Principles of Interpretation - Hermeneutics

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Shiloh, here again is what I said -

Here is the similarity I see scripture tells us of Adam and Jesus, the last Adam.

`And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.` (1 Cor. 15: 45)

Adam - a living being.                                                                                                                                                                                       

The last Adam - a life-giving spirit.

Thus we see the similarity; the first Adam was head of creation, while the last Adam, (Jesus) is the head of the new creation

Note: - you are looking at the wrong part. The word `head` is the similarity.

Adam the HEAD of creation, mankind, & over all creation.

The last Adam - Christ, is also a HEAD, but of a NEW CREATION.

Marilyn.

Ah, I see.   But that is still not a "type" in the sense in which you are using the term.  The Bible does not present Adam as having a prophetic role that Jesus would later fulfill, like we see with David or Melchizedek.

Adam was the federal head of mankind so that when he fell, we all fell.   If you're trying to force typology on to that, and it seems that you are, you are seriously misusing the concept of typology.

6 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Now bro Shiloh, where on earth did I say that. Quotes please!

It's the natural conclusion one would draw from this statement:

"Then we know that God gave mankind the responsibility to have dominion over the earth, (under God). We also know that Adam gave that away. So it was that the Lord becoming a man, had legal right to have dominion over the earth."

"Dominion" and "legal possession"  are two different things that you appear to be treating as the same thing.  One is biblical and the other is not.

If you were doing proper hermeneutics you would understand that.  But this thread has departed from a discussion about what proper hermeneutics is (of which you have NO understanding)into nothing more than you presuming you can teach me theology. 

[Marilyn C]

13 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Ah, I see.   But that is still not a "type" in the sense in which you are using the term.  The Bible does not present Adam as having a prophetic role that Jesus would later fulfill, like we see with David or Melchizedek.

Adam was the federal head of mankind so that when he fell, we all fell.   If you're trying to force typology on to that, and it seems that you are, you are seriously misusing the concept of typology.

 

Hi Shiloh,

Now you would know that the would `head,` in Hebrew is `rosh,` with various meanings. I believe in relation to Adam being a type of Christ is refers to them both being a `beginning.` Adam the beginning of the human race, and Christ the beginning of the new creation.

Marilyn.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Marilyn C said:

Hi Shiloh,

Now you would know that the would `head,` in Hebrew is `rosh,` with various meanings. I believe in relation to Adam being a type of Christ is refers to them both being a `beginning.` Adam the beginning of the human race, and Christ the beginning of the new creation.

Marilyn.

That is not a "type."  I have already stated that there are some parallels, but those parallels are contrastive, not comparable.   That Adam was the federal head of humanity, doesn't carry the same meaning as when the Bible says that Jesus is the head of the Church.   So the similarity you are pushing for is pretty much meaningless.

[Marilyn C]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

That is not a "type."  I have already stated that there are some parallels, but those parallels are contrastive, not comparable.   That Adam was the federal head of humanity, doesn't carry the same meaning as when the Bible says that Jesus is the head of the Church.   So the similarity you are pushing for is pretty much meaningless.

And I have already shown that God`s word says that Adam is a type of Christ.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Marilyn C said:

And I have already shown that God`s word says that Adam is a type of Christ.

But not the type YOU are trying to portray him as.   The Bible is NOT presenting as a type that Christ fulfilled.   It is in a context of showing the differences between Adam and Christ, thus Jesus isn't fulfilling anything about Adam.    You are misrepresenting the text.   A little more skill and education in hermeneutics would cure that problem right up for you.

[Marilyn C]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

But not the type YOU are trying to portray him as.   The Bible is NOT presenting as a type that Christ fulfilled.   It is in a context of showing the differences between Adam and Christ, thus Jesus isn't fulfilling anything about Adam.    You are misrepresenting the text.   A little more skill and education in hermeneutics would cure that problem right up for you.

Hi Shiloh,

You remind me of how I learnt to play the game of chess - `attack, attack, attack.` Don`t give the opposition any room to move. Sound familiar? That is how I see you `discuss,` or rather debate, `attack, attack, attack.` meaning what ever the other person says you will hit it back to them.

