The Plain meaning of the text

[civic]

Hermenuetics 101

“if the scripture makes plain sense, you should seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense”

Some will try and obfuscate the obvious meaning of the text to defend their doctrines. They will give the obvious meaning some other meaning to support their presuppositions.

 

[Diserner]

Sometimes you have to, though, to be fair.

I don't believe you can literally ask for anything and believe and get it, and that is literally what it says.

I lived in Word of Faith for a long time—it really is what it says.

But we take certain presuppositions and know that's not what it could mean.

 

[civic]

Sometimes you have to, though, to be fair.

I don't believe you can literally ask for anything and believe and get it, and that is literally what it says.

I lived in Word of Faith for a long time—it really is what it says.

But we take certain presuppositions and know that's not what it could mean.

Think of John 1:1 or John 20:28 for example. Anyone reading them for the first time can see it’s saying Christ ( the Son ) is God. That’s the default reading and understanding of those texts. One has to make up reasons why it doesn’t mean what the text is clearly saying.

 

[TibiasDad]

Sometimes you have to, though, to be fair.

I don't believe you can literally ask for anything and believe and get it, and that is literally what it says.

I lived in Word of Faith for a long time—it really is what it says.

But we take certain presuppositions and know that's not what it could mean.

And what might be some examples of such instances?

Doug

 

[Diserner]

Think of John 1:1 or John 20:28 for example. Anyone reading them for the first time can see it’s saying Christ ( the Son ) is God. That’s the default reading and understanding of those texts. One has to make up reasons why it doesn’t mean what the text is clearly saying.

I mean I agree, especially more with John 1, but they could make it metaphorical, or whatever if their presuppositions demanded it.

 

[Diserner]

And what might be some examples of such instances?

Doug

I don't understand your question, sorry.

Perhaps you clicked reply on the wrong post.

 

[TibiasDad]

Sometimes you have to, though, to be fair.

This is is that to which I was referring when I asked for examples.

Doug

 

[Diserner]

This is is that to which I was referring when I asked for examples.

Doug

I thought my example was pretty clear:

13 "And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 "If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. (Jn. 14:13-14 NKJ)

 

[civic]

I thought my example was pretty clear:

13 "And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 "If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. (Jn. 14:13-14 NKJ)

and that is a direct promise to His disciples not us.

 

[Diserner]

and that is a direct promise to His disciples not us.

Either way it's not literal.

They asked to sit on Jesus' right and left hand and were denied.

 

[TibiasDad]

I thought my example was pretty clear:

13 "And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 "If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. (Jn. 14:13-14 NKJ)

The whole of the context remedies this:

11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

The “anything” is in the context of carrying on the works that Jesus was doing. Asking in his name means to ask in accordance with his will.

Doug

 

[Diserner]

The “anything” is in the context of carrying on the works that Jesus was doing. Asking in his name means to ask in accordance with his will.

Yes, we can always "remedy" direct meanings by qualifying them.

That is already a given.

 

[civic]

Either way it's not literal.

They asked to sit on Jesus' right and left hand and were denied.

duh ask anything according to Gods will. why would want to isolate that from everything else He taught. ?

 

[TibiasDad]

Yes, we can always "remedy" direct meanings by qualifying them.

That is already a given.

The point is, that the context informs the meaning of “anything”, which precludes your example.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Hermenuetics 101

“if the scripture makes plain sense, you should seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense”

Some will try and obfuscate the obvious meaning of the text to defend their doctrines. They will give the obvious meaning some other meaning to support their presuppositions.

Or like 1John 2:1-2, where “not only ours, but the sins of the whole world” are atoned for.

Doug

 

[civic]

Or like 1John 2:1-2, where “not only ours, but the sins of the whole world” are atoned for.

Doug

Exactly that’s another good one

 

[DavP]

Hermenuetics 101

“if the scripture makes plain sense, you should seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense”

Some will try and obfuscate the obvious meaning of the text to defend their doctrines. They will give the obvious meaning some other meaning to support their presuppositions.

But doing that just ain't... popular!

Yet that is obviously the established pattern of language. A direct statement is a direct statement, that being in contrast with metaphor, allegory, or analogy.

One of the methods Satan's servants use, like the Gnostics of the 2nd century A.D., and still today, is turning direct meaning of Scripture into an allegory.

It would be nice if all the Christian Church required Sunday School class for adults to first understand the principles of language involving parable, proverb, analogy, expression, idiom, allegory, metaphor, simile, and symbolic speech, compared with direct statements. God's Word uses all of those examples. I find many brethren not understanding when God's Word does that. Yet in every day speech, those same brethren do just fine in understanding when someone is giving an example of those language principles.

What is it then, brethren just put their own language usage of idioms, figures of speech, metaphor on a shelf when opening up study in God's written Word?

One of the reasons God uses those expression tools in His Word, with many examples using principles of agriculture for example, is because everyone can understand those every day things in life.

Even with the idea about false worship with not waiting for Christ to come, God used the idea of a betrothed chaste virgin not waiting for her Husband, but instead is found having played the harlot, and travails with child. (See 2 Corinthians 11 by Apostle Paul). That's a real type event everyone can understand, yet God used it in Isaiah 54 to point to false worship; i.e., those who remain a chaste virgin waiting for their Truth Husband (Jesus Christ) vs. those who are found married to another (Antichrist) and being found having played the harlot.

 

[Soyeong]

Hermenuetics 101

“if the scripture makes plain sense, you should seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense”

Some will try and obfuscate the obvious meaning of the text to defend their doctrines. They will give the obvious meaning some other meaning to support their presuppositions.

While a deeper meaning should never detract from the plain meaning of the text, it has been thoroughly demonstrated to me that there is a deeper meaning to the text that just the plain meaning. For example, the elements spoken about in the story of Noah's flood correspond to the days of creation, which makes it clear that it is a recreation event and the Bible is crammed full of this sort of parallelism. When Jesus is sleeping on a boat in the middle of a storm on the way to a Gentile area and does something to calm the storm, then we should be thinking about what other story in the OT has parallel elements, and so forth.

 

[civic]

While a deeper meaning should never detract from the plain meaning of the text, it has been thoroughly demonstrated to me that there is a deeper meaning to the text that just the plain meaning. For example, the elements spoken about in the story of Noah's flood correspond to the days of creation, which makes it clear that it is a recreation event and the Bible is crammed full of this sort of parallelism. When Jesus is sleeping on a boat in the middle of a storm on the way to a Gentile area and does something to calm the storm, then we should be thinking about what other story in the OT has parallel elements, and so forth.

Right but those are not the primary meaning of the text. Those deeper meanings are revealed as one grows in the faith in wisdom and knowledge of Christ.

 

[Soyeong]

Right but those are not the primary meaning of the text. Those deeper meanings are revealed as one grows in the faith in wisdom and knowledge of Christ.

Indeed, though what you quoted in the OP does not leave room for there to a deeper meaning to seek beyond the plain meaning.