ONCE MORE for STEV and others who espouse historical-grammatical method

by Nate Merit 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Nate Merit

  Hello Stev
  
  You wrote:
  
  "I am not able to address how the NT writers use the OT. There are books by authors who are expert in this field, which I am not."
  
  It's not a matter of inability Stev, it's your unwillingness to face the simple fact that THE APOSTLES DO NOT USE THE HISTORICAL-GRAMMATICAL METHOD. You must be used to people who can't debate. You're begging the entire question. Fundamentalists continually tell me the historical-grammatical sense of Scripture is The Method, but they are assuming the very thing that is to be proved!
  
  Surely, if the h-g method of interpretation is the correct one, we would expect Jesus to use it? Alas for fundies, he never ONCE used ANY Scripture according to its actual context. Study your Bible for a change and see for yourself. There's no reason to take my word for it. Use that brain of yours Stev. The apostles do not use this method either. Again, STUDY your bible, STUDY TO SHOW THYSELF APPROVED UNTO GOD, A WORKMAN THAT NEEDETH NOT TO BE ASHAMED, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH.
  
  Do you need a list of OT quotations in the NT? I can supply you with one and you can do some study. Or you can move your fingers around, get some exercise, and do a Google search yourself. Perhaps once you've done so you and I can have an intelligent discussion. Until then, its all going to roll downhill. I have posted elsewhere on this same topic. You might want to read that as well. I can't keep reinventing the wheel for fundiots who ignore their own bible and keep asking the same questions and making the same statements ovver and over and over and over and over and over and over. Here's the facts Stev my man! Jesus never used the h-g method. The Apostles didn't use the h-g method. The early church didn't use the h-g method. That's the facts pal. Donlt be dancing the fundy shuffle with me. I eat fundiots for breakfast and crap em out while i have a smoke! I have already posted in great detail on these matters, matters you're ignorant of, yet you want me to take you seriously. No way Stev
  
  Also, when you insult the allegorical method and parade the h-g method, you are AGAIN taking it for granted that the h-g method is correct, when in fact Jesus, the Apostles, and the early church didn't use that method. THEY DIDNT INTERPRET THE BIBLE THAT WAY STEV. Stev, I cant educate you. You have to do that yourself, okay?
  
  You are ASSUMING the bible is actual history, rather than Myths! You are ASSUMING that ancient people wrote with modern day notions of history and science. If you had a wider knowledge of ancient literature you would understand the ancients had different priorities and different assumptions and a different worldview. Yet fundies in their ignorance read their own unquestioned modern day assumptions into documents thousands of years old!
  
  What arrogance fundies have! Fundamentalists are monumentally ignorant, so ignorant they don't even have a notion of their own ignorance. They take as givens the very assumptions by which they operate. They never question even their basic assumptions. Fundie "learning" about the Bible all takes place within the franmework of your UNQUESTIONED ASSUMPTIONS! In other words, IN THE FRAMEWORK OF IGNORANCE!
  
  "It is apparent that people on this list have different views on religion and the Bible, and therefore it is not likely that there will be agreement on how to interpret the Bible. "
  
  No kidding Stev. Some of us have spent many years and a lot of effort to get past where you're at. We've questioned our own assumptions and studied what the assumptions and worldview of ancient Semitic peoples were. We have studied their literature, and understand its genre' and it's motivation and intended purpose. You have not, do not, andnever will do this. No amount of bible memorization is going to help you emerge from ignorance. You have to somehow wake up and understand you are a modern man and the bible is not only a product of foreign cultures in foreign languages but from A WORLD LONG DEAD that operated under completely different assumptions and worldview.

  "But I think the historical-grammatical method is a good place to start for anyone in interpreting the Bible. "
  
  You do huh? Whys that Steve? Because Jesus used it? Because the apostles used it? Because the early church used it? Got news for ya Stev, you're wrong on all counts, and as much as you would like to shuffle reality aside and not deal with it, you just bit a tiger on the ass pal. I'm going to shove reality into your face till you go away, kill youself, or change.
  
  "What did the author intend to mean"
  
  LOL no shit sherlock. And of course the literary concerns of the ancient Semites were just like modern humans! Again, you simply ass-ume so much.
  
  "and what would the original audience have understood? "
  
  Exactly pal. Perhaps your brain will start to click into gear and you'll begin to wonder why Jesus, the apostles, and the entire early church IGNORED your historical-grammatical method! The OT was never INTENDED to be taken as you take it, to be interpreted as you interpret it, and a tiny CLUE is that Jesus, the apostles and the early church DIDNT USE THIS METHOD! DUH!
  
  "I think those are good questions to ask no matter what book is being read."
  
