Predestination

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
2 Peter 3:9 is a favourite verse of mine, since while it's abused by Arminians to try to prove "unlimited atonement", when understood properly it is a very encouraging passage. And I think this verse is an excellent example of how Arminians poorly and improperly interpret Scripture, and a good example of proper exegesis when done right.


The Arminian Presentation

First, let's see the Arminian presentation:

God is "... not willing that any should perish ..."

That's it.
They quote half a verse. Sometimes they'll rearrange Scripture like a ransom note created out of newspaper words, and include John 3:16, "God so loved the world, and is not willing that any should perish", as if God wrote it that way.


The Calvinist Presentation

2Pet. 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

One of the things people learn when interpreting the Bible in particular, or any text in general, is to note (1) the author, (2) the audience, (3) the context/topic, (4) the culture, etc.

This section of Peter's epistle is directed at a group called "beloved" (v.8), and "us-ward" (v.9). "Us-ward" refers to the first-person plural pronoun, a group of multiple people, of whom the speaker includes himself. This is in contrast to "them", third person plural. In this passage, the "them" is found in 2 Pet. 3:3-7, "scoffers" who are unbelievers, and are trying to dissuade believers:

2Pet. 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

So we have a "they" group in vv. 3-7, and a "we/us" group in vv. 8-9.
And it is the "us-ward" that v. 9 is speaking of:

2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any [of us-ward] should perish, but that all [of us-ward] should come to repentance.

2 Pet. 3:9 is not a "universal" text. The SCOPE of vv. 8-9 is this "beloved/us-ward" group. And it says God is not willing for any of the "beloved" to perish. And that is perseverance of the saints. God is not willing for any of His people to perish. He WILL save all of His people. But Arminians have destroyed this passage as an encouragement that God WILL do as He promised, in order to try to instead twist it into a "universal atonement" teaching, which was never intended.


Who are the "Beloved"?

We see that the group in vv.8-9 is identified as "beloved", and "us-ward". Can we find out any other information on who this group is? Yes, we can. We read at the beginning of the chapter:

2Pet. 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

Peter has written two epistles to "beloved".
This second one is 2 Peter.
The first one is 1 Peter, which we also have.
Who was 1 Peter written to?:

1Pet. 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Peter was writing to "the elect".
The "beloved" are "the elect".
It is "the elect" whom "God is not willing for any to perish" (2 Pet. 3:9)


Day vs. Thousand Years

2Pet. 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Why did Peter write v.8? To Arminians, it seems like a throw-away verse, out of place, interrupting the message more than anything else. But consider this. We just saw in 2 Pet. 3:3-7 that there were "scoffers" bothering the Christians, saying, "Where is your Christ? Why hasn't He come yet? Are you sure He even really exists?" Why hasn't Christ come yet? It's a valid question.

But remember, Peter wrote his epistle almost 2000 years ago. To you and me, that's a LONG time. But to God, it's a drop in the bucket. There are people thinking or saying, "It's been so long! Why hasn't Christ come yet?" Butt consider this. You and I are God's elect. He chose us from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). If Christ had come during the time of Peter, we wouldn't have been part of it, since we hadn't been born yet. God has chosen to scatter His elect people throughout nations, and over time. And Christ's second coming is not going to happen until EVERY SINGLE ONE of His elect has come to salvation.

Why? Because God is NOT WILLING FOR ANY [of His elect, His "beloved", His "us-ward"] to perish.


God's Will

"God is not willing for any to perish".

Arminians believe this is universal, that God doesn't "want" anyone to perish. But most agree that some will. So God doesn't get what He wants, which to me is ridiculous. God is omnipotent. "Whatever God wants, God gets". If He doesn't get what He wants, then either (1) He isn't omnipotent after all, or (2) He didn't really "want" "will" "desire" it.

According to the Calvinist view, the scope of "not willing for any to perish" is the "elect", the "beloved", and since God is God, and God is omnipotent, none of the elect WILL perish. God will save EVERY ONE of His sheep.

