The Necessity of Sound, Biblical Exegesis

I’ve got to tap the brakes and downshift so that I can take a momentary detour in my response to the website “God is imaginary“, so that I can take time to explain one particular term that I have been using throughout this series. That term is the principle of biblical exegesis, which is necessary to fully understand what a particular passage is trying to relate.

Context. Context is necessary to establish what is going on in and around a particular passage. This has to do with a passage’s particular setting. the conditions to which the passage is referring, the historical cultural significance to what is being described, and the type of literature that the passage is constructed in: poetry, prose, commentary, etc.

Language. The original text of the Bible consists primarily of Hebrew, Greek, and contains some Aramaic. Each of those three languages have certain grammatical features that, when translated into another language, can be lost but are necessary to understand what the original authors were attempting to communicate to the readers in the original languages. So much of what we mean when we are communicating is contained not only in the mere words we are using, but in the order, the tenses, the voice that we are using, we realize just how easy it is to be misunderstood, and how careful we are, sometimes, to choose our words, it is only fair to give the men who wrote the books that comprise the Bible the same respect.

One of the biggest issues in the matter of language, especially the biblical languages, is how they are translated into another language, especially English. Because words have meanings, and specific words have polarizing effects (words like kill, rape, slave), there are visceral reactions when these words appear in translations of the text that the original authors never meant to be understood, especially in the ways in which they are superficially understood today. It is unfair to the text of the Bible to read into the words that have been translated the mere meanings that the words as we understand them. If we are to be fair, not only to ourselves but to the biblical writers, we have a responsibility to understand what they meant, not how we take them to mean.

Finally, application. Superficial readers of the biblical texts will often attempt to draw out superficial meanings, something I’ve dealt with in posts like this, without understanding the first two principles I mentioned earlier. I’ve mentioned that it is necessary to know how to read the Bible, most critics of the Bible simply do not know how to handle the text, but do so in such a ham-fisted, mean-spirited manner that they actually encourage ignorance rather than knowledge. What I mean to say is that these critics will often draw some application out of a text that the writers would never intend. It is simple dishonesty on their part.

It’s pretty simple to understand something the Bible teaches: those who love truth will respond to truth positively, and those who hate it will respond negatively. I hope that this post will clear up any confusion that may exist, and will lay a foundation that will encourage a better, more thoughtful understanding of the Scriptures.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “The Necessity of Sound, Biblical Exegesis

  1. Pingback: “God is imaginary”? Really, Part 16: Consider the contradictions | triggermanblog

  2. Pingback: “God is imaginary”? Really? Part 22: Count all the people God wants to murder | triggermanblog

  3. Pingback: “God is imaginary”? Really? Part 26: Notice that the bible’s author is not “all-knowing” | triggermanblog

  4. Pingback: “God is imaginary”? Really?! Part 30: Examine God’s sexism | triggermanblog

  5. Pingback: “God is imaginary”? Really?! Part 32: Talk to a theologian | triggermanblog

  6. Pingback: “God is imaginary”? Really?! Part 34: Examine your health insurance policy | triggermanblog

  7. Pingback: “God is imaginary”? Really?! Part 36: Realize that God is impossible | triggermanblog

  8. Pingback: When Truth Becomes “Hate Speech”: When Embracing a Lifestyle Choice Means Rejecting Reality | triggermanblog

  9. Pingback: “God is imaginary”? Really?! Part 39: Realize that Jesus was a jerk | triggermanblog

  10. Pingback: Response to John Pavlovitz’s Post: “If I Have Gay Children: Four Promises From a Christian Pastor/Parent” | triggermanblog

  11. Pingback: Answers in Exegesis: Was Jesus a Pacifist? | triggermanblog

  12. Pingback: “God is imaginary”? Really?! Part 48: “Look who speaks for God” and “Ask Jesus to appear” | triggermanblog

  13. Pingback: Answers in Exegesis: Is slavery evil? | triggermanblog

  14. Pingback: Is the church creating atheists? Survey says … Yes?! | triggermanblog

  15. Pingback: Why Do They Have to Misrepresent Us? A Response to Valerie Turico’s “9 Sinister Things the Christian Right Does…” Part 2 | triggermanblog

  16. Pingback: Why Do They Have to Misrepresent Us? A Response to Valerie Turico’s “9 Sinister Things the Christian Right Does…” Part 4 | triggermanblog

  17. Pingback: Why do They Have to Misrepresent Us? A Response to Valerie Tarico’s Article “9 Sinister Things the Christian Right Does… (Part 7) | triggermanblog

  18. Pingback: Is it simply a “matter of interpretation” or an outright rejection of truth? | triggermanblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s