0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


prophet

  • Standing Ovation? +373/-5
Rev 3:15 traditional vs acceptible.
« on: December 17, 2014, 11:42:43 AM »
.
Quote
<br /><br />
Quote
Face value is primary for interpretation.<br /><br />God said:<br />Rev 3:15-16<br />15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.<br /> 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.<br /><br />Despite a multitude of interpretations to the contrary, the text does not allow for any dispersions cast against "cold", or any exaltation of "hot".<br />It places them as equals.<br /><br />2Pe 1:20<br />20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.<br /><br />Primacy established.<br /><br />Please discontinue your claim to adhere to some "Protestant"(private) interpretation of this passage, it makes any salient point you have to offer to be of none effect.<br />
The Protestant tradition is attested to by both Historicist and Futurists, i.e. many years, majority witness, etc. Your alternative view is an extremely minority (mainly Calvinist) and new view (i.e. post-1950s). If anyone has "private interpretation" it is those who changed the interpretation of the word "cold".<br />
<br /><br />My "alternative view" is taking the Scripture at face value.<br /><br />It is as old as when I read it, most recently a few minutes ago.<br /><br />I could care less what some Protestant like Calvin thinks of the Scripture...<br /><br />Any interpretation of "cold" as any other meaning than one of the acceptable temperature ranges of a beverage, fit for consumption, is private, by definition. It is not available in the text, therefore "private" to those in the know (Protestant tradition, in your mind, which I care not for, since many of these Protestants fail the John 16 test).<br /><br />You are a modern Nicodemus, unable to grasp the earthly side of the parable...<br />A man picks up a mug of tea, expecting hot tea, but sadly, it has cooled to room temperature due to neglect...he spits it back out, disgusted.<br />The same man, fancying a quaffing of his thirst on a hot day, picks up his lemonade, only to find that it has set for hours and warmed to room temperature, and again, he spits it out.<br />Hot drinks refresh.<br />Cold drinks refresh.<br />Room temperature drinks disgust.<br /><br />There is not one shred of a hint of a gleam of any inference to the contrary of this acceptable face value of this passage, in this passage.<br /><br />Call on whichever dead Romish waif you may, to testify from the grave, still there is FIRST no private interpretation.<br /><br />The wind blows through the trees, and you can't see it, but the evidence that it exists is plain, Nicky.<br/>

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php?topic=5289.msg98660.msg#98660
« Last Edit: December 17, 2014, 11:44:21 AM by prophet »

bibleprotector

  • Standing Ovation? +0/-0
Re: Rev 3:15 traditional vs acceptible.
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2014, 11:59:52 AM »
Tradition is not a sure guide. However, it is not acceptable to doubt the Scripture. Jesus pointed to the cold category in Revelation 3, which means folks who are indifferent and outside Him. The new interpretation of saying that cold means refreshing should not be rejected merely because it is new, but because it is not in line with the context and structure of the passage, and is unspiritual.

bibleprotector

  • Standing Ovation? +0/-0
Re: Rev 3:15 traditional vs acceptible.
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2014, 12:10:11 PM »
"Most interpreters" is not the definition of "face value".
Most theologians that were published by 1611 were in line with Rome, and her children, so that they parrot one another brings no merit.

You are hiding from the actual discussion, obviously protecting some source that if shown to be in error, would pull down your throne.

I started a new thread, but am not savvy at copy/paste with this smart phone.

If you can decipher, or follow the link, please move the discussion there,

  Thanks.

So, you seem to have an anti-Protestant view. The fact is that I am referring to a classical Protestant view, which developed through time.

As for having some source, your conclusion is wrong.

In the discussion on Revelation 3, there are multitudes of sources (i.e. most say "cold = indifferent")

In the discussion on Revelation 10, there are plenty of sources (i.e. the Historicists tended to say it meant the Reformation and the Bible)

There is not some single, hidden one source.

prophet

  • Standing Ovation? +373/-5
Re: Rev 3:15 traditional vs acceptible.
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2014, 12:14:48 PM »
"Most interpreters" is not the definition of "face value".
Most theologians that were published by 1611 were in line with Rome, and her children, so that they parrot one another brings no merit.

You are hiding from the actual discussion, obviously protecting some source that if shown to be in error, would pull down your throne.

I started a new thread, but am not savvy at copy/paste with this smart phone.

If you can decipher, or follow the link, please move the discussion there,

  Thanks.

