Hi
Slade,
If you read what Judy
says below I hope alarm bells are going off in your head. This is an
excellent example of how we take scripture and make it mean whatever we want
it to. In other words we force our meaning on the text. Judy is an
expert at this. Note that she is completely sincere and is not conscious
of doing this. Credit must be given to Judy for attempting to be Berean,
possibly more so than anyone else on this forum. However, her refusal to
look at where her doctrines/beliefs come from and a blind adherence in
believing that the Spirit communicated all her beliefs to her leads her into
positions such as this one. Here is what is done:
1) Choose a
passage that is completely out of context to the one in question. We
will then make this passage speak to another, helping us to interpret
it. In this case Judy chose a passage in Proverbs. Now Proverbs is
a collection of sayings that can lead one to wisdom. It is not a
doctrine manual. We do not get doctrine from Proverbs; we get principles
that demonstrate wise living. People often use the book of Psalms to do
this type of interpretation as well. So we take a wise saying and then
turn it into a doctrine (i.e. �the scriptures teach�). Now that we have
the Bible on our side we go in for the next strike.
2) If the plain
meaning of the text differs from what we hold to be true we must find a way to
adjust it, to make it say something it doesn�t or at the very least to make
explicit what we feel is implicit. A favourite way of doing this is by
using the �argument from silence� technique. That means that if
something is not specifically stated then we can always assume that it should
have been and moreover treat what we believe was implicit as binding
doctrine. So if Jesus (Yeshua) does not mention grandparents or
great-grandparents than we can just add them in as if He meant to. This
is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture. Last week
Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique. If
Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to
leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and
more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increase it from being acceptable
to being a good moral choice). Nothing of the such is taught in
scripture in an explicit way. The only way to make it fit is to do so
implicitly. It is a sneaky way of taking our beliefs (be they valid or
invalid) and putting them into the text in order to justify what we already
believe. Let it be noted that all of us are guilty of doing this at one
point or another, including myself.
3) Now that we
have added our argument from silence to our passage and no one has objected so
far we can continue to the third strike. Judy is aware that the orthodox
rendering of this passage �prove[s] that sin and this man�s blindness are
unrelated.� However, due to her own beliefs on generational curses
(usually found in the charismatic/Pentecostal strains of evangelicalism) the
passage cannot mean what is plainly says. The third strike builds on the
first two by now presenting an alternative meaning to the text. It must
be referring to something different which is why Judy changes it to mean that
�Jesus was wanting to focus on the works of God being revealed in the man that
day rather than what caused his problem to begin with.� The plain
meaning of course is that sin was not involved; rather it was �that the works
of God might be revealed in him.�
It is all nice and
compact. We have started with scripture, moved to something that sounds
logical (the argument from silence) and then provided an alternative reading
that supports our beliefs prior to coming to the passage. None of us
here are perfect interpreters (including myself). We all need to be on
the watch for when scripture is mishandled.
If any are interested
in learning more about generational sin and why I believe Judy�s beliefs are
not only Biblically wrong but hurtful please see the links
below:
http://www.tmch.net/gensin.htm
http://www.voiceofonecrying.com/generational_sins_or_god.htm
http://www.acts17-11.com/dialogs_curses.html
http://www.geocities.com/Bob_Hunter/csch6.htm
http://www.nireland.com/evangelicaltruth/generationalcurses.htm
http://www.answers2prayer.org/bible_questions/Answers/deliverance/generational_curses.html
Peace and
joy,
Jonathan
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Judy
Taylor
Sent: Sunday, June 27,
2004 4:03 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer
Request
Thank you for posting this scripture.
I know a lot of people interpret Jesus' response to the disciples query to
mean
or to prove that sin and this man's
blindness are unrelated. However, the scriptures teach that the "curse
causeless
does not light" (Prov 26:2) so there
was definitely a cause even though Jesus did not choose to discuss
it right
then. It could have been
grandparents, ggrandparents or gggrandparents. Jesus was wanting to focus
on the
works of God being revealed in the man
that day rather than what caused his problem to begin with ..
judyt
As he passed by, he saw a man blind
from birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this
man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither
did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be
revealed in him. (John 9:1-3)
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Friday, 25 June, 2004
09:11
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer
Request
I have no idea Chris; our family are
believers who are working
through our issues also.
However, we do know where to go for help
in time of need and we
are grateful for those willing to encourage