  Me too Stev, me too. That's why I spent years and thousands of hours actually STUDYING the cultures that produced the bible. Their language, the sources from which the languages sprang, their modes of thinking, their assumptions/presuppositions about life, the world, and God. Their priorities and purpose when it came to writing spiritual material. "There are dangers to the allegorical method, and it is best to use with caution."
  
  Gosh, thanks for the heads up Stev. The fact is,I have never read of ANYONE who interpreted the Bible allegorically (As Jesus, the apostles, and the early church did) who BURNED WITCHES or KILLED PEOPLE FOR THEIR SINS or FORCED PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO CHRIST OR DIE or who FORCED THEIR RELIGION ON ANYONE AT ALL! These activities are engaged in by LITERLISTS! KABOOM! Read not only some church history Stev my man but even your newpaper for christs sake! KABOOM! You can bet those muslim nutballs dont interpet the Quaran allegorically! Your violent murderous Christian forefathers (and their violent murderous descendents) were literalists.
  
  If their are any 'dangers' to the allegorical method they pale in comparison to the h-g. Do you think assholes like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell interpet the Bible allegorically? Do you think the violent, arrogant, warlike Religious Right interprets the Bible allegorically? You bet your mothers bottom they dont. And you just want to shove the example of Jesus, the apostles, and the early church aside in understanding how to interpret the bible...
  
  Pal, get an education then bother me again, okay? Stop ignoring the way the Bible interprets the Bibke, okay? Stop ignoring the example of Jesus, the apostles, and the early church, okay? Stop ignoring the world and cultures that produced the Bible, okay? Stop ignoring their assumptions and presuppositions, okay? Stop ignoring your own assumptions and presuppositions, okay? Okay.
  
  "Otherwise it can lead to excess. It can lead to flights of fancy and speculation, idiosyncratic notions, where there is no limit or control on what the interpreter can see in the Bible."
  
  Heavens to Mergatroid! You mean like perhaps KABOOM KAPOW KABLAM? No? M'k. Well, Stev, I can only tell you again to stop assuming the very thing that is to be proved, to wit: that the h-g method is the proper method. You simply ignore all evidence to the contrary, then 'let fly.' It's is YOUR h-g method that is the 'FLIGHT OF FANCY' becaue IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE! IT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE BIBLE IT ONLY EXISTS IN THE MINDS AND WRITINGS OF FUNDIOTS! The way the Bible writers use the Bible means nothing to you and your kind, you just ignore it then plow right on with your drabble and babble and try to force you bullshit down our throats by political means. I hate fundamentalism pal because its the product of IGNORANCE. Do yuo know what that is? It's IGNORE-ANCE. Fundies ignore facts, they ignore reality, even the reality of how the Bible writers use the Bible, let alone ignoring the ancient cultures that produced these books.
  
  Do axe-heads float in tyour world Stev? Do they? No? Do people walk out of tombs and fly away in your world Stev? No they dont. You live in the same world I do Stev, and NONE of that EVER happens EVER. Thats reality. If God is pesonal and performs miracles,. show me a modern documented miracle. Dont start blathering about some kid whose uncles cousins best friends neighbor knew a guy in Bumfart Egypt who heard of a guy who knew somebodys grandfather who was raised from the dead. I want firsthand documented evidence pal. The Bble, in Malachi says "I am the Lord, I change NOT." Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today and forever." Where are the literal miracles Steve? Hmm? There aren't any. The only REAL miracle is the reality BEHIND the allegory of "miracles." The miracle of a transformed mind and life.
  
  "The BIble can become silly puddy in the hands of an allegorist. The Bible can be made to say what ever the interpreter wants it to say."
  
  Not only CAN the Bible become a horrible weapon of torture and murder if taken literally, it HAS become just such a weapon MILLIONS of times in the hands of LITERLISTS! So kindly stop blathering about the dangers of allegory to me Stev, m'k? Plus, the fact there are over 30,000 Christian sects registered with the IRS, all of them disagreeing in doctrine, is proof aplenty that the h-g method also allows its users to make the bible say whatever they want. If you broadened your knowledge beyond your own denomination you might come to know that.
  
  Perhaps if you studied your own 'holy book' and became familiar with the way the bible writers use the bible you will snap out of it. I doubt it. Most fundies are too deeply hypnotized by literalism. You live in a fantasy world where magic happens. (Not really, you actually live in the REAL world, the ADULT world, the same as the rest of us, you simply are DELUSIONAL and therefore are beyond reasoning with. Hell, how can I reason with someone who insists on ignoring how the writers of his own holy book themselves interpreted their own book?)
  
  As for silly 'putty', I would say thats a damn good analogy for the fundy mind. You live in a silly world that takes an impression of the real world and stetches it into silliness. A world of make believe and magic. A world that can be stetched and played with all day long. Grow up, get real, build a bridge and get over it. M'k?
  