Praise God!
I like the way you went through the passage and explained it verse by verse . This is what I was hoping for with sethproton to show me from his perspective. I will have to digest your post and I’m not equipped to refute anything you said as I’m still learning how to argue what I believe . I thank you for a well thought out reply and I have some studying to do on my part with that passage.
 

civic

Well-known member
An offer to discuss specific scripture is NEVER an excuse. Why not stay out of it and let Johnny tell me what concept he would like to start with?
He did

 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Let’s start with 2 Peter 3:9- the Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness but is patient towards you not willing for anyone to perish but for that all should come to repentance.

Can you discuss this passage like Theo1689 did for me , in a similar way to break down its meaning ?
If you want to I will. But that was not what my post was about, I answered your questions in my post, but you do not want to discuss the Biblical background to what I responded?
Also, if you expect me to copy Theo's style of interpretation, I would not approach it in his style. So, if you do not want to follow up on our initial conversation and want to discuss something completely different, we can, but it leaves me wondering why you responded to what i said if you have no interest in continuing THAT discussion.

SO 2 peter 3:9 has many ideas in it.
It begins by correcting those who think God is being slow in His response. The idea seems to be that people misunderstand why His promises have not been fulfilled as if He is simply dragging His feet,
He explains it is because of His patience. He gives people time to process and come to repentance
His heart is here in this verse that He wants "all" to repent, so he is patiently telling them the truth and waiting for a response
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I like the way you went through the passage and explained it verse by verse . This is what I was hoping for with sethproton to show me from his perspective. I will have to digest your post and I’m not equipped to refute anything you said as I’m still learning how to argue what I believe . I thank you for a well thought out reply and I have some studying to do on my part with that passage.

I think one of the stumblingly blocks is that Arminians have this "mindset" ingrained into them, that every time you see the word, "all", or "world", it automatically refers to every single being in the universe, exhaustively. But that is not what "world" means, and that is almost NEVER what "all" means.

First of all, comprehensive dictionaries usually list multiple definitions for any particular word. This is no different in the Greek. The same word doesn't always mean the same thing in every situation. That's why it's fallacious to take a word from one context and demand that it has the same meaning in a completely unrelated context. For instance:

"I can fly a plane."
"I opened a can of corn."
"I drank too much, I have to go to the can."
"My boss canned me today. I have no job."


"World"

The Greek word for "world" is "kosmos" (hence, "cosmology").
It has a number of meanings, according to BDAG:


κόσμος, ου, ὁ
1.
that which serves to beautify through decoration, adornment, adorning
2. condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order
3. the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage
4. the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals, the world,
5.
planet earth as a place of inhabitation, the world
a. gener.
b. the world as the habitation of humanity
c. earth, world in contrast to heaven
d. the world outside in contrast to one’s home
6. humanity in general, the world
a. gener.
b. of all humanity, but especially of believers, as the object of God’s love
7. the system of human existence in its many aspects, the world
a. as scene of earthly joys, possessions, cares, sufferings
b. the world, and everything that belongs to it, appears as that which is hostile to God, i.e. lost in sin, wholly at odds w. anything divine, ruined and depraved
8. collective aspect of an entity, totality, sum total=

Often it means "not just the Jews, but the rest of the nations as well (ie. the Gentiles too)". And the problem that we moderns have is that we tend to think with precision, with specificity, interpreting "Jews" as "every single Jew, without exception". This is not how they thought in the first century, it was more a "general" idea, without any specific inclusion of "every single".

So in John 3:16, it doesn't mean, "God so loved the world (= "every single individual ever"), as that would contradict "Esau I hated", as well as passages like Ps. 5:5, and others God hates. Instead it means, "God so loved the world (="not just Jews, but Gentiles too"). Not all Jews, not all Gentiles, but God's elect includes both Jews and Gentiles, it's not just limited to Israel, but is expanded to include those in the rest of "the world".


"ALL"

"All" is never used to exhaustively mean all individuals everywhere. There's really no practical reason to mean that, since we are almost never talking bout all humanity exhaustively. We are generally always speaking regarding a specific scope of individuals.

