By so doing No Scripture is made a Private interpretation



~~~~~ 10 BASICS for Scripture Interpretation~~~~~ interpretation

1.] Always read a Scripture in its full context. At least a whole chapter. But the whole book is better.

2.] Consult other Scriptures that refer to the same subject and let those scriptures "help" the understanding of the Scripture you are studying.

3.] Let All Scripture "influence" each Scripture and Each Scripture "influence" all Scripture. No Scripture can stand on its own.

4.] Always ask, "To Whom is this written?" For example, when Paul said, "Wives, submit to your husbands" that is written to the wives. Husbands can't read it!

5.] Remember that there is an Old Covenant and a New Covenant. Are you reading Scripture that is OC? Are you reading Scripture that is NC? Or are you reading a promise or principle that is the will or the counsel of God in general.

6.] Cutting and Pasting is "illegal." You can't "tape" Scriptures together to "prove your point."

7.] Read several reliable translations of a Scripture.

8.] Look up the meanings of words in the Hebrew and Greek. Strong's Concordance is good .

9.] Don't approach Scripture to find support for your theory. Approach Scripture with a desire to learn.

10.] Don't make stuff up!!

line by line, precept upon precept ,here a little there a little

buzugee:

line by line, precept upon precept ,here a little there a little

true

I would have loved it if you made reference to rabbinical exegesis.

Perhaps you could give us examples of where Authorities interpreted the scriptures in the manner you've outlined.

Pastor AIO:

I would have loved it if you made reference to rabbinical exegesis.

Perhaps you could give us examples of where Authorities interpreted the scriptures in the manner you've outlined.

what do you find objectionable with this style?

buzugee:

l[b]ine by line, precept upon precept ,here a little there a little [/b]

Plausible, but how did you end up with this nonsensical Hebrew Israelite belief

Appears you did not read the bible line by line, precept upon precept ,here a little there a little

Allow scripture to interpret itself.

chinedumo:

By so doing No Scripture is made a Private interpretation

~~~~ 10 BASICS for Scripture Interpretation~~~~~

1.] Always read a Scripture in its full context. At least a whole chapter. But the whole book is better.

2.] Consult other Scriptures that refer to the same subject and let those scriptures "help" the understanding of the Scripture you are studying.

3.] Let All Scripture "influence" each Scripture and Each Scripture "influence" all Scripture. No Scripture can stand on its own.

4.] Always ask, "To Whom is this written?" For example, when Paul said, "Wives, submit to your husbands" that is written to the wives. Husbands can't read it!

5.] Remember that there is an Old Covenant and a New Covenant. Are you reading Scripture that is OC? Are you reading Scripture that is NC? Or are you reading a promise or principle that is the will or the counsel of God in general.

6.] Cutting and Pasting is "illegal." You can't "tape" Scriptures together to "prove your point."

7.] Read several reliable translations of a Scripture.

8.] Look up the meanings of words in the Hebrew and Greek. Strong's Concordance is good .

9.] Don't approach Scripture to find support for your theory. Approach Scripture with a desire to learn.

10.] Don't make stuff up!!

In fact, Na all goes. Good job brother.

chinedumo:

what do you find objectionable with this style?

Oh gosh! No, I do not object at all. I just wanted to know your thoughts on rabbinical exegesis. Afterall Jesus did say that the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat and therefore are the ones with the authority to interprete scriptures.

For example I could show you examples in the bible where the scripture is subjected to analysis in the rabbinical style.

Pastor AIO:

For example I could show you examples in the bible where the scripture is subjected to analysis in the rabbinical style.

Go ahead bro

goshen360:

Go ahead bro

I'll give you one, but whether or not it is in the rabbinical style is open to debate. I'll give another one later that is more rabbinical.

sion
1If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. 2And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. 3Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.

[size=14pt]4Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.[/size]

5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. 6And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. 7And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. 8Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; 9Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. 10And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

Literally the bolded means that while your beast of burden is working to thresh the corn you should not stop it from munching the corn as it is doing it's work.

