0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


The honorable Rev. FSSL, Litt.D., Hon.D.

  • Standing Ovation? +177/-671
Re: Against modernist hermeneutics
« Reply #30 on: October 20, 2014, 09:40:16 PM »
It is very simple... just take the KJV, at its own words. Prove the words.

I will demonstrate the correctness of my view using the context of the passage, plain and proper reading and the conference of Scripture:

1. Hot = zealous (Rev. 3:19).
2. Cold = the opposite to hot.
3. Cold = bad (Mt 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.)

Hot water is not mentioned in Revelation 3:19.

About the word "or." Jesus is not making a moral judgment against those who are Hot or Cold. He is making a moral judgement against those who are "lukewarm."

If you are going to jump to an utterly different context, then why not wrestle with Matthew 10:42? "And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.” Your approach is not convincing in the least.

For this reason, you should look to understand how words are used (and in this case not used) in the context. Since Jesus speaks approvingly of being either Hot or Cold and is disapproving of Lukewarm, you cannot mess up His point. Jesus is NOT disapproving of both Cold and Lukewarm people. That violates the Grammar and Logic of the passage. So, there must be something going on. Why did He use the metaphors of Hot and Cold? The Laodiceans could tell you, instantly!
WELCOME TO OUR FORUM! I am the resident "skeptic, critic, purveyor of doubt, self-contradicting, silly, weak-minded, ridiculous, inconsistent, superstitious zealot, deceptive equivocator, hell-bent, disbeliever, contemptuous, doubter, hypocrite, thumb twittler, lying, jackass...

bibleprotector

  • Standing Ovation? +0/-0
Re: Against modernist hermeneutics
« Reply #31 on: October 20, 2014, 11:22:10 PM »
Hot water is not mentioned in Revelation 3:19.

Actually, water is not mentioned at all. But the contextual equivalence (by structural/relative means) is that hot = zealous.

About the word "or." Jesus is not making a moral judgment against those who are Hot or Cold. He is making a moral judgement against those who are "lukewarm."

Yes, but that does not mean that He is approving coldness, he is, in fact, approving that people should be definite and certain.

If you are going to jump to an utterly different context, then why not wrestle with Matthew 10:42? "And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.” Your approach is not convincing in the least.

That's not context, but conference of scripture with scripture, or in this case, of no conference, since the cold water is a literal thing, whereas in Revelation 3, the reference is to coldness (no mention of water) as figurative of a moral attribute. A cup of cold water is not a moral attribute, but that someone was giving a gift, thus, of no relation or bearing with Revelation 3.

For this reason, you should look to understand how words are used (and in this case not used) in the context. Since Jesus speaks approvingly of being either Hot or Cold and is disapproving of Lukewarm, you cannot mess up His point. Jesus is NOT disapproving of both Cold and Lukewarm people.

He is disproving of lukewarmness, which is a symbol for being half hearted, vacillating and between the two opinions of for Him (hot) or against Him (cold), just like the Baal worship example from 1 Kings.

That violates the Grammar and Logic of the passage.

Actually, your method is the problem, which confutes the meaning, and imposes relativism (under the guise of "grammar") and rationalism (under the guise of human reasoning) to the passage, which obviously results in an avowedly different interpretation.

So, there must be something going on.

Umm, yes, the Bible is God's message to us today. You are trying to read it like, what was God saying to them back then, but then have this whole scenario about the hills and the aqueducts, and then out of this huge concocted story, some teaching absurdly different to what the Scripture properly states, and different to what the Holy Ghost intended to communicate.

There is, however, a spiritual source for your methodology. It is not as if it is just a mechanic process pulling up random stuff (just like modern textual criticism does not just randomly pull up different words and beyond that different translations), but that there is the source of that being the spirit of the world today, the spirit of error.

Why did He use the metaphors of Hot and Cold? The Laodiceans could tell you, instantly!

What you mean is that modern scholars will tell you instantly what they think the Laodiceans were thinking, like how they suppose the meaning would have been to them. This is the worst sort of revisionism. And how can we trust Bible interpretation to folks leavened with unbelief anyway?

This would be the proper approach:

1. The Scripture is true.
2. The Scripture refers to hot, cold and lukewarm.
3. Archaeology etc. confirms the existence of lukewarm springs or water sources with Laodicea.

Notice that nothing there then leads to the absurd conclusion that Jesus' proper goodwill is that He wants Christians cold, nor does the passage make any allusion to the idea of "refreshing".

If that be so, then come out now and parade it, say how you are a cold Christian. Be definite. Say you are a cold Christian!