For instance, I'm a teacher. And if I'm giving a test, and the test period is over, I might say, "Now I want EVERYONE (or "ALL") to put their pencils down". That's not an exhaustive scope. I'm not referring to people in different countries, or even in different states, or in different cities, or even everyone in my city, and not even referring to everyone in my school. Even though I said "everyone" or "all", the scope of my instruction was ONLY to my class.

Similarly, when we saw 2 Pet. 3:9, "not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance", the scope of that was the "us-ward", the "beloved".

Concerning the meaning of "all", here is a clip of D. James Kennedy talking about how the Bible uses the term, "all". It comes from a video called, "Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism". I HIGHLY recommend this video, even though it is about 4 hours long, it is very comprehensive and instructional. It is broken down into 3 parts on YouTube:


(If it doesn't start at the right place, go to 1:00:29.)
 

civic

Well-known member
If you want to I will. But that was not what my post was about, I answered your questions in my post, but you do not want to discuss the Biblical background to what I responded?
Also, if you expect me to copy Theo's style of interpretation, I would not approach it in his style. So, if you do not want to follow up on our initial conversation and want to discuss something completely different, we can, but it leaves me wondering why you responded to what i said if you have no interest in continuing THAT discussion.

SO 2 peter 3:9 has many ideas in it.
It begins by correcting those who think God is being slow in His response. The idea seems to be that people misunderstand why His promises have not been fulfilled as if He is simply dragging His feet,
He explains it is because of His patience. He gives people time to process and come to repentance
His heart is here in this verse that He wants "all" to repent, so he is patiently telling them the truth and waiting for a response
You are calling this " EXEGESIS " ?

Really ?

Once again all you have demonstrated is your inability to show hermeneutics and applying those methods to the passage. All you did was give johnnybgood your opinion.

This is what we are looking for with hermeneutics seth.

Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methods of interpreting the text of the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 commands believers to be involved in hermeneutics: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who . . . correctly handles the word of truth.” The purpose of biblical hermeneutics is to help us to know how to properly interpret, understand, and apply the Bible.

The most important law of biblical hermeneutics is that the Bible should be interpreted literally. We are to understand the Bible in its normal or plain meaning, unless the passage is obviously intended to be symbolic or if figures of speech are employed. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. For example, when Jesus speaks of having fed “the five thousand” in Mark 8:19, the law of hermeneutics says we should understand five thousand literally—there was a crowd of hungry people that numbered five thousand who were fed with real bread and fish by a miracle-working Savior. Any attempt to “spiritualize” the number or to deny a literal miracle is to do injustice to the text and ignore the purpose of language, which is to communicate. Some interpreters make the mistake of trying to read between the lines of Scripture to come up with esoteric meanings that are not truly in the text, as if every passage has a hidden spiritual truth that we should seek to decrypt. Biblical hermeneutics keeps us faithful to the intended meaning of Scripture and away from allegorizing Bible verses that should be understood literally.

A second crucial law of biblical hermeneutics is that passages must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. Interpreting a passage historically means we must seek to understand the culture, background, and situation that prompted the text. For example, in order to fully understand Jonah’s flight in Jonah 1:1–3, we should research the history of the Assyrians as related to Israel. Interpreting a passage grammatically requires one to follow the rules of grammar and recognize the nuances of Hebrew and Greek. For example, when Paul writes of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” in Titus 2:13, the rules of grammar state that God and Savior are parallel terms and they are both in apposition to Jesus Christ—in other words, Paul clearly calls Jesus “our great God.” Interpreting a passage contextually involves considering the context of a verse or passage when trying to determine the meaning. The context includes the verses immediately preceding and following, the chapter, the book, and, most broadly, the entire Bible. For example, many puzzling statements in Ecclesiastes become clearer when kept in context—the book of Ecclesiastes is written from the earthly perspective “under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:3). In fact, the phrase under the sun is repeated about thirty times in the book, establishing the context for all that is “vanity” in this world.

