2,195 reputation
821
bio website spamsense.blogspot.com
location Indianapolis, IN
age 41
visits member for 2 years, 6 months
seen Jan 17 at 21:49

Professional: 16+ years C++/C#/HTML/ASP.NET/SQL

Personal: 1 wife, 3 kids

Grew up Mennonite; now Reformed Baptist. Figure that one out.

Having recently upgraded to an Android tablet, I mostly use YouVersion's Bible app. Before that, I primarily used e-Sword and NET Bible on a Fujitsu tablet PC. I've actually been fully electronic since 2002 or 2003, when I got a Pocket PC device. As I told a friend at the time, "I just got an eight-translation parallel Bible with Greek and Hebrew lexicons, and it only weighs 5 ounces!"


Nov
7
comment Does Daniel 12 imply the righteous will become stars?
Well, they are in a different testament... :) I'm sure it's still worth discussing for multiple reasons - Daniel was probably talking to Jews, not to "all nations", etc.
Nov
7
comment What's the difference between “sensus plenior” and “inspired sensus plenior”?
Having read up some more on this subject, I think you're focusing on only one camp within the larger literal-historical hermeneutic (the "single-meaning" principle) as representative of the entire hermenutic.
Nov
7
comment Does Daniel 12 imply the righteous will become stars?
Also see Philippians 2:14-15.
Nov
7
comment Does Daniel 12 imply the righteous will become stars?
Given the reference to the resurrection of the dead and the wider context of the passage, a 4th option could be the appearance of their robes and/or the reflection of God's glory. (c.f. Revelation 7:9-17)
Nov
7
comment Is there a scriptural warrant for the literal-historical approach?
I'm not sure that you can use parables as an example here - as Jesus stated, the whole point of the parables was that they had a deeper meaning. So they're already off the table in terms of the prior assertion - they are clearly defined as non-literal. Your other points seem valid, however.
Nov
7
comment What's the difference between “sensus plenior” and “inspired sensus plenior”?
Allow me to restate for emphasis: "there were things in the scripture which were not plain to them, which he showed them" - you do not know the specifics of what He said. Therefore, you can't use this passage as a warrant for sensus plenior. Plus, you're arguing up the authority tree, not down it. It would be better for your argument if you could identify a non-apostle, who was not Jesus, who uses sensus plenior.
Nov
7
comment What's the difference between “sensus plenior” and “inspired sensus plenior”?
Because Moses also talked directly (plainly) about the Messiah, as did many other authors. Yes, some passages did have dual meaning in that they talked about "current" events and also could apply to the Messiah. (See Psalm 22) However, Jesus made that direct link in His quotation from the cross.
Nov
7
comment What's the difference between “sensus plenior” and “inspired sensus plenior”?
And that's now back to my previous statement - you're inserting into the text your own assumption. Since we don't know the actual contents of the discussion, you're reading "Jesus showed the apostles how to interpret sensus plenior" into it.
Nov
7
comment What's the difference between “sensus plenior” and “inspired sensus plenior”?
Hmm.. So in re-reading your post and comments, this seems to be precisely what you're saying - that, unlike the ISPA stance that the NT authors were uniquely equipped to find sensus plenior, you believe that it is still possible to do so. However, you're going to need a different example than post-resurrection Jesus, then.
Nov
7
comment What's the difference between “sensus plenior” and “inspired sensus plenior”?
And on page 10, "Johnson goes a step further and advocates that modern interpreters reproduce the exegetical methodology of the NT writers in their handling of the OT. That means going beyond the literal meaning of the OT to discover sensus plenior meanings of OT passages in addition to the ones divulged in the NT. That is another distinction between his approach and the ISPA approach which would emphasize the unique prerogative of NT writers to employ charismatic exegesis, and would insist that no one today possesses that same prophetic gift."
Nov
7
comment What's the difference between “sensus plenior” and “inspired sensus plenior”?
It was Jesus speaking at that point, not one of the disciples. And the author of the paper you linked seems to be making the point that the authors of scripture were only permitted by God to use whatever sensus plenior He had previously placed there. In other words, it still doesn't imply that every passage has dual meaning or that there are other senses still waiting to be discovered. See his statement on page 9: "Since hermeneutics is a human discipline, gleaning that second sense is an impossibility in an examination of the OT source of the citation."
Nov
7
comment Should we read Melchizedek in Genesis 14 to be metaphorical?
That's an interesting point that I never really thought about. On the flip side, you could also point to Lot's increasing entanglement with Sodom as a more immediate warning against getting too settled.
Nov
7
comment What's the difference between “sensus plenior” and “inspired sensus plenior”?
However, we are not told the details of the conversation on the road to Emmaus, and to assume or insert one's own assumptions seems questionable. How do you know that he didn't exegete Isaiah 53 to them, for example?
Nov
7
comment Does Joh 14:26 speak to assumptions about hermeneutics?
I don't think THIS passage necessarily has anything to do with inerrancy, because Jesus wasn't focusing on their writings. Most people I've seen tackle that do so from 2 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Peter 1:21. (In fact, see all of 2 Peter 1:16-21.)
Nov
7
answered Does Joh 14:26 speak to assumptions about hermeneutics?
Nov
6
comment Should we read Melchizedek in Genesis 14 to be metaphorical?
Though, on the other hand, it wasn't permanent.
Nov
5
comment Should we read Melchizedek in Genesis 14 to be metaphorical?
Sure. However, weren't Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in direct "possession" (or, at least residence) of the land? So I'm not sure that their reliance on God's promise was as entirely ethereal as you suggest, at least until the stay in Egypt.
Nov
5
answered Should we read Melchizedek in Genesis 14 to be metaphorical?
Nov
3
comment How to interpret Genesis 25:1-2?
You could also note that male and female fertility work slightly differently.
Nov
3
comment Were the apostles “expert” witnesses?
There were multiple apostles, so their individual testimony is corroborated by the other voices, right?