| 3. Fundamental Integration -> Hermeneutics -> 2. Law of Consistent Comparisons |
2. Law of Consistent Comparisons
LAW OF CONSISTENT COMPARISONS. Or LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION--something cannot exist and exist at the same time and in the same sense. An orange cannot be an apple and be an orange at the same. But a man may be a father and also a son at the same time, because the terms may be used in a different sense.
Any person says you must compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. This is just "common sense" to everyone. But in the details of life, this is so easily forgotten. The most highly educated in whatever field are usually caught in its violation. Violation of this Law of Consistent Comparisons is the flesh and blood of irrational circular thinking known as deductive reasoning (demonic thinking). Very little irrational circular thinking can occur without the unconscious acceptance of the idea that oranges are indeed the same as apples, that one word means the same as another word, and so forth.
In the section on Fallacies of Deduction, the many illustrations of how circular thinking makes one use a taught doctrine to interpret all verses accordingly, show exactly how many different definitions of a single word could be unthinkingly accepted. They accept a doctrine first, then make all words and verses conform by whatever means to that doctrine. This takes a lot of study of explanations to do this. This is quite unlike how a child would learn anything.
A child first learns the meaning of a word by noting differences, then more words, then putting them together in sentences; then even many years later is able to understand concepts (child psychologists say not till about 11 years of age). The divisive Bible schools of our day teach us by just the reverse of this process. "Our doctrine is correct, interpret every word and scripture accordingly, according to your understanding of the doctrines we have taught you." [[ A deceiving "Ecumenical Answer Man" even says, "according to your understanding of the 'Christian world view'". ]]
In fact, without the violation of Consistent Comparisons, very little differences in doctrine and beliefs could occur in Christianity today. Think about this. This is an awesome reality.
This law lies at the basis of all distinctions and thought. However, among Christians, this is probably the second most commonly violated rule of reason in Bible interpretation!! Nothing can be the same and yet different. Think about this. This must be very clearly comprehended. If there is a shade of difference, it is different. Obvious. In scripture, one word can have only one meaning or signification. One word (noun or verb) can only mean one thing and must signify the same thing in all applications. What Bible school ever taught that? Man's doctrine is to look into a dictionary with many meanings and pick out the one appropriate for the meaning you prefer (?). This is the devil's world dictionary or Lexicon. But the infallible Word, the subject of their study, came from God "with Whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17 Words We make a mistake in treating the Bible like a human writing. If you need a definition to a human written word, you look it up in a dictionary. A dictionary of human language may give several meanings for a word but again care is made to keep these fixed by convention of usage by man in standardizing dictionaries. Otherwise no language could be understood or even rationally uttered with any hope of definite understanding. And, because of these accepted different meanings of one word, much misunderstanding may still occur.
This need not occur in reading the Bible. There we are told that every single word is pure, as silver tried in a furnace of fire purified seven times (Psa 12:6)--completely pure . And that these are the words of God "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17
This means that no dictionary is needed to give the one meaning, to each word. But where does such a book exist. I have never found one, nor even heard any except one. Only God's writing can tell us what He means. The only Holy Spirit dictionary we have is the self-interpreting Bible.
This lack of holding to only one meaning for every word, and the multitude of Lexicons giving many meanings to each Greek one word of scripture, is a loud testimony to errant men who hold the Word of Truth in error and treat it like a common work of man, forming it into their own likeness of books. And they have no lack of hesitancy to each get copywrites on their many translations. This is criminal insanity running free in the market place.
Applications Concerning applications, it is a truth that one verse has only one correct meaning (interpretation) but may have many applications in generalized antitypes. Saying this occurrence is just like this or that instance in a very general sense. For instance, one may make a generalized application that since God could speak through even Balaam's ass he can certainly speak through a preacher. Further, we may check the appropriateness of an application by seeing if the same single spiritualized concept of a word, in this case a dumb ass, is given the same general conceptual meaning in that application. By this means, also, we may know if the one correct meaning (interpretation) of an entire verse is given proper application in all instances.
