Biblical Exegesis: What, Why, How

[John Reece]

I am starting this thread as an effort to respond to the challenge Jaltus presented in his Biblical Theology thread.

I have never been very able-minded, and what limited ability I may have had in past decades has been diminished significantly now that I am a septuagenarian - especially in terms of energy. That's why I have been tardy in trying to produce this response: I have been reluctant to expose my limitations, and I have lacked the energy to put into a presentable form the what, why, and how of my work in terms of biblical exegesis.

What I have to say is solely in terms of what I do, why I do it, and how I do it. I do not pretend to be an expert exegete, nor do I presume to prescribe what others should do.

For me, biblical exegesis is an effort to ascertain as clearly as I can just what the Scriptures actually say - and do not say - in the texts of the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).

I emphasize "do not say", because all too often I have heard preachers, and seen writers, adamantly advocate interpretations based upon their understanding of English versions of biblical texts, which do not actually say what they think they see in the English versions.

I should add that being able to read the biblical languages does not automatically enable a person to rightly interpret the texts: there remains the problem of unexamined and untested presuppositions (about which more later).

In order to understand what the texts actually say, I seek to maximize my understanding of the context.

In terms of the meaning of words, I research the usage throughout the Bible, rather than only refer to entries in lexicons.

In terms of the meanings of phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, I compare allusions to, and quotations of, other scriptures throughout the Bible.

And I take time to marinate my mind in the texts of the original languages, spanning the larger units of context (paragraphs, books, OT/NT, etc.).

A bit of personal history regarding the above:

At some point during my decades of working in a mental health center, I remember reading a commentary on Revelation and being impressed by how much the author's comments were like a client of a psychologist responding to the cards presented in the Thematic Apperception Test (http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/thematic_apperception_test.html): The pictures on the test cards evoke interpretations of the cards that have nothing to do with the actual stories of the people portrayed on the cards, and everything to do with what's in the minds of the clients who look at them.

That was one the things that motivated me (in the mid-1980s) to aggressively submit myself to a process of ascertaining and disabusing my mind of any and all presuppositions which serve as filters and lenses distorting my view of biblical texts. I put myself through a prolonged period of simultaneously reading and re-reading the Greek New Testament (primarily, as well as relevant parts of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint), while at the same time seeking God for grace to separate what the texts actually said from what I had presumed they meant (as a result of my personal history and the influence of the presuppositional pools of thought in modern Christianity).

That’s all I can do at the moment, which may be just as well.

I invite the participation of any and all who might be willing to help me hone this into something that may be of use to Jaltus.

[Solly]

I'm up for it, limited as I am by not having been to seminary, so only studying sporadically. watching with interest and expectation John.

[Ian Potts]

I'm interested to see what you bring forth John and your various methods sound quite sound, but I do feel that I should ask the following: shouldn't we also pour over every word, phrase, chapter and book in prayer, crying out to the Lord to reveal to us what the mind of the Spirit was as He inspired the writers to write what they did? That God should reveal the 'mind of Christ' to us?

Without the Spirit's leading surely the best, most analytical, careful, considered approach to Bible study will still lead us into error? Truth is, after all, revealed. We need the wisdom of God in His word.

[themuzicman]

I would add (or make clearler) one element. You mentioned context, but didn't mention the context of the view of what the author meant, and the view of what the intended audience would take it to mean.

Something that means a particular thing today may have a different meaning in the ANE.

For instance, when Ruth went to the threshing floor and uncovered Boaz's feet. To us, that wouldn't be that big of a deal. But in that time, men working on the threshing floor worked, ate, and drank there, and it was a "man only" environment. Now, Naomi could be reasonably sure that Ruth would find Boaz there and would be able to talk to him alone, if she uncovered his feet, but there was also a risk that if she were discovered, she could be harmed or shamed.

Thus, this act of bravery was noted by Boaz, and her bold request for him to redeem his relative's land and family, impressed him enough to take action. However, you also note that he fear for her safety by telling her to leave before anyone else woke up.

So she lay at his feet until morning and rose before one could recognize another; and he said, "Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor."

So, from the perspective of the characters (in this case), the author and the audience, the threshing floor had more significance than it does today.

Now, here it isn't as important, because we don't draw a lot of doctrine out of this book, but in the Epistles, it is very important, because they were written to specific people in a given cultural setting and certain circumstances, so we have to understand those things in order to understand Paul's (and God's) intent in writing to them.

Michael

[Ian Potts]

I understand Michael, but only as long as we don't go too far in our research outside of the Bible, because the Bible and the Holy Spirit should provide all the background we need to understand it. Of course other historical information and so on might be helpful, as are commentaries, and so on, but they aren't required as the Bible is sufficent in itself, along with the Holy Spirit's revelation in it.

I made a post on this very matter this morning as follows:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=409502&postcount=26

(In fact sometimes too much information can blur the truth which the Spirit was conveying by the writers of the Bible - often in the Bible many things which a human writer might include in an account are missing intentionally. What is there is there to convey spiritual truths).

[John Reece]

I'm interested to see what you bring forth John and your various methods sound quite sound, but I do feel that I should ask the following: shouldn't we also pour over every word, phrase, chapter and book in prayer, crying out to the Lord to reveal to us what the mind of the Spirit was as He inspired the writers to write what they did? That God should reveal the 'mind of Christ' to us?

Without the Spirit's leading surely the best, most analytical, careful, considered approach to Bible study will still lead us into error? Truth is, after all, revealed. We need the wisdom of God in His word.

Yes, Ian. And thanks.

Did you miss this in the OP: ". . . while at the same time seeking God for grace to separate what the texts actually said from what I had presumed they meant (as a result of my personal history and the influence of the presuppositional pools of thought in modern Christianity)". The fact that that may be presented in an understated way does not mean that what I do is a mere mental exercise.

[Ian Potts]

Sorry John I probably missed it and I didn't mean to imply that you wouldn't pray over the text. I'm sure you would. :smile:

[John Reece]

Sorry John I probably missed it and I didn't mean to imply that you wouldn't pray over the text. I'm sure you would. :smile:

:thumb:

[John Reece]

I would add (or make clearler) one element. You mentioned context, but didn't mention the context of the view of what the author meant, and the view of what the intended audience would take it to mean.

Something that means a particular thing today may have a different meaning in the ANE.

For instance, when Ruth went to the threshing floor and uncovered Boaz's feet. To us, that wouldn't be that big of a deal. But in that time, men working on the threshing floor worked, ate, and drank there, and it was a "man only" environment. Now, Naomi could be reasonably sure that Ruth would find Boaz there and would be able to talk to him alone, if she uncovered his feet, but there was also a risk that if she were discovered, she could be harmed or shamed.

Thus, this act of bravery was noted by Boaz, and her bold request for him to redeem his relative's land and family, impressed him enough to take action. However, you also note that he fear for her safety by telling her to leave before anyone else woke up.

So she lay at his feet until morning and rose before one could recognize another; and he said, "Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor."

So, from the perspective of the characters (in this case), the author and the audience, the threshing floor had more significance than it does today.

Now, here it isn't as important, because we don't draw a lot of doctrine out of this book, but in the Epistles, it is very important, because they were written to specific people in a given cultural setting and certain circumstances, so we have to understand those things in order to understand Paul's (and God's) intent in writing to them.

Michael

Well said, Michael.

For that dimension I consult the best available commentaries. Which is a part of the exegetical process that I did not get around to mentioning in the OP.

[Jaltus]

I'll try to respond to this thread either tonight or tomorrow.

Good OP John. I hope you develop this thread as fully as I assume you will.

[John Reece]

I'll try to respond to this thread either tonight or tomorrow.

Good OP John. I hope you develop this thread as fully as I assume you will.

You are a hard taskmaster, Jaltus :smile: .

Seriously, I'll do the best I can.

[Jaltus]

I am starting this thread as an effort to respond to the challenge Jaltus presented in his Biblical Theology thread.

I have never been very able-minded, and what limited ability I may have had in past decades has been diminished significantly now that I am a septuagenarian - especially in terms of energy. That's why I have been tardy in trying to produce this response: I have been reluctant to expose my limitations, and I have lacked the energy to put into a presentable form the what, why, and how of my work in terms of biblical exegesis.

