To also better understand why it is called the "science" of hermeneutics or exegesis (proper interpretation) is because of the following methods applied:

1) Historical - words have a way of meaning different things for different cultures -
example - 50 years ago "gay" meant jovial or happy, today it is applied to a sexual connotation. When the bible states to walk a second mile - was the practice that a Roman Soldier could enlist a native person to carry their bundle for a mile. Jesus said to go the second mile. Knowing the historical customs helps one interpret the Bible properly.

2) grammatical - a certain phrase said in one language does not always mean the same thing in another.

3) Contextual - scripture cannot be applied by a singular statement. It requires two or three statements to ascertain full clarity. Like we see the book of Acts is just a historical book that is not to be a doctrinal one. It is just recorded history. contextual references would be the number of passages that speak on proper sexual practices.

4) Literal - scripture is to be taken literally unless it is parables, some prophecy (statue of Daniel - certain types of metal signified certain kingdoms, or Joseph's interpretation of Pharoah's dream), the use of similes and allegorical passages.

These coupled with one's understanding of theological issues of pre-millennialism (Jesus return is two-fold), post-millennialism (that Jesus return is after a 1,000 year period), amillenialism (the 1,000 year reign of Christ is not to be taken literally).

Also Covenant theology is where certain parts of man's history was he responsible for different actions towards God. The old testament saint did animal sacrifices, where instead, we live in the age of grace. Also the temple worship is different than the practices of church.

Other than Covenant theology is the position of Dispensationalism that teaches that salvation is a process. Like a building block of one stage upon another. To come to a final fruition of full salvation.

These are some very important aspects to properly handling God's word. It is an extremely complicated book that extremely few people have a good grasp of its content.

In theological circles the practice of proper hermeneutics is refered to as a science.

It is the juxtaposition of the words that is the issue. "Scientific proof".

The problem with interpreting something is that the internal consistency can be perfect, but it still rests on a flawed premise. You must still prove the words themselves to be true accounts.

Pick a single verse as an example.

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).

There is the claim that the blood of Jesus purifies us from all sin. How would you use the scientific method to establish this as true or false?

You wouldn't. However, you'd use hermeneutics to determine the "meaning" of this passage. There are methods that are entirely different.

In hermeneutics, you cannot get close to the truth, because it's interpretations of something you assume to be true.

For example: Acts 9:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

Prove to me this happened. Show me DNA evidence or multiple third party testimonies. Prove it.

You can't. We're speaking different languages here, and you don't even realize it.

Well I do know it. Acts is just a historical account of what happened. You could say like a newspaper - but with an editor of a much higher level - God. How could you conjecture that it is not an actual account. Who puts out information in the world that is so false, other than, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and AL JAZEERA? hahaha You have to put yourself in the mindset of all people when putting forth information. They were just stating what happened. We already have so much external evidence that Jesus Christ did rise from the grave.

As I said the word science is used in the sense that there are specific methods and means to derive at a proper interpretation.

Best Wishes! I am not in an arguing mood. If you don't like it. That is your choice.

Just like I said, because of your ignorance of the subject matter you take a persuasion that your false ideas must be right. It is like arguing cancer with a Church of Scientology and a Doctor of Medicine. The two are not going to agree, but one is right.

Acts is just a historical account of what happened. You could say like a newspaper - but with an editor of a much higher level - God.

Simply saying it's true doesn't make it true. Show me proof. Show me proof that Acts is an accurate historical account. Show me proof that the man in question fell to the ground near Damascus. What supporting evidence do you have that would make me accept the claims of the bible? Taking the claims at face value doesn't work. Is there third party testimony of an observer, unknown to the writer of the testimonial, who wrote a secondary account that somehow survived until the modern age without anyone knowing?

Also, you say god is the editor? Prove it.

Just like I said, because of your ignorance of the subject matter you take a persuasion that your false ideas must be right.

I take no such persuasion. Stop making stuff up. My ignorance of the subject has nothing to do with your abuse of the concepts of science and proof. You're saying the best way to cut a dog's hair is with a belt sander. The concepts you're using do not juxtapose correctly. It's nonsense when you actually understand the concepts. There's no argument here. You're wrong, by definition.

You can prove God is the author by many aspects. If anything is proof you might look at inspiration - the content of material is so conclusively knowledgeable of facts that man had no knowledge of at the time. Items like - blood is the lifeline of humans, Leviticus 17:11, Rockefeller became the riches American by his associates bible study of Moses and the bulrushes being waterproofed by pitch - pitch is a form of oil, and tons of more scientific proof is found in the Bible before man even knew about these concepts.

bob wrote:You can prove God is the author by many aspects.

no you can't bob

first you haven't defined God (good luck with that one)

so even if you could prove "X" is the author you would still need to prove that what you call "God" was that "X"

so when you say

bob wrote:You can prove God is the author by many aspects.

you have already done sloppy work

because before you can meaningfully use the word "God"

you must define "God"

i know when you say "God" you don't mean Vishnu so the question that must first be answered is

what does bob mean by the word "God"

once that is sorted you can then say

bob wrote:You can prove God is the author by many aspects.

and then we look at your "proof" that "God" is the author

in other words your many aspects aren't even worth thinking about much until you have established your definition of "God"

come on bob

define "God"

until you define what you mean by the word "God" your statement

bob wrote:You can prove God is the author by many aspects.

is meaningless as far as "proof" is concerned.

bob i want you to remember something always, there is such a thing as an

ASSERTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE

let's say it, all of us together

assertion without evidence

it is ok to make an assertion without evidence

it is NOT ok to expect people to believe an assertion without evidence.

and you haven't even defined God in a way that brings us all on the same page.

what bob means when he says "God" is not what youkrst means when he says "God"

and i bet Interbane would reject ideas about "God" that both bob and youkrst might put forward.

and you know what bob

that is so ok it's beautiful

so bob where does that leave you?

bob has to define "God" before he can use that word meaningfully on a post on BT

i'll even go out on a limb and say here at BT we don't just assume that the word "God" necessarily means much worth bothering about at all.

some posters here wouldn't even define what they meant when they talked of "God" even though they repeatedly asked.

but that's one thing i'll say for Flann...

He actually stated in plain english what he meant when he used the word Satan.

he gave a definition.

and i applaud him for that

even though i thought his definition had insufficient evidence.



what some people mean when they use the word "God" is just plain SUPERSTITION.

i'm glad i stopped analyzing your post after

bob wrote:You can prove God is the author by many aspects.

because you really went to town after the opening sentence

Interbane wrote: There's no argument here. You're wrong, by definition.

He's right you know bob.

and Interbane is doing you a great favour by pointing it out.

Items like - blood is the lifeline of humans

Right, because the bronze age brutes hadn't figured out that if you drain someone of blood they'd die.

bulrushes being waterproofed by pitch - pitch is a form of oil, and tons of more scientific proof is found in the Bible before man even knew about these concepts.

Prove that it was impossible for the Romans to know pitch was a waterproofing agent. Like, for boats.

Bob, this is so far removed from proof that it's a joke. Orders of magnitude removed.

If the bible contained Einstein's equation for general relativity, even that would not be proof. You do not know what it means to prove something. You're abusing the word. Or rather, using it like a layman.

The earth is round and the water cycle of the world. How about the inner core has as much water as the ocean? The bible says that is how the flood took place. and tons more proof.

You look to see no proof and that is exactly what you will get - no proof!