Evidence for God from Science

Question: "What is good Biblical exegesis?"

Answer: Exegesis means “exposition or explanation.” Biblical exegesis involves the examination of a particular text of scripture in order to properly interpret it. Exegesis is a part of the process of hermeneutics, the science of interpretation. A person who practices exegesis is called an exegete.

Good biblical exegesis is actually commanded in scripture. “Study [be diligent] to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). According to this verse, we must handle the Word of God properly, through diligent study. If we don’t, we have reason to be ashamed.

There are some basic principles of good exegesis which serious students of the Bible will follow:

1. The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.

Usually, the exegete starts his examination of a passage by defining the words in it. Definitions are basic to understanding the passage as a whole, and it is important that the words be defined according to their original intent and not according to modern usage. To ensure accuracy, the exegete uses a precise English translation and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

Next, the exegete examines the syntax, or the grammatical relationships of the words in the passage. He finds parallels, he determines which ideas are primary and which are subordinate, and he discovers actions, subjects, and their modifiers. He may even diagram a verse or two.

2. The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.

So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.

3. The Historical Principle. As time passes, culture changes, points of view change, language changes. We must guard against interpreting scripture according to how our culture views things; we must always place scripture in its historical context.

The diligent Bible student will consider the geography, the customs, the current events, and even the politics of the time when a passage was written. An understanding of ancient Jewish culture can greatly aid an understanding of scripture. To do his research, the exegete will use Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and books on history.

4. The Synthesis Principle. The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.

5. The Practical Principle. Once we’ve properly examined the passage to understand its meaning, we have the responsibility to apply it to our own lives. To “rightly divide the word of truth” is more than an intellectual exercise; it is a life-changing event.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

This seems to be a decent description of how proper Exegesis is to be excercised in order to convey understanding. I wish to gain understanding by excercising this form of research. Look at everything from a number of possible vantage points and then decide what makes the best sense.

KBCid wrote: I am doing my very best to not misrepresent anyone so by defining in words how we understand something it becomes easier for each of us to avoid talking past each other in meanings. Now the way you have reworded it leads me to the conclusion that our input is required as a means to prevent the loss of salvation which is inline with my understanding that we can't by works gain salvation but that we can by works lose it. If this is incorrect pls. see if there is a further revision that can convey your position better.

I believe that salvation would be an input in a sense that it would require repenting and obeying in faith as recorded in the Bible.. In that sense salvation is conditional. However, the next question would be if this is the case, to prevent the loss of salvation, do we always obey and repent to our Lord? Given the human condition of sin nature I would say no, therefore there are going to be cases, if not numerous cases where we have to rely on His GRACE. That I think is the point here, relying on His grace. But not use it as fire insurance to sin either..

But here is another question... Instead of turning everything we do as to salvation or not, why can't we simply do it unto faith? As I study this more, I'm actually finding that our mindset is often geared unto a greek way of doing things.. We always want to know the "why's" and "evidence" of our faith. The Hebrew mindset I'm finding is more done unto faith, that is, I may do something in faith in Christ, but I may not always know the outcome of that faith OR if it is salvational faith or not.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Otherwise we put ourselves into an ever questioning stooper... Salvation yes, salvation no.. Can we honestly know every time?

KBCid wrote:This is definitely a sticky point for any believer to discuss because it addresses the possible exitence of requirements beyond a simple belief having an effect on salvation. So if you feel that our input in the process only deals with additional rewards beyond salvation then in fact your position would have to be position 1 because in position one nothing beyond belief alone without any action on the part of the believer is sufficient to receive the free gift of salvation 'and' once saved always saved since there would be no dependancy on our actions. For me this point is absolutely black and white.
Actions count or actions don't, it is impossible to have both an irresistable force and a immovable object at the same time within reality.

KBCid, I think actions DO count, but I don't always think that we are going to know if those actions are solid in G-d or not... Again, I would say that G-d is going to be the ultimate judge of that, not exactly me. But I would think too that G-d would correct us in our paths in Him as well.. Just not every time we do something. I don't know if G-d would be a micro-manager in that sense.. I think He let's us take a fall here and there (in our disobedience) so that we learn our lessons and take them to heart in obedience..