Ok, let us look at how you proceed.


What I have to say is solely in terms of what I do, why I do it, and how I do it. I do not pretend to be an expert exegete, nor do I presume to prescribe what others should do.

But experience oftens helps those of us newer to exegesis than yourself. While I never take anyone else's methods wholesale (I am just too arrogant for that), I do know that those who have been faithfully exegeting for a prolonged time know a lot about what to do, though often they have never thought about it in terms of a systematic methodology. However, that is exactly what us young'uns need.


For me, biblical exegesis is an effort to ascertain as clearly as I can just what the Scriptures actually say - and do not say - in the texts of the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).

That is a very good distinction, one often missed. I John, which I am teaching in church right now, is one of the books that often has misappropriate extrapolations made from the text. Just because it affirms one thing does not mean it disavows the opposite. Let scripture speak for itself and do not read beyond what is there.


I emphasize "do not say", because all too often I have heard preachers, and seen writers, adamantly advocate interpretations based upon their understanding of English versions of biblical texts, which do not actually say what they think they see in the English versions.

I should add that being able to read the biblical languages does not automatically enable a person to rightly interpret the texts: there remains the problem of unexamined and untested presuppositions (about which more later).

Amen and amen.


In order to understand what the texts actually say, I seek to maximize my understanding of the context.

Please expand on this. Do you mean cotext, social setting, historical backdrop, or what?


In terms of the meaning of words, I research the usage throughout the Bible, rather than only refer to entries in lexicons.

The problem with this is that the various authors might very well use the words differently. Do you limit yourself to corpa or book or are you just totally canonical?


In terms of the meanings of phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, I compare allusions to, and quotations of, other scriptures throughout the Bible.

Could you expand on this also?


And I take time to marinate my mind in the texts of the original languages, spanning the larger units of context (paragraphs, books, OT/NT, etc.).

LOL, I say percolate, but I like marinate better. I very well may steal that phrase.


A bit of personal history regarding the above:

At some point during my decades of working in a mental health center, I remember reading a commentary on Revelation and being impressed by how much the author's comments were like a client of a psychologist responding to the cards presented in the Thematic Apperception Test (http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/thematic_apperception_test.html): The pictures on the test cards evoke interpretations of the cards that have nothing to do with the actual stories of the people portrayed on the cards, and everything to do with what's in the minds of the clients who look at them.

That was one the things that motivated me (in the mid-1980s) to aggressively submit myself to a process of ascertaining and disabusing my mind of any and all presuppositions which serve as filters and lenses distorting my view of biblical texts. I put myself through a prolonged period of simultaneously reading and re-reading the Greek New Testament (primarily, as well as relevant parts of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint), while at the same time seeking God for grace to separate what the texts actually said from what I had presumed they meant (as a result of my personal history and the influence of the presuppositional pools of thought in modern Christianity).

That’s all I can do at the moment, which may be just as well.

I invite the participation of any and all who might be willing to help me hone this into something that may be of use to Jaltus.


I appreciate the work you have begun here, John. Hopefully we can drag more people into this (Ulmo, if you are reading this, comment). I am also going to try to drag some friends from school into this discussion.

What is on my heart this semester is:

How do I, as an exegete, get theology from the text?

All of these various threads are trying to answer this one question, and I am still very uncertain on the answer I hope I will produce.

[John Reece]

. . . Please expand on this. Do you mean cotext, social setting, historical backdrop, or what?

Social setting and historical backdrop I get from reading commentaries by scholars competent to evaluate such considerations. What I evaluate personally is limited to my reading in the GNT, Hebrew, and LXX - taking into consideration whatever layers and limits of context that may be relevant to what I am studying: verses, paragraphs, chapters, books.




. . . The problem with this is that the various authors might very well use the words differently. Do you limit yourself to corpa or book or are you just totally canonical?


Totally canonical, so as to put all occurrences in perspective. Of course various authors may use words differently, but that can be seen from the broad perspective of the entire biblical range of usage, and the differences in usage are duly noted.




Could you expand on this also?


I use the INDEX OF ALLUSIONS AND VERBAL PARALLELS in the UBS GNT to study OT allusions and verbal parallels in the OT, and I use the references in the Nestle-Aland margin to study allusions and verbal parallels in the GNT. Many exegetical commentaries are also good for providing cross references for consideration.




LOL, I say percolate, but I like marinate better. I very well may steal that phrase.


I'm too old and too far gone in terms of age and health to ever put anything into print, so I hereby give you all you can use of anything I may write here on TWeb.




What is on my heart this semester is:

How do I, as an exegete, get theology from the text?


I really hope men more competent than me will contribute to this thread so as to make it useful to you in getting what you want out of it.

I'm well aware that what I may have to offer is quite limited in scope and focus.

[JardinPrayer]

I am just getting started on my hermenutics journey, so I hope my post does add some value to this thread and does not detract from what is being developed here.

As a brand new Christian (about 5 years ago), I was daunted by the task of reading and understanding the bible. I picked up a book called, "Don't Know Much About the Bible," by Kenneth C. Davis, who claims to be Christian but writes from a more distanced "scholarly" perspective. He cites "bible scholars" but does not use the term "theologan." I was pleased to see how the book followed the structure of the bible - book for book - and asked all the questions most of us have about what it all means, then offered explanations from a "scholarly" perspective. I "learned," for instance, that most bible scholars today believe that Moses likely did not actually part the Red Sea, rather led the Israelites through the "Sea of Reeds," which was easy to wade through on foot, but would deter men on horse or camel back. I was pleased with such a practical explanation for something that seemed so unbelievable and eagerly absorbed everything Davis had to offer. I also "learned" :

Today the idea [of "Documentary Hypothesis"] is widely accepted and taught in leading religious schools, including the divinity schools at Harvard and Yale, the Union Theological Seminary, and both the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Hebrew Union College. The precise identity of who wrote thse books is an unsolved - and most likely unsolvable - mystery, barring an archaeological find of the most revolutionary sort But the principal "authors" have been fiven "names" and are identified by five letters of the alphabet: J, E, D, P, and R. So, Moses, then, did not write the Pentateuch as so many Christians claim. There was lots more. It made sense to me (lots of it still does, and I still recommend the book to those embarking on biblical study for the first time) and it made my transition to reading the bible itself much more comfortable.

A few years passed and my church began offering a "Bible Training Institute," which offered a certificate of Theology as part of a sattelite program from Oral Roberts University. I signed up and the first class I was given was Hermenutics. There, I learned that what qualifies one to be an interpreter of the Word of God is much more than a lot of smarts and a lot of scholarly curiosity. What follows is a bit lengthy, I'm sorry, but I really wanted to lay this out for you and solicit opinions from those who are most likely to be participating in this thread. Jaltus and John...if I'm going in a direction you did not intend for this thread, I will respect your expressing that.

Here is the short paper I was required to write after learning what this particular institution has set forth as appropriate hermenutical conduct and the qualifications of a bible interpreter:


As Christians, we desire to follow God through the acceptance of Jesus’ divine origin, sinless life, and purchase of our salvation with his blood. We yearn to be more Christ-like every day and to feel assured that we please our Heavenly Father with our thoughts, words, and deeds. God has chosen to reveal Himself to us in the written word – the Bible. His messages, His desires for us, His requirements for us as His children, are contained in the pages of the scriptures. In His infinite wisdom, our Father has provided us with a book that must be approached with reverence, respect, hunger, and integrity in order to understand, and therefore, obey its contents. Most of us find this a daunting task. Many of us own bibles and rarely open them except possibly when directed to do so during Sunday services. For those of us in whom the hunger burns, our quest for more illumination on the word of God leads us back to those pages every day. But, we cannot hope to grasp all they have to offer without the aid of interpretation. And, to interpret the word of God properly, there are requirements to be adhered to. Without the science of hermeneutics clearly defined and the art of hermeneutics applied with integrity, we would be lost to all God wants us to know. Here are the qualifications anyone desiring to assume the role of biblical interpreter must possess.