Enter Paul:

He subjects just that single line to exegesis. True, the line doesn't seem to tally with what comes before and what comes after. Anyway Paul isolates the line flouting your first basic rule.

17Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. [size=14pt]18For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. [/size]And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. 19Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 21I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. 22Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

Paul brings this exegesis out of that line that anybody labouring in the gospel as a full right to chop from the gospel. Suddenly the line is no longer about the treatment of Oxen but rather about the right of church leaders to chop as much as they like at the expense of their church members.
And this is not the only time that Paul interpretes this scripture so.

For it is written in the Law of Moses, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING ” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.

Again he pulls out the same exegesis and he goes even further. He tells us that God does not care for cattle. Since God does not concern himself with cattle it follows that that scripture cannot be about cattle but rather about us. It was for our sake. God wants us to chop freely wherever we are labouring. Therefore if your labour is of the gospel then you have every right to enrich yourself therefrom.

I once posed a question on Nairaland as to whether this would only apply to the gospel preachers or whether it could apply as well to our political leaders in africa. Afterall they are labouring as public servants. Biblically speaking we should not muzzle them in the place where they are working. Alas I got no serious response, only LOL.

hold on bro, i will get into the matter. I have to go out now. I will look into it and we will discuss it. You see, we cannot just sit on one verse and just make explanation out of it just like one of the point made by the poster.

goshen360:

hold on bro, i will get into the matter. I have to go out now. I will look into it and we will discuss it. You see, we cannot just sit on one verse and just make explanation out of it just like one of the point made by the poster.

Well, you're going to have to have a word with apostle Paul about that cos he does it a lot.

frosbel:

Plausible, but how did you end up with this nonsensical Hebrew Israelite belief

Appears you did not read the bible line by line, precept upon precept ,here a little there a little

i would hardly call it nonsensical

A relatively elderly man lived in a hut; one day this hut was destroyed by fire.

A nephew of the elderly man who lived in town heard about this and rushed down to comfort the man. He said to the elderly man: "Ile ọba ti o jo, ẹwa l'o bu si" (when a king's house burns down, it only makes it more beautiful and grand).

The nephew then quickly raised money and built the elderly man a beautiful new modern house.

Interesting "interpretation" and application of an old proverb! Edit: I suppose it is a form of or the kind of thing as the "Rabbinical exegesis" mentioned.

Enigma:

A relatively elderly man lived in a hut; one day this hut was destroyed by fire.

A nephew of the elderly man who lived in town heard about this and rushed down to comfort the man. He said to the elderly man: "Ile ọba ti o jo, ẹwa l'o bu si" (when a king's house burns down, it only makes it more beautiful and grand).

The nephew then quickly raised money and built the elderly man a beautiful new modern house.

Interesting "interpretation" and application of an old proverb! Edit: I suppose it is a form of or the kind of thing as the "Rabbinical exegesis" mentioned.

I love those yoruba proverbs o! I hadn't heard that one before. So just how are you applying it to the muzzled ox? Are the old interpretations of scripture burnt down allowing us to erect up new and more beautiful interpretations?

Please reference this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-281645.0.html
for a more extensive discussion of the matters at hand.

I hope Joagbaje is reading this thread, he has a lot to learn from it. I would also suggest he copies the 10 basics and send it to Oyaks so that Oyaks would learn to interpret scripture properly and not depend on the evil spirit possessing him.

^^

Pastor_Kun still dey vex with Joagbaje?

How have you been, anyway?

@Nuke
I dey my brother, I am not vexing with Joagbaje it is the flock he preaches to that I feel sorry for. These people (cec members in general) are fed with so much thrash they end up being delusional. If joagbaje can learn to interpret scriptures properly (not using the lenses of Oyaks) he might be able to lead his congregation away from false religion and free them from the shackles of Oyaks.

I will find time to go through the other thread in due course.

The little story and the Yoruba proverb was simply to demonstrate the simplicity that sometimes exists in application of an old saying/idea/wisdom etc developed in one context and applying it not as direct parallel but as a relational 'picture' to demonstrate another point. Sometimes we are looking for complexity where there really is none in the final analysis.