A third law of biblical hermeneutics is that Scripture is always the best interpreter of Scripture. For this reason, we always compare Scripture with Scripture when trying to determine the meaning of a passage. For example, Isaiah’s condemnation of Judah’s desire to seek Egypt’s help and their reliance on a strong cavalry (Isaiah 31:1) was motivated, in part, by God’s explicit command that His people not go to Egypt to seek horses (Deuteronomy 17:16).

Some people avoid studying biblical hermeneutics because they mistakenly believe it will limit their ability to learn new truths from God’s Word or stifle the Holy Spirit’s illumination of Scripture. But their fears are unfounded. Biblical hermeneutics is all about finding the correct interpretation of the inspired text. The purpose of biblical hermeneutics is to protect us from misapplying Scripture or allowing bias to color our understanding of truth. God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). We want to see the truth, know the truth, and live the truth as best we can, and that’s why biblical hermeneutics is vital.got?

hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:

civic

Well-known member
If you want to I will. But that was not what my post was about, I answered your questions in my post, but you do not want to discuss the Biblical background to what I responded?
Also, if you expect me to copy Theo's style of interpretation, I would not approach it in his style. So, if you do not want to follow up on our initial conversation and want to discuss something completely different, we can, but it leaves me wondering why you responded to what i said if you have no interest in continuing THAT discussion.

SO 2 peter 3:9 has many ideas in it.
It begins by correcting those who think God is being slow in His response. The idea seems to be that people misunderstand why His promises have not been fulfilled as if He is simply dragging His feet,
He explains it is because of His patience. He gives people time to process and come to repentance
His heart is here in this verse that He wants "all" to repent, so he is patiently telling them the truth and waiting for a response
And if my last post was to difficult for you to read and understand here is a shortened version with definitions.

The full quote, which Dr. Carson ascribes to his father, a Canadian minister, was "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text."

Exegesis Definition:
Exegesis essentially means using the words of the text in Scripture, through the lens of their original context, to determine their intent. In other words, if one analyzes Scripture exegetically, they won’t come to the text with any conclusions. They let the text itself reveal the what the writer is revealing to the reader. By doing this, we don’t read anything into Scripture that wasn’t there before, and we study the meaning of the passage that was intended for a specific audience.

Eisegesis Definition:
Eisegesis means reading into the text with a pre-conceived notion we may have. This can often mean coming to the Scripture with a biased cultural lens that didn’t exist during the time the Bible was written. Of course, theologians frown upon this approach because it isn’t rooted in Scripture. At its worst, it can be used to twist Scripture to assert a certain belief. Politicians or other leaders may take a Bible verse out of context and interpret it using their own biased perspective to justify implementing a policy.

Hermeneutics Definition:
Hermeneutics goes somewhat hand in hand with exegesis. Hermeneutics is more concerned about how you interpret a passage (if you choose to do one process versus another), and exegesis means actually researching and discovering the meaning behind the text. Usually theologians pair hermeneutics with exegesis because you cannot have one without the other.christianity.com

conclusion: you have yet to show anyone on this forum you are capable of exegesis or hermeneutics. You have EISEGESIS down to a science and are considered to be the utmost expert on CARM.

hope this helps !!!
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
And if my last post was to difficult for you to read and understand here is a shortened version with definitions.

The full quote, which Dr. Carson ascribes to his father, a Canadian minister, was "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text."

Exegesis Definition:
Exegesis essentially means using the words of the text in Scripture, through the lens of their original context, to determine their intent. In other words, if one analyzes Scripture exegetically, they won’t come to the text with any conclusions. They let the text itself reveal the what the writer is revealing to the reader. By doing this, we don’t read anything into Scripture that wasn’t there before, and we study the meaning of the passage that was intended for a specific audience.

Eisegesis Definition:
Eisegesis means reading into the text with a pre-conceived notion we may have. This can often mean coming to the Scripture with a biased cultural lens that didn’t exist during the time the Bible was written. Of course, theologians frown upon this approach because it isn’t rooted in Scripture. At its worst, it can be used to twist Scripture to assert a certain belief. Politicians or other leaders may take a Bible verse out of context and interpret it using their own biased perspective to justify implementing a policy.

