Naming the Name of Christ

[Guest shiloh357]

It is not a case of interpretation at all. The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. To reject the clear statements of Scripture is not "interpretation." Interpretation assumes what is written is true and seeks to understand the intent of the author.

It is clear to you and it is clear to me. But it is not clear to some.

It is clear to them, which is why they have to fight what it says. If they didn't understand the explicit nature in which homosexuality was condemned they would not have to work so hard to discredit it. If you don't think they understand you are sorely misinformed. The Bible is written in 5th grade English. It is not at all ambiguous.

So you are asserting that people do not disagree on the interpretaion of Scripture? You're kidding, right?

No, what I am asserting is that their method of discrediting the Bible does not fall within the definition of "interpretation."

Interpretation is what we use when we want to understand the intent of the author. Attempting to discredit the author is not "interperetation."

[Fiosh]

It is not a case of interpretation at all. The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. To reject the clear statements of Scripture is not "interpretation." Interpretation assumes what is written is true and seeks to understand the intent of the author.

It is clear to you and it is clear to me. But it is not clear to some.

It is clear to them, which is why they have to fight what it says. If they didn't understand the explicit nature in which homosexuality was condemned they would not have to work so hard to discredit it. If you don't think they understand you are sorely misinformed. The Bible is written in 5th grade English. It is not at all ambiguous.

So you are asserting that people do not disagree on the interpretaion of Scripture? You're kidding, right?

No, what I am asserting is that their method of discrediting the Bible does not fall within the definition of "interpretation."

Interpretation is what we use when we want to understand the intent of the author. Attempting to discredit the author is not "interperetation."

That is your perspective.

[Guest shiloh357]

It is not a case of interpretation at all. The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. To reject the clear statements of Scripture is not "interpretation." Interpretation assumes what is written is true and seeks to understand the intent of the author.

It is clear to you and it is clear to me. But it is not clear to some.

It is clear to them, which is why they have to fight what it says. If they didn't understand the explicit nature in which homosexuality was condemned they would not have to work so hard to discredit it. If you don't think they understand you are sorely misinformed. The Bible is written in 5th grade English. It is not at all ambiguous.

So you are asserting that people do not disagree on the interpretaion of Scripture? You're kidding, right?

No, what I am asserting is that their method of discrediting the Bible does not fall within the definition of "interpretation."

Interpretation is what we use when we want to understand the intent of the author. Attempting to discredit the author is not "interperetation."

That is your perspective.

No it is not my perspective. Words mean things Fiosh. Interpretation is not the same things as discrediting. For you to hold up their rejection of the Word of God as being a valid form of "intrepretation" proves that you do not have a good grasp on the issue.

You are simply in a state of denial.

[Fiosh]

It is not a case of interpretation at all. The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. To reject the clear statements of Scripture is not "interpretation." Interpretation assumes what is written is true and seeks to understand the intent of the author.

It is clear to you and it is clear to me. But it is not clear to some.

It is clear to them, which is why they have to fight what it says. If they didn't understand the explicit nature in which homosexuality was condemned they would not have to work so hard to discredit it. If you don't think they understand you are sorely misinformed. The Bible is written in 5th grade English. It is not at all ambiguous.

So you are asserting that people do not disagree on the interpretaion of Scripture? You're kidding, right?

No, what I am asserting is that their method of discrediting the Bible does not fall within the definition of "interpretation."

Interpretation is what we use when we want to understand the intent of the author. Attempting to discredit the author is not "interperetation."

That is your perspective.

No it is not my perspective. Words mean things Fiosh. Interpretation is not the same things as discrediting. For you to hold up their rejection of the Word of God as being a valid form of "intrepretation" proves that you do not have a good grasp on the issue.(haughty)

You are simply in a state of denial. (haughty)

Nope, I'm not in denial. Just trying to understand it from another's point of view without demonizing.

