiles first spoke in tongues when born again, so we should also; or baptism of Holy spirit is accompanied by tongues because Christ said you will "be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence" (Acts1:5).
To end this Plan of Sound Thinking, we must conclude with this statement.
TODAY, 2017, we now have domination of the world with the so-called Emergent church, preparing the world for the soon coming antichrist. It cannot under any circumstances allow itself to be evaluated upon this Sound Inductive Thinking method, because it would be proven entirely contradictory. Therefore, Emergent church teachers will totally discredit any Doctrinal or Prophetic considerations of any Scriptural Use. This should be an obvious WARNING to any rational persons still left in this the satan's world.
Continue to Next Article -»
|