An interpreter must be born of the Spirit and the Word. To be born again (born of the Spirit) means to be connected with the very heart of God’s love. It means we have received the understanding of the new covenant and carry the joyous awareness that Christ lives in us. It is in this most blessed state that we must approach the word of God. Without this rebirth in the Spirit, we are preoccupied with the “self,” and limited in our ability to comprehend a higher authority, the meaning of Jesus’ sacrifice for our salvation, or the concept of eternal life in Heaven. And, without those concepts, the most we can hope to draw from the Word is a legalistic interpretation (literal, clinical, devoid of illumination) that, at best, will give us part of the picture and, at worst, will give us an entirely incorrect one.

An interpreter must have a passionate hunger (and thirst) for the word of God. Hunger is the primary evidence that we have been born again. A newborn baby knows only what its requirements for survival and basic comfort are. His tiny mouth is always searching the enormous new world for sources of nourishment. So it is with those who have received the Holy Spirit and have had their eyes opened to the enormous new world of life in Christ and eternal life with God in Heaven. The promise of the new covenant is such an awesome, vital, beautiful thing, we desire nothing so much as to know more about it, to understand it more fully, and to find new opportunities to live in it. Imagine making an attempt at interpretation without that hunger. Firstly, we wonder if the desire to interpret the word of God would even exist at all. Assuming it does, imagine taking a casual (passionless) approach to it…flipping open to a random page, glancing at a verse, taking a stab at interpretation, and closing the book satisfied your work is complete. Or, perhaps not feeling satisfied your work is complete, but yawning at the thought of spending more than 15 minutes pouring over those dense passages. The requirement of hunger to be a qualified interpreter becomes immediately obvious, does it not?

And interpreter must possess an attitude of humility. Humility means taking your proper place in life – to accept yourself and live your life to the fullest based on what you know of Christ. To be humble is not to be shy or unconfident – it is to show a distinct lack of pride and arrogance that can lead to spiritual blindness. It is to place God higher than anything in your life, including your ministry, your bible study, or anything else. An interpreter, when beginning his/her task with a spirit of humility, gains the grace and blessing of God which can only lead to an illumination of the word. Without humility, how would an interpreter lift meaning out of God’s word? Wouldn’t that be like plugging your ears while someone is talking and then trying to tell someone else what they are saying?

An interpreter must possess an attitude of reverence and respect for the word of God. The bible speaks to us, if only we will let it say what it wants to say. When we approach God’s word with respect, we are much less likely to abuse or misinterpret it. So often, our tendency is to use scripture to project our own ideas. We open the word, lift a passage out of context and wield it like a sword against someone who disagrees with us. The unfortunate result can only be a loss of understanding for both parties involved in that encounter. However, if we open the book aware that God is with us, wanting to show us truth and reverent of the awesome gift that is, it seems undeniable that His gentle grace will light our way and shine through us as we impart our respectful interpretation to others.

An interpreter must accept the total inspiration of the scriptures. While there may be many translations of the scriptures we know as The Bible, at its core, each phrase and thought has been guarded by the Holy Spirit over a period of thousands of years without inaccuracy – preserved intact by God eternally. If an interpreter misses the reality of the inspiration of God upon the writers of His eternal word, s/he will also miss the fullness of the impact of those words. God gave us a commitment – a contract – by choosing to put His word in writing. Our responsibility as interpreters is to make that same commitment to the word by teaching it responsibly, without obscurity. We are to simply and surely state, “This is what God says.”

An interpreter must approach the word of God in true faith. We can know the natural laws and our “reason” functions on what we know. When we add (not replace) faith, we know what else (all things) is possible (miracles). Faith brings an understanding that is otherwise unavailable. God wants us to know and believe his word, so He will not lie. We may be fallible in our understanding, which is precisely why our faith is so vital to our successful interpretation. Once again, without faith, we can, at best, achieve a legalistic understanding, without illumination.

An interpreter must approach the word of God with a renewed mind. When we are born again, we are born of a “new mind,” able to discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:2). When a qualified interpreter looks at the word of God with a spirit-filled, renewed mind, it is as if God Himself is whispering directly to his/her heart. Our ability to discern what is, indeed, of God increases many times over and what once seemed like page after page of mysterious, inaccessible text suddenly reads us, speaks to us, and inspires us to Godly achievements. An interpreter who approaches the word from the flesh will be able to provide the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew translations, tell us the origin of a word or the various interpretations of a phrase, but will s/he find God’s message to His children in a lexicon? Not entirely.

An interpreter must depend on the Holy Spirit’s illumination. God brings us truth in three primary ways. There is truth given through revelation (imparted truth), whereby God shows us truth we could not arrive at through reason alone. There is revelation recorded through inspiration by God as the infallible written word. And then, there is truth received through illumination, brought about by the influence of the Holy Spirit, coming full circle as the spirit of revelation. The revelation is the thing we are shown, whereas the illumination is the manner in which it is shown to us. Without these blessings, we are left with reason alone.

An interpreter must maintain a spirit and attitude of prayer. This qualification flows naturally from the previous one. If we wait on God in prayer, He will reveal His will to us. Without it, we once again are left to rely on our fallible reason. With openness, prayer, sincerity, and truth, we can approach the word of God in a manner that will yield rich rewards.

An interpreter must meditate on the Word. To meditate is to think deeply, ponder, talk with oneself. An interpreter should ask a question and then answer it with the word. God says very clearly in Joshua 1:8 that we are to meditate on His law day and night in order to guarantee our success. How often have we had a spontaneous reaction to something a loved one has said to us, then, upon reflection, realized we got it all wrong? God’s word is not something that can be approached casually or carelessly. Indeed, no task of interpretation, biblical or otherwise, can be successful without meditation. And in meditation, we provide an environment for God to speak to us directly truths that will be confirmed and illuminated when we next open the pages of His word.

An interpreter must be intellectually honest. Jesus describes in the parable of the sower, the various fates of those who encounter the word. He describes two types of people who may hear the word, but not believe, or believe for a while but fall away in time of testing. Those with intellectual honesty – the capacity to see the truth in the word and hold it precious – will prosper, we are told. We can, and often do, make the word say whatever we want it to. The very same verse can be used by the same person to “prove” two opposing points on separate occasions! This approach to interpretation cannot fulfill or satisfy, for it is fruitless.

An interpreter must recognize the unity of the Spirit and the Word. The goal of hermeneutics is knowing God and being His people…that is why we do the task. It is the Holy Spirit that keeps us mindful of that. The role of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics is to integrate the academic and spiritual sides of interpretation appropriately (not necessarily evenly). The Spirit of God will never contradict the word. So, if you believe you have received a gift of the Spirit and it cannot be supported by scripture, you will realize your flaw in interpretation. The Holy Spirit gives the interpreter an awareness of relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and then puts him/her into that relationship.

An interpreter must recognize the unity and harmony of progressive revelation in the scripture. The law came by Moses from God. Grace came by Jesus from God. The old testament is full of symbolism pointing to things fulfilled in the new testament. God shows the progressive revelation of truth and salvation to man in the written word. If it was preserved in the bible, it is relevant to man. An interpreter who recognizes this will be able to see trends, patterns, symbols that would easily elude him/her otherwise. Without the recognition of progressive revelation, we would simply see stories of lineage, obedience, disobedience, miracles, and mysteries – flat and limited in relevance and meaning to man throughout the centuries to follow.

An interpreter must understand the relationship of the Old and New Testaments. Let us examine the story of Abraham and Sarah, who, having a promise of a child from God, decided to “help God along,” by compensating for their advanced age in turning to Hagar. Hagar and Ishmael represent the Old Testament – the promise of God to the Israel of the flesh. Even then, God saw through the centuries and millennia and knew He would send us the Christ. Ishmael was loved as the seed of Abraham and given a nation by God, however, when Sarah’s promise was fulfilled and Isaac was born, we see a symbol of the New Testament, and the new Israel – the spiritual Israel – the Israel that comes to the Father through faith rather than flesh. Succinctly put, Christ is, in fact, the theme of both the Old and New Testaments. However, an interpreter must be able to recognize the relationship, as discussed above, in order to see the true message.

