A KJVO method of interpretation...

[The Rogue Tomato]

I have traveled rather extensively (and still do) throughout the US. The pervasive problem in evangelical churches today is NOT what version they use... the problem is that they do not use ANY version.

Pastors... IFB, Conservative, Evangelical... whatever label you place on it... Typically do not trust their KJVs, NIVs, ESVs... Promoting KJVOism WILL NOT change this. In fact, many KJVOs I meet don't even bring a Bible to church.

Plus, it's not like exclusive use of the KJV means nobody disagrees on the interpretation of any given book, chapter, or passage.  If disagreeing means everyone has their own truth (it doesn't), then that would just as easily apply to KJVOs. 

 

[bgwilkinson]

I have traveled rather extensively (and still do) throughout the US. The pervasive problem in evangelical churches today is NOT what version they use... the problem is that they do not use ANY version.

Pastors... IFB, Conservative, Evangelical... whatever label you place on it... Typically do not trust their KJVs, NIVs, ESVs... Promoting KJVOism WILL NOT change this. In fact, many KJVOs I meet don't even bring a Bible to church.

I think you just hit on the real problem with KJVOs.

They have demonized other versions of the Bible and it has splashed back all over any Bible regardless of the translation.

A good example of this is the KJVOs propensity to use words such as "perversion" when talking about versions other than the KJV.

In my humble opinion using this word to refer to a version of God breathed scripture is blatantly blasphemous and is an attack on the breather the Holy Spirit.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I have traveled rather extensively (and still do) throughout the US. The pervasive problem in evangelical churches today is NOT what version they use... the problem is that they do not use ANY version.

Pastors... IFB, Conservative, Evangelical... whatever label you place on it... Typically do not trust their KJVs, NIVs, ESVs... Promoting KJVOism WILL NOT change this. In fact, many KJVOs I meet don't even bring a Bible to church.

Plus, it's not like exclusive use of the KJV means nobody disagrees on the interpretation of any given book, chapter, or passage.  If disagreeing means everyone has their own truth (it doesn't), then that would just as easily apply to KJVOs.

Clearly there is nothing about any translation that will prevent misinterpretations and the corruption of Christianity.

Mormonism started with the KJV. They promote it to this day.

Miller-ism and the SDA started with the KJV.

JWs started with the KJV.

 

[FSSL]

JWs started with the KJV.

In 1991 the JWs had a King James Only conference at the Pontiac Silverdome. They had cute little buttons.

 

[FSSL]

In my humble opinion using this word to refer to a version of God breathed scripture is blatantly blasphemous and is an attack on the breather the Holy Spirit.

^^^^ THIS!!

 

[bibleprotector]

I am not sure you want to use the term "infidelity" while promoting KJVOism.

It appears that you are misusing the term "KJBO". Historically, numerous denominations were in fact "KJBO", so when you try to tar all with the same brush it is dishonest. Also, the Protestant tradition is against Infidelity: for all the doctrinal differences among Protestants, whether IFBs, Reformed Baptists or whatever, strictly, none of them should be of Infidelity.

"My side" IS the same side Peter Masters is on. In fact, you are not on the same side. So, why quote from him?

I quote him because he rightly identifies the rise of Modernism, Liberal Theology and so on, particularly as occurring in Reformed teaching institutions.

Whatever "modernism" means... we are still waiting to see your private definition.

I said "Modernism", and you know full well what that means, along with Higher Criticism, Liberal Theology and so on.

KJVOism did not come from the Reformation.

That's like saying that Methodism or Pentecostalism did not come from the Reformation. Yet these things were developed in line from it. So likewise the use of the exclusive use of the KJB.

First, the KJV was not established in the Reformation.. it came after.

I would suggest that this is a revisionary view of history, since the KJB directly came from the Reformation, and also was used by Puritans, etc.

The Reformers did not use the KJV... it didn't exist.

This is a misleading statement, because the Protestants knew that the KJB (when it came to be) was directly of the Reformation.

Second, even the translators rejected an ONLY teaching.

This is historical revisionism. They commended the use of it, and it alone triumphed. Even the WCF allows this. In practice, when the Puritans had rule in England, it was the KJB which was being published, not the Geneva Version.

Third, Yes. Ruckman and Riplinger ARE the preeminent ones in your KJVO movement.