And if you want to say you are also a hot Christian as well as a cold one, then you are the mixture of hot and cold, which is the exact thing Jesus condemned.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 11:24:06 PM by bibleprotector »

Ransom

  • Standing Ovation? +448/-22
Re: Against modernist hermeneutics
« Reply #32 on: October 20, 2014, 11:55:48 PM »
The sum total of bible"protector"'s definition of "modernist hermeneutics is the

need to understand the mindset of the scripture and read it within its own historical context

So, please tell us: when you define the term so simplistically, are you being deliberately dishonest, needlessly reductionistic, or both?
Take care,
Scott



insanely liberal - ALAYMAN
little runt bully - The Rogue Tomato

bibleprotector

  • Standing Ovation? +0/-0
Re: Against modernist hermeneutics
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2014, 12:01:58 AM »
The sum total of bible"protector"'s definition of "modernist hermeneutics is the

need to understand the mindset of the scripture and read it within its own historical context

So, please tell us: when you define the term so simplistically, are you being deliberately dishonest, needlessly reductionistic, or both?

A simplistic definition in passing should not be taken for the fuller definition. To imply that I sought to constrain a complex and spiritually definable topic to that statement is just glib pedantry on the part of the accuser.

Ransom

  • Standing Ovation? +448/-22
Re: Against modernist hermeneutics
« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2014, 12:03:26 AM »
A simplistic definition in passing should not be taken for the fuller definition.

Or, in your case, the correct one.

Quote
To imply that I sought to constrain a complex and spiritually definable topic to that statement is just glib pedantry on the part of the accuser.

If that is the case, then I retract my previous accusation, because apparently you didn't attempt to define "modernist hermeneutics" at all, and are merely casting vague aspersions against nothing in particular. It seems that like every KJV-onlyist under the sun, you like to rant and rave about "modernists," "apostates," "hereticks" and the like without ever providing a concrete definition of what these ever-malleable terms actually mean.

Also, with only vague aspersions substituting for any tangible criticism of the practice, I submit that understanding and interpreting the Scriptures in their original historical, literary, and cultural contexts is both a sound hermeneutical practice, and a necessary one.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 12:09:35 AM by Ransom »
Take care,
Scott



insanely liberal - ALAYMAN
little runt bully - The Rogue Tomato

bibleprotector

  • Standing Ovation? +0/-0
Re: Against modernist hermeneutics
« Reply #35 on: October 21, 2014, 12:12:07 AM »
It seems that like every KJV-onlyist under the sun, you like to rant and rave about "modernists," "apostates," "hereticks" and the like without ever providing a concrete definition of what these ever-malleable terms actually mean.

I understand that problem. But it is not limited to some or many KJBOists. In ultra simplistic forms:

Capital "M" Modernism means Higher Criticism, Theological Rationalism, Liberal Theology and Scepticism.
Lower case "m" modernism means Christianity that is influenced by those views, but not totally, in the fields of Biblical/textual criticism, modern versions and translations, preservation, transmission, interpretation, hermeneutics and exegesis.


Ransom

  • Standing Ovation? +448/-22
Re: Against modernist hermeneutics
« Reply #36 on: October 21, 2014, 12:16:55 AM »
I understand that problem. But it is not limited to some or many KJBOists.

It is, however, a hallmark of empty, KJV-only rhetoric - a fact not changed by your weak attempt to shift the blame to others.

Quote
Lower case "m" modernism means Christianity that is influenced by those views, but not totally, in the fields of Biblical/textual criticism, modern versions and translations, preservation, transmission, interpretation, hermeneutics and exegesis.

Not surprisingly, you fail to define "modernism" at all. This is exactly what I meant by vague aspersions.
Take care,
Scott



insanely liberal - ALAYMAN
little runt bully - The Rogue Tomato

bibleprotector

  • Standing Ovation? +0/-0
Re: Against modernist hermeneutics
« Reply #37 on: October 21, 2014, 12:26:48 AM »
Not surprisingly, you fail to define "modernism" at all. This is exactly what I meant by vague aspersions.

Just because I did not define it there, does not mean it is without meaning. I did show the exact fields where it manifests. The definition is described in my youtube videos and on my website.

Ransom

  • Standing Ovation? +448/-22
Re: Against modernist hermeneutics
« Reply #38 on: October 21, 2014, 12:33:05 AM »
Just because I did not define it there, does not mean it is without meaning.

Being weaselly about defining your terms is not an intellectual virtue.

Quote
The definition is described in my youtube videos and on my website.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in racking up your hits on YouTube. You came to play in our sandbox, so feel entirely free to provide a definition here.
Take care,
Scott



insanely liberal - ALAYMAN
little runt bully - The Rogue Tomato

bibleprotector

  • Standing Ovation? +0/-0
Re: Against modernist hermeneutics
« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2014, 12:36:13 AM »
Sorry, but I'm not interested in racking up your hits on YouTube. You came to play in our sandbox, so feel entirely free to provide a definition here.

Here is what the blurb on the youtube video that you refuse to watch states:

In Christianity, big "M" Modernism means unbelief, it means doubt, scepticism, Higher Criticism and Liberal Theology.

The problem is that good Christians, who reject those ideas and believing in traditional doctrines are far too often accepting the same assumptions and ideas of rationalism when it comes to how the Bible has been transmitted through time. Small "m" modernism has the same view of Bible preservation as what a big "M" Modernist has. Thus, small "m" modernists are actually compromised on an important doctrine, because they deny actually having a perfect copy of the Scriptures today.