A KJVO method of interpretation...

[FSSL]

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

Just because they called it grammatical-historical does not mean that the method did not exist prior.

They bastardized history and came up with fanatical source documentary hypotheses.

KJVOs bastardize history by denying the legitimacy of using Geeek and Hebrew.

Which leaves us wondering why you do not expose your own method...

 

[bibleprotector]

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.

Yes, it would be totally ridiculous to suggest that a proper, believing view of Greek, and proper Protestant Reformation traditional translation is wrong.

What is wrong is the modernist view, which rejects traditional Protestant scholarship, and which attempts to read into the past or original words modernist ideas.

You can not try a version by itself.

Actually, what needs to happen is that a gathering take place in Greek, and from a variety of sources (old and new). This already happened in the Reformation period. Thus, the KJB has already been resolved as an exemplary gathered form, and this was used and tested by believers, and held to be right. Thus, modernistic objections and modernistic rejection of this standard by the raising of new false standards (which are confessed by them to be imperfect) are wrong.

The same applies with translation, and the same applies with interpretation. Why should any believer reject the development of Protestant traditions for modernistic ideas which not only are deistic and rationalistic in nature, but obviously derive from the Enlightenment and Infidelity?

 

[FSSL]

See... Bibleprotector has his OWN definition of modernism which he will not put up to scrutiny. We can see elements of his faux meanings coming through.

 

[bibleprotector]

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

I have been giving my position all along. It is the Word and Spirit view. I start from the Bible and take a spiritual view, and gather what is helpful from Protestant tradition. This means that when it comes to understanding what is going on today, it shows the ideological war between modernism and belief within the Church, just as there is a war going on between Infidelity and reasonable faith in the world. This understanding is evident in Bible prophecy, and Bible prophecy is understood (including) by knowing the genre, context of a passage within the Scripture and the conference of scripture with scripture. Thus, the identification of your small "m" modernism (the leaven of Infidelity coming in among the brethren) is not a misrepresentation, but an accurate identification of the truth.

THAT is where your honesty is called into question.

I think it is because you do not wish to agree, so since my view challenges yours (in this ideological war), you call mine dishonest, or me dishonest.

 

[FSSL]

The irony is if we behaved in the same way as Bibleprotector does on this forum, we would be banned from his.

No... you are safe Bibleprotector. We allow freedom of expression here.

 

[FSSL]

I have been giving my position all along. It is the Word and Spirit view. I start from the Bible and take a spiritual view, and gather what is helpful from Protestant tradition.

We could say the exact same thing about our approach. You are not willing to give us details because, as you already said, you don't want us to criticize them.

Don't play word games. You cannot say you won't share your method and then turn around two posts later and tell us you already told us.

^ THAT is the methodology of liberalism, in action!

 

[bibleprotector]

Just because they called it grammatical-historical does not mean that the method did not exist prior.

They bastardized history and came up with fanatical source documentary hypotheses.

Yes, we all know how bad they were. The problem is that your "grammatical" and your "historical" is influenced by them rather than from the believing tradition. Your "grammatical" is what some of them did exactly, treat the Bible words like any other book, claim to look at the natural or literal meaning based upon a direct grammatical understanding, but then do so in the Greek and read in modern day meanings into those Greek words/constructions. This is because RATIONALISM rather than believing is the primary basis of the approach. Again, likewise, with the "historical context" view.

You might say that you disagree with the documentary hypotheses, but then, not all the German Critics/Rationalists/Theologians were like that. Half their tradition is no less unbelieving, though it rejected documentary hypotheses. E.g. Ernesti, etc. Then, you find ones like Schleiermacher who attempted to create a middle ground between those two views, and he is the father of liberal theology. So then, all your hermeneutical heroes follow locked step behind them, such as, Germar, Klausen (1841), Wilke (1843), Davidson (1843), Cellérier (1852), Fairbairn (1859), Doedes (1862), Immer (1877) and the reissuance of Cellérier’s work by Charles Elliott (1881). On that foundation came forth Farrar (1886), Terry (1890), Tenney (1957), Mickelsen (1963), Ramm (1967), Berkhof (1969), Kaiser (1981), Fee (1983), Carson (1984), Moo (1986), Osborne (1991), Tate (1991), Zuck (1991), Klein (1993), Silva (1994), etc.

KJVOs bastardize history by denying the legitimacy of using Geeek and Hebrew.

This is fake, since (1) the KJB was translated from those languages which God originally used, and (2) there is nothing in the Scripture to say that greater authority is locked with those languages today, in fact, (3) we find indications that the Scripture is to go forth in other tongues (not just talking about Pentecostal tongues).

Which leaves us wondering why you do not expose your own method...

It is all plain and clear. I state openly and continually, and also I have a website with information on the subject, as I said, I have even written about the subject in some detail.

 

[bibleprotector]

See... Bibleprotector has his OWN definition of modernism which he will not put up to scrutiny. We can see elements of his faux meanings coming through.

My assessment is accurate, that the big "M" Modernism is wrong (and you agree), and that the influence of it has pervaded into Christianity through what is being identified as small "m" modernism, the leaven of Infidelity. It is manifest with the deistical ideas that have come in, in the views not only on textual transmission and scripture preservation, but also (and manifestly so) in interpretation. What this means is that while obviously there is a conflict between views within the Protestant tradition (e.g. Calvinism v. Lutheranism v. Anglicanism v. Holiness, etc.), there is also a new conflict between the rise of modernism and the rise of belief. By belief, I ultimately mean the Word and Spirit view. By the "rise" modernism, I mean where your view is headed.

 

[bibleprotector]

The irony is if we behaved in the same way as Bibleprotector does on this forum, we would be banned from his.

No... you are safe Bibleprotector. We allow freedom of expression here.

Thanks, but my forum is not a debate forum. For debate, I come to those who battle.

 

[bibleprotector]

We could say the exact same thing about our approach.

Really? Because the Word and Spirit approach has a definite meaning that you are a loggerheads with.

You are not willing to give us details because, as you already said, you don't want us to criticize them.

How wrong you are, and how much you misread motives. I have said exactly what my approach is: as I said, I have described it extensively in writing.

Don't play word games. You cannot say you won't share your method and then turn around two posts later and tell us you already told us.

I have never said to effect that "won't share my method", but on the contrary, have been speaking about it all along, and also indicated details.

 

[FSSL]

Placing posts next to each other to highlight the double-talk.

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

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

 

[bibleprotector]

Placing posts next to each other to highlight the double-talk.

I know you have been avoiding acknowledging that I have answered and indicated where I have written extensively about it elsewhere.

 

[FSSL]

132 posts and you still lead us on a silly goose chase.