The mantra taught in Bible schools that "a verse can have only one interpretation or meaning but many applications," could not possibly be true if just one word or several words in that one verse could have more than one meaning. This would give every verse several valid interpretations or meanings from the start. However, all those that teach this mantra are very pleased to teach that one word may have multiple meanings or even have synonyms. Taken together, they are totally incoherent among all their collective teachings, but they are blind to that fact. Amazingly, they blame their differences on "stupidity" of the other, but aren't they all being blind?
Doctrines But doctrines are not to be formed by such generalizations or spiritualizations in the possible applications of one verse. Doctrines must come from plain explicit statements of pure consistent meaning of words intended and meant as such, with only one explicit meaning. If this were not true then the Bible could only be chaos of babble. If in a mathematics book an integer could not be consistently signified then mathematics could not exist. And so forth in all areas of life. But somehow, when it comes to the Bible, all Hell breaks forth in brilliant multiple meanings and synonymous words, the teachings of men. "Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Mark 7:7
This understanding of this law of Consistent Comparisons makes the dictum of Bible schools laughable: "The context must always determine the meaning of the words. To force one meaning of a word upon all passages is the chief way false teachers twist the scriptures," they say. What the Bible school is teaching by this sophistry is that a word can have many different meanings, dependant upon whatever meaning one may give it (according to their bias) in whatever scripture context he is reading. They become the false teachers that they are referring to in their false dogmatic teachings. They thereby violate Consistent Comparisons making the Bible only chaos of babble. No wonder so-called Christianity is such a mess and we need so many different translations of each person's opinions.
Consistent comparisons are mandatory among rational beings. This law demands diligent, thorough, and consistent comparing of Scriptures, comparing spiritual to spiritual; and only the scriptures are spiritual.
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor 2:13). The scriptures are consistent and true, and even "every word of God is pure......as silver tried in a furnace of fire, purified seven times" (Prov 30:5 and Psa 12:6), not multiple meanings, as given in Dictionaries and Lexicons of the wordly literature. Only the deceitful hearts of men change words of scripture and give them multiple meanings and synonymous meanings as in the language of the world (ruled by the enemy of God).
The validity of this Law of Consistent Comparisons is so fundamental and obvious to any child that its unthinking violation by almost all Bible expositors today is truly the second greatest work of satan in the minds of Christians. It is not much of a problem to inject evil thoughts into someone who will endlessly entertain them to the glee of any passing demon. But a greater work of evil is to get a person to accept without even conscious knowing, multiple definitions for each of the pure (single meaning) words of God. This is a real work of deception. It is a form of "blindness" that we do this. And an equal work of blindness to call synonyms forth.
Violations. Examples of violation of Law of Consistent Comparisons We will just take four examples of violations of the Law of Consistent Comparisons which these New Age doctorates people use in their understanding of the scriptures:
(1) An example of this Law of Consistent Comparisons might be seen in deciding the meaning of such a difficult verse as 1 Cor 5:5 "to deliver such an one unto satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." The key to understanding this verse is in the meaning of the word "flesh." If we take all the appropriate scriptures which contain the Greek word for flesh and all the scriptures that contain the Greek for body, we will be able to infer that the flesh and the body are two different things, not synonyms. They are actually two different Greek words, so they cannot mean the same thing. Child simple.
Sarx and soma are two different Greek words, therefore, they don't both mean body. Flesh (sarx) by examining every scripture in which it occurs seems to best mean by inference "body-nature." If you think that body (soma) and body-nature (sarx) are synonymous, try to comprehend Col 2:11 "in putting off the body (soma) of sins of the flesh (sarx-body-nature) by the circumcision of Christ" or Col 1:22 "in the body (soma) of His flesh (sarx-body-nature) through death to present you Holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight." He doesn't say "in putting off the body of his body," or again, "the body of his body through death." This is similar to saying in putting down the sack of groceries. No one would contend that the sack and the groceries are the same, synonymous.
