Enhance and deepen your study of God's Word by asking Bible questions and sharing your answers.

When properly understood...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When properly understood...

    There are certain phrases that are commonly used by someone about to lie. An example used by false Bible teachers is the phrase “When properly understood…” When they say this, you know they’re about to do a song and dance to try to convince you into thinking a verse says something it doesn’t say.

    Of course, verses of the Bible should be properly understood. But, people who are pointing out what a verse clearly says rarely would use the phrase “when properly understood” because they’re not trying to divert you from the obvious meaning.
    Last edited by Cornelius; 02-11-2016, 07:28 AM.

  • #2
    Yeah, what Cornelius said!
    John chapter 1 (and discussions on the use of a Greek preposition 'the') spring immediately to mind ... followed by an urge to say "When properly understood, the first chapter of the Gospel of John actually says EXACTLY what it appears to say on the surface." ;)

    Now almost anything in Revelation or that verse about "Unless you hate your father and mother ..." are probably good candidates for the legitimate use of "When properly understood".
    Comment>

    • #3

      I hate to be the disagreeing weasel here but if I may interject, there are a few places who need to be "properly understood" like say love, there are 4 or 5 different kinds of love in the Greek and they are phileo-friendship, eros-romantic, agape-the highest form as God loves,and I cant remember the others so don't kill me.

      One of the most needed is in Pauls writing to the Hebrews, when writing one must first know your audience and set your tone, so we too must know the audience and as well know the tone of the message,but in this case we need a tad bit of back story, Hebrews 10_6 and_26 used to scare me to death until I found the back story, he was writing to Jewish believers who faced severe persecution, were kicked out of the synagogue and only could return if they renounce Jesus and they were considering doing just that for an easier path and what Paul was saying is in paraphrase:
      In Jesus is a sacrifice far superior to those dead works (the law and sacrifice) we used to do, there is no longer any sacrifice other than Jesus sacrifice and if you trust in another sacrifice you tread the son of God underfoot,,, many take this at face value and it was never meant that way but has brought many away from Christ because of condemnation and fear.

      Yes some passages need to be understood and if you seek the answers you will find them but John chapter 1 as well as genesis are literal and direct even in the original Hebrew Aramaic, and Greek.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by JSB View Post
        I hate to be the disagreeing weasel here but if I may interject, there are a few places who need to be "properly understood" like say love, there are 4 or 5 different kinds of love in the Greek and they are phileo-friendship, eros-romantic, agape-the highest form as God loves,and I cant remember the others so don't kill me.

        One of the most needed is in Pauls writing to the Hebrews, when writing one must first know your audience and set your tone, so we too must know the audience and as well know the tone of the message,but in this case we need a tad bit of back story, Hebrews 10_6 and_26 used to scare me to death until I found the back story, he was writing to Jewish believers
        You shouldn't use the phrase "Jewish believers". The Bible never uses that phrase. And, these days the word "Jewish" by definition means a non-believer, ask any Jew. Any. Jew. Dispensationalists love that phrase, along with because hey want to legitimize what Jesus called the Synagogue of Satan.

        Jesus asked Peter if he Agape Him, then Jesus asked Peter if he Phileo Him. In our English translation, it looks like Jesus repeats the same question, "Do you love me?" I wouldn't say "When properly understood, Jesus didn't repeat the same question." Because, when you use that phrase you're imply that Jesus did repeat the same question, but that for reason amounting to Bull, you're going to explain why what in language is the same question really isn't the same question. "Proper understanding" is the assertion that the issue isn't which words are used, but how those words are understood.

        Jesus in fact did say Agape in one question and Phileo in the other. It's an issue of what words are said, and no song and dance needed. It's just a fact to be pointed out.

        I could have said "when properly understood" "Jewish" means an unbeliever. But, it's not an issue of understanding (per some song and dance). It's an issue of definition, as defined by any and every living "Jew". It's an issue of definition as defined by the Bible, as the word "Jew" is often used in contrast to the believers, but never for any kind of believer.



        Comment>

        • #5
          Here’s an example of how “When properly understood” is an announcement that a lie is to follow. Mark Driscoll is starting up a new church, Trinity Church. Driscoll would sell his soul to have a megachurch again. He would literally sign with his blood a contract offered him by a humanoid figure with horns, hooves, and a tail. To build a megachuch, he’s striving to be purely Politically Correct within the context of mainstream Christianity. So, naturally, he comes out supporting women as pastors (but, of course, not the lead pastor at his church). Here’s a bit of what he has to say:

          In the first passage Paul writes to the church at Corinth, “Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak...” (1 Corinthians 14:34–35, KJV). Unfortunately, this passage has mistakenly been cited to justify a position that rejects the biblical role of women in ministry. Actually, when understood within the context of Paul’s complete letter to a very troubled church, we gain a more informed perspective. Given that earlier in his letter Paul gave instructions regarding how women should pray and prophesy in public (1 Corinthians 11:5), it can be assumed that Paul must have meant something other than absolute prohibition for women in the public arena of ministry. Such an interpretation would simply fail to coincide with countless other Pauline writings that affirm the ministry contribution made by women. Therefore, we conclude that within the context of the situation at Corinth that prompted the letter to be written originally, Paul’s admonition here is in reference to excessive disruptions and disorder taking place.
          Here’s the announcement that he’s going to lie to you, “Actually, when understood…” And, indeed, in the quoted paragraph, there are at least three bold lies.

          1) Driscoll equates prophesying with pasturing. In the NT, the gift of prophesy was as open to woman was it was to men, and therefore, he argues women can be pastors. But, it’s a lie to equate prophesying with pasturing. Prophesying is not leadership. The prophet is merely a passive messenger for the Holy Spirit. And, prophesying can be done outside of church.

          2) Driscoll says Paul’s instruction to women to keep silent is because of women being particularly disruptive in church. (Why are feminists satisfied with an anti-woman lie about women being a problem?) Paul speaks of orderly worship, but he says nothing, absolutely nothing, about women being a particular problem. Paul explains his statement as a command of the Lord, one that stems from the Fall and man being the head of the woman.

          3) Driscoll lies and says Paul was addressing a problem particular to Corinth. But, Driscoll’s quote cuts off the first part of a sentence. The sentence in full reads, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches.”

          I’m not crass, and I don’t believe Paul is crass. Women not speaking in church is a rule, not an absolute. I believe the key is for a wife to allow her husbands to be the head of the family, but I won’t go into this any further here.

          Comment>
          Working...
          X
          Articles - News - SiteMap