Hermeneutics Definition:
Hermeneutics goes somewhat hand in hand with exegesis. Hermeneutics is more concerned about how you interpret a passage (if you choose to do one process versus another), and exegesis means actually researching and discovering the meaning behind the text. Usually theologians pair hermeneutics with exegesis because you cannot have one without the other.christianity.com

conclusion: you have yet to show anyone on this forum you are capable of exegesis or hermeneutics. You have EISEGESIS down to a science and are considered to be the utmost expert on CARM.

hope this helps !!!
I have no problem understanding,
Two things
This is a cut and paste, and I have told you many times I am not interested in cut and pastes
I wonder why you and Theo were so interested to try to disrupt the chat between Johnny and I
 

civic

Well-known member
I have no problem understanding,
Two things
This is a cut and paste, and I have told you many times I am not interested in cut and pastes
I wonder why you and Theo were so interested to try to disrupt the chat between Johnny and I
Well that is because you are doing the same thing to him as you do the rest of us and he had asked you several time to discuss scripture with references and an exegetical response to understand why you believe what you believe and how you can arrive at your conclusions without the proper hermeneutical steps that include exegesis.

No cut n paste so now what is your excuse ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
This is a cut and paste, and I have told you many times I am not interested in cut and pastes

Um, you don't make the rules around here.

And I fail to understand how a text becomes more difficult to understand simply because someone has "copied" it.

I wonder why you and Theo were so interested to try to disrupt the chat between Johnny and I

Um, this is not a vocal interaction, so it is impossible for us to "disrupt" anything.
You are free to ignore our posts if you don't like them.

I really don't understand (well, actually I do) how people can claim ridiculous things like, "You're disrupting our discussion", or "I asked you first, so you have to answer me first".
 

civic

Well-known member
I have no problem understanding,
Two things
This is a cut and paste, and I have told you many times I am not interested in cut and pastes
I wonder why you and Theo were so interested to try to disrupt the chat between Johnny and I
Oh is that why you don't quote scripture because that is a cut n paste ? 🤣 🤣 🤣

Is that the same reason you refuse to define words in the bible ? 🤣 🤣 🤣
 

civic

Well-known member
Hopefully Johnny will be up for a real discussion.
Why would he ?

You are never up for one and always exclude the bible and give your opinions. He already told you he was not interested in that kind of dialogue with anyone here. He said that he wanted to interact with the text from the bible and for you to show from exegesis how you arrive at your conclusions.

BTW- who is johnny? Never heard of a johnny on the forum. Did you mean Johnnybgood ?

hope this helps !!!
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
You are calling this " EXEGESIS " ?

Really ?

Once again all you have demonstrated is your inability to show hermeneutics and applying those methods to the passage. All you did was give johnnybgood your opinion.

This is what we are looking for with hermeneutics seth.

Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methods of interpreting the text of the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 commands believers to be involved in hermeneutics: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who . . . correctly handles the word of truth.” The purpose of biblical hermeneutics is to help us to know how to properly interpret, understand, and apply the Bible.

The most important law of biblical hermeneutics is that the Bible should be interpreted literally. We are to understand the Bible in its normal or plain meaning, unless the passage is obviously intended to be symbolic or if figures of speech are employed. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. For example, when Jesus speaks of having fed “the five thousand” in Mark 8:19, the law of hermeneutics says we should understand five thousand literally—there was a crowd of hungry people that numbered five thousand who were fed with real bread and fish by a miracle-working Savior. Any attempt to “spiritualize” the number or to deny a literal miracle is to do injustice to the text and ignore the purpose of language, which is to communicate. Some interpreters make the mistake of trying to read between the lines of Scripture to come up with esoteric meanings that are not truly in the text, as if every passage has a hidden spiritual truth that we should seek to decrypt. Biblical hermeneutics keeps us faithful to the intended meaning of Scripture and away from allegorizing Bible verses that should be understood literally.