An interpreter must be diligent in the use of study resources. We have had a couple of thousand years to compile a number of valuable resources to help us study the word of God. Among those that we have at our disposal are concordances, study notes, intralinears, maps, chronological bibles, and bible dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are even some resources we might not initially consider, like names and customs books. In such a text, an interpreter can learn what a “covenant” or “sacrifice” really means in the context of the time and place it was taking place according to scripture. In today’s western culture, it is not intuitive to understand what is meant when we say Jesus was offered by God as a sacrifice for our sins and that his blood purchased our salvation. We can say it, but do we truly understand what that means? We don’t make sacrifices in our culture, so how can we understand the significance of this without a little research. How many times does an unsaved person hear the words, “Christ died for your sins,” and is unmoved simply because the concept is totally lost on them? Equally perilous to the interpreter is coming to the task with pre-conceived notions of what meaning s/he will find in the word. A fresh start is vital, however that does not mean it is necessary to completely reinvent the wheel. The tools and resources available to an interpreter allow us an access to illumination that is unsurpassed by those of previous generations. They are gifts and should be used with gratitude.

An interpreter must be of sound mind. “For God did not give us a spirit of fear, but of power and love and of a sound mind.” (2 Timothy 1:7). Timothy reminds us of this, perhaps because it not native to man to have complete confidence in things not seen and to stand certain in the face of criticism. Our soundness of mind is a gift from God. Should we interpret with the Holy Spirit influence at the wheel, we should not fear being called “crazy.” We are promised clearly – there is almost no interpretation necessary to start us on the path to correct and appropriate interpretation. Herein we see the beauty, perfection, aesthetic sense, and tremendous love of God.

I wrote this to conform to the teachings of the class, but have wrestled with the parts of me that want to stick to the practical methods and the explanations they yield and the guidance of the Holy Spirit for my teacher. I'll end now and open this to discussion (or smackdown, as the case may be!).

[John Reece]

. . . Jaltus and John...if I'm going in a direction you did not intend for this thread, I will respect your expressing that.

. . . I'll end now and open this to discussion (or smackdown, as the case may be!).

Hi, JardinPrayer.

Regarding the direction of this thread, I started the thread for the sole purpose of responding to a request made by Jaltus in his Biblical Theology thread. Since the only purpose of the thread (as far as I am concerned) is to be of service to Jaltus, I will defer to him re the direction of the thread and how your post may relate to it.

You'll get no "smackdown" from me :smile: .

Blessings,

John

[JardinPrayer]

Thanks, John. Kind, as always. This is an issue that's been tugging at me for some time and I saw this thread as an opportunity to get it on the table in what I hoped was an appropriate way.

Jaltus...if you'd like me to start another thread, I will happily do so.

[Jaltus]

Thanks, John. Kind, as always. This is an issue that's been tugging at me for some time and I saw this thread as an opportunity to get it on the table in what I hoped was an appropriate way.

Jaltus...if you'd like me to start another thread, I will happily do so.

Nope, keep it in here for the time being.

Mind you, I disagree with some of the assertions you madew about the scholarly issues, but that is fine. John, I shouldn respond to you (and Jardin) for real tomorrow or Saturday.

[Jaltus]

Thanks, John. Kind, as always. This is an issue that's been tugging at me for some time and I saw this thread as an opportunity to get it on the table in what I hoped was an appropriate way.

Jaltus...if you'd like me to start another thread, I will happily do so.

Nope, keep it in here for the time being.

Mind you, I disagree with some of the assertions you madew about the scholarly issues, but that is fine. John, I should respond to you (and Jardin) for real tomorrow or Saturday.

[kofh2u]

The article states:
"Eternal life is a gift, like any other genuine gift it cannot be earned or deserved."

True, and it is supported by scripture.

However, WE really do not have, and the dhurch never has had, a rational description and/or a concrete, non-metaphysical definition for ETERNAL LIFE.
Has it?
Do you?
What, exactly, specifically is it, "Eternal Life?"

Since Newton's day, we have learned the value of making a hypothesis, a suspected answer to riddles, followed by investigations, hoping to support the original idea.
By such means, the things we do not REALLY understand, can be better understood. The Truth about hypothesizes is gradually made more clear.

Here is a hypothesis concerning Eternal Life:

Hypothesis: (Is28:21)
Eternal Life is a resurrection. It is spiritual, meaning that it is mental.

It is a resurrection, too, in that it is memory, that is, genetically reproduced past life memories.

That's the hypothesis!

Here is some more about the details:

Eternal Life is the emergence of our consciousness about those things we now carry within us, which now are found in our Unconscious Mind. We each have a storehouse of genetic nemory, things we do not remember, now.

Like a book of History (Rev 10:2), this facility of the psyche, the Unconscious Mind, is about to awaken (Rev 22:5) . What we have as testimony to the truth of this, is the life of Jesus. He was the first to "awaken" into total consciousness. (Rev 1:5).

This part of us, our Unconscious Mind, is the kingdom of God within us. One which is now locked. (Rev 1:18)

By unconsciousness, we are protected from the horrors to be discovered in our own pasts.

This is why we look towards salvation by our present faith in Jesus and his recommended "way." We will all welcome Christ to mediate for us in this awaking. We will need his promise of forgiveness.

He will tell us, and the Father, to forgive us our trespasses for we knew not what we had been doing before. We were blind in all those previous existences which will then be remembered, and which will be as much a part of us, as who we see ourselves to be now, as far as our present conscious mind permits.

In this, it is easy to understand the verses below:

"No amount of personal effort, good works, or religious deeds can earn eternal life for us. The Bible says that eternal life" (Rev 22:14-15)
“…is the GIFT of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:9)"

“God is a Spirit (his image is in our mind), and those who worship Him, must worship in spirit (mentally) and in truth.” (John 4:24)

"What’s Next?"

The article we are discussing asks what is next? Awakenings! That is the answer!

We shall all awaken into the Collective Unconscious, the new paradigm (Rev 21:10) that I sing about here (Rev 14:3).

The article also tells us the same thing we have heard from the church for two millennium. It is the same thing as what I say here in this hypothesis.

"Just as a newborn baby grows physically, in a similar way you can grow spiritually (mentally), by taking the following steps:"

Those steps are a growth and development of total consciousness, an awaking, by steps we have recognized since the days of Freud.

We can now see the Ego, today awakened in our awareness, an Ego expressed in ourselves and others. We buy magazines named, "The SELF."
We know that our sexual urges are part of a whole complex, one that governs our sensory behaviors. We call this by name, our Libido. The ancients called it's excesses, Satan possession. Libido is the source of "common sense" thinking, and is just one of seven archetypes. (Rev 1:4).

These seven spirits are the, somewhat still, unconscious motivators of our behavior. We have adapted to the awareness of these subconscious elements in our mind. More is to come!

Now, we are being lead by the words, deeds, and example of Jesus to awaken unto a conscious state of CONSCIENCE. That Holy Spirit, the Conscience, is our redeeming light, our witness before God, who is Total Consciousness.

The final step is coming... It comes quickly, (Rev3:20) no man knows exactly when, but it is at the door of our consciousness....

Total Conscious Mind (Zech 14:9) will open the door to Eternal Lives, past and future ( Zech 14:8), forevermore. A New Heaven in the mind, and the resultant different corresponding behavior, creating a New Earth. The deep Sea of our previous Unconsciousness will be no more. (Rev21:1)

And the reward comes with this great day (Rev22:12). No more pain. Now we will be able to consciously tune it out, as an unnecessary signal from that previous state of Unconscious Mind. Death without the sting of non-existence. We will consciously remember former lives. (Rev21:4)

We will know that we are merely flowers which bloom on the eternal genetic vine of the fig tree of our own heritage.

Yes, in full knowledge of our previous blind, evil behavior, we will hold onto the one claim we do have. In choosing the way of Jesus we will be able to forgive ourselves, and to be forgiven. We knew not what we were doing, and yet, we did change in our acceptance of Christ.

As the church has long advised:
"Jesus Christ, I know that I am sinful and do not deserve eternal life...

I receive Jesus Christ as Lord and give Him the “driver’s seat” of life, not the back seat.

I repent. I am willing to turn from anything that is not pleasing to Him. He will reveal His will (CONSCIENCE) to you as you grow in your relationship (Conscious awareness if Conscience) with Him.

"Does everyone receive this gift?"
YES... We will all be awakened,... some to the damnation of the previous eternity they have already lived.

