Replies

I think this is not very good. No doubt there are some good ideas, but some are quite wrong. On my first pass I noticed these things:

...Often we are told to let the Bible commentator or scholar tell you, because he has education and incites that the ordinary Christians does not have?! The problem with this answer is which Bible commentator should not go to who you can trust [?] has the correct answer?...

(This guy needs an editor.)

..."Hide not thy face from me in the day when I am in trouble..." This could mean the day was one twenty hour period or it could mean any length of time of trouble.

I'm quite sure "day" never means a "twenty hour" period in the Bible, or, a "time of trouble."

Syntax is not "a study", does not "deal" with anything, and does not "seek" anything. If this writer's understanding of English syntax is so poor, how is he going to instruct others on Biblical (Greek and Hebrew) syntax.

NEVER THEORIZE TO ACCOMMODATE MAN'S VIEWS OR MODERN SCIENCE

At one time, the generally accepted interpretation of certain passages of Scripture made the world (earth) the center of the universe, with everything going around it. That interpretation had to be corrected to accomodate scientific evidence. Certainly, the interpretation of some passages may be corrected when better scientific evidence is obtained, includeing archaeological evidence.

(Note, evolution is neither science nor a theory.)

NEVER BASE A DOCTRINE ON ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE

How about two passages of Scripture? There are only two passages of Scripture for the virgin birth, but we consider that a major doctrine.

I do not think I need to make a more thorough study of this. Thanks for the post, though.

Hank

I tend to forgive authors, particularly on the internet, spelling errrors, as I too would like uthers to forgiv me mine. Those are gnats compared to the substance of the article. I chalk a lot of it up to "copyist" errrrors and try to not let it iterfere with my abillitee to understand what the author is s sayingg.

Regarding the belief that the earth was the center of the universe, that was imposed on people by the same autocrats who withheld the scriptures from them. Many myths fell by the wayside when the scriptures found their way into the hands of the common man and those who wanted to know the truth.

The grammatical /historical method is the "bands and cords" that bind the imaginative/allegorical and keep in check.

..."Hide not thy face from me in the day when I am in trouble..." This could mean the day was one twenty hour period or it could mean any length of time of trouble. I'm quite sure "day" never means a "twenty hour" period in the Bible, or, a "time of trouble."

You do not think that in Genesis, when it said, 'evening and day' it was referring to 24 hours?

Syntax. Important to arriving at the correct meaning of a word is the study of syntax. Syntax is the study of the word in is [?] grammatical setting. It deals with understanding the word's grammatical use as a verb, noun, adjective, adverb or part of speech. It also seeks to decide the tense, mood, voice, and case of a word. Syntax is not "a study", does not "deal" with anything, and does not "seek" anything. If this writer's understanding of English syntax is so poor, how is he going to instruct others on Biblical (Greek and Hebrew) syntax.

It states in the Dictionary that syntax (after stating that it dealt with the formation of words) is a the study and description thereof (American College Dictionary)

NEVER THEORIZE TO ACCOMMODATE MAN'S VIEWS OR MODERN SCIENCE At one time, the generally accepted interpretation of certain passages of Scripture made the world (earth) the center of the universe, with everything going around it. That interpretation had to be corrected to accomodate scientific evidence. Certainly, the interpretation of some passages may be corrected when better scientific evidence is obtained, includeing archaeological evidence.

The point is that one does not bend the Scriptures because of 'science, so-called'(1Tim.6:20)

Since the Bible is truth, if science is truely science it will never contradict scripture (evolution)

Regarding the issue of the 'Geocentric vs Heliocentric' the issue is not as 'black and white' as one would be led to think.

(Note, evolution is neither science nor a theory.)

Amen!

NEVER BASE A DOCTRINE ON ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE How about two passages of Scripture? There are only two passages of Scripture for the virgin birth, but we consider that a major doctrine.

That is the point!

Out of two or three witnesses will something be confirmed.

Modern bible versions are well aware of this and will remove a witness (while stating the the doctrine is still there).

For example taking out the 'blood' in Col.1:14 while keeping it in Eph.1:7.

I do not think I need to make a more thorough study of this. Thanks for the post, though.

You are welcome.

By the way here is a site you might find interesting

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/