Jump to content
IGNORED

Principles of Interpretation - Hermeneutics


Marilyn C

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357
59 minutes ago, inchrist said:

Actually it comes from midrash hermanitics repeated patterns until they get eventually  completely fulfilled.

This pattern started with Adam straight through all the patriarchs to be fulfilled in Christ 

Colossians 1:15New International Version (NIV)

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation

Christ fulfilling Adam as a type and pattern....both the son of God and first born of all creation.

Another Perfect example of this is found in Joshua and Jericho for Revelation.

You don't know what you're talking about and again, you're not a believer.  Christians don't take advice from non-Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
1 minute ago, inchrist said:

That's not a hermanitic rebuttal 

It's spelled hermeneutic...  

And if you provided hermeneutics, I would address that.  But your version of "hermeneutics" is even more sloppy than Marilyn's and doesn't deserve the time to rebutt it. It's  all just nonsense.   But if Marilyn is willing to accept your support, that is up to her.  But I know real hermeneutics look like and so far it has not shown up in yours, or her posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  22
  • Topic Count:  1,294
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  31,762
  • Content Per Day:  5.26
  • Reputation:   9,760
  • Days Won:  115
  • Joined:  09/14/2007
  • Status:  Offline

34 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You don't know what you're talking about and again, you're not a believer.  Christians don't take advice from non-Christians.

Personal attack.  Removed from thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
1 minute ago, inchrist said:

Why are you guys so aggressive?

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation

So Adam is not the image of the invisible  God nor the first born of creation?

Adam is not the image of the invisible God, nor is he the first born of creation, no.   The Bible doesn't speak of Adam in that manner, only Jesus.

"Firstborn" is applied to Jesus as He is has preeminence over creation.  That's what the term "firstborn" as Paul used it, means.   That is never applied to Adam.

Adam was made in the image of God.  Not as the representation of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  30
  • Topic Count:  265
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  13,130
  • Content Per Day:  3.50
  • Reputation:   8,461
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/06/1947

21 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

So I can assume that you never actually going to ever address the issue of hermeneutics, the purpose of this thread???    I view Adam as a type the way the Word says.   You see Adam as a type based on  how you mold the Bible around your theology.   That's what happens you ignore sound biblical principles of interpretation.

Hi Shiloh,

You have been busy while I was away. Good ole inchrist, good bro there. Yes we have some differences, but always polite and good for a discussion. So...no more hunting rabbits or playing chess, ay. :D OK. See if you can get your teeth around this -

Genesis 3.

1. A serpent that talks!

2. A woman that talks to the serpent!

3. The Lord God walks, and seems not to know where Adam & Eve are, even though He is omniscient and omnipresent!

4. The Lord God also seems not to know what Adam & Eve have done, even though He is omniscient and omnipresent!

5. The serpent shall bruise the seed`s heel, and the seed shall bruise the serpent`s head!

6. There is a tree that eating the fruit enables one to know good and evil!

7. There is a tree that eating its fruit enables one to live forever!

8. There is a sword that flames continually!

9. There is a cherubim at the east of the garden!

10. As Adam & Eve were cast out of this garden, then where is it on the earth?

So as I have shown you how I interpret most of those, could you be so kind, dear bro, as to share your interpretation. Yes I know you gave us a short one, way back, but it would be good to know how you see all those points.

regards, Marilyn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  30
  • Topic Count:  265
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  13,130
  • Content Per Day:  3.50
  • Reputation:   8,461
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/06/1947

Just now, Davida said:

So, I guess the answer is no to hermeneutics question. 

Hi Davida,

I have explained how I interpret Gen. 3 using hermeneutics, plus as Shiloh does also - using other parts of God`s word for explanation. The extra part that I do is to focus on Christ, which Shiloh has also said is the focus of God`s word.

So now I am asking Shiloh to explain all those points using hermeneutics, with other parts of scripture and the focus on Christ. ALL of which he agrees with!

Marilyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  30
  • Topic Count:  265
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  13,130
  • Content Per Day:  3.50
  • Reputation:   8,461
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/06/1947

52 minutes ago, Davida said:

:)  I guess I missed it Marilyn, I had been reading this thread a week or two ago when that question was posed so I thought it had not been addressed when you reposted Shiloh's question.

Hi Davida,

Quite understand. When Shiloh and myself discuss, (or debate) we can seem to go on forever. As Spock once said, `When you and Shiloh finish in a few years...` :D

We obviously like discussing together! :whoop-dee-doo:

regards, Marilyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...