This is in the same category as Postmillennial Calvinists being told that Premillennial Calvinists are the preeminent ones in the Calvinist/Reformed movement. It is unjust and dishonest to say that all Calvinists are wrong because some leading Calvinists are Amillennial. (I disagree with Amillennialism.)

Ruckman and Riplinger. Smear? Well... then either own it or give excuse for it....

These are false options, and are derived from a dishonest approach. Why, even James White said to effect that there is a wide variety of folks, and that the movement defies definition. While a Mormon may use the KJB, that does not in any way reflect upon my use of the KJB. Nor would it be honest to say that lots of people with bad doctrine use the KJB, therefore the KJB must be the cause of bad doctrine. (Hence, the issue with interpretation.)

Ruckman and Riplinger are "the face" of KJVOism and that cannot be denied. KJVOs are pleased when they get a mention from either.

This is a fallacious statement. I am not unjustly attacking your Calvinist views, which I disagree with, yet you seem to think that you can say anything bad about KJBOs.

As I said, positively, it is not having the KJB which is good enough, but having proper interpretation of Scripture. That is why I advocate the Word and Spirit view.

What does that term "modernist" mean again?

You know what the word "Modernist" means (with a capital "M"). What you have totally ignored is the fact that the textual critical approach of the German Higher Critics, their translation views and their interpretation methodologies, have filtered down into many normal, Bible believing Christians' hearts today. The leaven of Infidelity has come among good, born again Christians in general. It is there in Reformed groups, in Fundamentalism and in Pentecostalism, across the spectrum.

well then... you should have said this at the very beginning. All of the materials you said you had can be boiled down to that?

No, that would be a gross over simplification. The materials I have go into detail about the possibility of having and obtaining right interpretation, various principles and the orderliness of it in practice.

We understand... You are "winging it!" You DON'T have a reformation-style approach to interpreting the Scripture. When you reject a grammatical-historical approach, you reject the practice of the Reformers.

Interpretation as developed from the Reformation to the Word and Spirit view is correct. I reject the modernistic "grammatical-historical" approach, because it does not read the Scripture words "as is", but reads in private meaning by going into the original languages, and reads in modernistic presuppositions into the historical context.

One of the modernistic tendencies is to treat the transmission of Scripture in practice like any other book, i.e. naturalistically examine and attempt to resolve textual issues. So likewise with translation.

I believe in absolutes exist objectively, and have a view which is toward perfection, in regards to having a perfect text, perfect translation, proper interpretation, full counsel of God sound doctrines. Modernism and various other views say that this is wrong and impossible. But even Reformation/Puritanism sought along these lines. Modernism has always reared up human reason to doubt why we cannot know, fathom, comprehend what the almighty, immanent, providential, man-reaching God can and wills to do. The Elect should be able to "get it".

 

[bibleprotector]

I have traveled rather extensively (and still do) throughout the US. The pervasive problem in evangelical churches today is NOT what version they use... the problem is that they do not use ANY version.

I agree. Pentecostalism has this massive problem of feeling/entertainment over the use of Scripture.

So then, the NEW REFORMATION is to restore the reverence of Scripture. But I say more, that it should be the KJB.

Pastors... IFB, Conservative, Evangelical... whatever label you place on it... Typically do not trust their KJVs, NIVs, ESVs... Promoting KJVOism WILL NOT change this. In fact, many KJVOs I meet don't even bring a Bible to church.

What you call "KJBOism" is not what I mean. I mean the use of the KJB only as part of the restoration of the Word and Spirit.

 

[bibleprotector]

Plus, it's not like exclusive use of the KJV means nobody disagrees on the interpretation of any given book, chapter, or passage.  If disagreeing means everyone has their own truth (it doesn't), then that would just as easily apply to KJVOs.

The widespread problem throughout is that many have their own, exclusive, personal views.

The postmodern idea of every man deciding what is his own truth is manifest in the Bible version issue too: the proliferation of the pick and choose mentality is indicative of that.

The multiplicity and diversity of interpretation and doctrine can only be addressed by bringing back to a central foundation. Even if everyone used the KJB, it would not be enough, because historically, many different English denominations existed even while using the KJB. So then, there needs to be a spiritual work too. This is why I advocate the Word and Spirit view, not only for Christians to have one Bible, but also come into unity of faith.

 

[bibleprotector]

In my humble opinion using this word to refer to a version of God breathed scripture is blatantly blasphemous and is an attack on the breather the Holy Spirit.