I`m off for the day but will reply to your other comments later.

Marilyn.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Shiloh,

You remind me of how I learnt to play the game of chess - `attack, attack, attack.` Don`t give the opposition any room to move. Sound familiar? That is how I see you `discuss,` or rather debate, `attack, attack, attack.` meaning what ever the other person says you will hit it back to them.

I`m off for the day but will reply to your other comments later.

Marilyn.

I am just telling you what the problem with your interpretation is.

[Marilyn C]

On ‎26‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 7:29 PM, shiloh357 said:

 

It's the natural conclusion one would draw from this statement:

"Then we know that God gave mankind the responsibility to have dominion over the earth, (under God). We also know that Adam gave that away. So it was that the Lord becoming a man, had legal right to have dominion over the earth."

"Dominion" and "legal possession"  are two different things that you appear to be treating as the same thing.  One is biblical and the other is not.

 

Hi shiloh,

Let`s look again at God`s word.

`The Lord said to me, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you, ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance and the ends of the earth for your possession." (Ps. 2: 7 & 8)

`I was watching in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man, coming on the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.` (Dan. 7: 13 & 14)

So here we read in Ps. 2, that God the Father will give His Son the nations and the earth for His inheritance, His possession.  Then in Daniel 7 we see God as heaven`s High Court judge, with the court sitting. (Dan. 7: 10 - `the court was seated.`) That is the highest `legal` authority in the universe & beyond!

Then the glorified Son of Man is taken near and given `dominion, glory and a kingdom.` How utterly wonderful.

I do believe the Body of Christ will see that glorious investiture of Christ with all `dominion, glory and power.`

Marilyn.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

8 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi shiloh,

Let`s look again at God`s word.

`The Lord said to me, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you, ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance and the ends of the earth for your possession." (Ps. 2: 7 & 8)

`I was watching in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man, coming on the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.` (Dan. 7: 13 & 14)

So here we read in Ps. 2, that God the Father will give His Son the nations and the earth for His inheritance, His possession.  Then in Daniel 7 we see God as heaven`s High Court judge, with the court sitting. (Dan. 7: 10 - `the court was seated.`) That is the highest `legal` authority in the universe & beyond!

Then the glorified Son of Man is taken near and given `dominion, glory and a kingdom.` How utterly wonderful.

I do believe the Body of Christ will see that glorious investiture of Christ with all `dominion, glory and power.`

Marilyn.

 

The problem is that none of this has anything to do with Genesis 1-3. None of this has anything to do with Adam.   You are trying to force a connection between Jesus and Adam that doesn't exist in Scripture.   And you have to violate hermeneutics in order to make that connection.  Adam was given dominion over the natural world in that Adam was given the task of being caretaker of the physical earth.   Adam was not given lordship over anything.

The passages YOU are quoting about Jesus have to do with Jesus being made the chief, and Lord over the nations.   The passages you are citing refer to Jesus' exaltation mentioned in Phil. 2:9-11.     You are trying to relate them to Genesis 2-3, when you should be relating them to the exaltation of Jesus in Phil. 2 and other places in the NT, like Revelation.   So while it is true that we need to show the relationship of Scripture to Scripture, it is important that we apply sound hermeneutics so that we apply a given passage or passages correctly.  

Because you don't really grasp hermeneutics, you have not really ascertained the meaning of the passages you cited above.  Had you applied hermeneutics correctly, you would not be trying to relate them to the wrong parts of the Bible.

 

[Marilyn C]

14 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

  Adam was given dominion over the natural world in that Adam was given the task of being caretaker of the physical earth.  

 

 

Hi shiloh,

So we agree that Adam was given `dominion,` over the natural world. Then we know that man disobeyed God and came under the sway of Satan.

`We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.` (1 John 5: 19)

Thus we see that man cannot be the caretaker, (as you say) under God while man is subject to Satan`s influence. Thus Jesus came as a man, the last Adam, to redeem mankind from sin and destroy the works of Satan, the devil. There will come a time when the Lord Jesus Christ will claim His inheritance and take possession of the earth.

Marilyn.