This gift is received...(Welcomed and looked forward to for all the wonderful benefits which follow from it, for those who)... by faith have prepared themselves for the insight of self recrimination.... coming.

The Bible teaches that Jesus was and is God. He is
“… the visible expression (behavior) of the invisible God (psychic attitude of Conscience).” (Colossians 1:15).

[Jaltus]

Are you sure you have the right thread?

[John Reece]

Are you sure you have the right thread?

:smile:

[JardinPrayer]

Are you sure you have the right thread?
Whew! Glad I didn't get that response! And also glad you confirmed what I was already scratching my head about!

[JardinPrayer]

Are we going forward with this thread? Just wondering...thought it could use a bump. :smile:

[John Reece]

Are we going forward with this thread? Just wondering...thought it could use a bump. :smile:

For a while, what little energy and ability I may have for hard work (exegesis) is going to be spent here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18625&page=1&pp=16

[Jaltus]

Oh, expect this to be my focus after the end of February.

[JardinPrayer]

Think I'm gonna open a new thread with my piece of this...keep things streamlined for you two.

Thanks!

:jardin:

[Ulmo]

Jaltus- I'm onboard and anxiously awaiting to see how this thread will develop.

John- As a novice exegete, I look forward to gaining invaluable insight from you and your years of faithful toil in the fields of God's word.

[John Reece]

John- As a novice exegete, I look forward to gaining invaluable insight from you and your years of faithful toil in the fields of God's word.

Hi, Ulmo.

I'm feeling rather tired and worn out, so it somewhat embarasses me to have anyone look to me for anything.

However, God's good about enabling me to offer a little bit now and then, and you are welcome to whatever of that may be.

Blessings,

John

[JardinPrayer]

And...you're welcome to look in on the spin-off thread I posted in this same forum: "What are the qualifications for a bible interpreter?"

[John Reece]

And...you're welcome to look in on the spin-off thread I posted in this same forum: "What are the qualifications for a bible interpreter?"

Thanks, JardinPrayer :thumb: .

[JardinPrayer]

Thanks, JardinPrayer :thumb: .
Yer welcome. Vote for me. :lol:

[kofh2u]

I am starting this thread as an effort to respond to the challenge Jaltus presented in his Biblical Theology thread.

I have never been very able-minded, and what limited ability I may have had in past decades has been diminished significantly now that I am a septuagenarian - especially in terms of energy. That's why I have been tardy in trying to produce this response: I have been reluctant to expose my limitations, and I have lacked the energy to put into a presentable form the what, why, and how of my work in terms of biblical exegesis.

What I have to say is solely in terms of what I do, why I do it, and how I do it. I do not pretend to be an expert exegete, nor do I presume to prescribe what others should do.

For me, biblical exegesis is an effort to ascertain as clearly as I can just what the Scriptures actually say - and do not say - in the texts of the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).

I emphasize "do not say", because all too often I have heard preachers, and seen writers, adamantly advocate interpretations based upon their understanding of English versions of biblical texts, which do not actually say what they think they see in the English versions.

I should add that being able to read the biblical languages does not automatically enable a person to rightly interpret the texts: there remains the problem of unexamined and untested presuppositions (about which more later).

In order to understand what the texts actually say, I seek to maximize my understanding of the context.

In terms of the meaning of words, I research the usage throughout the Bible, rather than only refer to entries in lexicons.

In terms of the meanings of phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, I compare allusions to, and quotations of, other scriptures throughout the Bible.

And I take time to marinate my mind in the texts of the original languages, spanning the larger units of context (paragraphs, books, OT/NT, etc.).

A bit of personal history regarding the above:

At some point during my decades of working in a mental health center, I remember reading a commentary on Revelation and being impressed by how much the author's comments were like a client of a psychologist responding to the cards presented in the Thematic Apperception Test (http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/thematic_apperception_test.html): The pictures on the test cards evoke interpretations of the cards that have nothing to do with the actual stories of the people portrayed on the cards, and everything to do with what's in the minds of the clients who look at them.

That was one the things that motivated me (in the mid-1980s) to aggressively submit myself to a process of ascertaining and disabusing my mind of any and all presuppositions which serve as filters and lenses distorting my view of biblical texts. I put myself through a prolonged period of simultaneously reading and re-reading the Greek New Testament (primarily, as well as relevant parts of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint), while at the same time seeking God for grace to separate what the texts actually said from what I had presumed they meant (as a result of my personal history and the influence of the presuppositional pools of thought in modern Christianity).

That’s all I can do at the moment, which may be just as well.

I invite the participation of any and all who might be willing to help me hone this into something that may be of use to Jaltus.



Mr reece,
You made my day.
Bless you at your age, you are quite on the ball, as they say. I find what you have written to be very professional and academically impressive.

That you know about the TAT is wonderful.

That you are not quite so impressed in its usefulness, as means of intuitive insight is discouraging.

TAT was invented rather arbitrarily by a psychologist whose most impressive background included war time interrogation activities with the CIA (or some such dark servicee). The the 20 symbols used in the TAT are two short of a full deck, however, in my opinion. Hebrew, the sacred language, having 22 letters in the Chaldean-Hebrew original form.

I will come back to this at some other time.

Let me focus on the fact that we have presently no schmata by which to understand the processes of thinking, nor are we able to account for human behavior. (This is the direct admission of the editorial staff of the Encyclopedia of Human Behavior.)

Now, I point this out because I wonder by what method you accomplished the feat you describe as:

"to aggressively submit myself to a process of ascertaining and disabusing my mind of any and all presuppositions which serve as filters and lenses distorting my view."


That you mention the TAT and recognize that it is a stimulus to the open minded free association of ideas, supports the very thing you conclude ought be avoided.
In submitting to "intuitive brainstorming" particularly with regard to the symbolism in Revelation, one duplicates that same psychic state John refers to as "being in the spirit (deep thought)."

What better opportunity, and how similar the state of mind for many scientists who tell us about their experience, just before they could not restrain shouts of Eureka! Eureka!

From mystical experiences of Shaman to the confession of Rene' Descartes, this IS just the way the spirit of mind talks to us.

But, I also suspect that by this exercise of imaginative and creative thought those trumpet blasts of insight John mentions in his own Revelation occur even to us.

Granted, in mental health, those seven ever dominating archetypes give psychologists evidence that their client is under the influence of those same seven evil spirits mentioned in the Gospels.

But, remember, God judgeth in this council of the (false) gods.


An analytical approach coupled to some free association brainstorming appears very much to be the present technique our scientific method for forming new ideas. We must collect all the symbolism involved, not only in Revelation, but throughout scripture. Once enumerated and on the table, we search for the Oscam Razor which cuts throught the collective mystery and allows for the most acceptable of hypothesis.

The simpliest and most successful ideas are the quest. The quest, meaning, an assumption concerning just what possible matter could this concern, a perspective, an overview.

Here is an example of such an approach, just in Revelation 1 for now, as excerpted from The Freudian Bible, a psychological translation.



Rev. 1:1 The insight explained by Jesus Christ, which contemplative
thinking revealed unto him, to show unto his students things which must shortly come to pass; and he explains the insight and substanciates it by appealing to the psychic facility of Conscience within his advocate John:

Rev. 1:2 Who knew of certain "keys" to the Old Testament's literary organization, and of the explanation by Jesus, about our Conscience, and concerning the Human Psyche, and of all things that he had come to understand.

Rev. 1:3 Rewarded will be he that perceives the intent of these ancient symbolic expressions written here in Revelation, and they that comprehend the subtle meanings of this prediction, and who can relate to those things which are written therein: for the 21st Century is at hand.

Rev. 1:4 John to the seven present, and yet to be developed, stages of Christianity, which are in our Western Culture: Grace be unto you, and peace from the Mind, which was unconscious, and is sub-conscious, and is evolving into total consciousness; and from the seven psychic apparati which are before the Mind;

Rev. 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is our example of archetypical
Conscience, and who is the sole model of Conscientious Behavior, and the first to awaken from the unconscious mind into a conscious awareness of this psychic facility, and the role model for the leaders of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and roused us from our apathy and complicity by means of his own physical murder,

Rev. 1:6 And hath made us teachers and leaders concerned with Realty and the Universe and clear, sane, accurate thinking; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Rev. 1:7 Behold, he cometh within the very thoughts of our own minds; and every psychic faculty of human mind shall see Conscience emerge, and they also, the libidinal beast within us, which pierced him: and all those presently subconscious people of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Rev. 1:8 I am the Macrocosms and Microcosms, the Universe and the Mind, saith the Modern Homouiousian brain, whose unconscious psyche, and whose subconscious psyche, and whose conscious psyche is to come, the Totally Conscious Mind.

