Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.
I think my original point still stands.
Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.
Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.
I think my original point still stands.
Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.
Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.
Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.
Nothing is "normal".
Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things. The Bible has to many nuances to just use this "normal" method of of interpretation.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.
I think my original point still stands.
Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.
Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.
Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.
Nothing is "normal".
Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things.
Daniel,
That's the way it is named. It is what it is. It doesn't mean other interpretations are abnormal. It's just the name given to the method of interpretation.
Read this part if the link, if you don't want to read the whole link. It explains it:
The word literal is avoided here since it often leads to wrong ideas that must be later corrected. Rather, I am using the terms plain or normal to express the proper method of interpretation. By plain or normal we mean the words of Scripture are to be understood in their normal meaning just as we normally understand words in our normal, everyday communication. When we read the newspaper or a recipe in a cookbook, how do we read those words? We understand them according to their literal or normal meaning. If the recipe says two cups of flower, you don’t symbolize that to mean, a great quantity to be chosen at your discretion. If, however, it calls for a pinch of salt, you understand it to be somewhat symbolical of a very small amount.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.
I think my original point still stands.
Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.
Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.
Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.
Nothing is "normal".
Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things.
Daniel,
That's the way it is named. It is what it is. It doesn't mean other interpretations are abnormal. It's just the name given to the method of interpretation.
Read this part if the link, if you don't want to read the whole link. It explains it:
The word literal is avoided here since it often leads to wrong ideas that must be later corrected. Rather, I am using the terms plain or normal to express the proper method of interpretation. By plain or normal we mean the words of Scripture are to be understood in their normal meaning just as we normally understand words in our normal, everyday communication. When we read the newspaper or a recipe in a cookbook, how do we read those words? We understand them according to their literal or normal meaning. If the recipe says two cups of flower, you don’t symbolize that to mean, a great quantity to be chosen at your discretion. If, however, it calls for a pinch of salt, you understand it to be somewhat symbolical of a very small amount.
Yea yea I get it already, jeepers Rick.
I am just saying I reject FL'S use of this method of interpretation because there are too many nuances in the text to use this normal method, there is much more deeper meanings within the Bible and this has been recognised and studied by loads of Christians and Jews, even the early Church fathers saw this. FL can say they are wrong, I don't give a damn what he thinks, I care what about what God reveals to me, he can continue with his normal interpretation until the cows come to pasture.
The Bible is anything but normal and a plain reading is just stupid, especially in light of the original language and other contextual issues (even the quasi author (God)), a normal interpertation reading is not impossible...........................
So really it shouldn't be called a normal interpretation, it should be called the idiot interpretation because it is interpreting something that is far removed from normality.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.
I think my original point still stands.
Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.
Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.
Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.
Nothing is "normal".
Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things.
Daniel,
That's the way it is named. It is what it is. It doesn't mean other interpretations are abnormal. It's just the name given to the method of interpretation.
Read this part if the link, if you don't want to read the whole link. It explains it:
The word literal is avoided here since it often leads to wrong ideas that must be later corrected. Rather, I am using the terms plain or normal to express the proper method of interpretation. By plain or normal we mean the words of Scripture are to be understood in their normal meaning just as we normally understand words in our normal, everyday communication. When we read the newspaper or a recipe in a cookbook, how do we read those words? We understand them according to their literal or normal meaning. If the recipe says two cups of flower, you don’t symbolize that to mean, a great quantity to be chosen at your discretion. If, however, it calls for a pinch of salt, you understand it to be somewhat symbolical of a very small amount.
Haha I can't take this seriously
Two cups of flower? I symbolise that to mean some daffodils in my cake recipe.
Flour maybe?
Pretty funny considering it is talking about the correct or 'normal' use and interpretation of language.
Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.
I think my original point still stands.
Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.
Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.
Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.
Nothing is "normal".
Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things.
Daniel,
That's the way it is named. It is what it is. It doesn't mean other interpretations are abnormal. It's just the name given to the method of interpretation.
Read this part if the link, if you don't want to read the whole link. It explains it:
The word literal is avoided here since it often leads to wrong ideas that must be later corrected. Rather, I am using the terms plain or normal to express the proper method of interpretation. By plain or normal we mean the words of Scripture are to be understood in their normal meaning just as we normally understand words in our normal, everyday communication. When we read the newspaper or a recipe in a cookbook, how do we read those words? We understand them according to their literal or normal meaning. If the recipe says two cups of flower, you don’t symbolize that to mean, a great quantity to be chosen at your discretion. If, however, it calls for a pinch of salt, you understand it to be somewhat symbolical of a very small amount.
Haha I can't take this seriously
Two cups of flower? I symbolise that to mean some daffodils in my cake recipe.
Flour maybe?
Pretty funny considering it is talking about the correct or 'normal' use and interpretation of language.
Good catch Mel!