A second crucial law of biblical hermeneutics is that passages must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. Interpreting a passage historically means we must seek to understand the culture, background, and situation that prompted the text. For example, in order to fully understand Jonah’s flight in Jonah 1:1–3, we should research the history of the Assyrians as related to Israel. Interpreting a passage grammatically requires one to follow the rules of grammar and recognize the nuances of Hebrew and Greek. For example, when Paul writes of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” in Titus 2:13, the rules of grammar state that God and Savior are parallel terms and they are both in apposition to Jesus Christ—in other words, Paul clearly calls Jesus “our great God.” Interpreting a passage contextually involves considering the context of a verse or passage when trying to determine the meaning. The context includes the verses immediately preceding and following, the chapter, the book, and, most broadly, the entire Bible. For example, many puzzling statements in Ecclesiastes become clearer when kept in context—the book of Ecclesiastes is written from the earthly perspective “under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:3). In fact, the phrase under the sun is repeated about thirty times in the book, establishing the context for all that is “vanity” in this world.

A third law of biblical hermeneutics is that Scripture is always the best interpreter of Scripture. For this reason, we always compare Scripture with Scripture when trying to determine the meaning of a passage. For example, Isaiah’s condemnation of Judah’s desire to seek Egypt’s help and their reliance on a strong cavalry (Isaiah 31:1) was motivated, in part, by God’s explicit command that His people not go to Egypt to seek horses (Deuteronomy 17:16).

Some people avoid studying biblical hermeneutics because they mistakenly believe it will limit their ability to learn new truths from God’s Word or stifle the Holy Spirit’s illumination of Scripture. But their fears are unfounded. Biblical hermeneutics is all about finding the correct interpretation of the inspired text. The purpose of biblical hermeneutics is to protect us from misapplying Scripture or allowing bias to color our understanding of truth. God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). We want to see the truth, know the truth, and live the truth as best we can, and that’s why biblical hermeneutics is vital.got?

hope this helps !!!
2 tim 2:15 does not speak of hermeneutics, though there is a parallel concept of accurately handling the Word of God.
The Greek word from which we get hermeneutics is in the Bible, but not in that verse. Just as a point of info, it is the word used in "the interpretation of tongues" meaning to pull the meaning out of a written or spoken expression.
As to accurately handling - it is one word which means to teach truth directly and correctly. That is what i just did with the passage Johnny requested me to do
 

civic

Well-known member
2 tim 2:15 does not speak of hermeneutics, though there is a parallel concept of accurately handling the Word of God.
The Greek word from which we get hermeneutics is in the Bible, but not in that verse. Just as a point of info, it is the word used in "the interpretation of tongues" meaning to pull the meaning out of a written or spoken expression.
As to accurately handling - it is one word which means to teach truth directly and correctly. That is what i just did with the passage Johnny requested me to do
one word-clueless.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
civic said:
Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methods of interpreting the text of the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 commands believers to be involved in hermeneutics: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who . . . correctly handles the word of truth.” The purpose of biblical hermeneutics is to help us to know how to properly interpret, understand, and apply the Bible.

2 tim 2:15 does not speak of hermeneutics, though there is a parallel concept of accurately handling the Word of God.

Of course, civic never CLAIMED that 2 Tim. 2:15 specifically contains the WORD, "hermeneutics". But the fact that it does speak OF hermeneutics, "correctly handles the word of truth" is undeniable.

To try to argue that you have to find "exact words" is ridiculous, and could be used to claim that you must not believe in the Trinity because the WORD "Trinity" is nowhere found in the Bible.

The CONCEPT of the Trinity is found in the Bible.
Just as the CONCEPT of hermeutics is found in 2 Tim. 2:15.

The Greek word from which we get hermeneutics is in the Bible, but not in that verse.

It's amazing that this poster, although being completely IGNORANT of the Greek language, constantly speaks of "the Greek word". The purpose, of course, is to make themselves sound more knowledgable and learned, and since most others here don't understand the Greek language either, they are less able to address the claims being made.

