For the fundamentalist Christians reading this post who do not like my hermeneutics (principles of Biblical interpretation), I challenge you to look up all the passages of the Old Testament that are quoted in the New Testament. Read the surrounding context of each quotation as it appears in the Old Testament. You will be shocked to discover that the context of the verses in the Old Testament almost never correspond to the way the verses are actually used in the New Testament. The New Testament writers mainly yank verses wildly out of context and use them willy-nilly as they please! None of them use the "historical-grammatical method" considered to be The One True Method by protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists. The historical-grammatical (literal) method is the root of the "death of God" in modern theology. It turned theology from a mysterious spiritual pursuit into a science, and theology became a lifeless husk, because "the letter kills but the Spirit gives Life." (2 Corinthians 3:6) This happened because the historical-grammatical method of Biblical interpretation restricts biblical understanding to the banal, obvious, superficial interpretation, and closes the door to the far richer and more powerful allegorical meanings hidden within. The hidden, allegorical meanings give us spiritual "meat" but the historical- grammatical method gives us mere "milk." The historical-grammatical method gives us flat dull bovine understandings that lead to disunity. If it did not, there would not be over 30,000 Christian sects in the USA alone.
If you bother to read Galatians 4:21-25, you will see that the apostle Paul was anything but a literalist when he declared that the stories about Mount Sinai, Mount Horeb, and about Sarah and Hagar, in the Old Testament are not literal history but are ALLEGORIES ("allegoreo" in Greek, see Strong’s #238) about the old and new covenants. Paul even tells us that Jerusalem is an allegory for our Heavenly Mother! The New Testament writers fail miserably as fundamentalists. So much for the "historical-grammatical" method! Therefore I do not debate my hermeneutics with anyone, least of all with literalistic fundamentalists. "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8) Fundamentalists are sorely amiss in not acknowledging, as the Apostle Paul does, the deeper hidden allegorical meanings in the Bible. Fundamentalists and others insist the historical-grammatical method is the only "true" method, yet the Apostle Paul and the other New Testament writers abundantly prove that to be gravely erroneous thinking. Thus endeth the lesson.
MY CHALLENGE TO FUNDAMENTALISTS/BIBLICAL LITERALISTS
by Nate Merit 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Nate Merit
-
tetrapod.sapien
please don't cross post.
thx.
TS
-
Nate Merit
Got it mate.
Nate
-
UnDisfellowshipped
From what I have seen, "Fundamentalist" Christians in general, believe that, depending on the context, a certain Verse could be literal or be figurative ("Spiritual"), but they do believe that if a Verse can be taken literally, then most of the time it should be taken literally. For instance, in Revelation, they do not believe that "The Beast" is a literal animal, but that it is a descriptive term for the Antichrist or his One-World Government.
-
Nate Merit
I on the other hand know the Bible is a book of mythology, and therefore interpret it allegorically, as all mythology was meant to be interpreted.
NNNNNNNNNate.
"Making a bad situation worse since 1953" -
Sam the Man
Hey, dont forget the other assholes. Muslims, Jews, etc... they are all as bad as each other. While it is true that not all Muslims are fundematalists, most fundamentalists are Muslim.
-
Shining One
Hi Nate,
No one needs to do this as there are many excellent dommentaries, study bibles and biblical resources. What do you want, one of us to waste a huge amount of time 'reinventing the wheel' in order to disprove your assertions?
>The New Testament writers mainly yank verses wildly out of context and use them willy-nilly as they please! ; None of them use the "historical-grammatical method" considered to be The One True Method by protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists. ;
You take each one and prove your assertions. You made the statement now you do the research....
Rex -
Nate Merit
Hi Nate,
No one needs to do this as there are many excellent dommentaries, study bibles and biblical resources. What do you want, one of us to waste a huge amount of time 'reinventing the wheel' in order to disprove your assertions?
>The New Testament writers mainly yank verses wildly out of context and use them willy-nilly as they please! ; None of them use the "historical-grammatical method" considered to be The One True Method by protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists. ;
You take each one and prove your assertions. You made the statement now you do the research....
Rex
Hi Rex
Yes, all Christians do indeed need to look up all the passages of the OT quoted in the NT. It's far more of an effective educational experience to do it for oneself, rather than take the easy way out and have someone else do it for you. This is not "reinventing the wheel" as you claim. This is study. FIRSTHAND study, rather than letting someone do it for you. How lazy and JayDubbish of you to not do your own study and then defend your actions with inappropriate similies.
Such a study is downright fascinating. At least, I found it to be so. It was part of my Bible college curriculum. It was also a revelation, and eye opening, horizon-expanding experience. Why discourage people from doing this? The NT book of 2 Timothy 2:15 says "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." If what I propose, directly and personally investigating how the NT writers use the OT, is not study of the very best sort then please enlighten me as to the meaning of study.
