Loading...

Monday, 29 December 2014

The Hales Exclusive Brethren stance on atomistic exegesis

Do the PBCC know how to apply atomistic exegesis to interpret the Bible or do they rely on the archaic 'Notion of a Clergyman'?

10 comments:

  1. Atomistic: Composed of many simple elements; also : characterized by or resulting from division into unconnected or antagonistic fragments

    Exegesis: Exposition, explanation; especially : an explanation or critical interpretation of a text

    Hence Atomistic Exegesis - an explanation made of unrelated fragments. The JW’s are famous for their ‘Knights Jump’ exegesis (Thinking about a chess analogy). The PBCC seem to favour random fragments stuck together with self-righteous indignation.

    A humorous (?) example of atomistic exegesis *of the style* seemingly used within the PBCC, where out of context fragments could be placed together to form a dodgy doctrine. (Not a real example)

    Matthew 27: 5 Darby
    And having cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, he left the place, and went away and hanged himself.

    Luke 10:37b Darby
    And Jesus said to him, Go, and do *thou* likewise

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ahhh but,
    Who gives a flying German sausage for your interpretation...
    The PBCC are a favoured and gifted people and l bet they know much better than you.

    Obedient people find favour with God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Obedient people find favour with God.'

      Who then goes on to drown them, squash them, run them over, strike them off and jail them for offences ranging from sexual abuse of children to causing death by dangerous driving! Those that aren't being treated for alcoholism, that is.

      Delete
    2. Stop being Anonymous. Come out of hiding and be honest. Mind you , you can not be honest if you stay in the PBCC cult. Talk about favoured we have been favoured since we left the cult in 1973. Every leader since and including Darby has been totally wrong and just wanted to be Dictators and make as much money as they could for themselves. A German sausage knows more TRUTH than all of your so called leaders put together!. You would not know what true obedience is if it hit you in the face ,as you are totally brainwashed.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 29 December 2014 at 17:14

      Your reply is the 'wurst' I could have expected. Why do you think the PBCC know better than me? My usual question, n=but maybe put in a different way. What is your evidence?

      Delete
    4. The Exclusive Brethren groups (of whatever variety including Plymouth Brethren Christian Church – PBCC, which is the worst) are in such a muddle & morass of confusion regarding their own theology, it is sometimes comical to watch & read their twists & turns in trying to explain the indefensible from Gods word the Bible

      Or, it would be, if it was not for that fact that their theology, doctrines & practices create such deep toxic & detrimental harm to persons & families, and furthermore, spiritually abuse the Word of God (The Bible) causing damage to the Christian faith and individual souls.

      - Obeying the edicts & rules of past leaders is more important than following what the Bible says

      - Even when shown from the Bible or from practical reality that their practices & doctrines are false & contrary to the Word of God, they blindly follow “what we’ve been taught”

      - As each successive leader has introduced layers of new edicts & rules that are contrary to the Bible, this has been disguised as ‘new light’ and what the ‘current word of god is saying’ even if it contradicts or ignores the Bible which is the written Word of God. This practice is obvious false teaching as God can not & does not lie or contradict Himself & it allows any kind of false nonsense to be marketed to the members as ‘new light’ which they have to obey or they are told they are not listening to the ‘current word of god’.

      - They can not possibly consider that their past leaders introduced false doctrines contrary to the Bible because to do so means their ‘One pure position the Lord comes to’ doctrine, falls like a house of cards. So when it is pointed out that certain practices & doctrines are different to a past leaders, they wriggle & twist and say ‘the lord has moved’ etc

      - They have no checks & balances because they refuse to have appointed local leaders, shepherds, pastors, elders, deacons etc who are accountable to the local church / assembly, as biblically taught. So even at local level the spiritual abuse that happens is just allowed to happen.

      - They can not possibly consider any other Biblical teaching other than their own because any other Biblical teaching from outside Exclusive Brethrenism starkly shows that EB interpretations, commentary, practice & doctrine is unbiblical, unchristian & error.