  As for your insulting of the allegorical method I take my stand with Jesus, the apostles, and the early church. Unlike YOU I interpet the bible BIBLICALLY! I do indeed pay very close attention to how Jesus, the apostles, and the early church interpret the bible.
  
  Thats enough. Dont bother me anymore with this childish nonsense until you've done your homework. You and all the other fundiots here. Click on my my profile and then click on my post topics. That will enable you to find my other posts on this subject. Good day to you. edited title ~ Scully
• 

  stev

  Nate

  This is a Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum, and not a Fundamentalist one. The Jehovah's Witness use to great excess the allegorical method that you are espousing. The JWs are not to be confused with the Fundamentalists, for they do not interpret the Bible the same way. Instead they spiritualize many prophecies and stories in the Bible and apply them to the organization, using "types and antitypes", or give it a meaning the original author or audience would not have understood. They spiritualize other scriptures as well. Since the average reader of the Bible would not be able to discern this spiritual meaning for himself/herself, the Watchtower organization justifies its authority to interpret the Bible. Rather than leading to spiritual maturity and independence, it is used to foster spiritual abuse and oppression. Instead of promoting the reading of the Bible and understanding the plain meaning of the text, the Watchtower promotes the reading of its own literature with its esoteric interpretations that could never be discerned without their help. You are attacking groups that are not relevant to the JWs, and at the same time promoting a method of enslavement and confusion from which others are trying to free themselves.
• 

  Nate Merit

  Listen kid, I was being oppressed by the WTBTS before you were even pooping your pants, so cork it. If you are going to post to me, do so in an intelligent manner. In this ridiculous 'response' of yours you have IGNORED EVERYTHING I wrote! You know why you ignore everything I said? Because you have no answer. Fundiots have no answers to intelligent questions, objections, obervations, facts. I will not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Like I said Stev, get an education then come back and bother me. My initial response to you already contains my answer to all of the drabble you're spouting below. Goodbye boy. If you decide to deal in an intelligent way, point by point, with my initial response to you, let me know via PM. Until then, 'go away kid ya bother me.' -w.c. fields

  IP: hfg5o73uKlCxnHgY
• 

  Nate Merit

  To one and all
  
  I am sincerely sorry for the tone and temper (not the content) of this post (and a couple of others) I made Friday, November 11, 2005. I could have communicated this message without the anger, impatience, and arrogance. All of us are under stress of one kind or another, and I gave in to it.
  
  Thanks for reading this.
  Nate
• 

  Forscher

  Hey there Nate!
  
  I haven't entered this debate because you have a point about the use that Paul and others used the scriptures. It doesn't mean that they didn't believe the stories to be true, they just simply lifted their citations out of context in a way that many today would consider dishonest. Since nobody today can credibly argue that they are inspired, some sort of objective standard has to be recognized or folks will go off in all sorts of bizzare directions of Biblical exegisis like liberal theologians do when they try to impose materialistic philosophy on the scriptures. The historical-grammatical method has its weaknesses, but it does impose a certain discipline on the subject.
  
  
  Forscher
• 

  stev

  The historical-grammatical method and the allegorical method are not necessarily contradictory or mutually exclusive. There are interpreters that have used both. In the Middle Ages, it was common to interpret the Bible in multiple senses. The proposition that either the historical-grammatical method is valid or the allegorical method is valid, is a false dilemma. Both could be valid. Proving one valid does not prove the other invalid. It is certainly possible that there are even more methods that are also valid, so these are not necessarily the only alternatives.
  Jesus interpreted his own parables as allegories, and the miracles of the Gospel of John were certainly intended to have a symbolic meaning. But assuming that Jesus and the apostles used the allegorical method, this would not prove its universal and exclusive use. In order to establish their use of allegorical method, the H-G method is used to interpret the OT passages to compare with their use, so the H-G method is already presupposed. Jesus and the apostles were already familiar with the text, unlike present-day first-time readers. Those reading the Bible for the first time would not know yet how they used the Bible, so their example would be as yet of little use to them. Not everyone would accept that Jesus and the apostles were necessarily authorities or experts themselves in interpreting the Bible, and could be mistaken, so they would not necessarily accept them as examples to follow. The H-G method, reading as the author and audience would have understood it, is a good way to start, but not necessarily the only way to understand the Bible.
  The H-G method is not the unique province of Fundamentalists. Many in the past who practiced it were Rationalists, who wished to read the Bible like they would any other book. The H-G method can also be used to extreme by an overliteralism. Certainly the Bible contains symbols, images, figures, types, allegories. It is true that those that used the H-G method have used it for harm to others, and though regrettable, it is not unique to this method. The allegorical method can be overused and abused also. It has been used to justify power, to justify propaganda, and to justify harmful notions by citing the Bible as an authority. It needs to be used with caution, and the views promoted examined on its own merits.

