Consistent Hermeneutics (??)

[Guest]

PaulT,

I didn't say that Darin's question is irrelevant. The fact that you think I did so tells me that either 1) you do not read before responding, or 2) you lack the basic thinking skills necessary to understand a simple argument, or 3) you understand quite well, but refuse to deal with the argument in an honest manner. In any of these cases, you are out of your league at this forum—not because you are less intelligent than others here, but because you are less willing to engage in honest dialogue—and can do little else than waste the time of people more honest than yourself.

I will watch your posts in the future. If I find you are here only to cause trouble, I will be banning you, so please interact like an honest person. We have great tolerance here for disagreement, but very little for dishonesty.

[Guest]

So please Darin, end the suspense, tell us the relevance of your presupposition to the discussion of exegesis versus eisegesis, Gregg and I are both waiting, and frankly I don’t need another of his verbose messages to state what you’ve already stated in a much more precise manner.

I'm not sure I understand what you're waiting for -- as I indicated in my last post, I thought Steve explained the relevance quite well and nothing more need be said. I was attempting to use something removed from the passion of the argument at hand to suggest a basic principle of hermeneutics that I find beneficial, and to suggest the relative benefit of the background, assumptions, passions, manners of speech, larger commentary, and the like over and above wooden syntax concerning a dead language.

One of your comments suggests that I thought the intimacy of the spouse that was at issue -- that was only part of it -- it was the holistic understanding of the man and his message that was intended to be conveyed as of primary usefulness in interpreting his text, and that a mere grammarian who didn't know the man is of little use (not to suggest the typical Calvinist approach is that of a mere grammarian, but so by matter of degree).

[Guest]

PaulT,
I didn't say that Darin's question is irrelevant. The fact that you think I did so tells me that either 1) you do not read before responding, or 2) you lack the basic thinking skills necessary to understand a simple argument, or 3) you understand quite well, but refuse to deal with the argument in an honest manner. In any of these cases, you are out of your league at this forum—not because you are less intelligent than others here, but because you are less willing to engage in honest dialogue—and can do little else than waste the time of people more honest than yourself.

Nah, you didn’t say it was irrelevant you just wrote, “so what”. I’d say the term “irrelevant” was a little bit nicer than your, “so what” And you suggested my thinking skills are not what they should be. Why if the question was “relevant” to the topic would you write, “so what”?

PaulT,
I will watch your posts in the future. If I find you are here only to cause trouble, I will be banning you, so please interact like an honest person. We have great tolerance here for disagreement, but very little for dishonesty.

Hey it is your web-site, do what you want. Frankly, the fact you suggest your “so what” doesn’t then equate to the relevance of the topic would seem to cast light on your definition of honesty.


PaulT

[Guest]

So please Darin, end the suspense, tell us the relevance of your presupposition to the discussion of exegesis versus eisegesis, Gregg and I are both waiting, and frankly I don’t need another of his verbose messages to state what you’ve already stated in a much more precise manner.

I'm not sure I understand what you're waiting for -- as I indicated in my last post, I thought Steve explained the relevance quite well and nothing more need be said. I was attempting to use something removed from the passion of the argument at hand to suggest a basic principle of hermeneutics that I find beneficial, and to suggest the relative benefit of the background, assumptions, passions, manners of speech, larger commentary, and the like over and above wooden syntax concerning a dead language.

One of your comments suggests that I thought the intimacy of the spouse that was at issue -- that was only part of it -- it was the holistic understanding of the man and his message that was intended to be conveyed as of primary usefulness in interpreting his text, and that a mere grammarian who didn't know the man is of little use (not to suggest the typical Calvinist approach is that of a mere grammarian, but so by matter of degree).

You guy’s kill me. How about an answer to my question of relevance as why it relates to the topic? Let me give you a hint, Gregg himself wrote “so what” whether he wants to be honest about it or not. He also pointed out the onus was on you to tell us where you are going, in other words make the connection as to relevance. If you don’t want to make the connection, hey I understand, the point seems moot, given that no one who is intimate in the terms you attempted to make the connection with the authors from 2000 years ago is around.

