Hermeneutics and Exegesis

civic

Well-known member
A double-mind is “having in the mind opposite or opposing views at different times.” To be double-minded is the same as having a “double heart” (1 Chr. 12:33; Ps. 12:2). Double-mindedness is a sickness of the heart or inner man and cannot be corrected with medicine or any medical procedure.

First thing coming up from google above rofl
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
one believes you are capable of leading a Bible study seth. You have yet to prove it from the shortest verses in the Bible when asked . I cannot tell you how many times @Johnnybgood has asked you and you refused to exegete even a couple of words and cite your sources. So the only one believing the lies is you not us. You cannot pull the wool over our eyes since the proof / evidence says the opposite of your claims .
What you mean is Calvinism disagrees with me. As long as you evalluate what I say based on Calvinism, you will not see the truth of what i say. Should you ever abandon calvinism and allow the Word to speak for itsself, you will begin to grow in your understanding.
 

civic

Well-known member
What you mean is Calvinism disagrees with me. As long as you evalluate what I say based on Calvinism, you will not see the truth of what i say. Should you ever abandon calvinism and allow the Word to speak for itsself, you will begin to grow in your understanding.
These are not Calvinist issues since the questions are concerning essential doctrines that both Arminian and Calvinists agree upon.

Anymore fallacious arguments?
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Double minded

a- I use hermeneutics and demonstrate it when asked all the time on the forum
b- I never demonstrate hermeneutics even though I say I have.
This is a dishonest post. I can not judge whether it is by intent or thru your ignorance. But over the years I have brought in many of the 12 points he made. I know those principles and use them and have shown the results to you.
So I can't say whether you are forgetful or deceitful
 

civic

Well-known member
This is a dishonest post. I can not judge whether it is by intent or thru your ignorance. But over the years I have brought in many of the 12 points he made. I know those principles and use them and have shown the results to you.
So I can't say whether you are forgetful or deceitful
Do as I say not as I do is double minded. That is what you do with exegesis / hermeneutics. You claim it but never demonstrate the skill set.
 
Here is a great short video ( 10 minutes) on how to understand a passage of scripture. Dr Lawson goes through some basic principles @Sethproton that we have asked you to show us in your posts. Its a good reminder for everyone as a refresher.


His first three points are dubious. The third point on etymology has been refuted endlessly. James Barr, D.A. Carson famously refuted his statement on lexical semantics. His statements about literal meaning sweep aside the question of literary genre. Why go on?
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Do as I say not as I do is double minded. That is what you do with exegesis / hermeneutics. You claim it but never demonstrate the skill set.
Again, you don't respond to what is said to you. Your comments come from some other sceret narrative you are playing in your head,
 

civic

Well-known member
His first three points are dubious. The third point on etymology has been refuted endlessly. James Barr, D.A. Carson famously refuted his statement on lexical semantics. His statements about literal meaning sweep aside the question of literary genre. Why go on?
And you are entitled to your opinion

Im reminded of all the rookie language “experts” on the language forum who criticize Daniel Wallace. What a joke since not a single person on that forum is capable of teaching a NT Greek 101 class let alone read and translate Greek into English without any aids.
 
Last edited:
And you are entitled to your opinion

Im reminded of all the rookie language “experts” on the language forum who criticize Daniel Wallace. What a joke since not a single person on that forum is capable of teaching a NT Greek 101 class let alone read and translate Greek into English without any aids.

Read the b-greek archives from the late 1990s. Wallace was dismantled by professors who had been teaching classics at major universities for half a century. Wallace has been promoted as an expert by fundamentalists from the southern states and they end up believing their own propaganda. He is cited in respectable reference works on NT Studies. But his background in linguistics is nonexistent. He doesn't claim to be a linguist. His treatment of the case system has been the subject of endless jokes. People can learn useful things from his books but overall his approach is devoid of linguistic sophistication. For this reason he should be used along side works by linguists.
 

civic

Well-known member
Read the b-greek archives from the late 1990s. Wallace was dismantled by professors who had been teaching classics at major universities for half a century. Wallace has been promoted as an expert by fundamentalists from the southern states and they end up believing their own propaganda. He is cited in respectable reference works on NT Studies. But his background in linguistics is nonexistent. He doesn't claim to be a linguist. His treatment of the case system has been the subject of endless jokes. People can learn useful things from his books but overall his approach is devoid of linguistic sophistication. For this reason he should be used along side works by linguists,
Why do all the seminaries use his Greek grammar beyond the basics ?
 
Why do all the seminaries use his Greek grammar beyond the basics ?

Marketing. Seminaries don't teach linguistics. Wallace was focused on exegetical use of Greek which fits into the old school language curriculum sequence at evangelical institutions. His book was a mine of useful material for producing your exegesis paper at the end of the process. His book severed the purpose of students and you would be expected to use it for that by your professors. I have no idea if this is still happening. My nephew who graduated from Fuller 20 years ago didn't have much greek. They used Accordance to read the NT.

Postscript:
The expression seminary greek reflects this idea that greek is taught for exegesis.
 
Last edited:

civic

Well-known member
Yes
If you have taught a class on exegesis why do you refuse to do that when I have asked you so many times in the past ?
that’s the million dollar question the lack of support for his claims to have taught a class and demonstrate he is capable of doing what he claims to have taught others .
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
My nephew who graduated from Fuller 20 years ago didn't have much greek. They used Accordance to read the NT.

I hate to break it to you, but Accordance (which is Bible software), does not teach someone to read Greek, if they don't already read it. That's what grammars and lexicons are for. There are rare exceptions where you can learn Greek wtih just the Scriptures, and figuring everything out empirically, but it takes a brilliant mind and a huge amount of time and effort. Sadly the current state of affairs is pretty pathetic, with people who think they know better than the Bible translators, when all they have is Accordance (or "BlueLetterBible") and a Strong's lexicon. That is hardly a valid replacement for actually learning the language.

And guess what I have on my copy of Accordance?:
"Basics of Biblical Greek" (Mounce)
"Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" (Wallace)
"Grammar of the NT Greek" (Robertson).
 
Last edited:
If you have taught a class on exegesis why do you refuse to do that when I have asked you so many times in the past ?
Why bother? There are endless reference works, for example: The Baylor Handbooks. The late Anthony Thiselton's Commentary on 1 Cor. He published an unreadable reference work on Hermeneutics.
 

civic

Well-known member
Why bother? There are endless reference works, for example: The Baylor Handbooks. The late Anthony Thiselton's Commentary on 1 Cor. He published an unreadable reference work on Hermeneutics.
What do you think of these NT commentary sets: Pillar, Word, NIGNT, NICNT, Baker ?
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
If you have taught a class on exegesis why do you refuse to do that when I have asked you so many times in the past ?
Johnny, I have tried my best to engage with you in a step by step conversation about the meaning of scripture.
You are not interested.
You believe Calvinism and you did before you came to the forum.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Johnny, I have tried my best to engage with you in a step by step conversation about the meaning of scripture.
You are not interested.
You believe Calvinism and you did before you came to the forum.
My argument is that every Evangelical is a Calvinist at heart...
 
Top