  Steve
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hello Forscher
  
  I must respectfully (and I mean respectfully) disagree, because this is an assumption that the OT writers and compilers in fact understood themselves to be writing actual literal history in the objective modern sense. I have founf much evidence to the contrary. The ancients Semites were very much unlike us in their presuppositions and aims in writing.
  
  I also still not the complte, utter, and total absense of the h-g method from the words of Jesus, the way ALL of the NT writers used the OT in EVERY case, and absence of the h-g method from the early church. As well as its absence in the understanding and aims of the those who penned the OT, mentioned in first paragraph.
  
  There's no problem with the allegorical method, the method used by Jesus, the NT writers, and the early church. The problem lies with gullibe folks who do not use their critical thinking faculties and believe fantastic claims such as the WTBTS and the Catholic Church, among others.
  
  There is much more danger of a mucg more grave nature in using the bible in the h-g way. History is replete with examples. I prefer to let Jewish Midrash and the example of the NT writers be my guide. I follow no one and nothing slavishly though.
  
  I must bid you adieu.
  Nate
• 

  Narkissos

  I didn't notice this thread and replied to stev in the wrong place:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/101056/1755973/post.ashx#1755973

  Perhaps one part of the problem is too loose a definition of allegorical method.

  If we abide by a stricter definition of allegory (such as exemplified by Philo), implying term to term correspondence of characters and events in a narrative with timeless moral or spiritual qualities, very few passages of the NT actually match. Even the allègoroumena of Galatians 4:24 are more typological than allegorical -- they point to (allegedly) historical "covenants" rather than timeless qualities. The synoptic treatment of the parables (this means this, that means that) is perhaps closer -- but the basis is a parable, not an apparently historical narrative. The book of Hebrews also is close to Alexandrine allegory but the overall pattern is rather a reversed typology in the Platonic mood -- the temple and its sacrifices are a shadow of eternal or heavenly realities.

  I guess the NT treatment of the OT is more complex. It has certainly little to do with the modern HG method. There is a lot of typology and midrash which can compare to everything from the Qumran pesher (the authoritative and arbitrary "this -- in the story -- means that -- in current events") to the Talmudic haggadah (didactic and inspirational tales).

  The question of how did the ancients read is a very important yet difficult one (cf. the classic study by Paul Veyne, Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leurs mythes? -- "Did the Greek believe in their myths?") and allows for social and educational distinctions: what was accepted at face value on a popular level was certainly received differently by the educated few.
• 

  stev

  Narkissos

  Thanks for your reply here to my post.

  The expression "allegorical method" is imprecise. Probably the H-G method would explain it as finding a spiritual, additional meaning other than what was intended. The H-G method would distinguish between interpreting an allegorical text intended as allegory (which, although figurative, would be the "literal" sense), and an arbitrary allegorizing of a text not intended as allegory.

  The word "allegory" is imprecise. The problem could be that of dividing literature into either allegorical or nonallegorical, when actually it is more of a continuum. This is suggested by Northrup Frye in his "Anatomy of Criticism", pp. 89-92. On one end of the continuum is the continuous allegory, such as Pilgrim's Progress, where every detail has a symbolic meaning. Frye places various types of literature along the continuum, such as the free-style allegory, Milton's epics, Shakespeare, metaphysical poetry, a central emblematic image in a work such as the Melville's "white whale", and then finally the other side of continuum with realistic reportage with minimal symbolism.

  Frye also mentions that there are indirect techniques such as "symbolism not intended to be fully understood." C. S. Lewis said that "every metaphor is an allegory in little."

  The H-G method might not be complex enough to handle all the types of literature along the continuum. Most likely much of the Bible does have more than one sense. Frye in his books on the Bible, explains how archetypes are repeated throughout the Bible. Some of these archetypes and literary patterns could be found in the text, whether the writer intended it or not, so that there could be several layers of meaning. Some literary criticism of the Bible gives complex chiasmic structures. I wonder whether the writer intended the structure or not. Some claim that is how the ancient writer structured his text. I don't know. There are also many passages that could have been intended to be ambiguous, and suggestive, lending an air of mystery and paradox, so that it is not clear whether there is another meaning or not.

  Flexibility needs to be exercised, and hard-fast rules should be avoided.

  Steve
• 

  Shining One

  Hey Nate,
  I have run met only one bugger as arrogant as you, a fellow who calls himself Alan F. He got booted from here for his arrogance and you show up a couple months later spouting his style of arrogant assertions. Hmmmmmmm?
  Rex