Never said it was "valid". But if a man feels an attraction for another man, and figures God made him that way, and if he loves the Lord and believed His word, I would imagine he'd look to the Bible for answers. And I also imagine he'd find it difficult to agree with the interpretation that his inclinations were called an abomination. So I suppose he'd try to make sense of it and try to understand what those verses could possibly mean.

It's not really all that hard to understand.

People are people.

[Fiosh]

Shiloh, so that I can clearly understand how you are using the terms: interpret and discredit, answer me this please---

If some Christians believe that Jesus forbade divorce except on the grounds of unchastity; and others allow divorce for other reasons---are they interpreting differently or is one discrediting?

And if one denom takes Jesus literally when He says, "This is my Body"; and another denom takes Him figuratively, are they interpreting differently or is one denom discrediting?

Thanks,

Fiosh

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, so that I can clearly understand how you are using the terms: interpret and discredit, answer me this please---

If some Christians believe that Jesus forbade divorce except on the grounds of unchastity; and others allow divorce for other reasons---are they interpreting differently or is one discrediting?

And if one denom takes Jesus literally when He says, "This is my Body"; and another denom takes Him figuratively, are they interpreting differently or is one denom discrediting?

Thanks,

Fiosh

Sigh... Okay this is really, really simple Fiosh.

When a person is reading a passage of Scripture and they are trying to understand what the author of that passage meant. When they examine textual context, look at word meanings, look at the historical/cultural context, check for any possible figurative literary devices like similes and metaphors used by the author, they check for any parallel passages in the Bible by the same author to see if they shed any light on the passage, THAT is the interpretative process. "Interpretation" means that you are trying to get at the intended meaning of the passage, the intended message that the author was intending to convey.

Now, when a person approaches a partcular passage their reaction to it is to completely reject it as even being a legitmate biblical text which is what most homosexuals do with the passages that speak to issue of homosexualty, they are not engaging in the interpretative process.

Every homosexual that I have talked to who ever spoke of the Bible, deined its inerrancy and inspiration. They deny that is nothing more than a archaic, outdated religious book written thousands of years ago, and while it does contain some good teachings to which they will assent, they categorically reject it as the word of God. They seek to discredit the Bible's authority in the area of homosexuality by denying its reliability entirely.

They are not "wrestling" with it, they are not trying to make sense out of it. They simply reject what it says about homosexuality, outright. That is not "interpretation." They don't want to know what the author's intended meaning was, and they don't really care.

[Fiosh]

RE: "Every homosexual that I have talked to who ever spoke of the Bible, deined its inerrancy and inspiration. They deny that is nothing more than a archaic, outdated religious book written thousands of years ago, and while it does contain some good teachings to which they will assent, they categorically reject it as the word of God. They seek to discredit the Bible's authority in the area of homosexuality by denying its reliability entirely. "

As you are basing your opinion on your own personal experience, it is easy to see why you think as you do.

Once again, if this is the attitude of the homosexual you refer to, than I agree with you.

I specifically stated that I am only referring to those who love the Lord and try to follow His word. I know several homosexuals who accept the Bible as the inspired word of God and strive to live Godly lives within a monogamous relationship. They just don't accept the interpretation of those verses that we see as stating that homosexuality is an abomination. As another poster pointed out, some will make a case that they refer to male prostitutes, etc.

(the "Sigh" was unnecessary---just wanted to point that out to help you grow. )

[Scarletprayers]

Shiloh, I have to disagree............its not simple, or there wouldn't be 30,000+ denoms out there all claiming different things. I'll just use "my" church as an example. They believe if you are not baptized, your not going to heaven, period. They like everybody else, have verses that back up their position. You say if you use all of this criteria "everybody" would come to the same conclusion. Thats just not so, there are people that I know that are Greek and/or Hebrew scholars, are true, honest, loving people that want to do God's will, who say there is no other way to interpret those scriptures, you must be baptized. There are other people I know who are the same way loving, honest people wanting to do God's will, that have degrees also, that say its not true.