PaulT

[Guest]

So please Darin, end the suspense, tell us the relevance of your presupposition to the discussion of exegesis versus eisegesis, Gregg and I are both waiting, and frankly I don’t need another of his verbose messages to state what you’ve already stated in a much more precise manner.

I'm not sure I understand what you're waiting for -- as I indicated in my last post, I thought Steve explained the relevance quite well and nothing more need be said. I was attempting to use something removed from the passion of the argument at hand to suggest a basic principle of hermeneutics that I find beneficial, and to suggest the relative benefit of the background, assumptions, passions, manners of speech, larger commentary, and the like over and above wooden syntax concerning a dead language.

One of your comments suggests that I thought the intimacy of the spouse that was at issue -- that was only part of it -- it was the holistic understanding of the man and his message that was intended to be conveyed as of primary usefulness in interpreting his text, and that a mere grammarian who didn't know the man is of little use (not to suggest the typical Calvinist approach is that of a mere grammarian, but so by matter of degree).

You guy’s kill me. How about an answer to my question of relevance as why it relates to the topic? Let me give you a hint, Gregg himself wrote “so what” whether he wants to be honest about it or not. He also pointed out the onus was on you to tell us where you are going, in other words make the connection as to relevance. If you don’t want to make the connection, hey I understand, the point seems moot, given that no one who is intimate in the terms you attempted to make the connection with the authors from 2000 years ago is around.

PaulT

Didn't the text you quote answer your question as to relevance? I don't know what else you want. I don't think it's moot at all, and I would suggest I am more intimate with Paul and his writings than my pagan English teacher is who hasn't spent the time with his writings as I have. As analogies often do, the example deals with extremes at the margins to a degree to simplify the issue so we can come to agreements on a basic premise -- only then can we start to distinguish and narrow in on the points with which we disagree in more laser-beam fashion. Otherwise, we can waste a lot of time talking past each other. If we can't agree on the premise, then we know where our differences lie and whether we can help each other modify those premises or whether further discussion is even going to be edifying.

[Guest]

I'm not sure I understand what you're waiting for -- as I indicated in my last post, I thought Steve explained the relevance quite well and nothing more need be said. I was attempting to use something removed from the passion of the argument at hand to suggest a basic principle of hermeneutics that I find beneficial, and to suggest the relative benefit of the background, assumptions, passions, manners of speech, larger commentary, and the like over and above wooden syntax concerning a dead language.

One of your comments suggests that I thought the intimacy of the spouse that was at issue -- that was only part of it -- it was the holistic understanding of the man and his message that was intended to be conveyed as of primary usefulness in interpreting his text, and that a mere grammarian who didn't know the man is of little use (not to suggest the typical Calvinist approach is that of a mere grammarian, but so by matter of degree).

You guy’s kill me. How about an answer to my question of relevance as why it relates to the topic? Let me give you a hint, Gregg himself wrote “so what” whether he wants to be honest about it or not. He also pointed out the onus was on you to tell us where you are going, in other words make the connection as to relevance. If you don’t want to make the connection, hey I understand, the point seems moot, given that no one who is intimate in the terms you attempted to make the connection with the authors from 2000 years ago is around.

PaulT

Didn't the text you quote answer your question as to relevance? I don't know what else you want. I don't think it's moot at all, and I would suggest I am more intimate with Paul and his writings than my pagan English teacher is who hasn't spent the time with his writings as I have. As analogies often do, the example deals with extremes at the margins to a degree to simplify the issue so we can come to agreements on a basic premise -- only then can we start to distinguish and narrow in on the points with which we disagree in more laser-beam fashion. Otherwise, we can waste a lot of time talking past each other. If we can't agree on the premise, then we know where our differences lie and whether we can help each other modify those premises or whether further discussion is even going to be edifying.