It is because of this distinction that Paul while obviously in a body (soma) says, "I thank God through Jesus Christ, so then, I with the mind, I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh (sarx-body nature) the law of sin and death," Rom 7:25. His body itself has nothing to do with the law of sin and death except as it is made to follow the flesh, by the person's free choice.
Also, and of all saints still in bodies (soma), he says, "so then they that are in the flesh (sarx-body-nature) cannot please God, but they that are in the spirit. But ye are not in the flesh (sarx-body-nature) but in the spirit, if so be the Spirit of God dwell in you." Rom 8:8-9 He certainly didn't hold sarx and soma as synonyms or his statements would have been nonsensical. He did not say "ye are not in the body," he says, "ye are not in the flesh." While they were in the spirit they are still in their bodies.
The people that think 1 Cor 5:5 says that Paul said to let satan kill him (destroy his body-soma) as a punishment, that Christ would kill him and then save him to Heaven, are indeed, wrong. It says destroy his flesh (sarx, body-nature) not his body (soma). Paul meant to turn him out of the church into satan's world, to bring to destruction the body-nature, by using satans very results in the man's experiences to bring him to repentance and then he would humble himself "to be dead indeed unto sin (of the flesh), but alive unto God through Jesus Christ." Rom 6:11
This is what he was referring to when he said to the destruction of the flesh. This is God's prescribed way to death of our flesh, through our recognition of His work on the cross of death for us. It worked, and in 2 Corinthians, Paul said to now restore him to fellowship. This is obviously the meaning. Paul would not have accepted him back into the fellowship, if he had intended for God to kill him, would he? He would have said, "Well, God has not killed him yet so we can't bring him back into the church yet."
But those that treat "flesh (sarx, body-nature)" as meaning physical body (soma) miss the whole intention of Paul in actually Loving the person in trying to bring him back to fellowship through repentence.. And what is more, some may think that satan has the power to kill people. Does he? No wonder these are so frightened and "need" to believe in eternal security regardless.
Suppose that if satan does have such power to help send all Christians to Heaven by destroying their bodies, what a wonderful work he does! And also, if they insist that flesh or body means the same and that satan has power to destroy the body, what a marvel! The very means by which satan works his deceptions in our lives, our body-nature (flesh) associated with our bodies, he will be pleased to destroy that? See what profound absurdities even very supposedly learned people unthinkingly support, when they fail to observe that oranges are oranges and they are not apples. "Except ye be as a little child......." Do Consistent Comparisons. This can only be done, if you keep every word pure, with one meaning.
And if they could think that turning him over "to satan to the destruction of the flesh," means to let God destroy his body (see how a doctrine is being used to reinterpret words, manifest irrational circular thinking, now they substitute God for satan). Then this means that they feel free to substitute God for satan in this verse and that God will take a person to Heaven that is rightfully rejected from fellowship with His church. The church which is His representative body on the earth rejects him because of his holding to sin, in order for God to take this person into His glorious spotless church in Heaven. Strange. Isn't "something" wrong with this thinking? A little child would certainly think so.
The New Agers would say, of course, this makes perfect sense. God (easily substituted for satan in their thinking) would punish him for living in sin by shortening his life in taking him to Heaven. Since he can by no means miss Heaven, he will lose rewards, they say. Now the New Agers betray themselves by thinking that going to Heaven sooner than later would be punishment. Strange. And they accuse others of looking to works for themselves.
And if flesh is the same as the body, what do they do with "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God"? This would mean that they that are in their bodies cannot please God. They are not synonyms. Child simple.
Unfortunately, as someone once said, the unthinking multiple different ways that these New Age people use the plain words of scripture in all the their many quoted verses gives more twisted works than found in a wrought iron factory. But, of course, it somehow makes perfect sense to them. This is truly one of the New Testament mysteries Paul mentioned-- the mystery of iniquity that already works in these last days.