My Greek is self-study (the first year being with Bill Mounce's audio lectures, textbook, and workbook), and I'm currently working through an intermediate course. But even with as little study as this, when you get to this point, you discover that the translators actually knew what they were talking about, and got just about everything right. But when you have someone who has NEVER studied Greek, throwing around "this Greek term means", they always use that to try to argue that the translation is wrong, and that their pet doctrines are correct (eg. "power over their own will" allegedly proves, "free will", or that Jesus is no longer our mediator).

The Greek word from which we get hermeneutics is in the Bible, but not in that verse.

Just out of curiosity, Seth, WHERE in the Bible do we find "the Greek word from which we get hermeneutics"? Chapter and verse, please?

Prediction: He will either ignore the challenge, or else turn it back around on me, even though HE is the one who made the false claim.

Just as a point of info, it is the word used in "the interpretation of tongues" meaning to pull the meaning out of a written or spoken expression.

So show us.
I truly believe you have no clue what you're talking about.

As to accurately handling - it is one word which means to teach truth directly and correctly.

Yeah, so?
Why do you present "Trivia", instead of substantive exegesis?

It comes from "one word" because it's a COMPOUND word, "ορθοτομεω" ("Ortho-tomeo").
"Ortho", meaning "right", or "straight" (eg. "orthodox").
"tomeo" (v.) from "tomos" (a) meaning "able to be cut" or "divisible".

It's interesting, since I'm a chemistry teacher, and I point out to my students that our current term "atom" comes from the Greek, "a-tomos", meaning "indivisible", since the atom was defined in the 5th century B.C. as a philosophical idea of the point where matter could no longer be divided. It is the same Greek term, "tomos", with the "alpha privative" for negation (eg. "a-sexual", "a-synchronous", etc.)

That is what i just did with the passage Johnny requested me to do

Did you all read that?
Seth taught the meaning of Scripture "correctly" because Seth sez it's "correctly".
Seth is infallible. He's been studying Scripture for 50 years. So he's correct.
He can even correct Greek scholars even though he hasn't had ONE lesson in Greek.
 
Last edited:

Sethproton

Well-known member
Of course, civic never CLAIMED that 2 Tim. 2:15 specifically contains the WORD, "hermeneutics". But the fact that it does speak OF hermeneutics, "correctly handles the word of truth" is undeniable.

To try to argue that you have to find "exact words" is ridiculous, and could be used to claim that you must not believe in the Trinity because the WORD "Trinity" is nowhere found in the Bible.

The CONCEPT of the Trinity is found in the Bible.
Just as the CONCEPT of hermeutics is found in 2 Tim. 2:15.



It's amazing that this poster, although being completely IGNORANT of the Greek language, constantly speaks of "the Greek word". The purpose, of course, is to make themselves sound more knowledgable and learned, and since most others here don't understand the Greek language either, they are less able to address the claims being made.

My Greek is self-study (the first year being with Bill Mounce's audio lectures, textbook, and workbook), and I'm currently working through an intermediate course. But even with as little study as this, when you get to this point, you discover that the translators actually knew what they were talking about, and got just about everything right. But when you have someone who has NEVER studied Greek, throwing around "this Greek term means", they always use that to try to argue that the translation is wrong, and that their pet doctrines are correct (eg. "power over their own will" allegedly proves, "free will", or that Jesus is no longer our mediator).



Just out of curiosity, Seth, WHERE in the Bible do we find "the Greek word from which we get hermeneutics"? Chapter and verse, please?

Prediction: He will either ignore the challenge, or else turn it back around on me, even though HE is the one who made the false claim.



So show us.
I truly believe you have no clue what you're talking about.



Yeah, so?
Why do you present "Trivia", instead of substantive exegesis?

It comes from "one word" because it's a COMPOUND word, "ορθοτομεω" ("Ortho-tomeo").
"Ortho", meaning "right", or "straight" (eg. "orthodox").
"tomos" meaning "cut" or "divide".