True the Jews had some technical approaches to hermeneutics but is that what we really see everytime some old or even Old Testament idea is 'borrowed' or adapted for a different situation. The reality is that we do the relating/application thing constantly in everday life to explain, to paint a picture, to communicate effectively, to make the listener/hearer/reader better understand and see clearly ----- without thinking of issues of 'exegesis' or 'hermeneutics'.

It is very common in Yoruba land in particular and the application is often very 'fluid' or quite 'free', i.e. the comparative situations are far from being 'on all fours'. It is the same with using analogies: the things being compared will rarely be on all fours and someone can all ways find things to nit-pick (indeed, something common on Nairaland).

It must be accepted that there must be limits e.g. what I have seen called 'rigor'; questions to ask would be what are the limits or 'rigor' to be based upon? Possibles (1) honesty --- arguably the most important; (2) sufficient comparability as not to jeopardise 'integrity' of comparison ---- important and in some circumstances could  be as important as honesty; (3) technicalities e.g. requiring near identity or at least more than sufficient comparability amounting to pettifogging and not seeing the wood for the trees ------ this is often the path taken by critics.

An aside of interest/relevance: the use of ọfọ (incantations) in Yoruba could be interesting and even our more jocular usage of such things nowadays.

Alọ ramirami l'aa ri, a kii r'abọ rẹ

Bi dandanbiri ba lu'gi aa ma fẹ ku ni

Firifiri l'oju n r'imu, bọọbọ l'agutan n'wo.

Picture a single man surrounded by 12 people and he handles them easily with this one: t'ija t'ija lo n ṣe ti ọmọri odo ati iya rẹ, ẹ bẹrẹ si ma lu ara yin!

Enigma:


[size=13pt]Firifiri l'oju n r'imu, bọọbọ l'agutan n'wo.

t'ija t'ija lo n ṣe ti ọmọri odo ati iya rẹ, ẹ bẹrẹ si ma lu ara yin![/size]

Ifaa Iru-Ekun

Nuke

I'm sure you would have heard these ones:

Aitete m'ole, ole ya far away (ole n'sa lọ) --- {standard joke, no?}


This next one makes me laugh all the time just because of the picture it makes in my mind.

Afẹfẹ to fẹ, t'o mu ki ologi ma sa're ---- ki elelubọ ti far far far far away!

That last is pretty potent and currently applicable to our "show" pastors and pastresses.

Eye don dey clear too much

^ Oju ti bẹrẹ si i ra bi aṣa igbira!

...pls delete

Moodie:

Una don use yoruba spoil everything. Bye bye.

@Moodie:

sorry -just a bit of fun

Let us consider this verse in Genesis:

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them 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. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he[b] them[/b].

I want to put it to you that this passage has been very misleadingly translated.  This has happened either because the translators were not aware of Rabbinical doctrine, or because they were intentionally twisting the scripture. 


There is no word 'them' in the original hebrew (check your concordance).  They added that themselves and that is the cause of so many errors in the doctrines of many christians. 

The passage should read that God created Adam (singular) in his own image, male and female.  In other words this Adam was both male and female, like Elohim.  Yes, Adam was Androgynous.  The 'them' leads you to think that many people were created and they were some male and some female.  The bible doesn't say that at all.

In fact Jews understand the opening verses of Genesis to be talking about the creation of two very different beings, both called Adam. That is why the Jews say that God created him before and after.  There is the prior Adam and then there is the subsequent Adam.  Subsequent Adam is then divided into two, Adam and Eve.  the first Adam is called Adam Kadmon.

In Midrash

The remarkable contradiction between the two above-quoted passages of Genesis could not escape the attention of the Pharisees, for whom the Bible was a subject of close study. In explaining the various views concerning Eve's creation, they taught[4] that Adam was created as a man-woman (androgynous), explaining זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה (Genesis  1:27) as "male and female" instead of "man and woman," and that the separation of the sexes arose from the subsequent operation upon Adam's body, as related in the Scripture. This explains Philo's statement that the original man was neither man nor woman.