Rev. 1:9 I John, who also am your brother and companion during these years of opposition to development of social sanity, and in the understanding and study of Human Behavior, and the promulgation of truth about the Mind, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the purpose of interpreting the scripture of Torah, and for propogation of those
explanations concerning it by Jesus.

Rev. 1:10 I was in meditation on Saturday, and experienced a psychic episode, as if a trumpet blast,

Rev. 1:11 A voice in my head saying, I am the Macrocosms and
Microcosms, the Universe and the Mind,: and, what thou understandest, write as a final book to the New Testament, and send it unto each of the present seven fledgeling churches which shall grow as one, experiencing seven stages of christianity which shall be in this Western Culture; unto (1) the Time of the Apostles, and unto (2) the Terror of Nero, and unto (3) the Early Papacy, and unto (4) Universal Roman Catholicism, and unto (5) The Reformed Catholic Church, and unto (6) Protestantism, and unto (7) Humanistic Christianity.

Rev. 1:12 And I ponder on these thoughts. And so reflecting, I
envisioned these seven stages of development to come;

Rev. 1:13 And in the midst of my envisioning of these seven social
stages of development, one like unto my own psychic Conscience, but ancient and long veiled in my own unconsciousness, and embracing my whole psyche,

Rev. 1:14 This psychic Homoiousian manifestation as ageless as man himself, pure in the long solitude of genetic memories of our whole collective humanity, ancient and long recording of all human behavior; was now ready and prepared to reveal itself and to shock us from our psychic unawareness;

Rev. 1:15 This conscious psychic apparatus has been moulded as a
resouvier of human observation, and was developed in the furnace of Evolution; and our behavior over many millennia it has remembered.

Rev. 1:16 And, I, John, remember that Jesus utilized the digits of his right hand in the manner of the Kohanim priests to count out the seven names: and he synergized all secular knowledge with the scriptural authority of a "hidden manna," a mental software program: and in the framework of what is revealed there is undeniablity.

Rev. 1:17 And when I became aware of this psychic entity within
myself, my life, my previous state of mind, was meaningless. And, my Conscience expanded and fulled my whole psyche, reminding me: I am the Universe and the Mind.

Rev. 1:18 I, the Conscience, am conscious, and though I was long
unconscious; behold, I am humanly conscious for evermore, Amen; and I have the keys to the matter of life beyond our personal experience and the meaning of insanity.

Rev. 1:19 Write about unconscious human behaviors in your own day, and the psychic forces present in society now, that determine behaviors, and the predictable effects in the sociology of Western history to come;

Rev. 1:20 Here, in Revelation, is the meaning of the seven psychic
archetypes which thou sawest "cued" on my hand, and the seven social stages of institutionalized Christian development. The seven psychic archetypes symbolize the seven mentalities (paradigms) of Christian maturation: the seven different sociological and developmental periods of Christianity are (1) the Time of the Apostles, (2) the Terror of Nero, (3) the Early Papacy (313 AD), (4) Universal Roman Catholicism, (5) The Reformed Catholic Church, (6) Protestantism, and (7) Humanistic Christianity.

[John Reece]

Mr Reece,

That you know about the TAT is wonderful.

That you are not quite so impressed in its usefulness, as means of intuitive insight is discouraging.


kofh2u,

I am impressed with the usefulness of the TAT for the purposes for which it is properly used. However, as an analogy for interpreting biblical texts, it is a model of what one should not do.

What you are advocating and practicing is eisegesis (reading into texts what is not really there). That is the antithesis of exegesis (the topic of this thread).

John

[kofh2u]

You are a hard taskmaster, Jaltus :smile: .

Seriously, I'll do the best I can.

I guess with all the demands and preliminary commentary so far you ought add me to the list of hard taskmasters, Mr Reece.

I am eagerly awaiting the commentary you promise.

By the way, the TAT is an amazing intuitive invention. Murry(?) wasn't it, the originator, a CIA code breaking enemy interrogater during the WWII. I am familiar with the technique, but have used a different set of cards. TAT uses 20 icons. In my opinion, two cards are missing, but so....

Anyway, I am not certain if your comment meant that the clients tested rambled foolishly. Surely, they all were in need of renewed mental health. Or, do you respect the free association of the symbolism, sort of brainstorming some descernable connection, good and logical or wild wacky, whatever, and/or link between the cards?

It seems to me that laying out the 24 or more mysterious items mentioned in Revelation,... seven spirits, stars in right hand, hidden manna, white stones, iron rods, no more death, no more pain, a cube shaped city, sign of son in heavens, talking images, etc... these "cards" are linked, but perhaps the imagination of a seemingly mad man might also offer a general hypothesis upon which to superimpose the academics of your stated approach. The fact is tgat over 2 millennia we have ni such "Razor" to convincingly cut through all, whether the Gordian Knot of Revelation be thereby untied or the theory be wrong but comprehensive. We have neither. No comprehensive theory touching all bases, wrong or not, none yo even consider. Or, do you have one?

Was that why you mentioned TAT? Dos ANYONE have a clue how, say, "the hidden manna" is related to "he who has the seven stars in his right hand," for instance?

[John Reece]

I guess with all the demands and preliminary commentary so far you ought add me to the list of hard taskmasters, Mr Reece.

I am eagerly awaiting the commentary you promise.

By the way, the TAT is an amazing intuitive invention. Murry(?) wasn't it, the originator, a CIA code breaking enemy interrogater during the WWII. I am familiar with the technique, but have used a different set of cards. TAT uses 20 icons. In my opinion, two cards are missing, but so....

Anyway, I am not certain if your comment meant that the clients tested rambled foolishly. Surely, they all were in need of renewed mental health. Or, do you respect the free association of the symbolism, sort of brainstorming some descernable connection, good and logical or wild wacky, whatever, and/or link between the cards?

It seems to me that laying out the 24 or more mysterious items mentioned in Revelation,... seven spirits, stars in right hand, hidden manna, white stones, iron rods, no more death, no more pain, a cube shaped city, sign of son in heavens, talking images, etc... these "cards" are linked, but perhaps the imagination of a seemingly mad man might also offer a general hypothesis upon which to superimpose the academics of your stated approach. The fact is tgat over 2 millennia we have ni such "Razor" to convincingly cut through all, whether the Gordian Knot of Revelation be thereby untied or the theory be wrong but comprehensive. We have neither. No comprehensive theory touching all bases, wrong or not, none yo even consider. Or, do you have one?

Was that why you mentioned TAT? Dos ANYONE have a clue how, say, "the hidden manna" is related to "he who has the seven stars in his right hand," for instance?

kofh2u,

I indicated in the OP, and stated in post #33, the reason why I mentioned TAT: it is a model of what one should not do while studying biblical texts - that is, read into the scriptures projections from one's own mind.

Thanks for your offer to serve me as a taskmaster. :smile: However, this thread is devoted to whatever Jaltus wants to make of it, so he is the only taskmaster I am able to recognize in this thread.

I have not promised further commentary. I have only promised to do my best, which may or may not mean further commentary will be forthcoming from me - that remains to be seen, and I have no idea whether or not I will have any more to say.

Blessings,

John

[kofh2u]

kofh2u,

I indicated in the OP, and stated in post #33, the reason why I mentioned TAT: it is a model of what one should not do while studying biblical texts - that is, read into the scriptures projections from one's own mind.

Thanks for your offer to serve me as a taskmaster. :smile: However, this thread is devoted to whatever Jaltus wants to make of it, so he is the only taskmaster I am able to recognize in this thread.

I have not promised further commentary. I have only promised to do my best, which may or may not mean further commentary will be forthcoming from me - that remains to be seen, and I have no idea whether or not I will have any more to say.

