[TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

[Judy Taylor]

From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.    judyt: Why would I want to do that Jonathan?  Scripture says what it says. Why would I choose to take responsibility when it is unnecessary?  Remember it is the nature of unregenerated flesh to take the easy way out - always.   Jonathan: 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.    judyt: Jonathan sickness is never a blessing, it is a curse and the scripture from Proverbs is God's wisdom on the subject at hand. I am not making it say anything. It says what it says. If you don't understand it, pray and ask the Lord to teach you or leave it until some later time.  If you want to reject it and stay where you are at. That's also an option.   Jonathan: 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.    jt: Proverbs is the wisdom of God and   ALL SCRIPTURE (including Psalms and Proverbs) is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"   Jonathan: 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.   judyt: Do we need to first run it by some smart men Jonathan?    Jonathan: 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.   judyt: Your claim above is exactly what religious tradition has done through the years. When men went off into their own religious ways and no longer walked in the power of the cross - Jesus was not there to confirm His Word with signs following so they began to explain this part of scripture away ... selah!  A favorite argument is "that died with the last apostle" Jonathan: 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.    judyt: I never ever use an argument from silence Jonathan (this is your assumption). There are always reasons (more than one)  For any statement I make from scripture I have two or more witnesses. You never ask because you already assume the above and are not interested.  The link between sin and sickness is all over the Bible beginning in Genesis; why do you think Jesus told those he healed to "go and sin no more lest a worse thing come upon them"  His disciples were aware of this, their question in John 9 was not made from the standpoint of ignorance or superstition.  Our generation is the one who needs to have their pipes cleaned.  But then, if you want to stay sick and infirm just explain it all away. There is not much power of God evident today because we don't deal with sin so we hold the truth in unrighteousness.   Jonathan: 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.    judyt: Neither Terri or I made any argument from silence concerning the above that I am aware of. I don't even believe what you have pronounced as coming from me.  What I did say is that God's Word teaches that secular government should weild the sword and that we were in the military for 20yrs, some of them as Christians.  Also that there are Christians in a lot of professions that religious people do not approve of.  I leave it to God to judge both people and nations for their choices.   Jonathan: 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.    jt: Oh? So a loving God wanted this man born blind and to go through childhood blind just so he could reveal his works through him?  This is Calvinism and you accuse me of putting another meaning into the text.  Jesus was sent to do good and to heal all who were oppressed by the devil for God was with Him.  Do you suppose that being blind is the same as being oppressed by the devil?  Or was Jesus getting something off the man that God put on 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.   judyt: I am not into logic Jonathan and this is not the way by which I understand scripture, nor are any of my arguments from silence. I would be glad to give you a scriptural explanation in balance and in context that allows God to be the God that "changes not"  I can't go to your websites because the lightning zapped our modem - I may check them out later but I could probably tell you what they say without visiting - If you want to fight to stay sick - I can respect your choice, but this is not where I want to live. Jesus died so I could be free.  So why stay oppressed by the devil?  Sometimes our exegesis needs to change.   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/generat ional_curses.html Peace and joy,   Jonathan         From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Hi Slade: 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     From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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)