Consistent Hermeneutics (??)

[Guest]

I'm agnostic as to your presupposition as I don't understand how it relates. Before I can disagree or agree I need to understand how you think the difference between your letters read by either your wife or professor relates to the discussion of syntax.

Are you saying your answer would change if you knew what ultimate conclusion I was trying to reach?

[Guest]

I'm agnostic as to your presupposition as I don't understand how it relates. Before I can disagree or agree I need to understand how you think the difference between your letters read by either your wife or professor relates to the discussion of syntax.

Are you saying your answer would change if you knew what ultimate conclusion I was trying to reach?

No I'm saying my answer would change if I understood what your were getting at. The topic is exegesis versus eisegesis, you bring someone intimate to you into the the conversation versus an expert in the form of language, I don't understand the relevance of your point. I don't understand the relevance of the way you've framed the question based on the topic. You need to make the connection.

[_Steve]

[Note: There was a participant on this thread named Paul, whose posts were apparently lost, along with many others by persons who had registered recently, when our forum experienced a strange "crash." No one seems to know what happened, nor what was the extent of the damage sustained, but it seems clear that all those who registered after a certain date were somehow deleted from the database, and along with their names, all their posts as well. We are still hoping to find and recover the lost posts, but, i their absence, the following dialog seems very awkward, because it contains some of our answers to Paul, but his posts containing his questions and challenges are missing! I don't know how many other threads may have been affected in this way, but I just noticed it here.]


......................
Paul,

Is there some reason that you cannot give a simple and honest answer without fearing that doing so might support a point you don't want to lend support to?

[Guest]

Paul,

Is there some reason that you cannot give a simple and honest answer without fearing that doing so might support a point you don't want to lend support to?

I'm a bit stunned by your question, I request a clarification as to the relevance of the position against the topic and you suggest I'm being dishonest? Yes there is a simple reason, I don't like providing answers without understanding the question I'm being asked. Why do you presuppose I’m afraid, I’m just attempting to understand the logic that suggest my wife’s understanding of me has anything at all to do with whether one is using exegesis or eisegeses. The question doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

PaulT

[_Steve]

Since the question is a simple one to answer why don't you try something outlandish like answering the question, and then seeing where the next step in the inquiry will lead?

What you are doing is the same thing Dr. White did, which led to the controversial interruption of the debate on Tuesday's broadcast. I asked a simple question that could be answered honestly and simply, but Dr. White apparently was concerned about what I might do with his answer and where I might be going with the line of questioning. Because these concerns dominated his mind, he was not able (or willing?) to even to give the obvious correct answer to the question—which any person reading the passage would have had no difficulty doing.

You may ask me any question you like. I will not be evasive, even if I suspect that the first question may lead to others that are calculated to make a point that I do not currently agree with. This is because I am honestly interested in seeing the truth, whether it is identical to my present opinions or not. Honest answers will generally lead to the truth, though not necessarily to our preferred notions of the truth. Our willingness to give straight answers is one indicator of which of these two we most value.

[Guest]

Since the question is a simple one to answer why don't you try something outlandish like answering the question, and then seeing where the next step in the inquiry will lead?

Sir, with all do respect I do believe my track record on this web-site demonstrates my willingness to answer a question when I understand the question asked.

What you are doing is the same thing Dr. White did, which led to the controversial interruption of the debate on Tuesday's broadcast. I asked a simple question that could be answered honestly and simply, but Dr. White apparently was concerned about what I might do with his answer and where I might be going with the line of questioning. Because these concerns dominated his mind, he was not able (or willing?) to even to give the obvious correct answer to the question—which any person reading the passage would have had no difficulty doing.

Well I don’t believe I feel as though I’ve been cut-off from completing my sentence so I’m not sure it is accurate to suggest I’m doing the same thing as White. Sir, again with all do respect, I listened to the debate and I didn’t hear White do anything unreasonable. I don’t believe in casting aspersions so I don’t speculate on motivation.

You may ask me any question you like. I will not be evasive, even if I suspect that the first question may lead to others that are calculated to make a point that I do not currently agree with. This is because I am honestly interested in seeing the truth, whether it is identical to my present opinions or not. Honest answers will generally lead to the truth, though not necessarily to our preferred notions of the truth. Our willingness to give straight answers is one indicator of which of these two we most value.

Great, then why don’t you start-off by answering the question I asked Darin to qualify.

With that in mind, I ask the Calvinists among us a serious question I really want their answer to --

Who would be better at interpreting one of my letters to a friend of mine regarding a passionate subject close to my heart which tries to address a number of related, equally passionate issues?

My wife who knows me quite well and has read many of my other letters ? or My College English professor who knows me, but not that intimately, yet understands perfectly proper English sentence structure, verb usage, syntax, etc.? (assuming for the moment that my English grammar even approaches proper usage)

I don’t understand how your question relates to the matter of syntax and the discussion about who is applying exegesis and who is applying eisegesis. You seem to be presupposing one of the parties in the dispute has a more intimate relationship therefore is in a better position to understand the meaning, is that what you are getting at?

