A KJVO method of interpretation...

bibleprotector said:
FSSL said:
... or probably more fundamental... you have not read them.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know how these debates work. I say, I have read various things. And then you ask whether I read them in Latin. No, I have not read them in Latin. Well then, if not in Latin, then not the authentic Reformers' own words... blah blah.
Click to expand...
... or far less profound, we ask a simple question and end up with 100 posts without an answer.
 
Bibleprotector... if grammar is not important to interpreting the Bible, why do you insist on the correctness of punctuation?
 
Ransom said:
Resolved: Based on an utter inability to articulate a method of biblical interpretation in a thread now nearing 100 posts, Bibleprotector is what Paul terms an "empty talker" (Titus 1:10), having zeal without knowledge, and using great bluster to obscure the fact of his great ignorance. Discuss.
Click to expand...

This is a concise accurate characterization of bp's twisted, obtuse, vacuous, unintelligible ramblings.

He deliberately is not clear in his writings.
 
Give the man credit.  He uses a LOT of words to say nothing.
 
FSSL said:
Bibleprotector... if grammar is not important to interpreting the Bible, why do you insist on the correctness of punctuation?
Click to expand...

This is an incorrect question, because grammar is important. The issue is not importance. The issue is whether or not the modernist use of a grammatical hermeneutic of reading into original words meanings is correct. So the objection is not grammar, but the modernistic misuse of grammar (and their claim that you need to be skilled in it to understand the Bible).
 
bgwilkinson said:
This is a concise accurate characterization of bp's twisted, obtuse, vacuous, unintelligible ramblings.

He deliberately is not clear in his writings.
Click to expand...

You are reading in motives and characteristics which do not exist. Clearly, this is a spiritual condition, since I can state with great plainness things which are deliberately approached by your side as incompatible. Notice the strange reaction they had here: " Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord" (Acts 7:57).

This is an ideological battle between the leaven of Infidelity as perpetuated by the spirit of error versus a rising Word and Spirit view which has Church cleansing and world impacting power.

Your side has the temerity to treat the Scripture as if the Holy Ghost was not clear, able and powerful enough to communicate by Scripture into the present generation, but requires your side to go into this relatively new scheme of the "art and science of interpretation". If that is how you treat the Holy Ghost, I can see how you would treat the speakings of earnest believers.
 
bibleprotector said:
... So the objection is not grammar, but the modernistic misuse of grammar (and their claim that you need to be skilled in it to understand the Bible).
Click to expand...

If you don't understand the grammar properly, the Holy Spirit is not going to whisper corrections.

What happened to the idea that a person needs to diligently study?
 
FSSL said:
If you don't understand the grammar properly, the Holy Spirit is not going to whisper corrections.

What happened to the idea that a person needs to diligently study?
Click to expand...

You make it sound mechanical. You don't need a master in arts (writing and literature) to understand the Bible. The modernist approach of reading back meaning into the Greek wording is not "proper".
 
While you try wacking us with the mystery term "modernist" like a flimsy pool noodle....


... try reading Scripture on the topic:

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

I never mentioned someone had to know Greek. You do have to know English.
 
FSSL said:
While you try wacking us with the mystery term "modernist" like a flimsy pool noodle....


... try reading Scripture on the topic:

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Click to expand...

The word "study" there does not mean "the modernist method", nor does it say, "learn Greek". Studying is not a carnal exercise of worldly wisdom.

FSSL said:
I never mentioned someone had to know Greek. You do have to know English.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about having to know English? After all, the Scripture has been around a lot longer than English has, and has come to many people who did not know English.

It is usual in the modernist method to reference the Greek, in regards to making it say what the modernist wants it to say.

I saw an excellent example of the more extreme end of the modernist method at work, with the "New Perspective on Paul", which relies on both reading back meaning into original words and trying to understand the Scripture from a constructed first century near eastern viewpoint. Modernism is a sliding scale, so even though some will resist more Liberal, Rationalistic, Revisionary views, they are already on the slippery slope themselves.
 