I completely missed that!
I'd like to see that cookbook.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.
I think my original point still stands.
Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.
Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.
Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.
Nothing is "normal".
Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things.
Daniel,
That's the way it is named. It is what it is. It doesn't mean other interpretations are abnormal. It's just the name given to the method of interpretation.
Read this part if the link, if you don't want to read the whole link. It explains it:
The word literal is avoided here since it often leads to wrong ideas that must be later corrected. Rather, I am using the terms plain or normal to express the proper method of interpretation. By plain or normal we mean the words of Scripture are to be understood in their normal meaning just as we normally understand words in our normal, everyday communication. When we read the newspaper or a recipe in a cookbook, how do we read those words? We understand them according to their literal or normal meaning. If the recipe says two cups of flower, you don’t symbolize that to mean, a great quantity to be chosen at your discretion. If, however, it calls for a pinch of salt, you understand it to be somewhat symbolical of a very small amount.
Haha I can't take this seriously
Two cups of flower? I symbolise that to mean some daffodils in my cake recipe.
Flour maybe?
Pretty funny considering it is talking about the correct or 'normal' use and interpretation of language.
You didn't read what I wrote did you, I said interpreting scripture is not the same as reading a recipe or newspaper, they are not analogous, so you cannot apply the same method of interpretation.
You know it's pretty insulting to say you can't take someone seriously when you didn't even bother to read what I wrote.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
melanie wrote:I'm confused,
I think perhaps you didn't read what I wrote Dan
Ahh yes you're right my apologies.
I did read it, just misunderstood it.
Last edited by Danieltwotwenty on Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Daniel wrote:
You didn't read what I wrote did you, I said interpreting scripture is not the same as reading a recipe or newspaper, they are not analogous, so you cannot apply the same method of interpretation.
You know it's pretty insulting to say you can't take someone seriously when you didn't even bother to read what I wrote.
Daniel,
Are you feeling ok?
First you jumped to conclusions on what you thought FL was saying, and you unnecessarily went off on him.
And then you just completely misread what Mel was talking about. She was talking about not taking the article I posted seriously, because they put "flower" instead of "flour".
You really need to step back, calm down, stop accusing people, and give others the benefit of the doubt if you don't understand something someone is saying.
It's really becoming an issue with your posts lately.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
melanie wrote:I'm confused,
I think perhaps you didn't read what I wrote Dan
Ahh yes your right my apologies.
I did read it, just misunderstood it.
All good Dan
Happens to the best of us
You know what it does give new meaning to John 21:17
The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.
No wonder Peter didn't understand him, he was using "normal" interpretation.
Last edited by Danieltwotwenty on Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Daniel wrote:
You didn't read what I wrote did you, I said interpreting scripture is not the same as reading a recipe or newspaper, they are not analogous, so you cannot apply the same method of interpretation.
You know it's pretty insulting to say you can't take someone seriously when you didn't even bother to read what I wrote.
Daniel,
Are you feeling ok?
First you jumped to conclusions on what you thought FL was saying, and you unnecessarily went off on him.
And then you just completely misread what Mel was talking about. She was talking about not taking the article I posted seriously, because they put "flower" instead of "flour".
You really need to step back, calm down, stop accusing people, and give others the benefit of the doubt if you don't understand something someone is saying.
It's really becoming an issue with your posts lately.
What are you talking about, I never went off on FL, trying to understand him is bloody hard at the best of times, he never explains himself in a manner that is easily understandable..............................
I actually thought Melanie was mocking me, I admitted my mistake.
How about you stop reading something in when it isn't there.
Maybe if people like yourself, Phillip & FL were not so rude all the time, people might be a little less defensive.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
The normal method of biblical interpretation, also known as the literal-historical method, allows for poetry, for idiomatic expressions, for figurative language and such, and seeks to understand the literal meaning behind the literary construct. The allegorical, the mystical and other fruitcake methods of interpretation create confusion by spiritualizing the meaning. Adherents of these methods must confront a plasticity of meaning that ends up being meaningless. In plain language: it's just a bunch of BS and adherents don't know what theiy're talking about, and don't know that they don't know. The Bereans were certainly not allegorical/mystical interpreters because they "...examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." They consulted the Scriptures themselves and verified that they were being taught the truth. The only way they could understand the Scriptures was to interpret them literally. Any other form of interpretation requires some sort of twisted Template that says This=That...or a guru.
I don't think it is so nice and neat since one must first decides what IS the literary genre, lets us not forget that Augustine believed Genesis to be allegory.
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.
I think my original point still stands.
I hope you are kidding.
That is like someone saying that because they don't agree with the term "deviant" because it may have negative connotations.
I word is what it is, its definition is what it is and the name given to something, in this case the "normal method" is the name.
Agreement is irrelevant.