This doctrine concerning the Logos, as also that of man made "in the likeness,"[5] though tinged with true Philonic coloring, is also based on the theology of the Pharisees. For in an old Midrash[6] it is remarked:

    'Thou hast formed me behind and before' (Psalms  139:5) is to be explained 'before the first and after the last day of Creation.' For it is said, 'And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,' meaning the spirit of the Messiah ["the spirit of Adam" in the parallel passage, Midr. Teh. to cxxxix. 5; both readings are essentially the same], of whom it is said (Isaiah  11:2), 'And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him.'

This contains the kernel of Philo's philosophical doctrine of the creation of the original man. He calls him the idea of the earthly Adam, while with the rabbis the spirit (רוח) of Adam not only existed before the creation of the earthly Adam, but was preexistent to the whole of creation. From the preexisting Adam, or Messiah, to the Logos is merely a step.

This Rabbinical doctrine of the 2 Adams was seized on by Paul and is at the very heart of his entire theology. 

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

1Corinthians 15

The primordial Adam is even openly equated with the Greek concept of Logos.  But it is not only in greek and hebrew that we find the idea.  In Sanskrit you will find the idea of Purusha.

But that will be taking us away from our focus.  The point that I'm trying to make is that the pharisees can seize upon one line ( in this case verse 5 of psalm 139) and extrapolate from it a great deal that when you look on the surface you will not be able to see the connection.  Before any christian thinks he is in a position to criticize the pharisees we must remember that Jesus himself gave them his commendation telling us that they sit in the seat of Moses and to them has been given the authority to interpret the scriptures.

...pls delete

Hi AIO,

Some of your points caught my attention and would like to respond thus in imitating a discussion. I only hope i wont be derailing the thread but i believe it is still a part of the topic of discourse which is Basic Interpretation Rules For The Bible.

1. You had said the word "them" introduced did not do justice to that passage. I could not agree less though I had always read that scripture also to mean that the them referred to the two sexes built into Adam at creation. Your comments gives some clarity to it in some way in the school of thought that man was created as an hermaphrodite originally. That then presupposes that man was supposed to produce his kind all alone without any intimacy whatsoever as i presume eggs will be produced and fertilized in the same "body" and at maturity (he/she) it delivers. However, the need to quell the loneliness problem resulted in that spiritual operation leading to the male systems being separated from that of the female.

2. Flowing from the above, you said man was created in the image of God (Elohim); Male and Female implying that Elohim is Androgynous. I beg to differ on this point and I put forward my reasons. Like was suggested in one of the basics listed by the poster, that we should allow scriptures to interpret scriptures else we run the risk of misinterpretation and sometimes absolute heresies, let us see the meaning other scriptures tend to give to this view of yours.

Col. 1:15; New International Version
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Jesus Christ is being referred to in the text quoted above in Col. 1:15 and you will agree with me suggests nothing about his physical structure. Image talks mainly about Resemblance in certain qualities such as love, morality, etc.

To further buttress this point of mine, let us look at the following:

In 2 Cor. 3:18; American King James Version
(But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the LORD).

If we are already in God’s image (as depicted by pour physical frame), what further Image are we still changing into according to this verse? This no doubt IMHO reveals that the image being discussed in Genesis has nothing to do with how our physical frames are structured.

The next question you might ask is how then does he perform all functions our organs perform as in the fact that He sees, ears, moves, feels (does He  ?), etc.? Our organs that perform these functions are only channels or tools to carry them out and may not necessarily mean that he has lobes, lips, eyeballs, etc like us. Hope you feel me?

Thinking that Elohim carries the same body structure like we mortals is IMHO a grave error as nowhere does the scriptures states so clearly. It is almost tantamount to saying The Elohim then has both external male and female reproductive organs. I do not subscribe to that line of thought since Jesus had said there are no marriages in heaven and we shall all be like angels. It further underscores the point that the image and Likeness does not relate to our physical frames but our build physically can help us understand how God can relate to us.

I stand to be corrected.