I've changed my mind. I now believe the "earth" is 6k years old

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, shiloh357.

I have to stop you on this point, brother. We don't champion a "literal interpretation of the Bible." What we SHOULD be championing is the "grammatical, HISTORICAL interpretation of the Bible."

No, it is about a literal interpretation.   In hermeneutics, the grammatical structure (syntax) and historical backgrounds are simply components of how we analyze a text. 

I have a graduate level education in this area and know what I am talking about.  I don't need any instruction from you.

[Retrobyter]

19 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, it is about a literal interpretation.   In hermeneutics, the grammatical structure (syntax) and historical backgrounds are simply components of how we analyze a text. 

I have a graduate level education in this area and know what I am talking about.  I don't need any instruction from you.

Well, la-di-da! Look it up, graduate.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Retrobyter said:

Well, la-di-da! Look it up, graduate.

I already know what I need to know.  

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

I already know what I need to know.  

And, so, you shall never learn.

[Guest shiloh357]

29 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

And, so, you shall never learn.

Not from you, that is for sure.

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Not from you, that is for sure.

Obviously.

Quote

 

In the nineteenth century, Methodist Episcopalian theologian Milton S. Terry stated the most fundamental elements:

The grammatico-historical sense of a writer is such an interpretation of his language as is required by the laws of grammar and the facts of history. Sometimes we speak of the literal sense, by which we mean the most simple, direct, and ordinary meaning of phrases and sentences. By this term we usually denote a meaning opposed to the figurative or metaphorical. The grammatical sense is essentially the same as the literal, the one expression being derived from the Greek, the other from the Latin. But in English usage the word grammatical is applied rather to the arrangement and construction of words and sentences. By the historical sense we designate, rather, the meaning of an author's words that is required by historical considerations. It demands that we consider carefully the time of the author, and the circumstances under which he wrote..

A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture.¹
...

^1. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, Wipf & Stock, 199, pages 101 & 103.

 

More can be found at What Is Grammatical-Historical Interpretation & Why Is It Important?  This is what I said, but ... hey ... whatever, dude.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Retrobyter said:

Obviously.

More can be found at What Is Grammatical-Historical Interpretation & Why Is It Important?  This is what I said, but ... hey ... whatever, dude.

The article isn't saying what you're saying if you read the whole thing.   Grammar and History are not the entirety of interpretation and comprise only portions of the entire process of interpretation and exegesis.  Being able to diagram the text, followed by the lexical analysis and the theological analysis and how the Bible quotes itself and how to handle parallel passages and application of the text. 

That's all part of coming to the literal interpretation and anyone who would pit grammatical-historical against a literal interpretation doesn't know what they are talking about and the article you cite does not such thing.

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The article isn't saying what you're saying if you read the whole thing.   Grammar and History are not the entirety of interpretation and comprise only portions of the entire process of interpretation and exegesis.  Being able to diagram the text, followed by the lexical analysis and the theological analysis and how the Bible quotes itself and how to handle parallel passages and application of the text. 

That's all part of coming to the literal interpretation and anyone who would pit grammatical-historical against a literal interpretation doesn't know what they are talking about and the article you cite does not such thing.

SHALOM, shiloh357.

Who's "pitting" ANYTHING against another?! I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the literal interpretation of the Bible. The Lord knows that, if anything is true, I'm a HYPER-literalist! Besides, there are many who call it a composite of the two: a "literal, grammatical, historical interpretation" of the Bible! All I'm saying is that if one is going to claim a literal interpretaion, KNOW that there's a practical limit to literalism! There is some legitimate, figurative language in the Bible! Thus, the grammatical and historical interpretations must take precedence over the literal interpretation to the degree that the author intended the text to be of figurative speech. For instance, is Yeshua` LITERALLY "the lion of the tribe of Y'hudah?" Both you and I know that this is NOT what the elder who spoke with Yochanan was intending when using these words in Revelation 5:5! I mean, c'mon bro'! One must employ a LITTLE common sense, right? That's all I'm saying, and I'm done with this DERAILED train of thought.

P.S. - Go ahead; you can have the last word. I know you must.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Retrobyter

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

SHALOM, shiloh357.

Who's "pitting" ANYTHING against another?! I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the literal interpretation of the Bible. The Lord knows that, if anything is true, I'm a HYPER-literalist! Besides, there are many who call it a composite of the two: a "literal, grammatical, historical interpretation" of the Bible! All I'm saying is that if one is going to claim a literal interpretaion, KNOW that there's a practical limit to literalism! There is some legitimate, figurative language in the Bible! Thus, the grammatical and historical interpretations must take precedence over the literal interpretation to the degree that the author intended the text to be of figurative speech. For instance, is Yeshua` LITERALLY "the lion of the tribe of Y'hudah?" Both you and I know that this is NOT what the elder who spoke with Yochanan was intending when using these words in Revelation 5:5! I mean, c'mon bro'! One must employ a LITTLE common sense, right? That's all I'm saying, and I'm done with this DERAILED train of thought.

P.S. - Go ahead; you can have the last word. I know you must.

It would be to your benefit if you knew what "literal" means. 

You are confusing "literal" with "face value."   It is  a common error among those who don't understand how a "literal" interpretation works.

Edited April 30, 2018 by shiloh357

[Still Alive]

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 3:45 PM, shiloh357 said:

 I can just take God at His word, because I actually believe Him.

Then I  guess that when he says the wages of sin is death, you believe that the lost die, rather than live in eternal torment. Because I take the bible literally, that is what I believe anyway.