Most of these people "want" to do God will, not mans, not twist scripture to fit their own agendas, yet they will each tell you the exact opposite of the other. I realize your speaking in term of the homosexual reading these verses and saying that they don't mean what they say, but it boils down to the same thing. If you've been brought up by very accepting parents, the world is telling you your lifestyle is okay, and then start going to a church that teaches that these verses mean "male prostitutes" that ?worked? for lack of a better word, in the pagan temples, then you are going to believe that is what these verses mean and so do not apply to you and your life. Most of us in the church are never going to learn Greek or Hebrew for various reasons, so we depend on what the Pastor in the church is preaching to be true, accurate and the actual will of God.

Rodney Cloud

Professor of Old Testament emeritus, David Lipscomb University; M.A., Harding Graduate School of Religion; M.A., Peabody College; Ph.D., Hebrew Union College........he was also one of the translators of the Holman Christian Standard Bible....Archaeology and the New Testament research, actually going on the digs, not just writing papers about other peoples work.........there was more, but I hope this was show the credentials of one of the people I was speaking of. If you ask Rodney, you have to be baptized to be saved. I can also speak about him personally as I've know him for over 30 years, you will never meet a more loving, believing, God fearing man. As a matter of fact, you can meet him when you come to the Nashville get together as he is one of the Ministers at my church.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, I have to disagree............its not simple, or there wouldn't be 30,000+ denoms out there all claiming different things. I'll just use "my" church as an example. They believe if you are not baptized, your not going to heaven, period. They like everybody else, have verses that back up their position. You say if you use all of this criteria "everybody" would come to the same conclusion. Thats just not so, there are people that I know that are Greek and/or Hebrew scholars, are true, honest, loving people that want to do God's will, who say there is no other way to interpret those scriptures, you must be baptized. There are other people I know who are the same way loving, honest people wanting to do God's will, that have degrees also, that say its not true.

Most of these people "want" to do God will, not mans, not twist scripture to fit their own agendas, yet they will each tell you the exact opposite of the other. I realize your speaking in term of the homosexual reading these verses and saying that they don't mean what they say, but it boils down to the same thing. If you've been brought up by very accepting parents, the world is telling you your lifestyle is okay, and then start going to a church that teaches that these verses mean "male prostitutes" that ?worked? for lack of a better word, in the pagan temples, then you are going to believe that is what these verses mean and so do not apply to you and your life. Most of us in the church are never going to learn Greek or Hebrew for various reasons, so we depend on what the Pastor in the church is preaching to be true, accurate and the actual will of God.

Rodney Cloud

Professor of Old Testament emeritus, David Lipscomb University; M.A., Harding Graduate School of Religion; M.A., Peabody College; Ph.D., Hebrew Union College........he was also one of the translators of the Holman Christian Standard Bible....Archaeology and the New Testament research, actually going on the digs, not just writing papers about other peoples work.........there was more, but I hope this was show the credentials of one of the people I was speaking of. If you ask Rodney, you have to be baptized to be saved. I can also speak about him personally as I've know him for over 30 years, you will never meet a more loving, believing, God fearing man. As a matter of fact, you can meet him when you come to the Nashville get together as he is one of the Ministers at my church.

Scarlet,

I am not addressing interpretation vs. interpretation. I am talking about interpretation vs. claiming that the Bible is not Word of God. I gave the example above of what the interpretative process involves vs. those who seek to justify their sin by claiming that the Bible is not the Word of God and is, therefore, not an authoritative commentary on what constitutes sin. I am claiming that homosexuals who villify the Scriptures are not engaging in the interpretative process.

Your example of those who disagree with another over the place of baptism does not fit the scope of what I was addressing with Fiosh.

Why interpretations from one denom. to another really is a subject for a different thread.

[Scarletprayers]

Well then I think our preaching to the choir, because Fiosh has already agreed with you and I concur that the homosexuals that use the Bible the way you have stated above are NOT trying to really live in a Christian manner walking in Gods word.