Text I quoted? Gotcha so what you are really getting at is a presupposition that when viewing the text one is more intimate with God than the other. For example, when White points out Gregg is using eisegesis rather than exegesis White may not be in the same standing before the Lord, is that your point? Yes I say if all things being equal, both individuals have an intimate relationship with the Lord then the one who has a better grasp on the original language, understands the issues as it relates to syntax would be in a better position to draw out the meaning of the text. Again, it escapes me why a non-believer would employ eisegesis although they might not capture the complete meaning, if they are intellectually honest they won’t have a bias to import into the context, buy hey I’ve also been told that “so what” as it relates to the overall topic isn’t an expression of irrelevance.

PaulT

[Guest]

Text I quoted? Gotcha so what you are really getting at is a presupposition that when viewing the text one is more intimate with God than the other. For example, when White points out Gregg is using eisegesis rather than exegesis White may not be in the same standing before the Lord, is that your point? Yes I say if all things being equal, both individuals have an intimate relationship with the Lord then the one who has a better grasp on the original language, understands the issues as it relates to syntax would be in a better position to draw out the meaning of the text. Again, it escapes me why a non-believer would employ eisegesis although they might not capture the complete meaning, if they are intellectually honest they won’t have a bias to import into the context,

No, that's not what I was saying in the least. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

buy hey I’ve also been told that “so what” as it relates to the overall topic isn’t an expression of irrelevance.

By the way, you can go ahead and quit making that "so what" comment -- if you read Steve's post (his name is Steve, not Gregg) it is clear that he used it only in a hypothetical to characterize how YOU might could have responded to me. He was not suggesting the issue was irrelevant, just that you could have answered my question and then gone on to explain how my question was irrelevant to the point at hand.

[Guest]

Text I quoted? Gotcha so what you are really getting at is a presupposition that when viewing the text one is more intimate with God than the other. For example, when White points out Gregg is using eisegesis rather than exegesis White may not be in the same standing before the Lord, is that your point? Yes I say if all things being equal, both individuals have an intimate relationship with the Lord then the one who has a better grasp on the original language, understands the issues as it relates to syntax would be in a better position to draw out the meaning of the text. Again, it escapes me why a non-believer would employ eisegesis although they might not capture the complete meaning, if they are intellectually honest they won’t have a bias to import into the context,

No, that's not what I was saying in the least. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

Perhaps I’m reading into more than is there but against a back-drop of a debate between White and Gregg in which White expounded at length regarding the Greek grammar and syntax and Gregg apparently had no substantial retort, you framed your original comment regarding this subject, “This whole "greek syntax vs. greater context and backdrop" debate seems to be at the root of the difference in approach between most of the Calvinists and non-Calvinists I know -- they both claim to exegete and blame the other of eisegesis, they both extend the specific to the general in places, they both incorporate philosophy and accommodate their own pet philosophical constructs to a degree, but the big difference in hermeneutic to me seems to relate to the basic way in which one approaches the text.” Which then led to your question, “With that in mind, I ask the Calvinists among us a serious question I really want their answer to” followed up with your illustration of your wife and grammar teacher and question of who would have a better handle on the text.

We now know based on your own admission that the grammar teacher you had in mind was not a believer. You don’t need to answer this but let me show you why I think you’ve been disingenuous in your line of thought. It would seem based on what we now know your assumption in your initial post is that the Calvinist,(the one who focused on the Greek and syntax) is not a Christian while the non-Calvinist is a Christian and therefore their approach to the text is fundamentally different. Which, as my initial question (which Gregg excoriated me regarding, claiming I was not acting in good faith in an effort apparently to cover for you) exposed is what you had in mind when you connected your question with your prior observation, as it turns out your “serious” question was meant to suggest the grammarian wasn’t a Christian while the non-grammarian was a Christian and had a better grip on the text due to the intimate relationship a Christian has with God. One need not wonder why Gregg so quickly jumped to your defense, his purpose is now self-evident. He knew that my question struck at the heart of your presupposition that although delayed do to the several cover attempts Gregg employed nevertheless came out when you explained why your point wasn’t moot. Don’t worry about explaining your position further, your question is moot unless one assumes the Calvinist who is skilled in Greek grammar and syntax is not a Christian your point has absolutely no relevance to the discussion regarding eisegesis versus exegesis, between the Calvinist and non-Calvinist but would however have just as much relevance as you seemingly think it does if the roles were reversed that being the skilled grammarian had a relationship with the Lord and the non-skilled grammarian was not a Christian, but an imposter.