Most KJBOs do not believe that the Holy Ghost inspired the Scripture in some special way in the making of the KJB from 1605 to 1611.

 

[bibleprotector]

Clearly there is nothing about any translation that will prevent misinterpretations and the corruption of Christianity.

Mormonism started with the KJV. They promote it to this day.

Miller-ism and the SDA started with the KJV.

JWs started with the KJV.

My point exactly: having unity on believing one Bible is good, but the unity must be proper and sound interpretation and proper and sound doctrine. That's true unity.

 

[bgwilkinson]

In my humble opinion using this word to refer to a version of God breathed scripture is blatantly blasphemous and is an attack on the breather the Holy Spirit.

Most KJBOs do not believe that the Holy Ghost inspired the Scripture in some special way in the making of the KJB from 1605 to 1611.

^^^^^^Complete non sequitur^^^^^

I don't think you understand what I wrote.

 

[bibleprotector]

In my humble opinion using this word to refer to a version of God breathed scripture is blatantly blasphemous and is an attack on the breather the Holy Spirit.

Most KJBOs do not believe that the Holy Ghost inspired the Scripture in some special way in the making of the KJB from 1605 to 1611.

^^^^^^Complete non sequitur^^^^^

I don't think you understand what I wrote.

Since no translation or version today was produced by inspiration, therefore, certain translations or versions may be "perverted".

A version or translation can be genuine, and represent inspired Scripture, but modern versions are tainted with corruption arising from a false philosophical ideological approach toward textual transmission and translation techniques without beginning from a believing view of the Scripture. Many old versions, even in Latin, are more in line with truth than modern versions because of their faithfulness and tendency toward a believing approach. There is a stark contrast between Reformation or Puritan translations and modern works as influenced by German Criticism and modernist tendencies.

 

[prophet]

Start the heretic burning fire...
The Word is God, and thus, by default, everpresently inspired.

Jn 6:63
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Earnestly Contend.

 

[bibleprotector]

The Word is God, and thus, by default, everpresently inspired.

You have confused the person of Jesus Christ called the Word with the written Scripture called the word.

 

[prophet]

The Word is God, and thus, by default, everpresently inspired.

You have confused the person of Jesus Christ called the Word with the written Scripture called the word.

Lol.
I quoted Jesus.

 

[FSSL]

I don't think I specifically stated that, but rather, argued for following a believing Protestant method of interpretation as derived from the Reformation, in regards to actually believing the Scripture.

Can you explain and defend this Protestant method without ever speaking about the grammatical analysis of the text and the  historical situation?

For someone who claims that they are following a Protestant method of interpretation, this would be quite the challenge.

 

[bibleprotector]

Can you explain and defend this Protestant method without ever speaking about the grammatical analysis of the text and the  historical situation?

Remember, the proper view is very different to the modern view, which allows flexible reading in of meaning into original words, and forces ideas onto a past "historical situation".

Making reference to the word "grammatical" is not required, though it is certainly true that words having meaning, and that the way many Protestants over the years have read the Bible is to know that there is meaning and value to the Bible translation (the King James Version) they are reading. Every word is important.

Likewise, believers know that the Bible describes real events and words truly spoken in the past. Every word is true.

Bible interpretation is not to be formalised into what supposedly prohibits but actually creates a "wax nose" methodology. Of course, it is proper to have understanding of the genre, the general passage context and the conference of Scripture with Scripture, but those methods which do not begin from the doctrine that the Holy Ghost is present and gives understanding are essentially human based. It is obvious that if someone says "grammatical-historical" that they did not say "Spirit-led", nor does that imply anything of the Spirit, but the work of man.

For someone who claims that they are following a Protestant method of interpretation, this would be quite the challenge.

The Protestant tradition of interpretation is not limited to the unbelieving characteristics of the German Critics who coined the "grammatical-historical" approach.

Therefore, when someone claims to be codifying the "Protestant" view, this may be investigated for abuse of terminology. Yes, today's Protestants as leavened with Infidelity may use the "grammatical-historical" approach, and speak about literal or natural reading, but this does not mean that such views are necessarily Protestant, i.e. believing, spiritual and untainted.

An example of this problem in Bernard Ramm, who "endeavored to present that system of hermeneutics which most generally characterizes conservative Protestantism." He claimed that different theological emphases "are the result of the interpreter’s skill or art, or lack of the same." Notice that he did not identify any spiritual component: he did not say either that the Spirit of God nor devils may be involved.