So, you seem to have an anti-Protestant view. The fact is that I am referring to a classical Protestant view, which developed through time.

As for having some source, your conclusion is wrong.

In the discussion on Revelation 3, there are multitudes of sources (i.e. most say "cold = indifferent")

In the discussion on Revelation 10, there are plenty of sources (i.e. the Historicists tended to say it meant the Reformation and the Bible)

There is not some single, hidden one source.
You are either functionally illiterate (in possession of such poor grammar skills as to not recognize the equality of "hot" and "cold" in the passage), or purposefully deceptive, or helpless without some previous squawker to parrot...which refers back to F.I.


Either way, you didn't address the sentence structure, which appears in my Inerrant English Bible.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2014, 12:16:42 PM by prophet »

bibleprotector

  • Standing Ovation? +0/-0
Re: Rev 3:15 traditional vs acceptible.
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2014, 12:28:29 PM »
Either way, you didn't address the sentence structure, which appears in my Inerrant English Bible.

Re 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

Their works were on the spectrum or scale: cold = none, lukewarm = halfhearted, hot = good.

Re 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Jesus does advocate either to be for or against Him, not in between. This is a common enough theme in the Bible. No man can serve two masters. And also Elijah saying they should choose between Baal or God.

Re 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Zealous = hot, clearly that is conceptually obvious. The opposite is cold.

prophet

  • Standing Ovation? +373/-5
Re: Rev 3:15 traditional vs acceptible.
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2014, 12:32:16 PM »
Either way, you didn't address the sentence structure, which appears in my Inerrant English Bible.

Re 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

Their works were on the spectrum or scale: cold = none, lukewarm = halfhearted, hot = good.

Re 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Jesus does advocate either to be for or against Him, not in between. This is a common enough theme in the Bible. No man can serve two masters. And also Elijah saying they should choose between Baal or God.

Re 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Zealous = hot, clearly that is conceptually obvious. The opposite is cold.
Ok, functionally illiterate it is.

I addressed the sentence structure, you parroted flimsy interpretive methodology.

Our English Bible deserves better than shoddy mishandling, and grammatical blunders.

subllibrm

  • Standing Ovation? +342/-6
Re: Rev 3:15 traditional vs acceptible.
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2014, 01:36:36 PM »
Either way, you didn't address the sentence structure, which appears in my Inerrant English Bible.

Re 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

Their works were on the spectrum or scale: cold = none, lukewarm = halfhearted, hot = good.

Re 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Jesus does advocate either to be for or against Him, not in between. This is a common enough theme in the Bible. No man can serve two masters. And also Elijah saying they should choose between Baal or God.

Re 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Zealous = hot, clearly that is conceptually obvious. The opposite is cold.

Okay, so let's go with your either/or options. If we are for or against God, for or against Baal why did those not offer a third option (lukewarm).

When Jesus says you are for me or against me where does He leave room for a third option (lukewarm)? The either/or of this warning does not leave room for gray in between black and white.

But to the point of what is said here: you are neither of these things which I would have you be but instead are what I would not have you be, lukewarm. Be cold or hot but not lukewarm.

bibleprotector

  • Standing Ovation? +0/-0
Re: Rev 3:15 traditional vs acceptible.
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2014, 08:12:29 PM »
Okay, so let's go with your either/or options. If we are for or against God, for or against Baal why did those not offer a third option (lukewarm).

That is exactly what he addresses. The so-called "third option" is not an option, because it must be forced to the dichotomy of for or against. That's the whole point of the Baal scenario, the two masters (God v. Mammon), and the hot or cold choice.

When Jesus says you are for me or against me where does He leave room for a third option (lukewarm)? The either/or of this warning does not leave room for gray in between black and white.

He says you cannot serve two masters. That is exactly what he is addressing, the in-betweeners.

But to the point of what is said here: you are neither of these things which I would have you be but instead are what I would not have you be, lukewarm. Be cold or hot but not lukewarm.

When he says he would that they were cold, he means of the hell-bound category. His actual good will is for them to be hot.

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

  • Standing Ovation? +177/-671
Re: Rev 3:15 traditional vs acceptible.
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2014, 03:40:00 PM »
An in between state of "saved" and "unsaved?" Now THAT is interesting!
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: Rev 3:15 traditional vs acceptible.
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2014, 10:20:14 PM »
An in between state of "saved" and "unsaved?" Now THAT is interesting!

Carnal brethren are in danger of backsliding, that's why He said He will spue them out.