Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Good and Bad Fruit Out of Context? | Matt 12:33 | bowler | 207045 | ||
I myself have used this verse very often to mean that the "actions" of others constitute the "good tree and good fruit" and the "bad tree and bad fruit". After reading further down the passage, I am wondering if I am getting it all wrong! Jesus speaks of the words that come out of people's mouths as being this bad or good fruit rather than anctions. So, my question is are we taking the verse out of context by applying it to action as well, since Jesus does not say works, or actions? Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
2 | Good and Bad Fruit Out of Context? | Matt 12:33 | Immanuelsown | 207111 | ||
bowler, Maybe this will help Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Consider the following example: Adham: I've noticed previously that every time I kick a ball up, it comes back down, so I guess this next time when I kick it up, it will come back down, too. Rizik: That's Newton's Law. Everything that goes up must come down. And so, if you kick the ball up, it must come down. Adham is using inductive reasoning, arguing from observation, while Rizik is using deductive reasoning, arguing from the law of gravity. Rizik's argument is clearly from the general (the law of gravity) to the specific (this kick); Adham's argument may be less obviously from the specific (each individual instance in which he has observed balls being kicked up and coming back down) to the general (the prediction that a similar event will result in a similar outcome in the future) because he has stated it in terms only of the next similar event--the next time he kicks the ball. As you can see, the difference between inductive and deducative reasoning is mostly in the way the arguments are expressed. Any inductive argument can also be expressed deductively, and any deductive argument can also be expressed inductively. Even so, it is important to recognize whether the form of an argument is inductive or deductive, because each requires different sorts of support. Adham's inductive argument, above, is supported by his previous observations, while Rizik's deductive argument is supported by his reference to the law of gravity. Thus, Adham could provide additional support by detailing those observations, without any recourse to books or theories of physics, while Rizik could provide additional support by discussing Newton's law, even if Rizik himself had never seen a ball kicked. The appropriate selection of an inductive or deductive format for a specific first steps toward sound argumentation. .www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/induc/ind-ded.html - In Him Imm |
||||||
3 | Good and Bad Fruit Out of Context? | Matt 12:33 | bowler | 207129 | ||
Immanuelsown Yes it was most helpful! Thank you for the link, but I was not able to use it the page said it was deleted or moved. I went to study what you were talking about in more detail and I found a fairly good site - http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/inductive_and_deductive_bible_studies.php After studying these concepts on a number of different sites I have become most intrigued with "Dogmatics". Now, this was most illuminating. So was the rest of what was there. I have no personal comment on anyone here, or myself as to what I read on that site, nor do I venture an opinion about it. Via the discussion at hand about how to arrive at an interpretation of a passage, or a phrase - There is always only one interpretation and there may be several applications. I don't claim to have all the correct applications by the way. Deductive Bible study starts with the presuposition of something to be absolutely true: All cats are mortal Felix is a cat Therefore Felix is mortal In this case beccause the first premise is true and because the form is correct the conclusion is true. The inductive method of the studying the Bible starts with specific observations - I have looked at 100 T-bone steaks 100 T-bone steaks had bones T-bone steaks have bones In this case what has been observed can be said to be true although if other observations had been made other things could also be said to be true. It starts with not an absolute truth premise but an observation of a thing from which more than one conclusion could be drawn if different elements were observed about that thing. According to what I read there, true Bible study necessarily incorporates both elements in one sense or another working off, or with one another. I try to stick to exposition as much as possible before consulting people, or commentaries, or anything esle. When all esle fails I ask somebody after looking in the books. 2 Timothy 2:15 Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||