No, that's not what I was saying in the least. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

buy hey I’ve also been told that “so what” as it relates to the overall topic isn’t an expression of irrelevance.

By the way, you can go ahead and quite making that "so what" comment -- if you read Steve's post (his name is Steve, not Gregg) it is clear that he used it only in a hypothetical to characterize how YOU might could have responded to me. He was not suggesting the issue was irrelevant, just that you could have answered my question and then go on to explain how my question was irrelevant to the point at hand.

You guy’s really do like to circle the wagons, but hey you may have a point. If you are correct then I suppose Gregg was just recapitulating my argument in which case it wouldn’t be intellectually honest to suggest that was his position, sound familiar? Although Gregg in his closing comment supports my assertion by stating,

Steve wrote:
Where he, (that would be you Darin) intended to go with it remains for him to tell us,

And to think my honesty has been questioned. Unless I miss something not knowing where you are going leaves open the relevancy of the question in light of the topic. But I have an idea Gregg knew where you were going all along.

PaulT

[Guest]

I'm starting to feel a bit like a character in a Lewis Carroll novel.

I'm afraid you and I are so far apart in the assumptions we bring to this table, that I think you've just plain worn me out at this point.

I have had no concept of believer vs. non-believer in my discussions, and it has never even crossed my mind that you or Dr. White might be non-believers (or my hypothetical grammarian), and the intimacy with God plays no part in the point I was trying to make.

Regardless whether it's you or me that isn't hearing the other (or both), if we are just going to continue to talk past each other, I'm afraid there's little value in continuing this one.... so, I will bid you adieu. Feel free to stick around -- perhaps, we'll have better luck on other topics.

[Guest]

Paul,

I have recently been informed that you have been banned from other forums for your tactics. Even without knowing this, I have given you a warning about the danger of that happening to you here. Let me explain why:

I am not familiar with other forums. I don't have enough time to devote to posting on the internet, other than here. I interact here because this forum is something of an extension of my radio ministry, and was created to give people an opportunity to ask questions and to disagree with me, as is the case on the program.

As on the radio program, we do welcome the participation of those who want to debate. However (as on the program) we do not have infinite patience with those who only desire to waste our time, who do not wish to listen to nor respond to our points. It is not that you must accept our ideas as valid. However, most of us count it a waste of our valuable time to continually repeat ourselves, and to re-explain statements that were sufficiently clear the first time they were made, to an antagonist who has no interest in weighing arguments and perfecting his knowledge of truth, but who apparently simply likes to badger, and who either does not understand or else seeks to ignore the arguments of those who present cogent challenges to the view to which he is loyal.

Darin has given honest and non-evasive answers to your challenges, as have I. He is not the only one wearying of your misrepresentations of the statements of others. If you really don't understand the arguments you are misquoting, then you may not have the clarity of thought necessary to engage in fruitful debate. On the other hand, if you do understand the arguments, but are merely twisting them, then you do not exhibit the honesty that the rest of us value and attempt to bring to the table. You will find few here who wish to play your game. We do not view this forum as a competition, but as a learning experience for everybody.

I am not banning you from this forum at this point. However, we do try to maintain standards of integrity and civility here (possibly unlike other forums that you participate in). If your posts do not begin to exemplify dialogue at those standards which we wish to maintain, we will have to ask you to take your comments to other forums, where you will be more than welcome (with my blessing) to present any criticisms of us that you wish, behind our backs.