From: Mark Markham (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Sep 15 1999 - 12:14:29 EDT
I adhere to # 3, but # 1 has direct bearing on yea, is part of my
understanding of # 3 ( ''tis the reason I detest the recent code threads). I
don't like the hidden agenda aspect proposed in # 3 and it weakens the
position-IMHO. As for the other numbers, I think the opportunity arises to
loose the real, intended , natural meaning of a text (Scripture, or even the
Constitution for that matter) when we allow others (societies or "the
body" ) to redefine things, but alas this will break down into rules of
hermeneutics. One thing is for sure, we hate to have our words used in
opposition to what we intended. While the strict application of some things
may be gray I really think that with very little effort the majority of
things can be clearly seen. Would it not be a brighter world if all walked
according to the truth that was plain?
Have a great Day,
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl W. Conrad <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Mark Markham <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: 1 Cor 14:34 -- LALEIN (offlist)
> At 4:47 PM +0200 9/14/99, Mark Markham wrote:
> >Dear Carl,
> >I admire your honesty in explaining your position. I respect your Greek
> >(as you knew I would) take issue with your theology. It must be a
> >walk to embrace the diametric sides as you do. I am not sure I could
> >compromise arguments to adopt such a position, but I am sure you believe
> >have reasons. I will not debate unless that premise causes an oversight
> >legit Greek understanding-- just as I do with others with various views
> >the list. Truth can stand examination. At least we have identified
> >ourselves for future frame of reference, eh? :-)
> >I agree with you entirely that, " We're just going to have to
> >disagree on this one as well as whatever else we may disagree on." You
> >the premise that I and a few others hold.
> >Thanks for the comments and keep up the good input on this list. I enjoy
> I appreciate your response. In the light of our exchange, you might find
> this little item that came in on the "Bible Translation" list worth
> at. It certainly made me think, because I find every one of these
> alternatives important enough not to want to exclude any one. Curiously
> (from my own perspective), several of those responding to this objected to
> #5 ("The Bible means what the Body of Christ says it means") on grounds of
> traditional Protestant rejection of ecclesiastical authority, and, I guess
> a doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers." But for my part, although
> I hold strongly to the Presbyterian principle that "God alone is Lord of
> the conscience," I still think that a Christian believer's relationship to
> God in Christ is not a strictly private and personal thing but a corporate
> relationship with the whole Body of Christ--and for that reason one ought
> to be wary of an interpretation that is wholly at odds with
> that find no support anywhere within the corporate body of believers.
> Perhaps that's another part of what you above call "walking a tightrope to
> embrace the diametric sides." I will say that it is not a "comfortable"
> stance for study and interpretation of the Biblical text, but then, I
> supposed that taking the Bible seriously was supposed to be "comfortable."
> Regards, cwc
> Keith Drury is back from summer vacation. Here is his first new column.
> - - - - - - - - - - -
> So What Does the Bible Really Mean?
> Search the Internet on any topic: abortion, homosexuality, election,
> security, capital punishment or whatever, and what will you find? Your
> search engine will likely produce a hundred different web pages with half
> as many positions -- all claiming they are "Bible based" or growing from
> "Biblical Christian Assumptions." Are they? How can the same Scriptures
> produce so many different positions? Isn't the Bible plain and clear on
> these matters? Or doesn't the Bible have any fixed meaning at all?
> So what does the Bible really mean? How will you decide? Here are some
> options. Which do you reject or prefer:
> 1. The Bible means what the writer meant when he wrote it.
> To these the Bible means what the writer meant it to mean. Thus to
> understand what it means one needs to figure out what the writer meant.
> People holding this position yearn to become experts in Bible languages
> and culture, for the meaning of the writer's words are locked up in
> ancient language and culture. And, they must be prepared to adjust their
> views from time to time because the view of "recent scholarship" changes
> every 30-40 years. Also, be prepared to answer the complaint that you've
> lifted the Bible's above many ordinary people, reversing the gains of the
> reformation, merely giving the authority this time to the scholars instead
> of the Pope. But by far the most common view of middle aged folk, this
> view holds that the Bible means what the writer meant it to mean.
