I think my brothers here have said enough. However, it is obvious that you have no formal theological or biblical interpretation training. I am not boasting, but I have a B.A. in Theological Studies, emphasis on Biblical Exegesis. The very first step in biblical interpretation is to consider and discover what the text meant to the people when it was written. Covenant, language, historical events, culture and setting all must be taken into account first. We actually get really skewed interpretations if we do not start there.

For example, so many people misinterpret verses from the prophets about God promising to heal the Israelites. These verses have been used by the word of faith community for a long time to prove that God WILL heal every wound. However, we must take into consideration the historical fact that the Israelites we taken into captivity for their sin. God was promising this to them when they turned from their sin. It is not a blanket eternal promise to mankind that God will heal everyone.

Also, if we didn’t take history into account, women would not be allowed to braid their hair, wear jewelry, and, not speak in church at all. We should also be drinking wine to cure our illnesses, but that is a whole other discussion.

RE: “Also when it comes to label’s and “sweeping” generalizations, you folks are masters.”

Why the hostility? How about an example or two and we can clear this matter up?

Neil S.

Statements like this are completely devoid of any real meaning. First you make a so-called truth statement like this, then label whomever you dislike so that they fit your definition.

I could say similar things about your modern-Christianity. for example – Modern-Christianity relies solely on the post enlightened reader to determine meaning void of any historical setting or spiritual input.

The fact that this is so broad as to be meaningless notwithstanding…

I’ll try and overlook your tone and address you questions – though I have to admit, I don’t think you rally desire any information…

A lot of your comments can be dismissed as just taking a statement of someone else to an illogical and unintended end. Like the lack of seeing the difference between emerging and emergent – this is either an inability to discern or the ability to do so, but lack of honesty to admit what you see – since the difference between the ing and ent easily proven (all you have to do is read them) only you can give the real reason for not acknowledging any difference.

Now to your question:
The first century meaning is important because it gives the context into which the revelation was given. Without this historical setting it is significantly more difficult to understand what was meant, or why a particular word was used. Failing to take this into account also allows for the reader to just read into a passage whatever meaning is correctly popular – so in a sense, what you are advocating is the most post modern of approaches.

We can understand the letter to the Corinthians without knowing who wrote it or to whom it was written. But knowing these things, knowing what it was like in Corinth, where was Paul when he wrote it, why did he address these particular issues – all these things serve to inform the exegete on what Paul was thinking, as well give parameters as to what it cannot mean.

It is true that some may over apply what other scholars have said (notice my tone here), but you push it too far to imply or actually say that this reduces the Word to “personalities, opinions, historians, cultural anthropologists, socialogists, but no true, spirit-filled men of God.”

Many of the men whom we read were spirit-filled – are you saying we should disregard their insights? And I’m a firm believer that the sciences which find insight into the world also can shed light on the Creator as well – when spirit-filled people (like you and even me) take their knowledge into account – assuming such knowledge is not contra-biblical – of course.

To say that we need not bother with the giants of the faith that came before is the height of arrogance and naivet̩ Рand may I add, another hallmark of the postmodern person.

I don’t consider being censored persecution, however. Mike can do what he wants with my comments. I don’t really care.

You can hear Mark’s sermon here:
http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/070311_Nehemiah4.mp3

This is both incorrect and leads to a non-sequitor.

It is incorrect that the Bible is meant to be taken within the context of itself – this is true as the primary context, but no the sole context. To ignore the historical setting, the author, the audience, the purpose, is to invite all sorts of meanings that were never intended. It cannot mean something to us that it did not mean to them.

The non-sequitor is that this leads to the Bible not meaning anything to us. Of course it does. The application of meanings will change with the times.

Basically, your method is to say it means what it means to me, and what it meant to others is no meaning at all – which is the purest of postmodern hermeneutics – ironically.

1.The Bible is meant to be taken within the context of itself,not in light of when or where it was written. This would mean that it has absolutely nothing to say today to us, which is of course, the goal. What did Jesus say about making the word of no effect?
I read it literally, not in light of 18th or 19th century theologians. Sorry but the Lord has never asked any man “what do you think about what I am doing?”
Also when it comes to label’s and “sweeping” generalizations, you folks are masters.

2. On this or any other postmodern rag I have yet to see any true exegesis. Scriptural exegesis comes fronm scripture not from Hillel’s Finishing School.
3.No one has said why 1st century political climate is important. I do see a lot of people throwing the arms out of joint bvy patting themselves on the back.
What is being done is a concerted effort to put the Scripture back in the hands of the “clergy/elite” i.e. the new magesterium.

What it all boils down to is, the “faith” has been reduced to personalities, opinions, historians, cultural anthropologists, socialogists, but no true, spirit-filled men of God. Post-modern christianity is a secular religion and is devoid of the power of God and the Scriptures. Laodicea translated from the Greek is what we have here, i.e. the church where the people speak, where the “conversation” and opinions of man take precedent.
BTW Slice of laodicea has been gone for awhile. Get something new to rant about.