I already did the research, you have not. In fact, I have taken my wife through this study, as well as many friends who were quite eager to investigate the Bible in this way. It's always good fun to see and hear the surprise and puzzlement, and have an excellent Q & A session. I recommend it highly.
I can't see much difference between your attitudes and those I had when I was in bondage to the WTBTS.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel J. Merritt Met. D. -
Shining One
>For the fundamentalist Christians reading this post who do not like my hermeneutics (principles of Biblical interpretation), I challenge you to look up all the passages of the Old Testament that are quoted in the New Testament.
Your motive for an argument like this is twofold: you play to a aympathetic audience and you ask for more time and effort to be done than your assertions are worth.
>Read the surrounding context of each quotation as it appears in the Old Testament. You will be shocked to discover that the context of the verses in the Old Testament almost never correspond to the way the verses are actually used in the New Testament.
Same motive and you are denying the dual application: immediate literal and later prophetic.
>The New Testament writers mainly yank verses wildly out of context and use them willy-nilly as they please!
Scripture is the best interpreter of scripture.
>None of them use the "historical-grammatical method" considered to be The One True Method by protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists. The historical-grammatical (literal) method is the root of the "death of God" in modern theology.
"Modern theology" is often the death of faith for those who are perishing in the first place. "Modern theology" is often a betrayal of the very core aspects of belief. Modern theology is most usually refuted by conservative scholarship.
>It turned theology from a mysterious spiritual pursuit into a science, and theology became a lifeless husk, because "the letter kills but the Spirit gives Life." (2 Corinthians 3:6) This happened because the historical-grammatical method of Biblical interpretation restricts biblical understanding to the banal, obvious, superficial interpretation, and closes the door to the far richer and more powerful allegorical meanings hidden within.
Solid, Biblical hermeneutics uses the tested methods of interpretation of literature in general. It is what most of us do naturally: we take a story and compare what it says to our own experiences; it may be literal only; it may have allegorical applications or be entirely allegorical, metaphorical, etc. Text without a context equals a pretext.
>The hidden, allegorical meanings give us spiritual "meat" but the historical- grammatical method gives us mere "milk." The historical-grammatical method gives us flat dull bovine understandings that lead to disunity. If it did not, there would not be over 30,000 Christian sects in the USA alone.
Let's see, is that a gentic fallacy or cause and effect? LOL
>If you bother to read Galatians 4:21-25, you will see that the apostle Paul was anything but a literalist when he declared that the stories about Mount Sinai, Mount Horeb, and about Sarah and Hagar, in the Old Testament are not literal history but are ALLEGORIES ("allegoreo" in Greek, see Strong’s #238) about the old and new covenants.
Scripture interprets scripture, the Bible is authoritative and inspired. Once you lose focus of that you deny the very basis for and ability to interpret scripture accurately.
>Paul even tells us that Jerusalem is an allegory for our Heavenly Mother! The New Testament writers fail miserably as fundamentalists.
They are not 'fundamentalists in the first place, they are revelators: they are apostles.
> So much for the "historical-grammatical" method!
NO, not at all. We are bound by well tested rules of interpretation and that is the basis for valid hermeutics.
>Therefore I do not debate my hermeneutics with anyone, least of all with literalistic fundamentalists.
Nor would I in your precarious position. I hate to say it Nate, but your book is destined for the rubbish heap. If it ever gets a real 'peer review' it will be a treatise on how NOT to interpret scripture.
>"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8) Fundamentalists are sorely amiss in not acknowledging, as the Apostle Paul does, the deeper hidden allegorical meanings in the Bible.
Like any other JW, you just blew the context out of that verse!
>Fundamentalists and others insist the historical-grammatical method is the only "true" method
'Others' should be understood as 'true scholars'.
>, yet the Apostle Paul and the other New Testament writers abundantly prove that to be gravely erroneous thinking. Thus endeth the lesson.
You are very good at using arrogance, bluster and appeal to your own authority in order to manufacture a argument from nothing! Are you actually Greg Stafford?
Rex -
Shining One
>I already did the research, you have not. In fact, I have taken my wife through this study, as well as many friends who were quite eager to investigate the Bible in this way. It's always good fun to see and hear the surprise and puzzlement, and have an excellent Q & A session. I recommend it highly.
Try it with some real scholars and the 'fun and puzzlment' will be focused on you!
>I can't see much difference between your attitudes and those I had when I was in bondage to the WTBTS.
You don't know me, nor what I have studied.
>Sincerely,Nathaniel J. Merritt Met. D.
Do you have some inferiority complex, Nate? I don't see anyone one else putting letters after their screen names! lol
Sincerely,
Rex