(2) We have already spent much time in the article on Faith vs New Age Faith about faith on the absurdity of thinking that faith and believing are synonymous. Read it again for clear understanding. This making of faith and believing as synonyms is one of satan's greatest deceptions. This making of faith and believing as the synonyms is the foundation of most ALL false doctrines in the church regarding salvation. Try making sense out of Rom 3:22 or Gal 3:22, if you think faith and believe are synonymous. It is not possible.
(3) Another shining example of giving one word two meanings or a wrong meaning to support a doctrine (circular irrational deductive reasoning manifest) instead of using inference (rational thinking) to determine the meaning of the Greek word. Let us consider 1Cor 9:27. We will do this, this time, by going methodically through the four step process of inductive thinking, instead of expositionally (teaching what the scriptures mean to spiritual infants, instead of exegetically what scriptures simply say to mature saints) as done for Sarx and Soma in the first illustration.
Remember, for valid reasoning toward a conclusion, we must have (1) Authoritative Source (a Greek source) then ; (2) Consistent Comparisons to eliminate contradictions to arrive at; (3) Exclusively True ALL generalized facts having all applicable facts or scriptures reconciled to one meaning by not allowing any Assumption Fallacies or Ambiguity Fallacies; and (4) Conclusion thereby, deriving a complete semse of Conclusion of interpretation. You can see that A-C-E from all applicable facts=C conclusion. ACE = C. This is a helpful acronym for this process. Now let us apply these rules we have learned in this instance also.
What is Paul saying in 1 Cor 9:27 ? "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
Let us go through the three step process of inference as just reviewed. Understand that we restrict our inquiry as to what only the scriptures say in context. Only in doing this do we fulfill the beginning requirement of having an authoritative source and also avoid taking them out of context, one of the Assumption Fallacies we have learned..
FIRST. Absolute Truth. We take which ever of the two Greek and Hebrew texts are available to us, after our choice of which is the best. We do not address this issue in this book. However, after making this choice once and for all, notice that the remaining process of inference is really then just three steps.
SECOND. Consistent Comparisons. What are all the scriptures in which the Greek word adokimos which is here translated castaway? There are seven others. The Greek word adokimos used is in bold type in its translation, regardless of the way it is translated. I have also given the surrounding context of the verses so that you may reasonably infer its meaning.
Rom 1:28-32 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
2 Cor 13:5-7 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates. Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates.
2 Tim 3:7-9 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
Titus 1:15-16 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Heb 6:4-9 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. THIRD. Exclusively True. Read and study all above scriptures in context and then infer (decide on the basis of all the context uses) from the one way the Holy Spirit used that word just what the one single meaning of the word could be. This one meaning is what that word means. Then substitute that one meaning in each scripture to see if it makes sense in all. (Not if it agrees with your previously deductively accepted doctrine.) This is like mathematically checking your subtraction by adding, or checking your division by multiplying, to see if you have the right answer.
FOURTH. Conclusion. The last step, it is to then apply the one meaning that fits all the verses to the place it is used in 1 Cor 9:27 and you have the one meaning of that verse against all arguments. Your duty is to then let your doctrines conform to the meaning. To do otherwise, you are being a deceitful worker with God's Word, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, instead of God's Word.
Did you let your doctrine interpret the meaning of the context? This is not good interpretation, it is irrational deductive circular thinking. You read it with your bias (previously accepted doctrines) and then you will end with your bias. This is circular irrational thinking. It is not rational thinking and it is not valid interpretation. We must be searching for Truth above all else, especially to "oppose ourselves" in our beliefs. Only by this means will our hearts be established and grounded in the Truth, coherently understood and known.
"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." Isa 28:9-10
One must always follow the admonitions given at the start of this article in the Overview of Hermeneutics. In every step do not allow yourself to be misguided by your theological belief system.