Your silliness is noted.

I saw an excellent example of the more extreme end of the modernist method ....
Click to expand...

Why keep bumping a thread where you have proven your inability to give an honest answer?

We are seeing an excellent example of a KJVO who cannot express his method. Perhaps it is too extreme to post and makes liberalism look tame.
 
So the method I use is to examine the grammar and biblical/historical context. Who wrote the book to whom?

Bibleprotector disagrees with this method. So.. where does that logically leave him? Outliberalizing the liberals.
 
BP says, "It is usual in the modernist method to reference the Greek, in regards to making it say what the modernist wants it to say."

Miles Smith said, "If you aske what they had before them, truely it was the Hebrew text of the Olde Testament, the Greeke of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches emptie themselves into the golde. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or originall tongues; Saint Jerome, fountaines. The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the olde Bookes (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to bee tryed by the Hebrewe Volumes, so of the New by the Greeke tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greeke. If trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues, therefore, the Scriptures wee say in those tongues, wee set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speake to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles."

Golden pipes, original tongues, fountains whatever you call them, they are where we go to try any translation.

It is totally ridiculous to suggest this is modernest in any way. That is a stupid statement.

You can not try a version by itself.



 
bgwilkinson said:
BP says, "It is usual in the modernist method to reference the Greek, in regards to making it say what the modernist wants it to say."

Miles Smith said, "If you aske what they had before them, truely it was the Hebrew text of the Olde Testament, the Greeke of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches emptie themselves into the golde. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or originall tongues; Saint Jerome, fountaines. The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the olde Bookes (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to bee tryed by the Hebrewe Volumes, so of the New by the Greeke tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greeke. If trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues, therefore, the Scriptures wee say in those tongues, wee set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speake to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles."

Golden pipes, original tongues, fountains whatever you call them, they are where we go to try any translation.

It is totally ridiculous to suggest this is modernest in any way. That is a stupid statement.

You can not try a version by itself.
Click to expand...

You forget:  The KJV corrects the originals. 







Bwahahahahahahahaha... I knew I couldn't say that with a straight face. 
 
Bunch of modernists.
 
FSSL said:
Why keep bumping a thread where you have proven your inability to give an honest answer?
Click to expand...

I say anything, and your side side will accuse it, so of course, you say you have "proof" of my "inability" to be "honest".

Yet you do not acknowledge that the origins of your own views in this area were with the German Higher Critics.

FSSL said:
We are seeing an excellent example of a KJVO who cannot express his method. Perhaps it is too extreme to post and makes liberalism look tame.
Click to expand...

If actually believing the Bible is extreme. As for using the KJB, that's not "liberal", that's the opposite, not even conservative or paleo-conservative, but restoring old traditions.
 
FSSL said:
So the method I use is to examine the grammar and biblical/historical context.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know, reading into the original languages modern meanings and reading into the past a present day view of the past.

FSSL said:
Who wrote the book to whom?
Click to expand...

The Holy Ghost wrote it to us. You are stuck with Paul just writing to Timothy, or the Psalmist writing about his contemporary times, etc. You don't even say, What the Spirit inspired to the Ephesians or whatever. No, your side has been influenced by big "M" modernism, which treats the Bible just like any other book.


FSSL said:
Bibleprotector disagrees with this method. So.. where does that logically leave him? Outliberalizing the liberals.
Click to expand...

As I said before, the scale from total unbelief to total belief places you in the middle. It goes liberalism on one side, you (caught between both ends) and the believing view on the other end. The believing view is hardly left of the liberals (out-liberalising them), unless you use your creative method of both hot and cold versus the middle (in this case, you make the middle "good").
 
bibleprotector said:
I say anything, and your side side will accuse it, so of course, you say you have "proof" of my "inability" to be "honest".
Click to expand...

Hey... if it is THAT indefensible... as I told you before... don't worry. You do not need to place your positions into a situation that is open for scrutiny

But then, if you are not willing to share your method, stop misrepresenting ours.

THAT is where your honesty is called into question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top