A KJVO method of interpretation...

[FSSL]

We have witnessed an attempt to paint a grammatical-historical approach as modernistic.

So... here is a perfect opportunity for the KJVOs to positively give a method of their interpretation.

 

[rsc2a]

1. "What do I think the passage means?"
2. "How can I show this?"

Bonus for inventing some strange doctrine, redefining terms, ignoring basic grammar or somehow showing that I cannot read.

 

[prophet]

1. "What do I think the passage means?"
2. "How can I show this?"

Bonus for inventing some strange doctrine, redefining terms, ignoring basic grammar or somehow showing that I cannot read.

Point 1 should be point 2, followed by point 2 as 3.

New point 1: What did someone tell me the passage meant?

 

[FSSL]

What does sermon/lesson prep look like for a KJVO?

 

[rsc2a]

Read a Chick tract or something by Pensacola Petey for an idea, then find a verse with that word in it in somewhere?

This goes hand-in-hand with prophet's correction of my original answer.

 

[bibleprotector]

So... here is a perfect opportunity for the KJVOs to positively give a method of their interpretation.

This is a straw man, because there are many different kinds of "KJVO", and great varieties in their views. True interpretation is not limited to the existence or use of the KJB. Using the KJB is a traditional Protestant approach, as essentially a number of denominations, which may widely differ, relied upon the KJB, and some were founded with its use from the outset (e.g. Methodists, Salvation Army, etc.)

What does sermon/lesson prep look like for a KJVO?

As different as it might be between a whole variety of orthodox Protestant positions. I know some charismatics that say that they do no sermon preparation because they say that the Spirit will just lead them, but what they really mean is that they just make up stuff and secretly they did have a list of verses they were going to look up during their "sermon".

 

[prophet]

We have witnessed an attempt to paint a grammatical-historical approach as modernistic.

So... here is a perfect opportunity for the KJVOs to positively give a method of their interpretation.

This is a straw man, because there are many different kinds of "KJVO", and great varieties in their views. True interpretation is not limited to the existence or use of the KJB. Using the KJB is a traditional Protestant approach, as essentially a number of denominations, which may widely differ, relied upon the KJB, and some were founded with its use from the outset (e.g. Methodists, Salvation Army, etc.)

Of course, this is true.  There are even TRO posing as KJBO;  uninformed ; underinformed; those conquered sheep holding the doctrine of their Nikking "pastors", as in : 'pastor says kjo'; there are honest people who accept the last pure translation, from the no longer available MSS, and there are idolators who worship at the feet of the like of the Pensecola Pimp.

Some heard the Word, the Spirit bearing witness.
Some heard men's words, and are following fables.

So, yes, there is no KJBO consensus.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

1. "What do I think the passage means?"
2. "How can I show this?"

Bonus for inventing some strange doctrine, redefining terms, ignoring basic grammar or somehow showing that I cannot read.

Point 1 should be point 2, followed by point 2 as 3.

New point 1: What did someone in a youtube video tell me the passage meant?

Fixed it for ya.

 

[FSSL]

This is a straw man, because there are many different kinds of "KJVO", and great varieties in their views.

Strawman? I made no claims. All I am doing is giving you (and whomever) an opportunity to explain what their sermon prep looks like since they are exclusive to the KJV.

What does sermon/lesson prep look like for a KJVO?

I am interested in what method you use.

 

[bibleprotector]

What does sermon/lesson prep look like for a KJVO? I am interested in what method you use.

You need to clarify the question, because broadly you are encompassing pedagogy with interpretative methodology. Also, you are not taking into account the obvious diversity within Protestantism.

 

[Ransom]

You need to clarify the question, because broadly you are encompassing pedagogy with interpretative methodology. Also, you are not taking into account the obvious diversity within Protestantism.

Buddy, if you can't answer, just say so.

 

[prophet]

1. "What do I think the passage means?"
2. "How can I show this?"

Bonus for inventing some strange doctrine, redefining terms, ignoring basic grammar or somehow showing that I cannot read.

Point 1 should be point 2, followed by point 2 as 3.

New point 1: What did someone in a youtube video tell me the passage meant?

Fixed it for ya.

Yup, there is that guy.

 

[FSSL]

I am interested in what method you use.

I don't think the English language allows me to me more clear.

 

[bibleprotector]

I don't think the English language allows me to me more clear.

So this interest you have in what KJBOs do is nothing to do with the faux grave statement about the clarity of your English usage?

I would to God that you abandoned your modernistic approach of doubt, and took a believing view.

 

[FSSL]

That's alright... you don't have to share your approach. We cannot demand an answer. We can point out hypocrisy.

 

[bibleprotector]

We can point out hypocrisy.

This "we" I assume is referring to those who have a modernistic approach. Please give some examples of what you think are hypocrisies in rejecting your modernistic approach.

 

[FSSL]

Nahhh... You don't have to answer... the thread already died.

 

[bibleprotector]

Interestingly, the modernists and the Infidels share the same views and conclusions on the KJB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtUq6dsx1-g

 

[FSSL]

How honest and proper is it to come to our forum to make false accusations about our method of interpretation while at the same time refusing to discuss yours?

What are you hiding?

 

[bibleprotector]

How honest and proper is it to come to our forum to make false accusations about our method of interpretation while at the same time refusing to discuss yours?

Refusing? Really? I am ready to tell you all about a believing approach toward Scripture interpretation (though you are not ready to receive it), but you need to begin from the outset by not defining it as a "KJVO approach".

Further, I can easily tell you how I prepare a sermon and how I approach giving a study or lesson on Scripture.

So far, you know that I do not begin with the original languages or by imposing extraneous information onto the passage (expository) or subject (topical).

What are you hiding?

I really wonder why you would make such a comment.