“It means what it says and says what it means”, is a nifty pat answer – and it’s right up there with “The Bible interprets itself”. But there’s a subtle fallacy here – it’s an assumption the Bible is a living sentient being. What’s the diff? let’s substitute “boss” for “the Bible” in a workplace scenario:
Administrative assistant: Our boss means what she says and says what she means. She said there’s no smoking in the office – and that means there’s no smoking in the office. Dang it, T-Bone – take that cig outside!
T-Bone: But I’m not smoking – I’m vaping.
Administrative assistant:grrrrrrr…(emails boss T-Bone is smoking in the office. I reminded him of your no smoking policy – and he said he’s not smoking, he’s vaping)
Boss: (steps out of her office) T-Bone, what are you doing?
T-Bone: I’m vaping.
Boss:That’s the same as smoking to me. You can vape in the parking garage.
T-Bone: Understood (stands and starts to walk away from desk)
Boss: you can vape on your break – so get back to work on your TPS report.
T-Bone: will do.
~ ~ ~ ~
As human beings we usually speak with intent to convey a certain meaning. When someone asks for clarification about something we’ve said, it is common courtesy to explain ourselves further. We can’t do that with the Bible – because the authors are long gone! There is an art and a science to hermeneutics – but given the huge temporal, geographical, cultural gaps – at best we can try to understand what the authors had in mind…that doesn’t mean we will always be able to.
Besides wierwille having zilch hermeneutical skills, what was passed off as divine illumination was simply his “signature intuition” – which was nothing more than what he felt a passage meant. And I term it “wierwille’ssignature intuition” because in TWI-culture an explanation or interpretation was not considered acceptable unless wierwille signed off on it – in other words it came from him so it was approved by him.
Signature intuition refers to what wierwille felt was true regardless of what a passage might really mean; though incompetent with the biblical languages and having a penchant for plagiarism and logical fallacies he was able to cobble together something he was proud of; Signature intuition is wierwille's unique sixth sense of nonsense to divine Scripture, so it always suited his lifestyle - and the devil be damned!It seemed to me wierwille was usually flying by the seat of his pants – using his own initiative and “perceptions” and during live teachings he frequently strayed from the very interpretative keys he taught in PFAL. I think he lacked the discipline, wisdom, experience and honesty of a seasoned researcher and so relied more on intuition to pull off his act. He would often play his trump card “Father revealed it to me”
As far as hermeneutics goes - real Bible scholars focus on trying to properly understand the Scriptures through the context, biblical languages, cultural context, historical context, the systematic study of the texts, and plain logic – it really is a discipline, a science and an art – if any intuition is involved it's in gaining a feel for the significance to ascribe to certain data and where more attention would prove to be most beneficial.
Intuition is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, I believe our intuition should be integral with our more analytical study of the Scriptures...But it’s important to realize that it’s not perfect and it can be misinterpreted or even compromised by a seared conscience…
and there’s also something else to consider – the doctrine of illumination.
InAn Old Testament Theologythe authors discuss the method of sacred hermeneutics, on page 79ff, they say:
The inherent nature of any object to be studied dictates the best method for elucidating its properties…To study the stars, one must first gaze up at them to recognize their nature before crafting a telescope, not a microscope, to see them better…
…The well-known text “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16 KJV) implies that we recognize three inherent qualities of the biblical text. Each quality demands that we fashion a proper instrument (i.e., method) for understanding it. “Of God,” a genitive of authorship, names God as the Author; “inspiration” implies a human author; and “Scripture” denotes a text. All three demand an appropriate approach, and these three approaches must be practiced at one and the same time because the Bible is a unity that is formed by all three. The first two qualities demand a spiritual commitment on the part of the interpreter, and the third paradoxically calls for his or her approaching the text with the detached objectivity of a scientist.
Immanuel Kant and Paul Ricoeur make a fundamental distinction between “explanation” and “understanding.” In truth, however, one cannot understand without explanation, and our explanations depend on our prior understanding of reality. As Gerard Manley Hopkins, one of the great poets of the Victorian era, expresses it: “our inscape determines the way we view the landscape.”
…inscape…the presuppositions we bring to the task…the perspective and presuppositions with which the interpreter approaches the text…
…The doctrine of illumination demands that Scripture be read in a spirit that is harmonious with God’s Spirit…We cannot make God talk through the scientific method (cf. Matt. 11: 25-27Matthew 16: 13-17; Luke 24: 27, 45; John 5:45-47* ) To correlate Word and Spirit with human spirit, we need humility, wholehearted devotion, prayer, meditation, and contemplation.”
*Note as a convenience, I have inserted hyperlinks to the passages that the authors cited - as these were not in the text I quoted from the hardback edition I have at home.
~ ~ ~ ~
Additional note: I recently got into divine illumination on another thread -here
Edited by T-Bone Typos that correct themselves - now that's an idea !
Besides wierwille having zilch hermeneutical skills, what was passed off as divine illumination was simply his “signature intuition” – which was nothing more than what he felt a passage meant. And I term it “wierwille’ssignature intuition” because in TWI-culture an explanation or interpretation was not considered acceptable unless wierwille signed off on it – in other words it came from him so it was approved by him.