PaulT

You will have to go back and read his full question to understand what he had in mind when he started off the question with, “With that in mind”

Frankly, I’m a bit bewildered by this post of yours, if the question and answer are so obvious to you, instead of giving an unwarranted rant, why don’t you provide me with the clarification. It seems to me if you were truly interested in “seeing the truth” why go into your encounter with White on Tuesday, or suggest my request is outlandish? Why not just clarify what you seem to think is so simple? It is my view one cannot give an honest answer if one doesn’t understand the question given the context of the discussion. I’m a bit surprised you take umbrage at merely a request of clarification. Granted, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but what ones wife would have to do in determining exegesis versus eisegesis of Scripture, I haven’t the foggiest.

PaulT

[_Steve]

Where you and I are not connecting is in your suggesting that you have to know what the relevance of the question is to "exegesis" and "eisegesis." What I am saying is that the question has an obvious answer. You could have saved a lot of keystrokes for yourself and others if you had just said, "The obvious answer is that the wife is in a better position to know her husband's precise meaning, but so what? How does this impact the question of exegesis?" Do you see that this would have been the honest and direct answer? Similarly, if Dr. White had said, "Okay, perhaps Romans 1:18 does not state that Paul has all men in view, but I think there are other verses that teach my position," that would have been the honest and direct answer.

Now as to what the relevance is to the question of exegesis, I will clarify (if this is the question you are asking). Exegesis refers to the process of drawing out of a passage its intended meaning; eisegesis refers to reading presuppositions into the passage that may not have been intended by the author.

Exegesis of a Greek document requires adequate consideration of the Greek vocabulary and grammar, of course, though, in a large majority of cases, such consideration requires little or nothing beyond the reading of a competent translation. The translators of, say, the NASB or the NKJV (I do not include the NIV, which you thought I quoted from, but which I do not respect enough to cite) have done a competent job of translating the Greek in well over 90% of the verses of the New Testament (my estimate, but I would be surprised to see it challenged).

Only occasionally is it necessary to discuss the niceties of syntax in order to learn more about the meaning than can be seen in a good translation. For example, Dr. White's emphasis on the fact that the verbs in Acts 13:48 are active verbs, or that the word "us", in Ephesians 1:4, is used as a direct object, not an indirect object, were not only irrelevant to his point, but also quite discernible from the English translations (no special consideration of the Greek tenses, etc., was called for, since such did not bring any more light than the English versions provide). However, reference to the Greek (whether relevant or not) will always impress a certain element in the audience that some kind of valid argument has just been made, even if they don't understand what it was! It's an effective debate tactic for those wishing to sound like they have an argument where they have none...but not a very honest one.

However, consideration of the Greek grammar is not the only consideration in interpreting a verse so as to draw out ("exegete") its correct meaning. Even when every Greek word and phrase has been parsed correctly, the meaning may be obscure, if other considerations, like the context and the author's presuppositions, are not taken into consideration. Thus "exegesis" refers to the who range of considerations that are employed to "draw out" the author's meaning.

In this sense, a wife, who knows her husband intimately, is equipped with a wider range of tools than is the mere grammarian, that are helpful in making sense of an ambiguous sentence written by her husband. She no doubt knows grammar as well as the average person, and the meaning will seldom depend on special uses of arcane grammatical constructions. The fact that she has heard her husband speak on this passionate topic often, and knows his personality and convictions well enough to tell us what he certainly does not believe, and did not mean in his written statement, gives us far more reason to trust her interpretation (that is, her "exegesis") than to trust a contrary opinion coming from a man who only has expertise in English grammar.

This, I hope, fully answers your question as to what Darin's question has to do with the subject of exegesis. Where he intended to go with it remains for him to tell us, but we might have reached that point sooner without so many evasive tactics having delayed us.

[Guest]

I couldn't have said it better, though it was going to take me a while at that pace.

[Guest]

Where you and I are not connecting is in your suggesting that you have to know what the relevance of the question is to "exegesis" and "eisegesis." What I am saying is that the question has an obvious answer. You could have saved a lot of keystrokes for yourself and others if you had just said, "The obvious answer is that the wife is in a better position to know her husband's precise meaning, but so what? How does this impact the question of exegesis?" Do you see that this would have been the honest and direct answer? Similarly, if Dr. White had said, "Okay, perhaps Romans 1:18 does not state that Paul has all men in view, but I think there are other verses that teach my position," that would have been the honest and direct answer.

Sir, with all due respect, asking the relevance of the question is saying “so what”, I don’t understand how your question relates to the matter at hand. Your admission of “so what” seems to me to indicate the question is not relevant to the matter at hand so the question is of no value. Frankly, I don’t understand your suggesting that asking a question of relevance when you confirm the question is irrelevant has anything to do with honesty unless you are suggesting the question formed attempting to connect an irrelevant concept with the matter at hand is intellectually dishonest.

Now as to what the relevance is to the question of exegesis, I will clarify (if this is the question you are asking). Exegesis refers to the process of drawing out of a passage its intended meaning; eisegesis refers to reading presuppositions into the passage that may not have been intended by the author.