      - Even without any commentary from Biblical scholars & Christians outside EBism an indepth read of the Bible (Gods Word), clearly & starkly shows EBism to be wrong. In order to arrive at the conclusion EBism is right you have to view the Bible through the twisted out of context sectarian eyes of past EB leaders.

      - If EB persons try to apply mainstream non sectarian, in context, Biblical exegeses that is not supporting EBism, they are told they are ‘not supporting the position’ or ‘not in line with what we’ve been taught’ or ‘not following separation’ or ‘not following the line of Mr JND or Mr Taylor etc’

      - It must have been really quite embarrassing for EB PBCC to have to work with the Evangelical Alliance when drawing up the ‘Statement of Faith’ included in the Charity Commissions report of Jan 2014. As EB persons are taught that only ‘they’ have the truth & that all other Christians, Christian Churches & Christian theologians etc are all in error, are all iniquitous, not fit to eat or drink with, nor to sit at the Lords Table with, nor to worship or fellowship with & are not part of ‘the assembly’. How embarrassing & humiliating for the ‘one true position that the Lord comes to’ !

      Delete
  3. George F. Moore (1851 - 1931) in his 1927 book Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, must have been one of the earliest authors to use the phrase “atomistic exegesis” when he said that early Judaism developed “an atomistic exegesis, which interprets sentences, clauses, phrases, and even single words, independently of the context or the historical occasion, as divine oracles: combines them with other similarly detached utterances; and makes large use of analogy of expressions, often by purely verbal association”

    That is rather similar to the way the Taylor/Symington/Hales Brethren have traditionally interpreted scripture. Rarely do they ever take into account the historical context or the author’s intention, because (judging by the published ministry) most of the leaders have had very little knowledge or interest in questions of when, where, why, by whom or for whom a passage was written, and sometimes they have paid little attention even to the written context. All of these things are of prime importance to anyone who genuinely wants to understand the intention of a Biblical passage, but they are of no importance at all to someone who only uses scripture to lend a spurious air of authority to his utterances.

    An example of the use of purely verbal associations while ignoring the written context was the ban on wearing shorts because of Psalm 147:10 “He delighteth not in the strength of the horse, he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man.”

    That was only a trivial piece of silliness, but a much more toxic example is the misuse of Amos 3:3 to support the idea that you cannot have fellowship with anyone that disagrees with you in some matter of doctrine or practice or who you should recognise as a leader. “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” (NIV) or as the NRSV puts it, “Do two walk together unless they have made an appointment?” Darby’s translation of that verse is ambiguous, “Shall two walk together except they be agreed?” and Brethren have given it a dreadfully divisive meaning (even as recently as 3 days ago in Laurie’s Blog).

    But even with Darby’s translation, the Brethren could have understood the meaning if they had read a little further on. The verse is the first of seven examples of cause and effect relationships, illustrating that if you observe an effect you can infer the existence of its cause. It is nothing at all to do with the need for theological or doctrinal or ecclesiastical agreement.

    Jim Taylor parodied the Brethren’s style of atomic exegesis in Vol. 145 when he presided over a reading on Genesis 26: 23-25. At least, I hope he intended it as parody, not to be taken seriously. The meeting contained frequent references to the beer of Beer-sheba and an alleged allusion to the feminine expressed in the she of sheba, and an allusion to sheep in the ba of sheba. That was worse than atomistic exegesis. We might call it subatomistic exegesis.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon17.14/ LJO............Would Demas come into this, would you say?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely, and I believe it would link with the woman in John 4. I don't know why you bother posting this stuff Laurie - the PBCC haven't a hope of understanding any of it. All they know is Bruce Hales, whisky, meetings, tokens, long trousers, abuse of women and children, and more whisky. Pearls to swine.

      RLS

      Delete
  5. Study that picture. Notice the side burns? JND wouldn't get past the gate today; although corners have been known to have turned!

    I seriously think JND would have nothing to do with the present organization.

    ReplyDelete