> 2. The Bible means what the first readers understood it to mean.
> Some think it's easier to figure out what the original readers would have
> understood the Bible to mean than what the writer intended. That is, to
> these folk, God was communicating to real people in Corinth, and thus he
> "carried along" the writer to say things in a way the Corinthians would
> have understood what God meant. This view isn't that different than above
> and most "modernists" combine the two so fluidly that you can't tell which
> they are using. Opt for this view and you'll also need a thorough under-
> standing of the culture and thinking modes of ancient times. You may not
> need to become such an expert in Paul's thinking as in the thinking of
> the Greco-Roman world. The goal here is to exegete the culture as well as
> the verses -- the original culture, attempting to read the words the way
> the first readers would have read and understood them. To these "Thou
> shall not commit adultery" is read from the mind set of an ancient person
> who likely did not think of having sex with a prostitute as "adultery." Or
> "Honor your father and mother" is seen as instructions for dealing with
> elderly parents, not a command for children to obey their parents. To
> these folk the Bible means what it meant: what the first readers thought
> it meant.
> 3. The Bible means what God meant it to mean.
> OK let's add the Sunday School class answer: "The Bible means what God
> meant it to mean." Cute, but is there anything to it? Does the Bible mean
> what God intended (through "inspiration") it to mean, even though some-
> times the original writer and readers may have missed it? Could Scripture
> have meaning now in a way nobody ever before understood it? Hmmmmmmm…. To
> these folk there may be "hidden meaning" in the Scripture which God is
> waiting to reveal to us in the 'latter days." To them the meaning is in
> the intentions of God -- His inspiration, not the words or understanding
> of 2000-4000 years ago. But these are not the only folk who opt for
> bringing the meaning nearer to present times.
> 4. The Bible means what the Spirit teaches me it means.
> These folk take a more dynamic view of the Bible's meaning and aren'’t
> sure the Bible has any fixed meaning at all -- one verse can mean many
> things to many people. They believe the Bible is a living book, packed
> with meaning for all ages, and even a person totally ignorant of first
> century agricultural practices can figure out the "spiritual meaning" of
> the parable of the soils. To these folk, the Holy Spirit teaches truth
> directly from the words off the pages, "inspiring the reader" to see
> meanings even the original writer never intended. Some of these folk admit
> there might be a "near and far meaning" -- an original meaning and a
> distant one for today, but others unabashedly announce they understand a
> passage's meaning because "the Lord told me so." He gave them this as
> their "life verse." To these folk the Bible means what the Lord tells them
> personally it means, sometimes called "devotional" reading of the Bible.
> It leads to great spiritual intimacy with God. It also leads to Waco
> 5. The Bible means what the Body of Christ says it means.
> Others who yearn for a more contemporary view, widen the circle of
> authority to include God's whole church -- both now and through history.
> To these the Bible's meaning is found with one part tradition: what
> Christians down through the centuries have taken it to mean, and one part
> contemporary scholarship: what Christians all around the world today hold
> it to say. This view is a sort of democratized exegesis: the majority view
> becomes the right one. They argue that God not only trusted human beings
> to write the original words, and human beings to determine the holy canon,
> but has also delegated to His church the responsibility to determine what
> the Bible means for today. These folk have no difficulty rejecting slavery
> even though the Bible seems to accept it, or condemning alcohol even
> through the Bible seems to allow for it. To these people church creeds,
> denominational positions, and the collective view of the world-wide
> Christian church have heavy weight. To them the Bible means what the
> church collectively says it means.
> 6. So what is your position?
> Where do you come out on this one? One of the above? Or a combination? Are
> you moving from one toward another position recently? Where do you stand?
> What does the Bible really mean?
> So, what do you think?
> - - - - - -
> Tuesday Column FREEware by Keith Drury
> You are free to transmit, duplicate or publish this article without
> To drop a note to the writer email: firstname.lastname@example.org
> The collection of Keith Drury's other writings:
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics/Washington University
> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:39 EDT