Well given that I framed the question of relevance in the 3rd post of this thread by directly asking, “I don’t understand how your question relates to the matter of syntax and the discussion about who is applying exegesis and who is applying eisegesis.”, (you do see the word “relates” in the question, no?)yep I say that is what I’ve been asking, one wonders why you are taking us down the rabbit path of honest answers. Why would you ask the question as if I hadn’t clearly asked the question prior to this post?

Exegesis of a Greek document requires adequate consideration of the Greek vocabulary and grammar, of course, though, in a large majority of cases, such consideration requires little or nothing beyond the reading of a competent translation. The translators of, say, the NASB or the NKJV (I do not include the NIV, which you thought I quoted from, but which I do not respect enough to cite) have done a competent job of translating the Greek in well over 90% of the verses of the New Testament (my estimate, but I would be surprised to see it challenged).

Only occasionally is it necessary to discuss the niceties of syntax in order to learn more about the meaning than can be seen in a good translation. For example, Dr. White's emphasis on the fact that the verbs in Acts 13:48 are active verbs, or that the word "us", in Ephesians 1:4, is used as a direct object, not an indirect object, were not only irrelevant to his point, but also quite discernible from the English translations (no special consideration of the Greek tenses, etc., was called for, since such did not bring any more light than the English versions provide). However, reference to the Greek (whether relevant or not) will always impress a certain element in the audience that some kind of valid argument has just been made, even if they don't understand what it was! It's an effective debate tactic for those wishing to sound like they have an argument where they have none...but not a very honest one.

However, consideration of the Greek grammar is not the only consideration in interpreting a verse so as to draw out ("exegete") its correct meaning. Even when every Greek word and phrase has been parsed correctly, the meaning may be obscure, if other considerations, like the context and the author's presuppositions, are not taken into consideration. Thus "exegesis" refers to the who range of considerations that are employed to "draw out" the author's meaning.

In this sense, a wife, who knows her husband intimately, is equipped with a wider range of tools than is the mere grammarian, that are helpful in making sense of an ambiguous sentence written by her husband. She no doubt knows grammar as well as the average person, and the meaning will seldom depend on special uses of arcane grammatical constructions. The fact that she has heard her husband speak on this passionate topic often, and knows his personality and convictions well enough to tell us what he certainly does not believe, and did not mean in his written statement, gives us far more reason to trust her interpretation (that is, her "exegesis") than to trust a contrary opinion coming from a man who only has expertise in English grammar.

This, I hope, fully answers your question as to what Darin's question has to do with the subject of exegesis. Where he intended to go with it remains for him to tell us, but we might have reached that point sooner without so many evasive tactics having delayed us.

Thanks for your explanation of exegesis versus eisegesis, but I still don’t understand the relevance of the question as it relates to the matter at hand and is really the question I asked you that you seemingly missed. Which is also why I followed up my initial question which relates to the “relevance” of the question to the topic at hand, “You seem to be presupposing one of the parties in the dispute has a more intimate relationship therefore is in a better position to understand the meaning, is that what you are getting at?”

Sir, if you truly have an earnest desire to seek the truth, let me suggest something why don’t you, instead of going off on a rant accusing someone of a lack of honesty, read the questions posted, if you do this then you hopefully won’t in the future ask redundant questions like you’ve done in this post or make redundant observations and level unfound accusations.

You were suggesting the need for limiting the amount of key strokes, it appears that in this last post of yours, you wasted in excess of 700 words to point out the exact same thing I did in under 60 words only to reach the same conclusion, “Where he intended to go with it remains for him to tell us”, which is why I asked how it relates or to put it another way, the relevance of his presupposition to the discussion of exegesis versus eisegses of Scripture. So no, I still don’t understand the relevance of the passage because all you’ve done is in a very verbose manner essentially pointed out what I had already done by asking what you claim is a dishonest question. I will leave it to the readers for their assessment of who has delayed the inevitable and hopefully Darin will finally tell us the relevance, how it ties, or as you put it, “where he is going” with his presupposition.


Frankly Sir, your actions appear to be intellectually dishonest, you frame my discussion to suggest I hadn’t clearly asked the proper question to begin with which as anyone can clearly see I did, then you went on ad nauseum to point out the same thing I did all under the guise of accusing me of using a dishonest question in a delay tactic fashion, (one wonders why I would want to delay) only to come to the same conclusion you have which is what is the relevance, “where is he going”. Again, I typically don’t question motives, but one is left wondering why you falsely accused me, fain ignorance of my initial question reiterate what I’ve already pointed out while avoiding the answer to what I asked you.

However, I can agree with, “we might have reached that point sooner without so many evasive tactics having delayed us.”, had Darin answered the questions asked in the 3rd post of this thread, you would have known where he was going.

PaulT

[Guest]

I couldn't have said it better, though it was going to take me a while at that pace.

Actually you did, because I got the gist of your presupposition right off the bat which is why I asked you the question of relevance that Gregg seems at a loss for as well so, I guess we will have to wait a bit longer for you to tell us the relevance or as Gregg, at the end of a very verbose redundant response, put it,

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

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.

PaulT