Originally posted by twhitehead
A common claim in these forums is that one particular way of interpreting the Bible is fundamentally better than another and the claimant often thinks that this should be obvious to everyone.
I would like to show that this is not the case and the use of fancy words (like exegesis) does not in any way make one interpretation superior to another.
Let us ip' with God or some similar claim. Hence in this case all claims must be viewed as equal.
Let's not let this thread die a lonely death. It is a worthy subject that should receive a response.
and the claimant often thinks that this should be obvious to everyone.
Untrue. While it is agreed that there exists a preferred method of biblical intepretation, this is not patently obvious to either neophytes or the willfully uninformed. What is
or should be
patently obvious to any serious student of historical documents is the necessity of exegetical study.
is it possible for someone who is not a 'true believer' to understand or interpret the Bible?
While the unbeliever may obtain gnosis
, or basic understanding, of basic spiritual truths, those truths are limited strictly to salvation. Epignosis
is only available to the believer who is in fellowship with God, via the filling of the Holy Spirit. As such, spiritual growth (and access to the same) is the monopoly of the believer.
all others with contradictory claims is a not a 'true believer' or lacks the neccessary 'personal relationship' with God or some similar claim. Hence in this case all claims must be viewed as equal.
While the filling of the Holy Spirit is a prerequisite to spiritual growth, said spiritual growth is Bible-dependent and thus, objectively verifiable.