Why Can't Men Believe what the Scriptures Say?

[Ovedya]

Haven't you heard Biblicist? God's word is so flawed apparently it doesn't mean what it says.

I however believe the bible to be 100% God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

And I believe God's word means what it says and when a person has to go to great lengths to try to prove the bible did not mean such clear scripture as you quoted to be literal, then that person must believe God's word is pretty messed up to need so much help.

The essential source problem with what you described is the reliance upon outside sources through which some would view the Bible. Rather than taking the Bible itself to clarify its own meaning and deliver to us the intent of God's heart, some take for themselves what is most convenient or comfortable from outside the Bible and decide that it is there that they will derive their interpretation. The writings of "scholars" who appear to disagree with traditional and orthodox interpretations of the Bible become equal to Scripture through their employment.

I see this as breaking down into two scenarios:

Scenario A

1) The Bible says X

2) I believe it when the Bible says X

3) Interpretations A and B both agree with that the Bible says X, so therefore those interpretations are correct.

4 )Whenever I approach the Bible I take the Bible for what it says and I use various interpretations as helps to understand the Bible more accurately. But when those interpretations are at odds with what the Bible says, I cannot trust those interpretations.

Scenario B

1) The Bible appears to be saying X

2) I don't believe that the Bible really meant X

3) Interpretations A and B agree with me that the Bible didn't really meant X, so the interpretations are correct.

4) Because of the interpretations that I agree with, the Bible really didn't mean X, it meant Y.

5) Whenever I approach the Bible, I first consult the interpretation that most closely resembles my own view and use it as a filter to understand the Bible more clearly in light of what I believe.

Scenario A is the orthodoxists way of understanding the Bible. Scenario B is the revisionists way of changing the Bible.

[Floatingaxe]

That is exactly what firehill is saying. You have taken her too literally!

Not hardly. I simply see the fallacy of trying arbitrarily assigning meanings to words based upon an agenda-driven interpretation.

There is no agenda. That is just an accusation that has no merit here.

Firehill ignores every rule of interpretation to force her views on to the Scriptures. She forces words to mean what the given context simply will not allow. Whenever, you are trying impose your views on the Bible, that is an agenda. It amounts to attempting to mold the Bible around your beliefs, rather than letting the Scriptures speak for themselves.

Not really.

Well, yeah, really. I have demonstrated the difference between competent interpretation principles and the method that Firehill is using. You, of course, are impotent to demonstrate otherwise, so you resort to two-word responses. Firehill's rejection of Christ as the head or leader of the church stems from her rejection of the man as the head or leader of a given household. She is not advocating women in the ministry from the standpoint of what Scripture says. Her problem is much deeper, and is rooted in emotion.

You see, since the Bible uses the relationship of Christ to the Church as one of "head and body" as an illustration of the relation of the husband and wife, Firehill must discredit Christ's preeminence as the head of the Church in order to wreck the illustration. If Christ has preemience in the Church as the head of it, then it only stands to reason that the man is the head of the household as well, and Firehill cannot bring herself to believe the Bible, so she has to make the Bible appear to say something other than what the author intended.

Actually though Firehill responded honestly and was the point I was making, and unless I missed it we're still waiting for FA's amen or amenbut.

By the way, amen to you comment Shiloh! You nailed it!!!

What? you missed it? I am amused by your holier-than-thou attitude. It will receive an adjustment someday, but until then, I am praying for you.

[Guest Biblicist]

The essential source problem with what you described is the reliance upon outside sources through which some would view the Bible. Rather than taking the Bible itself to clarify its own meaning and deliver to us the intent of God's heart, some take for themselves what is most convenient or comfortable from outside the Bible and decide that it is there that they will derive their interpretation. The writings of "scholars" who appear to disagree with traditional and orthodox interpretations of the Bible become equal to Scripture through their employment.

I see this as breaking down into two scenarios:

Scenario A

1) The Bible says X

2) I believe it when the Bible says X

3) Interpretations A and B both agree with that the Bible says X, so therefore those interpretations are correct.

4 )Whenever I approach the Bible I take the Bible for what it says and I use various interpretations as helps to understand the Bible more accurately. But when those interpretations are at odds with what the Bible says, I cannot trust those interpretations.

Scenario B

1) The Bible appears to be saying X

2) I don't believe that the Bible really meant X

3) Interpretations A and B agree with me that the Bible didn't really meant X, so the interpretations are correct.

4) Because of the interpretations that I agree with, the Bible really didn't mean X, it meant Y.

5) Whenever I approach the Bible, I first consult the interpretation that most closely resembles my own view and use it as a filter to understand the Bible more clearly in light of what I believe.

