Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness
correct me if im wrong but it appears that you only see a history lesson in the scriptures. This is what it sounds like to me. You must be able to receive valuable principles and lessons that apply to your life even from the old test.
Do you think Paul took the scripture out of context when he used the Red Sea crossing as a type of baptism? exodus says nothing of the sort.
Im not saying twist the scriptures to conform to a man made doctrine. Im simply saying there are many applications to certain scriptures. and if thats not the case then we have no right to preach against tobacco products, drugs, pornography, just to name a few things that are not found in the Bible.
|
It starts with the history. That has to come first. The primary extant hermeneutic is called the Historical-Grammatical Method. Without the history and the context that comes with and from that history, the Bible is never going to make correct sense.
And yes, "valuable principles and lessons that apply" do exist. But that's not the argument I have been making. Look again at what I originally wrote. I am arguing against taking a verse of Scripture, divorcing it from it's context, so you can create as many applications as you see fit (not you personally, just "you" generically).
I am not against availing yourself of every application that is available based on the context. But the context has to be there and it has to be maintained as the primary element. If a verse or passage of Scripture is about one thing, you can't go and make it say something else so you can derive a personally desired application.
An example. Granted what I'm about to write was said as a joke, but it fits here to make my point. Year ago, a visiting, over-weight preacher said "Well, I've finally realized I mostly belong to the Lord". People didn't understand at first what he meant. He then said "The Bible says 'the fat belongs to the Lord', and since I'm mostly fat, I mostly belong to the LORD".
People chuckled. Whatever. But what if he had meant it and was serious. Is that what "the fat belongs to the LORD" means and is referring to? NOT AT ALL. So, except in humor, there is no way such a use of that verse
applies to what the visiting preacher said.
I know an evangelist whose first name is Mark. At youth rallies he would insist the audience needed to recognize that God said in His Word that he was "perfect". He'd then quote "Mark the perfect man..." from
Psalm 37:37.
Again, a lame attempt at humor. But what if he had been serious?
This is the issue I am addressing. I submit to you that you will learn more valuable lessons when you approach the text of the Bible this way. Because you will learn the correct lesson that text is teaching, based on its context, instead of the one that gets invented because it makes for good sermon fodder.
__________________________________________________ __________
As far as being "baptized into Moses..." Paul did not destroy the context or apply the text in a way that it should not have been applied. Just because the word "baptism" isn't present in Exodus doesn't mean the concept of baptism was not present, because it was, and is.
__________________________________________________ __________
Finally,
Quote:
|
Im not saying twist the scriptures to conform to a man made doctrine. Im simply saying there are many applications to certain scriptures. and if thats not the case then we have no right to preach against tobacco products, drugs, pornography, just to name a few things that are not found in the Bible.
|
While tobacco is not given by name, the chief addictive chemical in tobacco, that is, nicotine, is, along with other drugs, covered by the Holy Scriptures as prohibited, even though we don't see the word "drugs" in the Bible, the concept of narcotics is.
And as far as pornography goes, what are the Greek words for fornication, fornicator, whoremonger, and etc.? They all come from the Greek root
porne.
In fact, in 1822, a German linguist named Jakob Grimm, author of Grimm’s Fairy Tales, is credited with what became known as Grimm’s Law, a statement, that, among other things, proves that Latin and Greek words beginning with the letter “p”, in Germanic languages, such as English, are rendered with an “f”, both in written and spoken form.
In this way,
pater, a Greek word, becomes father in English. Also in this way, the Greek word
porne, the root of the word pornography, becomes forn-ication, (or all various, illicit, immoral sexual acts, i.e. Scripturally prohibited sexual deviancy) when translated into English, meaning the same exact thing as its Greek counterpart.
We can then very much render the word fornication as "pornication", for example. So, pornography is very much addressed by the Holy Scriptures.
For more, you can check out a couple of blogs I wrote on the subject, if you like:
https://votivesoul.wordpress.com/201...little-secret/
https://votivesoul.wordpress.com/201...cret-addendum/