This is so useful for my module on The Gospels. Thank you. My first Bible was bought by mum for my brother and myself. Every night she read a story from the Children's Bible - we still have it.
My first Bible - I won a prize at school for coming first in something and I was given a book voucher. The Good News Bible had just come out (shows my age) so I bought it.
A day: …and there was evening and there was morning, the first day… I love leaders that teach us hermeneutical and exegetical approaches to scriptures. It’s important, but on the issue of creation I’m puzzled why we do not understand what a day is. From the description in Genesis to how we get Shabbos, the understanding is that a day is the marking of the “lunar” 24 hours. It seems as though we are allowing the scientific arguments to influence and weigh in more heavily than the cues (content and context) of the text. I wish we would expound more on issues like this especially when it comes to using the origin story. Great break down!! Thank you for this video.
Mine was a birthday gift from my father Beato who gave it to me since I was born yet it was written in original Latin and slowly would read the stories from Genesis to my sister Eugene and I every bedtime since I was 3 and when joy was born her Godmother Ababao gifted her English children bible she would hand it over to Papa Beato to read so this time we loved the bible as my father would read to us graphically explaining with sound effects and all dramatically so we until Kenneth the 4th daughter arrived would excitedly look forward to bedtime stories
6:30 you are right exegesis is not "liberal...progressive" but your example of dual interpretations of Jesus healing a blind man is not exegetical, and sounds more like a "liberal...progressive" way of examining scripture.
Thanks for the video. The Jerome biblical commentary you're referring to was not written by St. Jerome but is a biblical commentary edited by Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy. The book's title is a reference to Jerome, known for his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), and his extensive Biblical commentaries.
This is exactly what I was taught in my pre ordination training especially when we studied the Hebrew Bible. Mark's original ending ties in with his general theme of the messianic secret where the disciples are repeatedly told to tell no one of who Jesus was. There may be other reasons such as the position of women in the ancient world who were not seen as being a trustworthy witness. Bet fundamentalists dislike this video as it is a direct challenge to their thinking.
appreciate your videos and teaching, that theology teacher! just an fyi that most protestants i know, like myself, approach the bible exegetically. ;-)
9:52 while this is probably true, to say that definitively while the author of Hebrews remains a mystery is sloppy. The most compelling case is that Apollos wrote Hebrews, but still, we can hold out hope that a woman authored a Bible book.
A great teacher who knows what is happening with the peoples’ understanding of the scriptures as they need to study them with the help of exegesis and their minds to be able to comprehend what is actually there and what is symbolically in these scriptures. This is why exegesis is the only reason why people should not be necessarily approaching the subject nationally.
What a waste of a video. How do you separate literal from exegetical? You made up a new definition of exegesis! What you are doing is called eisegesis, not exegesis. I’m really disappointed I clicked on this video. Now to address your ridiculous assertions- 1. Peter must have been mistaken when he claimed that no text of Scripture was produced by man and that the Holy Spirit drove men in their writing of Scripture (2 Peter 1:21). So much for Paul’s statement that ALL Scripture is God-breathed (θεοπνευστος; 2 Timothy 3:16). You can always just appeal to their words not being literal, right? 2. Genesis 2 is a common Hebrew literary feature called recapitulation, and it serves to offer a more in depth view of the SAME event immediately following its initial summary. 3. Literal interpretation is the only legitimate approach to ANY text. The word “author” was brought into English through the Latin word “auctor” which means “originator.” The word “authority” derived from this word and carries the idea that the originator of something is the one holding authority over it; therefore, those who interact with the Bible, or any text for that matter, are responsible to be honest with the author’s intention to the best of their abilities. Only literal interpretation can adequately submit to an author’s intended meaning since it seeks to minimize the subjective aspect of communication. Literal interpretation fully accounts for figures of speech but recognizes those as obvious and clear in usage, not dismissing whole discourses in the interest of protecting their own “reason.” Looking for sub-text and drawing beneath the surface meaning are subjective and place the reader as the authority. In your approach, every person could theoretically have their own idiosyncratic interpretation which would be obviously eisegetical-reading into a text what is not there. Exegetical means to draw out what is actually there-the face value of the text. 4. No Bible-believing Christian thinks the Bible was written to be a science textbook. It absolutely was written to be a historical document, the only one which accurately records the origins of all things-just as it was written to be prophetic also-history and prophecy are intimately connected. This is where you make a huge mistake-Theology is not a separate field of study as though it were disconnected from reality as some postmodern art-form. God exists in time and space; therefore, the study of theology is a study in time and space (i.e., the history of God in relation to His Creation). I’m very sorry that you’ve believed that which is false, but truth isn’t subjective. What you believe doesn’t change reality. Therefore, simply because you allegorize God’s Word doesn’t change its objective meaning. I pray for your eyes to be opened from this error.
Well, if you watch the video carefully, it is just reminding us that the Bible is not a history book, nor a literature, nor a self-help manual. And biblical fundamentalism is just too dangerous. Warning: biblical fundamentalism is dangerous to our soul.
1/2 Peter have not been written by the disciple Peter, nor 2 Timothy by Paul. These are all pseudepigraphic texts, written by later authors. Basically, early Christian fan fiction. That much the scientific validity of biblical literalism.
The plural form he was thinking of is biblia, derived from singular biblion, which was interpreted as a singular form when translated into Latin. Biblos and biblion both mean book. Biblios is a form of the word I am not familiar with.
first bible " My book of Bible stories", Jehovah's Witness 1978 version. i had a strange paper round as a child, delivering the good news door to door to people who didn't subscribe, wow that wasn't fun,
My first bible that I read was The English Bible by Oxford Press. I was about 12 when I requested it for my birthday. My parents took us to a fundamentalist church, and even as a young man I rebelled to this environment. I’m my mind The New English Bible represented something beyond my narrow environment. After many years of winding paths in my 40’s I converted to Catholicism where I remain today. My husband and I have a small group of support from some gay Benedictine monks.
"Literal" vs. "Exegetical" is a false dichotomy. There are different genres of Scripture which must be taken into consideration. Determining which parts should be understood as literal is a step in the process of Exegesis.
If you have to ask "who plagiarized who?" (10:20), implying that it was possible that the story of Noah was not real, then you are not a believer and have no business talking about exegesis of the Bible.
Unless in the ending of Mark where it says they told nobody it meant that they did not speak to anyone that they came in contact with, people they knew or didnt know, on their way from the tomb to the place where the disciples were staying ( Jesus HQ )
I got my first Bible, a King James version, in 1952 by reciting the Our Father, which I have never understood why we pray it. Jesus used it as an example when His disciples wanted to be like John the Baptist disciples, who had been taught how to pray, not necessarily a formulated prayer. That's what Jesus was doing, giving a method to pray, not a prayer. That's why you'll hear some people say that there is no Lord's prayer. The only prayer where we have Jesus words are in the garden when he prayed, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me..." Oh, and in a parable about the Publican (the bad tax collector), who stood in the back of the synagogue and didn't lift his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast and said, "Oh God, be merciful to me." I have also seen, "Oh Lord..."