KBCid wrote:2. The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.

The problem with this is "literal" can't be defined. Trust me, I've debated this in the past and humbly admitted defeat.

Language is not literal by nature, but includes figures of speech, language nuances and cultural understanding (subjectiveness). A literal understanding may not be the literal meaning of the words, which may not be the literal meaning the author is trying to convey, or the literal meaning as understood by others of the time.

Let's take "Promised Land". This is devoid of meaning in and of itself. For, who is making the promise? Are they owners that they can give land? What does land mean? Does "land" mean everything on it, the actual dirt, the surface, a designated location? Is ownership being transferred, or is some sort of royalty necessary? Who is the receiver?

A literal understanding of "Promised Land" doesn't give us much information at all. Certainly, it doesn't "convey a literal land given to Israel". No, we understand more fully what it means based on reading surrounding words, understanding the story of Moses and how he led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt... how they wandered in the wilderness before finally settling in a land of their own which God had promised their forefather.

Context perhaps provides a "literal" understanding... and yet if context is required to understand what is literally meant by a "literal meaning" than is such really understanding what is literal? Perhaps one is literally understanding the words when context is given, but then the literal words no longer carry their literal meaning but the meaning one subjectively understands of the whole. This could literally be different from what the author intended, or what Israel at the time would have literally understood. Can one even say that the English is literally the same as the Greek or Hebrew? So already, the literal meaning, if we could get at what "literal" even means, is already starting to get lost in translation.

Confused? Then it is never good to invoke "literal" for justification. Such really just means "as I understand the obvious meaning to be." But, to someone else what you understand as obvious may not be obvious to them. We all bring different lenses to the table with which we see the world through. Interpreting Scripture is no different. Rather, it is best to simply provide understanding of your interpretation through explaining your process of exegesis and how you arrived at what you believe to be the case.

KBCid wrote:If you don't like my method of questioning then I wil stop posting my Christianity questions in this forum and seek a different avenue to get the answers I seek.

KBC, if you cross the line a mod will let you know. Until then you can post whatever you wish in any subject you choose.

KBCid wrote:This seems to be a decent description of how proper Exegesis is to be excercised in order to convey understanding. I wish to gain understanding by excercising this form of research. Look at everything from a number of possible vantage points and then decide what makes the best sense.

Just to be candid, I don't see you practicing this. FWIW, I agree that until shown otherwise the grammatical historical method is sound footing by which to handle the scriptures. This simply says, what did this literally mean to the original audience. But this also takes into consideration that progessive revelation may help us unpack previous revelation. Isaiah 53 for example.
But see K, this is not what you are doing. You aren't presenting a scripture and then asking, what did this mean to the original audience, are we to apply it today and is there any progressive revelation that might help us unpack this further. You start with a conclusion and then you start prooftexting verses to defend your conclusion. I've already given you an example of this when you said,

Here is an admonishment by Christ that seems to clearly state that we are required to do something

That is called question begging, because you have already assumed an answer in your statement. It isn't a question. It isn't asking if 'we' are the intended audience. You aren't asking, 'is this a verse to be applied as it relates to personal regeneration or loss of salvation?' You already have conclusions here and you are making a case, not seeking answers. If you expect me to believe otherwise, then you should change your whole M.O.
Instead of acknowledging this, you present a 'take your ball and go home' attitude, which only confirms the pride issue I mentioned earlier. I thought about this before I wrote, and I want you to understand that I'm not trying to punk you out, but I genuinely want you to see the error. As far as not being able to change anyone's mind. Hogwash. We just saw a brother make a humble repentance regarding abortion. As many of the mods here can tell you, I have had my mind changed on a number of issues. In fact, when I joined this forum I was a mild Lordship salvation proponent as well, and have come solidly into the Free Grace camp. So, that argument doesn't hold water. No question you have a brilliant mind, as I've thoroughly enjoyed your contributions, and your eye to look at biology through the lens of an engineer.

KBC wrote:

First I will restate the common foundation to ensure we continue to agree;

The free gift of salvation is given upon the acceptance by the believer in Christ as the only one who can save them from their initial unsaved state. Once a believer accepts Christ in this regard then all past sins are forgiven and there is nothing that the believer can do past the instant point of being saved to change their saved status.