It's interesting, since I'm a chemistry teacher, and I point out to my students that our current term "atom" comes from the Greek, "a-tomos", meaning "indivisible", since the atom was defined in the 5th century B.C. as a philosophical idea of the point where matter could no longer be divided. It is the same Greek term, "tomos", with the "alpha privative" for negation (eg. "a-sexual", "a-synchronous", etc.)



Did you all read that?
Seth taught the meaning of Scripture "correctly" because Seth sez it's "correctly".
Seth is infallible. He's been studying Scripture for 50 years. So he's correct.
He can even correct Greek scholars even though he hasn't had ONE lesson in Greek.
What you are ignoring, that you earlier demanded is that the concept you are pushing of the RIGHT way to study the Bible, is not in that verse.
That was my point. You don't quote a verse that speaks about rightly handling the Word of God and act like it supports your own version of hermeneutics.
That was the point
Nothing more
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Of course, civic never CLAIMED that 2 Tim. 2:15 specifically contains the WORD, "hermeneutics". But the fact that it does speak OF hermeneutics, "correctly handles the word of truth" is undeniable.

To try to argue that you have to find "exact words" is ridiculous, and could be used to claim that you must not believe in the Trinity because the WORD "Trinity" is nowhere found in the Bible.

The CONCEPT of the Trinity is found in the Bible.
Just as the CONCEPT of hermeutics is found in 2 Tim. 2:15.



It's amazing that this poster, although being completely IGNORANT of the Greek language, constantly speaks of "the Greek word". The purpose, of course, is to make themselves sound more knowledgable and learned, and since most others here don't understand the Greek language either, they are less able to address the claims being made.

My Greek is self-study (the first year being with Bill Mounce's audio lectures, textbook, and workbook), and I'm currently working through an intermediate course. But even with as little study as this, when you get to this point, you discover that the translators actually knew what they were talking about, and got just about everything right. But when you have someone who has NEVER studied Greek, throwing around "this Greek term means", they always use that to try to argue that the translation is wrong, and that their pet doctrines are correct (eg. "power over their own will" allegedly proves, "free will", or that Jesus is no longer our mediator).



Just out of curiosity, Seth, WHERE in the Bible do we find "the Greek word from which we get hermeneutics"? Chapter and verse, please?

Prediction: He will either ignore the challenge, or else turn it back around on me, even though HE is the one who made the false claim.



So show us.
I truly believe you have no clue what you're talking about.



Yeah, so?
Why do you present "Trivia", instead of substantive exegesis?

It comes from "one word" because it's a COMPOUND word, "ορθοτομεω" ("Ortho-tomeo").
"Ortho", meaning "right", or "straight" (eg. "orthodox").
"tomeo" (v.) from "tomos" (a) meaning "able to be cut" or "divisible".

It's interesting, since I'm a chemistry teacher, and I point out to my students that our current term "atom" comes from the Greek, "a-tomos", meaning "indivisible", since the atom was defined in the 5th century B.C. as a philosophical idea of the point where matter could no longer be divided. It is the same Greek term, "tomos", with the "alpha privative" for negation (eg. "a-sexual", "a-synchronous", etc.)



Did you all read that?
Seth taught the meaning of Scripture "correctly" because Seth sez it's "correctly".
Seth is infallible. He's been studying Scripture for 50 years. So he's correct.
He can even correct Greek scholars even though he hasn't had ONE lesson in Greek.
The info on naming the atom is interesting. thanks
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
What you are ignoring,

I'm NOT "ignoring" anything, since I'm not the one who's wrong.

that you earlier demanded is that the concept you are pushing of the RIGHT way to study the Bible, is not in that verse.

Well, no, there isn't a comprehensive treatise on hermeneutics in that single verse.
And nobody claimed there was.
You do realize you're being unreasonable here, right?

That was my point. You don't quote a verse that speaks about rightly handling the Word of God and act like it supports your own version of hermeneutics.

You don't get to tell others what to do.
It's against the rules.

And I can understand why someone like you who breaks the rules so often, wants to claim that reporting posts is "childish". Kind of self-serving, don't you think?
 
Top