He stated, "HERMENEUTICS is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is a science because it is guided by rules within
a system; and it is an art because the application of the rules is by skill, and not by mechanical imitation." This illustrates precisely the human approach of the modern "grammatical-historical" method, that the modernist both emphases human capacity and creativity, and also a set constriction of artificial parameters. The modernist can therefore scorn the believer's lack of skill and their non-adherence to the a priori human constructed rules. Clearly, we are dealing with a special system of private interpretation which is designed to keep knowledge of proper interpretation out of the genuine Christian's own hands and hearts.

The believing view starts from Scripture itself. It does not start from some "scientific" approach of trying to define the etymological origins of the word "hermeneutics". The Scripture points to the Holy Ghost giving understanding. The Scripture points to believing teachers gifted in the Church. The Scripture points to the Old Testament relevance. The Scripture points to understanding how there is also a spiritual (non-literal) interpretation. The Scripture points to itself as a living and spiritual power.

The believing view does not explain away by limiting Scripture to the past or defer it to the future without it having meaning and power now, more than just mere "applicability".

The ultimate form of the Protestant views is the Word and Spirit view, which is a perfection and power view. Modern exegesis therefore differs sharply to the proper teaching of sound doctrine.

 

[FSSL]

You give us the impression that historical context is not important. Can you elaborate on how the Protestant Reformers treated the historical contexts?

We could argue the fact that the Protestant Reformers didn't have access to the KJV, so when it comes to grammatical analysis, you are alone on that matter.

 

[bibleprotector]

Modern "exegesis" is really eisegesis.

The modern hermeneutical maxim is, "to ascertain what God has said in Sacred Scripture; to determine the meaning of the Word of God." (Ramm.) Notice that this is a human-based approach. There is no guarantee to find out what God actually meant, but what men think He said (as based on their modern imposition onto the Scripture).

Again, the spirit of error has created a great impediment between the Scripture and us, saying, "The second great need for a science of hermeneutics is to bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the Biblical writers". (Ramm.) Notice that there is no reference to the presence of the Holy Ghost who actually inspired those words. The modern view is both rationalistic and treating the Bible as if it is just like any other book.

I think one of the greatest false assumptions behind this, which related back to textual criticism, is the view that the Scripture was only really perfectly true when it was first written, and first received by the original audience. Such a view places copies and consequential readers as merely accessing something derivative, like truth in a glass darkly.

Whereas, I see the great clarity of having the same text today that was first written, the exact meaning in English of what was first communicated and having access to the proper interpretation of what the Holy Ghost intended, allowing for access to correct and proper doctrines, and the highest order of Christianity.

This conclusion rankles with those who look back longingly at revivals, the Reformation, the Apostolic era and the days of the patriarchs, as though God only spake and moved then, but now we are stuck with the dregs and morsels of their blessing. And likewise, the emphasis of hope on a future, glorious age to come, distant and beautiful, but today we but grovel in the dust, slogging away beset by uncertainty and dullness, waiting long but for a little sprinkle of blessing.

As long as you allow the leaven of Infidelity to taint your views is as long as you are really allowing the reading in of wrong biases into Scripture interpretation.

 

[bibleprotector]

You give us the impression that historical context is not important. Can you elaborate on how the Protestant Reformers treated the historical contexts?

You need to look at believing Protestantism as a whole, from 1517 to the present. They saw the Bible as being a true record of historical events as written in the past. But they did not take the modernistic view, which has done bad things such as read in a modern interpretation of Jewish tradition into the past, etc.

We could argue the fact that the Protestant Reformers didn't have access to the KJV, so when it comes to grammatical analysis, you are alone on that matter.

Again, we are dealing with Protestantism from 1517 to the present. While there was a lack of ANY Protestant Bible version in the beginning, soon various ones did appear, and after about 100 years the KJB. So proper understanding does not require the KJB when reading retrospectively (a proper use of the "historical context" argument by the way), after all, the Scripture existed long before the KJB was made.

The fact is that even the WCF said, "But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope." The KJB has rightly been considered Scripture and rightly been used by believers.

The Reformers were not modernists, just as people who lived in times when they used Greek were not modernists, so then, it is not Greek which is the problem, but the modernist misuse of Greek. Also, we recognise the providence of God in advancing Christianity and the supply of a translation which is accurate, which therefore advances us upon the foundation that even the WCF people built.