Scenario A is the orthodoxists way of understanding the Bible. Scenario B is the revisionists way of changing the Bible.

Thank you Ovedya, I really appreciate that breakdown. I have never heard it put that way before. Well done.

I would say I am definately not a revisionist. Although, I never considered myself an orthodoxist either. . . I just know I believe the Bible 100%.

[Floatingaxe]

Correct false and strange doctrines. I would be remiss in my duty as a Christian to fail to address this with the word of God.

That is my belief also, so we are at a stalemate.

I answered your question, just go a-hunting.

I call a spade a spade, Peter.

[firehill]

Greek-English Lexicon, H.G. Liddell and Robert Scott. Revised by Henry Stuart Jones, 1968.

Kephale

11. 1 of things, extremity

a. In botany

b. In anatomy

c. Generally, top, brim of vessel ... capital of a column

d. In plural, source of a river, Herodotus 4.91 (but singular, mouth); generally, source, origin, orphic fragments 21a; starting point (examples: the head of time; the head of a month).2

[Guest Biblicist]

Greek-English Lexicon, H.G. Liddell and Robert Scott. Revised by Henry Stuart Jones, 1968.

Kephale

11. 1 of things, extremity

a. In botany

b. In anatomy

c. Generally, top, brim of vessel ... capital of a column

d. In plural, source of a river, Herodotus 4.91 (but singular, mouth); generally, source, origin, orphic fragments 21a; starting point (examples: the head of time; the head of a month).2

I do not see what that has to do with man being the head of the home, church. Is there some website you could link to?

In Strongs, the lexicon for head is Hebrew ~ ro'sh {roshe} and it is strictly used only in the OT.

1) head, top, summit, upper part, chief, total, sum, height, front, beginning

a) head (of man, animals)

b) top, tip (of mountain)

c) height (of stars)

d) chief, head (of man, city, nation, place, family, priest)

e) head, front, beginning

f) chief, choicest, best

g) head, division, company, band h) sum

In the NT it is the word kephale {kef-al-ay'} which is greek and the meaning stated in BLB is,

1) the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.

2) metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent

a) of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife

b) of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church c) of things: the corner stone

[firehill]

I do not see what that has to do with man being the head of the home, church. Is there some website you could link to?

Let's be literal, eh, literalist? Quote for me where the Bible says that the husband is the head of the 'home' and also quote where the Bible says that man is the head of the 'church'. I know that the Bible literaly nowhere says the husband is the head of the home and I also know that it literaly says that Christ (not man) is the head of the church.

Then again you can believe whatever you chose to no matter what the Bible lieteraly says.

P.S. the Greek, oikedespot, means 'the ruler of a household'.

[apothanein kerdos]

Greek-English Lexicon, H.G. Liddell and Robert Scott. Revised by Henry Stuart Jones, 1968.

Kephale

11. 1 of things, extremity

a. In botany

b. In anatomy

c. Generally, top, brim of vessel ... capital of a column

d. In plural, source of a river, Herodotus 4.91 (but singular, mouth); generally, source, origin, orphic fragments 21a; starting point (examples: the head of time; the head of a month).2

Thank you for posting that, because it shows how you don't know how Greek functions. kephal only works as a source of something when used in plural form. In Ephesians 5, it's singular (kephale). This leaves it with the possible interpretations:

1) A master (authority)

2) Chief (authority)

3) Cornerstone (authority)

You just shot yourself in the foot firehill.

[firehill]

Greek-English Lexicon, H.G. Liddell and Robert Scott. Revised by Henry Stuart Jones, 1968.

Kephale

11. 1 of things, extremity

a. In botany

b. In anatomy

c. Generally, top, brim of vessel ... capital of a column

d. In plural, source of a river, Herodotus 4.91 (but singular, mouth); generally, source, origin, orphic fragments 21a; starting point (examples: the head of time; the head of a month).2

Thank you for posting that, because it shows how you don't know how Greek functions. kephal only works as a source of something when used in plural form. In Ephesians 5, it's singular (kephale). This leaves it with the possible interpretations:

1) A master (authority)

2) Chief (authority)

3) Cornerstone (authority)

You just shot yourself in the foot firehill.

Really?

It is based on thousands of Greek writings roughly between 100BC to about AD 600 and notice it doesn't at all include any of the 'authority', 'final authority', 'rank' 'superior rank', 'leader' meanings.

[Floatingaxe]

Liddell and Scott list 48 English meanings for kephale in their dictionary. Not one of those meanings are leader, authority, first or supreme.