KBC, I agree. I'd only add my belief that once one accepts Christ's sacrifice for sin as the basis for salvation, ALL sins are forgiven. Past, present, AND future sins. One doesn't need to continually ask for God's forgiveness after every sin, in order to keep from losing one's salvation.

KBC wrote:
If no actions past the point of becoming a believer has any affect on the instant salvation given then why are there scriptures indicating that some actions are still required as stated by both Christ and the apostles?

Showing how one should live as a believer, is not the same as showing one how to be a believer by living a certain way.

If no actions on our part have any affect on salvation then wouldn't these verses be a waste of time to voice or write?

See above.

Christ has stated that we should love our neighbor even as he has loved us. So what happens if we don't perform this action?

We listen to the HS when He shows us our error. And we grow as a believer. I still look back at the many times I've failed in the past. Some of those failings have a huge impact on who I am now. And when I fail again, hopefully I will learn from my mistakes.

If we see someone in need and choose not to help and persistently choose not to according to the intent meant this will have no bearing on the salvation given when we first accepted Christ?

What makes you think that one who is a believer with the indwelling HS, would persistently continue to intentionally not help their neighbor when led by the HS to help?

Can we go to our grave persisting in actions that are clearly wrong without any care for the status of our salvation?

KBC, I would guess many believers live their lives with the burden of worrying about losing their salvation. Instead of living as one already approved by God through faith in Christ.

Rick, that reminds me of a personal testimony shared at my men's group.

One of our brothers has a couple of golfing buddies. One is a 'christian,' the other an atheist. However they never knew the one was an atheist. Nice guy, give you the shirt off his back. Kind, charitable, etc. The three were talking, the other two stunned to find out their buddy was an atheist. My friend asks, 'I never would have known, you are such a great guy. What motivates you to do good?' He answers, 'because it's the right thing to do.' The atheist ask the other friend, why do you? He answers, "because I don't want God to punish me."
How sad is that? The so called Christian doesn't even get it.

K asked

If we see someone in need and choose not to help and persistently choose not to according to the intent meant this will have no bearing on the salvation given when we first accepted Christ?

What is salvation and what is it from?
Many if not most people who claim Christ, RCC, protestants, calvinists, arminians, etc. persistently choose not. They live in a shell, oblivious to the harsh realities in the world and even in their own back yard. Since I chair the board and work on the front lines of a local, missional ministry, I can confidently make these claims. Does the Gospel need to be preached in your local area? Yep. Do you persistently answer this call, or spend more time on the internet, wathcing TV, or on other things?
In that same line, sometimes we will have people come to volunteer in our minsitry. They've got some guilt to assuage. They are here a minute and gone the next. They want a check mark. And then there are those who are called. You know there motives are pure, and their service is a blessing. Their heart beats in unison with your own, because it is His heartbeat.
Who is able to obey God? The one "In Christ"who knows there is no condemnation, can reckon themselves dead to the flesh, cannot be seperated, is alive to God, sanctified, reconciled, justified, free? Or, the person who is constantly looking over their shoulder to see if those things could be snatched away? Always trying to negotiate that what they are doing is enough to get them into heaven. Is it really that hard to figure out.

KBCid wrote:If you don't like my method of questioning then I wil stop posting my Christianity questions in this forum and seek a different avenue to get the answers I seek.

Byblos wrote:KBC, if you cross the line a mod will let you know. Until then you can post whatever you wish in any subject you choose.

If you were my concience sir then indeed I would continue as I desire.

KBCid wrote:This seems to be a decent description of how proper Exegesis is to be excercised in order to convey understanding. I wish to gain understanding by excercising this form of research. Look at everything from a number of possible vantage points and then decide what makes the best sense.

jlay wrote:Just to be candid, I don't see you practicing this.

then you perceive my intent as deception.

jlay wrote:But see K, this is not what you are doing. You aren't presenting a scripture and then asking, what did this mean to the original audience...