Signature intuition refers to what wierwille felt was true regardless of what a passage might really mean; though incompetent with the biblical languages and having a penchant for plagiarism and logical fallacies he was able to cobble together something he was proud of; Signature intuition is wierwille's unique sixth sense of nonsense to divine Scripture, so it always suited his lifestyle
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
12
58
12
Popular Days
May 2
25
May 16
14
May 11
14
May 13
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 9 posts
waysider 12 posts
Bolshevik 58 posts
Nathan_Jr 12 posts
Popular Days
May 2 2022
25 posts
May 16 2022
14 posts
May 11 2022
14 posts
May 13 2022
14 posts
Popular Posts
Nathan_Jr
Not only does scripture interpret itself, it writes itself and reads itself. Similarly, poetry interprets itself, writes itself and reads itself. Or, art interprets itself, paints itself, views i
Bolshevik
"Scripture Interprets Itself" - I don't know what this means. If I need something interpreted, it's because it's written in a language I don't understand. Or written in code. Soooo . . . . t
T-Bone
“Scripture interprets itself” is nonsensical – it implies no other agency is needed. Consider some definitions from the internet for interpret, translate and interpreter: Interpret: ex
Posted Images
T-Bone
“It means what it says and says what it means”, is a nifty pat answer – and it’s right up there with “The Bible interprets itself”. But there’s a subtle fallacy here – it’s an assumption the Bible is a living sentient being. What’s the diff? let’s substitute “boss” for “the Bible” in a workplace scenario:
Administrative assistant: Our boss means what she says and says what she means. She said there’s no smoking in the office – and that means there’s no smoking in the office. Dang it, T-Bone – take that cig outside!
T-Bone: But I’m not smoking – I’m vaping.
Administrative assistant: grrrrrrr…(emails boss T-Bone is smoking in the office. I reminded him of your no smoking policy – and he said he’s not smoking, he’s vaping)
Boss: (steps out of her office) T-Bone, what are you doing?
T-Bone: I’m vaping.
Boss: That’s the same as smoking to me. You can vape in the parking garage.
T-Bone: Understood (stands and starts to walk away from desk)
Boss: you can vape on your break – so get back to work on your TPS report.
T-Bone: will do.
~ ~ ~ ~
As human beings we usually speak with intent to convey a certain meaning. When someone asks for clarification about something we’ve said, it is common courtesy to explain ourselves further. We can’t do that with the Bible – because the authors are long gone! There is an art and a science to hermeneutics – but given the huge temporal, geographical, cultural gaps – at best we can try to understand what the authors had in mind…that doesn’t mean we will always be able to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Besides wierwille having zilch hermeneutical skills, what was passed off as divine illumination was simply his “signature intuition” – which was nothing more than what he felt a passage meant. And I term it “wierwille’s signature intuition” because in TWI-culture an explanation or interpretation was not considered acceptable unless wierwille signed off on it – in other words it came from him so it was approved by him.
Signature intuition refers to what wierwille felt was true regardless of what a passage might really mean; though incompetent with the biblical languages and having a penchant for plagiarism and logical fallacies he was able to cobble together something he was proud of; Signature intuition is wierwille's unique sixth sense of nonsense to divine Scripture, so it always suited his lifestyle - and the devil be damned! It seemed to me wierwille was usually flying by the seat of his pants – using his own initiative and “perceptions” and during live teachings he frequently strayed from the very interpretative keys he taught in PFAL. I think he lacked the discipline, wisdom, experience and honesty of a seasoned researcher and so relied more on intuition to pull off his act. He would often play his trump card “Father revealed it to me”
As far as hermeneutics goes - real Bible scholars focus on trying to properly understand the Scriptures through the context, biblical languages, cultural context, historical context, the systematic study of the texts, and plain logic – it really is a discipline, a science and an art – if any intuition is involved it's in gaining a feel for the significance to ascribe to certain data and where more attention would prove to be most beneficial.
Intuition is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, I believe our intuition should be integral with our more analytical study of the Scriptures...But it’s important to realize that it’s not perfect and it can be misinterpreted or even compromised by a seared conscience…
and there’s also something else to consider – the doctrine of illumination.
In An Old Testament Theology the authors discuss the method of sacred hermeneutics, on page 79ff, they say:
The inherent nature of any object to be studied dictates the best method for elucidating its properties…To study the stars, one must first gaze up at them to recognize their nature before crafting a telescope, not a microscope, to see them better…
…The well-known text “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16 KJV) implies that we recognize three inherent qualities of the biblical text. Each quality demands that we fashion a proper instrument (i.e., method) for understanding it. “Of God,” a genitive of authorship, names God as the Author; “inspiration” implies a human author; and “Scripture” denotes a text. All three demand an appropriate approach, and these three approaches must be practiced at one and the same time because the Bible is a unity that is formed by all three. The first two qualities demand a spiritual commitment on the part of the interpreter, and the third paradoxically calls for his or her approaching the text with the detached objectivity of a scientist.
Immanuel Kant and Paul Ricoeur make a fundamental distinction between “explanation” and “understanding.” In truth, however, one cannot understand without explanation, and our explanations depend on our prior understanding of reality. As Gerard Manley Hopkins, one of the great poets of the Victorian era, expresses it: “our inscape determines the way we view the landscape.”
…inscape…the presuppositions we bring to the task…the perspective and presuppositions with which the interpreter approaches the text…
…The doctrine of illumination demands that Scripture be read in a spirit that is harmonious with God’s Spirit…We cannot make God talk through the scientific method (cf. Matt. 11: 25-27 Matthew 16: 13-17 ; Luke 24: 27, 45 ; John 5:45-47 * ) To correlate Word and Spirit with human spirit, we need humility, wholehearted devotion, prayer, meditation, and contemplation.”
End of excerpts
From: An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach by Bruce K. Waltke with Charles Yu
~ ~ ~ ~
*Note as a convenience, I have inserted hyperlinks to the passages that the authors cited - as these were not in the text I quoted from the hardback edition I have at home.
~ ~ ~ ~
Additional note: I recently got into divine illumination on another thread - here
Edited by T-BoneTypos that correct themselves - now that's an idea !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Nailed it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"P.I. for me, but not for thee."....V.P.W.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.