Blessings,

John

Hello,..
Where have I been? I just read these posts which go back a ways and apparently I have not given attention to responding.

1) TAT
Like Brainstorming, TAT is a tool tgat stimulates a number of mental facilities. In itself it is niether good or bad, nor is it implicitly a good tool nor a tool to avoid.

It may not seem that thinking, stimulating our mind, is important to scripture, either the study and understanding of scripture, or the reverence for scripture as the Word but, the Human Mind seems to be the one thing which makes us both unique to plants and animals and, also, uniwuely dpecial to God in that we are conscious and capable of free will.

That TAT has by ad large been applied to mental ill people ignors the humanistic Christianity of Abraham Maslow's psychological study of sane people. That the TAT has positive value there seems undeniable in that psychology is interested in understanding our thinking and, consequential to our thoughts, our behavior.

2) I wonder if we might re-visit this belated discusdion that follows:

ELAHH = God (Hebrew)
John Reece wrote the following comment concerning Revelation 1:1 in regard to the Freudian Bible Translation. The seemingly "funny" use of the Greek word, " theos," meaing God, is explained below:

JOHN:
"kofh2u,
The correspondence between the Greek text of Revelation 1:1 and Daniel 2:28 concerning the use of the word God is the issue of interest here.
The "21st Century Freudian Bible Translation" appears to be something other than a translation. What you have posted above indicates that whoever produced that so-called translation renders ?e?? "contemplative thinking". That is amusing but not impressive."

KOFH:
Pehaps not at first glance, John. Consider the following points:

Before you dismiss, out of hand, the translation compared in The Freudian Bible, note that the Greek word you find amusingly transliterated is, in the Greek translation, the exclusive word used, the ONLY word used for God.

It is the only word the Greek uses for God, which is a Hebrew concept. In the Greek translation the word God is "theos." In this, because of the multiplicity of connotations found in the Hebrew for God, "theos" is at a disadvantage.

The Greek applies this one (1) word in every instance. It is applied unrelentingly to the concept of "God" in all places and all verses. In the Hebrew, 22 different names are used for this purpose.

The many attributes of "God" are reflected in this extensive variety in the Hebrew.

They are notably absent in the Greek solitude of "theos." Of course, as you well know, even the Greek word has pretty wide range in connotations available, synonyms, at the choice of the individual who is interpreting.

Consider this verse, Daniel 2:28.
You, yourself, suggested this verse as a useful comparision against Rev 1:1.

In Daniel 2:28 this is a God (Elahh) in heaven who reveals mysteries...

The Freudian Interpretation, here, is that heaven is that place where one finds himself when in deep contemplation, serious thought, as place where "Elahh" can communicate with him.

This seems especially pertinent to the God who is revealing the mystery of Revelation, does it not?
The word for God, Theos, in the Revelation would seem to denote the same entity as in Daniel, where, again, God is revealing.

Rev 1:1... that "God" who has revealed to Jesus to "show his servants."

In Daniel, "Elahh" is used, "a God (Elahh) in heaven who reveals mysteries." In Revelation, "theos." See my point so far? God is the
Revealer" in both verses.

But, in Daniel, clearly Daniel is mentally interacting, call it what you eill, hallucinatory experience, vision, peak mystical experience,...
"Elahh" is rather an interesting denotation, because it avoids the use of Elohim, the plural, as used in Genesis, "let us create man..." (Elohim is used numerous times, perhaps the most used word for the concept of God in the Hebrew text. Elahh is rarely used, and it is singular. This implies a one on one psychic "discussion.")

The use of God in its singular form, and in the capacity of God as a revealer, infers a different manifestation of God, both in Daniel and Revelation.
The implication being, in the Freudian Translation, that Elahh implies that both Daniel and John are involved in a spiritual experience, or specifically, in 21st century jargon, a mental trance.
God is speaking to the mind of Daniel and to John. These are visions. The immaterial nature of spirit is that which we experience in thoughts. This all goes on internally, in Daniel and John's mind.

This is the essence of the translation of Elahh, a singular noun identifying the source of thoughts involved in mental "discusion" which is what we recognize as Thinking about something.

This all fits quite well with tge on going interpretation in tge rest of the scriptures. It all follows neatly and easily from Gen 1:26

Gen. 1:26 And The Universal Force, the macrocosmos, said, Let us, the Natural Laws, make man, a conscious mind, to model us, Universe, the microcosmos, in order that our image might be modeled after our own orderly organization: and let that conscious mind have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen. 1:27 So The Universal Force created an abstract mind in his own image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and
mathematically, so created The Universal Force him; male and female created he them.

[John Reece]

Hello,..
Where have I been? I just read these posts which go back a ways and apparently I have not given attention to responding.

1) TAT
Like Brainstorming, TAT is a tool that stimulates a number of mental facilities. In itself it is neither good nor bad, nor is it implicitly a good tool nor a tool to avoid.

It may not seem that thinking, stimulating our mind, is important to scripture, either the study and understanding of scripture, or the reverence for scripture as the Word but, the Human Mind seems to be the one thing which makes us both unique to plants and animals and, also, uniquely special to God in that we are conscious and capable of free will.

That TAT has by and large been applied to mental ill people ignores the humanistic Christianity of Abraham Maslow's psychological study of sane people. That the TAT has positive value there seems undeniable in that psychology is interested in understanding our thinking and, consequential to our thoughts, our behavior.

2) I wonder if we might re-visit this belated discussion that follows:

ELAHH = God (Hebrew)
John Reece wrote the following comment concerning Revelation 1:1 in regard to the Freudian Bible Translation. The seemingly "funny" use of the Greek word, " theos," meaning God, is explained below:

JOHN:
"kofh2u,
The correspondence between the Greek text of Revelation 1:1 and Daniel 2:28 concerning the use of the word God is the issue of interest here.
The "21st Century Freudian Bible Translation" appears to be something other than a translation. What you have posted above indicates that whoever produced that so-called translation renders )LH "contemplative thinking". That is amusing but not impressive."

KOFH:
Perhaps not at first glance, John. Consider the following points:

Before you dismiss, out of hand, the translation compared in The Freudian Bible, note that the Greek word you find amusingly transliterated is, in the Greek translation, the exclusive word used, the ONLY word used for God.

It is the only word the Greek uses for God, which is a Hebrew concept. In the Greek translation the word God is "theos." In this, because of the multiplicity of connotations found in the Hebrew for God, "theos" is at a disadvantage.

The Greek applies this one (1) word in every instance. It is applied unrelentingly to the concept of "God" in all places and all verses. In the Hebrew, 22 different names are used for this purpose.

The many attributes of "God" are reflected in this extensive variety in the Hebrew.

They are notably absent in the Greek solitude of "theos." Of course, as you well know, even the Greek word has pretty wide range in connotations available, synonyms, at the choice of the individual who is interpreting.

Consider this verse, Daniel 2:28.
You, yourself, suggested this verse as a useful comparison against Rev 1:1.

In Daniel 2:28 this is a God (Elahh) in heaven who reveals mysteries...

The Freudian Interpretation, here, is that heaven is that place where one finds himself when in deep contemplation, serious thought, as place where "Elahh" can communicate with him.

This seems especially pertinent to the God who is revealing the mystery of Revelation, does it not?
The word for God, Theos, in the Revelation would seem to denote the same entity as in Daniel, where, again, God is revealing.

Rev 1:1... that "God" who has revealed to Jesus to "show his servants."

In Daniel, "Elahh" is used, "a God (Elahh) in heaven who reveals mysteries." In Revelation, "theos." See my point so far? God is the
Revealer" in both verses.

But, in Daniel, clearly Daniel is mentally interacting, call it what you will, hallucinatory experience, vision, peak mystical experience,...
"Elahh" is rather an interesting denotation, because it avoids the use of Elohim, the plural, as used in Genesis, "let us create man..." (Elohim is used numerous times, perhaps the most used word for the concept of God in the Hebrew text. Elahh is rarely used, and it is singular. This implies a one on one psychic "discussion.")

The use of God in its singular form, and in the capacity of God as a revealer, infers a different manifestation of God, both in Daniel and Revelation.
The implication being, in the Freudian Translation, that Elahh implies that both Daniel and John are involved in a spiritual experience, or specifically, in 21st century jargon, a mental trance.

