Theological Exegesis

[simonscat]

I've just started reading Stephen T Davis and he talks of the need to do theological exegesis on the Bible, to uncover the meaning behind the text and to overcome the difficult passages we find such as the ones on slavery and the subordination of women.

My problem is that I don't like his exegesis technique at all and I think it's weak. If anyone's read around this view, do you have any suggestions for different ways of looking at theological exegesis? I'd love to know what you think of theological exegesis too, especially in terms of the passages where it appears that God is promoting genocide, slavery and the status of gender.

Can problematic passages such as these be 'saved'?

[Skip]

No, they can't. What the people of that time believed is what they wrote down. Later, other people came along who thought and organized their societies differently; they gradually (by slow, hard-fought and painful increments) replaced those rules, those injunctions, those ideas, those beliefs. Now, some factions want their slaves back and are working very hard to rescind all progress made since 1200 AD.

You have to choose: regress, rewrite your canon or discard it.

[MMasz]

I've just started reading Stephen T Davis and he talks of the need to do theological exegesis on the Bible, to uncover the meaning behind the text and to overcome the difficult passages we find such as the ones on slavery and the subordination of women.

My problem is that I don't like his exegesis technique at all and I think it's weak. If anyone's read around this view, do you have any suggestions for different ways of looking at theological exegesis? I'd love to know what you think of theological exegesis too, especially in terms of the passages where it appears that God is promoting genocide, slavery and the status of gender.

Can problematic passages such as these be 'saved'?

One needs to have an established theological foundation before engaging in a study of exegesis. To do differently is putting the cart before the horse. While genocide and slavery are in parts of the Bible, God is not promoting them as in allowing man to independently initiate genocide or take slaves. Reading some Bible commentaries is more beneficial in helping you to understand what is written. That's where I would start.

Trying to wrestle with difficult passages without a foundation will only confuse you. PM me of you have specific questions.

[Immanuel Can]

Exegesis is challenging, but not to a degree that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot do it properly. All it requires is a working knowledge of the whole of the Bible, a bit of common sense, and a few hermeneutical basic principles, such as "read in context, not in isolated little snippets."

By the way, Skip is just trying to force you into a false trichotomy...as in "chose one of three options, but I'll frame two as morally reprehensible so you feel like a jerk if you take one." He's hiding the fact that there are other options. As MMsaz suggests, you could educate yourself more fully and arrive at what you regard as sound principles of exegesis, and not be either a neanderthal nor a revisionist while doing that; you could be perfectly rational to do so, as even Skip would have to admit.

There are reasonable explanations for such passages: you'll have to decide for yourself if you think they're fully warranted. This does mean you'll have to do some independent work and thinking, but hey, that's what we're all about, right?

[bobevenson]

Hermeneutics and exegesis outside of "The Ouzo Prophecy" are a Biblical joke when it comes to the book of Revelation.

[mickthinks]

... "The Ouzo Prophecy" are a Biblical joke ...

Ain't them the truths!

[bobevenson]

"The Ouzo Prophecy" are a Biblical joke.

The little Nazi uses the word "are" instead of "is." Your papers, please.

[Arising_uk]

The fruit loop godbotherer fails to see the irony in his own words.

[bobevenson]

The fruit loop godbotherer fails to see the irony in his own words.

What's truly ironic is Prince Charles running to his 87-year-old mother to get his drunk wife into rehab. Too bad there isn't a rehab for getting the balls you weren't born with. Chalk it up to all that British inbreeding.

[thedoc]

... "The Ouzo Prophecy" are a Biblical joke ...

You mean there's more that one?

[bobevenson]

... "The Ouzo Prophecy" are a Biblical joke ...

You mean there's more that one?

The Biblical joke is people like you who can't understand the book of Revelation even with a roadmap.

[thedoc]

... "The Ouzo Prophecy" are a Biblical joke ...

You mean there's more that one?

The Biblical joke is people like you who can't understand the book of Revelation even with a roadmap.

Thankyou.

[bobevenson]

Plus you run your words together like the fool you are.

[Skip]

By the way, Skip is just trying to force you into a false trichotomy...as in "chose one of three options, but I'll frame two as morally reprehensible so you feel like a jerk if you take one."

What's morally reprehensible about change? It happens, whether we like it or not; we can only choose whether to direct it, resist it or be run over by it.
(false trichotomies, a house specialty.)

He's hiding the fact that there are other options.

For the sake of brevity, or possibly from lack of profound engagement with the subject(s) - not because he has anything to gain.

As MMsaz suggests, you could educate yourself more fully and arrive at what you regard as sound principles of exegesis, and not be either a neanderthal nor a revisionist while doing that; you could be perfectly rational to do so, as even Skip would have to admit.

Skip does so admit. Freely, before this entire congregation of... ?alternative consciousnesses.

There are reasonable explanations for such passages:

Absolutely. 1. That's what the ancient Hebrews believed was the right behaviour. 2. It's what most or all of their contemporaries believed, as well. 3. And so, to all practical purposes, did the Romans who took up Christianity, and the council that compiled the original bible and subsequent translators and transcibers responsible for the book as you read it today.
or 4. Jehovah really said those things. but 4a. He didn't mean them or 4b. He only meant for the Jews to do them, nobody else. or 4c. He only meant them to be done at that time, not after he'd de-chosen the Jews and the age of miracles had passed.

you'll have to decide for yourself if you think they're fully warranted.

And, if you decide to follow the holy instructions literally, which state would be most hospitable, legally.
(Texas, by a nose. Stay out of France.)