That would be because such a question would involve me believing that someone alive today would know the exact truth of the meaning of those words from that time. It has absolutely been pointed out by me that there are a variety of Christians who don't have the same interpretation on these points thus it is clear there is not a definitive method to define original intent. I could have asked each of the other peoples from each of the other religions and each would define their perception of the original meaning quite differently. This is why I have sought to get the rationale that others have used to form their conclusion about biblical passages.

jlay wrote:you present a 'take your ball and go home' attitude, which only confirms the pride issue I mentioned earlier.

It is unfortunate that you perceive me in this way. You see pride trying to prove itself and this is offensive. My intent was to test my conclusions not to pridefully prove them true and I obviously have failed to convey that position. I am sorry to have offended.

Gman wrote:I believe that salvation would be an input in a sense that it would require repenting and obeying in faith as recorded in the Bible.

Gman wrote:KBCid, I think actions DO count, but I don't always think that we are going to know if those actions are solid in G-d or not... Again, I would say that G-d is going to be the ultimate judge of that, not exactly me. But I would think too that G-d would correct us in our paths in Him as well.. Just not every time we do something. I don't know if G-d would be a micro-manager in that sense.. I think He let's us take a fall here and there (in our disobedience) so that we learn our lessons and take them to heart in obedience..

You make me smile every time G. You make me wish I was a better conveyor of english than mechanics.

God bless your path G

KBCid, most definitely, do not be intimidated by anyone here. You're doing great, keep up the good work. Keep asking those valid questions, concerning certain verses about obedience, that need to be asked and answered. You are like a light in a dark forest. You acknowledge what your eyes see in the Bible, and you seem to want to respect and value every verse. You and I (maybe Gman is with us) seem to be the only people on this forum willing to take seriously ALL SCRIPTURES, not just some preselected, easy ones. The verse, "Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD OF GOD" is a verse certain people seem to insist on ignoring (Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3).

Wolfgang wrote:KBCid, most definitely, do not be intimidated by anyone here. You're doing great, keep up the good work. Keep asking those valid questions, concerning certain verses about obedience, that need to be asked and answered. You are like a light in a dark forest. You acknowledge what your eyes see in the Bible. You and I (maybe Gman is with us) seem to be the only people on this forum willing to take seriously ALL SCRIPTURES, not just some preselected, easy ones. The verse, "Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD OF GOD" is a verse certain people seem to insist on ignoring (Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3).

So Wolfgang, because someone disagrees with your interpretation of certain verses that you use out of context, that means they don't believe all of scripture?
Be careful. You are walking a very fine line.

RickD, let me put it another way. It seems that some people like using one or several verses as valid proof of a certain interpretation, and those people assume (quite understandably) that those verses are complete as far as God's instructions for salvation are concerned. "Here a little, there a little," though, and not understanding/applying the entire Bible, can sometimes be a snare, as Isaiah 28:12,13 shows. For example, you probably do not think much of Jude 1:22,23, instructing us to try to "snatch some from the fire," but I take it seriously, and literally. Many Christians believe that the word "some" in that verse also applies to other Christians, not just the unconverted.

Wolfgang wrote:KBCid, most definitely, do not be intimidated by anyone here. You're doing great, keep up the good work. Keep asking those valid questions, concerning certain verses about obedience, that need to be asked and answered.

Wolf as intensly interested as I am in exploring my current understanding I am tempered by an even greater desire not to be offensive to those I interact with. I do appreciate the feeling you express towards me but you should take care that your expression is not deemed to be offensive by others in that it may be considered to be an affirmation that my understanding is the correct one in contrast to others in this forum. This is not the position I am trying to put out to others here. Each of the beings here have their own unique understandings and we must respect that fact whether they are right or wrong. I have enjoyed my exploration of this subject as long as there was no hostility entering into the discussion. When this changed then my desire to explore also changed. Learning about God to me should be a joyful exchange for everyone and I do not find joy in knowing that my exchange is perceived as offensive to anyone.
I have sent you a private message. Please take a moment and reply to me there.

Thankyou all for your input towards me in these threads dealing with salvation and mosaic laws and If any of you are so inclined to further discuss this topic with me I can always be reached through my email. kbcdrawing@hotmail.com

Good luck and may God guide us all into his truth