God is speaking to the mind of Daniel and to John. These are visions. The immaterial nature of spirit is that which we experience in thoughts. This all goes on internally, in Daniel and John's mind.

This is the essence of the translation of Elahh, a singular noun identifying the source of thoughts involved in mental "discussion" which is what we recognize as Thinking about something.

This all fits quite well with the on going interpretation in the rest of the scriptures. It all follows neatly and easily from Gen 1:26

Gen. 1:26 And The Universal Force, the macrocosmos, said, Let us, the Natural Laws, make man, a conscious mind, to model us, Universe, the microcosmos, in order that our image might be modeled after our own orderly organization: and let that conscious mind have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen. 1:27 So The Universal Force created an abstract mind in his own image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and
mathematically, so created The Universal Force him; male and female created he them.

kofh2u,

The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is a projective test of personality.

The TAT is a widely-used projective test that helps assess an individual’s perception of interpersonal relationships.

The TAT is used primarily for personality assessment rather than diagnosis of mental disorders.

Your statement "That TAT has by and large been applied to mental ill people..." misses the mark in terms of reality, as do your comments regarding the translation and interpretation of biblical texts.

Biblical Exegesis and Psychobabble have nothing in common.

:cheers:

John

[kofh2u]

kofh2u,

The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is a projective test of personality.

The TAT is a widely-used projective test that helps assess an individual’s perception of interpersonal relationships.

The TAT is used primarily for personality assessment rather than diagnosis of mental disorders.

Your statement "That TAT has by and large been applied to mental ill people..." misses the mark in terms of reality, as do your comments regarding the translation and interpretation of biblical texts.

Biblical Exegesis and Psychobabble have nothing in common.

:cheers:

John

Of course you are correct about the common use of TAT as a tool of insight into any personality to which it might be utilized, not exclusive to those people who are having personality problems, that is, people who see psychologists tend to "need" psychological help.

And, you support my contention that few sane people visit the services of these "therapists", as I like to interpret Abraham Maslow's Self-Actualized terminolgy.

It would be hard to deny that I am correct in saying TAT stimulates both creative thought and offers an insight into the Prepconscious which sane or not so well adjusted my be unable to access otherwise.

It seems impossible to side step or ridicule the obvious: Behavior, our personal behavior, our behavior as a society, IS the domain of interest in BOTH the scriptures and such psychobabble as may presently be available from the discipline of Psychology, being rather confused and not understood itself.
Do you not have to agree?


TAKE this example of the application of both scripture and psychobabble, remebering those "seven stars in his right hand"... (the 7 archetypes of our psyche)... Revelation 1:16


2Pet. 1:4-8: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature (nature within your soul{English}, the psyche{Greek}), having escaped the corruption that is in the world through 1. (Libidinal) lust.
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith...
... virtue 2. (not Egoism); and to virtue knowledge 3. (Superego reflection); And to knowledge temperance 4. (feminine quality /Anima); and to temperance patience 5. (Self, self-control); and to patience, godliness 6. (Harmonious attitude); And to godliness brotherly kindness 7. (from the cauldron of the Id, the Pleasure Principle); and to brotherly kindness, charity 8. (with goodliness of Conscience). For if these things (the psychological entities) be in your mind , and abound (freely together and not in opposition to one another), they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge (Understanding) of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Solly]

John, do you want to start another thread?

[John Reece]

John, do you want to start another thread?

No.

I want Kofh2u to honor the fact that the subject of this thread is Biblical Exegesis.

[kofh2u]

John, do you want to start another thread?



No, no, no...

I can take hint.

I'll stop posting to you, solly and John....

Go ahead, converse among the agreements you hold dear.

My apology for intrusion.


Rev. 3:15 I know thy works of humanistic charity, and that thou art neither cold to rational scriptural interpretation nor hot and enthusiastic concerning it: I would thou wert cold or hot.

Rev. 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, passive, and neither coldly intolerant nor enthusiastically hot, I will spue organized religious doctrines out of the Word from my mouth.

Your posts are not in keeping with the desires of the thread starter, so please desist from posting in this thread

[Anitra]

I appreciate having a thread to discuss the process of Biblical exegesis (rather than specific results).

I agree with all your original guidelines, John. In addition, though, I was taught that each part of the Bible must be read in the light of the whole, and in the overall spirit of the whole. In other words, an interpretation of any verse or verses that contradicted the spirit of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "Do mercy, love justice, and walk humbly wiith thy God" would be a wrong interpretation, no matter what other linguistic and cultural and textual support you rung up for it.

Forgive me if this was already in your post, just expressed in different words. :)

[kofh2u]

No.

I want Kofh2u to honor the fact that the subject of this thread is Biblical Exegesis.


John, I am unsure what you want here.

1) As I understand it, bible exegesis is the critical interpretation of scripture.

2) you mentioned the psychological tool, TAT, in your post and if I remember correctly, you maligned this technique as a psychological resource for exegesis ... which I question.

3) Do I assume that this thread is a lecture type exercise? If so, I apologize and excuse myself.

4) If not, and reminding yoiu that you mrntioned TAT, I have endeaver to contribute that it is aa tool which engages one of the Four Jungian Functions of Thinking, specifically, Intuiyion. Since criticism of scriptures or literature in general is a cerebral exercise, it seems that I am complying with your staement that I stick to bible exegesis.

5) If I am invited to participate on yoir thread I hope to demonstrate how intuition can be appropriately applied to such a task.

6) If you do not wish to extend intellectual freedom here and prefer to instruct us in your methodology, please tell and I will refrain from interaction with you.

david judah layb... respectfully.

[John Reece]

John, I am unsure what you want here.

1) As I understand it, bible exegesis is the critical interpretation of scripture.

2) you mentioned the psychological tool, TAT, in your post and if I remember correctly, you maligned this technique as a psychological resource for exegesis ... which I question.

3) Do I assume that this thread is a lecture type exercise? If so, I apologize and excuse myself.

4) If not, and reminding yoiu that you mrntioned TAT, I have endeaver to contribute that it is aa tool which engages one of the Four Jungian Functions of Thinking, specifically, Intuiyion. Since criticism of scriptures or literature in general is a cerebral exercise, it seems that I am complying with your staement that I stick to bible exegesis.

5) If I am invited to participate on yoir thread I hope to demonstrate how intuition can be appropriately applied to such a task.

6) If you do not wish to extend intellectual freedom here and prefer to instruct us in your methodology, please tell and I will refrain from interaction with you.

david judah layb... respectfully.

kofh2u,

Jaltus asked me to provide some input for a project of his, so I started this thread simply as an effort to respond to his request, by writing about my own practice of biblical exegesis.

If you feel you have something to offer that will be beneficial to Jaltus in completing his project, then I hereby stand aside.

John

[Anitra]

I hope I am not encouraging a distraction here, but I would like to insert a word about intuition.

Creative intuition is certainly important and valuable and often used: in science, in life, in reading Bible. We get great insights in a flash, an epiphany.

We also get a lot of junkola in a great flash of "intuition." We get some very strong "gut feelings" that turn out to be bad cheese. The channel that brings us spiritual insight runs right next to the one that brings us everything else in our subconscious including old traumas and late night horror movies.

We have analytical and critical method in which to test our perceptions, our ideas, and our insights -- plus those of other people -- all of which might be right, or might be wrong. This is part of what we are discussing here, I thought -- exegesis, the critical methodology we use to determine if our understanding of a scriptural text is a right one.

[kofh2u]

kofh2u,

Jaltus asked me to provide some input for a project of his, so I started this thread simply as an effort to respond to his request, by writing about my own practice of biblical exegesis.

If you feel you have something to offer that will be beneficial to Jaltus in completing his project, then I hereby stand aside.

John


Oh....

Sorry, then it IS a lecture forum.

bye

[John Reece]

With regard to the OP and subsequent posts above, it occurs to me that perhaps I have not placed enough emphasis on the inestimable value of the apparatus in the outer margin of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, which refers to parallels and similar expressions in the New Testament writings, as well as quotations from and allusions to the Old Testament.

For me, the Nestle-Aland margin is an exegetical mainstay.