Admonitions: (1) To have validity, one's method of interpretation (i.e., one's hermeneutic) must be consistent and without contradiction, and it must never be governed by a theological predisposition or school of thought. (2) Whenever clear Biblical truth is found, never can we dare to stand in judgment of that truth; that truth always stands in judgment of each one of us, and our belief systems.
Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...... And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Mark 7:7-9
This is why Paul wisely told Timothy, "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." 2 Tim 2:25-26 This goes for our Christian brethren as well as the unregenerate. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the Truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Tim 4:3-4 "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." 2 Tim 3:5
(4) Thy name is subtlety.
A. To my surprise, some will try to get around this simple means of interpretation of the Bible by saying that after looking up all the various adjectives, nouns, and verbs using the Greek stem for the Greek word translated "castaway" that they come up with several different understandings. This violates the simple steps, but they are prone to this kind of scattergun deductive decision making, which will justify anything they wish. They are sincere in their thinking of using the Greek stem but this doesn't make it correct. Is not this the same as saying there are synonyms, or different meanings, we can derive out of one word? Of course! This is a red herring, a subtle effort to avoid the principle, every single word is pure, no mixture.
Let me repeat the "simple" principle again. "Each Greek word (lemma, not stem, for Greek students) used by the Holy Spirit has only one pure inseparable and definite distinct meaning." Is an adjective, or a noun, or a verb another separate word? Of course. The presence of the same stem in different Greek words does not in any way necessarily affect it's meaning, except in the linguistics of men's languages and thinking. Each word (lemma) must be evaluated separately as it is separately discerned from all its contextual uses. An adjective is an orange, a noun is a pear, and a verb is a carrot. They are different words, regardless of having the same stem.
I realize this violates and ignores all the learned established Biblical Greek Lexicons and Dictionaries, but so much for man's doctrines and thinking. Is every single word of God pure or not? That is the question. How does the Holy Spirit in the Bible use the word? What does common sense say? For if every word of scripture is not pure and distinct from others, then our hope is vain, without any sure word, and of all men we are most miserable and without hope in this world.
We can have no sure Word if each person can infer a different meaning from the lexical stem associations. Then, believe whatever, everything becomes relative. This then becomes the confusion of multiple choices we have today in the Bible translations and lexicons and dictionaries. Every person sees and chooses that which is right in his own eyes. "The Word is (no longer) The Truth of You"(Jn 17:17). Each man can make it say whatever he prefers. Amazingly, then they authoritatively say "the Greek says this or that" from the lexicon or dictionary quoted. These are the many doctoral scholars from the Cemeteries today.
B. Another subtlety. After one sincerely follows these three simple steps (A. C. E = C), he or she finds that in comparing notes with their fellows that they come up with different meanings. But on examination, we find that what they are doing is coming up by their inductive inferring of all the contexts of appropriate scriptures, that they are each having to derive a multiple word meaning, but on examination we can summarize all the multiple word meanings to one very precise concise meaning that would fit more perfectly in all instances used. When we all derive an inferred single meaning for the one single Greek word, we find that we miraculously come extremely near to each other, and can possibly derive an even better single meaning by our combining minds on the meaning so derived. Also, the single meaning that we may each derive, does no violence to the meaning of the scriptures when applied, because they only slightly vary from one another. Especially is this made true after checking their meaning by substituting it in every context the word is used and see if it makes consistent sense in all places. This becomes an exciting fellowship of discerning the Word, as we seek the Holy Spirits illumination of our minds.
(5) Now lastly, as another example let us consider the word translated "perish." It is stated twice in the same passage to emphasize its establishment by God. Luke 13:3 and 5, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." The word for perish is Strong's number 622, and used 92 times in NT. So a clear understanding of what that scripture means has been made available to you by the Holy Spirit. You use the inductive method taught to arrive at the one indisputable meaning of "perish."
One can do this in a few minutes using a software like PC Study Bible from www.Biblesoft.com It used to take us a longer time to do this for one word using books, as an Interlinear and an Englishman's Concordance, until such computer software became available.
Continue to Next Article -»
|
