Against modernist hermeneutics

[FSSL]

So when it comes to the Laodicean issue, which the proper context makes HOT = ZEALOUS and therefore COLD = OUT, we see the whole fantastic (i.e. mythical) story about how good cold water was from Colosse.

My KJV does not say that HOT=ZEALOUS or COLD=OUT.

 

[bibleprotector]

So when it comes to the Laodicean issue, which the proper context makes HOT = ZEALOUS and therefore COLD = OUT, we see the whole fantastic (i.e. mythical) story about how good cold water was from Colosse.

My KJV does not say that HOT=ZEALOUS or COLD=OUT.

Actually, I am giving the proper INTERPRETATION. You see, the issue is not just about the perfection of the KJB, the issue actually is about truth versus error. You can have the true words and misinterpret them.

Thus, we are excelling beyond KJBO versus modern versions, we are really in the territory of truth versus modernism.

 

[bibleprotector]

If you applied a GRAMMATICAL and HISTORICAL approach, you would see the meaning and not make stuff up.

Would you claim your approach is infallible? You seem to be implying that it is. You contrast my "simple faith" with your hermeneutic method as though my way is contemptible and yours is erudite.

Since the Holy Spirit gave us His words. Words have meaning and context (linguistically/historically), we are able to understand what was really meant.

This is becoming dangerously close to a Roman Catholic doctrine of words + tradition. Asserting that the Holy Spirit is supplying the modernist understanding of the historical background of the day is not only novel, it is adding man's ideas to the truth.

 

[FSSL]

Actually, I am giving the proper INTERPRETATION. You see, the issue is not just about the perfection of the KJB, the issue actually is about truth versus error. You can have the true words and misinterpret them.

Then I would expect that you could show us that HOT=ZEALOUS and COLD=OUT.

Otherwise, you import your own opinion into the text.

 

[FSSL]

Would you claim your approach is infallible? You seem to be implying that it is. You contrast my "simple faith" with your hermeneutic method as though my way is contemptible and yours is erudite.

Never. I never called your faith a "simple faith" and never said that I was superior. I just pointed out that you totally ignored the grammar which says, "or" and you imported your own understanding of "hot" and "cold" on the text.

This is becoming dangerously close to a Roman Catholic doctrine of words + tradition. Asserting that the Holy Spirit is supplying the modernist understanding of the historical background of the day is not only novel, it is adding man's ideas to the truth.

Since you have not shown us your ideas that HOT=ZEALOUS and COLD=OUT, who is the one adding man's ideas?

It is very simple... just take the KJV, at its own words. Prove the words.

 

[FSSL]

Asserting that the Holy Spirit is supplying the modernist understanding of the historical background of the day is not only novel, it is adding man's ideas to the truth.

I never said that. I did say, "Words have meaning and context (linguistically/historically)..." Do you deny this?

Since it is not undeniable... why not study the historical background?

 

[bibleprotector]

Since you have not shown us your ideas that HOT=ZEALOUS and COLD=OUT, who is the one adding man's ideas?

It is very simple... just take the KJV, at its own words. Prove the words.

The word "or" means a dichotomy.

1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

The proper interpretation is against vacillating, which is the lukewarmness.

In your interpretation, since you accept that COLD = GOOD/REFRESHING which might then be used to say, that God wills that people also follow Baal in 1 Kings 18:21. (And don't give that excuse that 1 Kings is OT, for Israel, and not for us today.)

What He wills is a definite FOR/AGAINST dichotomy. There is nothing indicating that Baal is good. The same is with the coldness of the Laodicean prophecy.

 

[bibleprotector]

Since it is not undeniable... why not study the historical background?

What you are seeking to do, which is the modernist error, is to add an additional "-ology" (and isagogics) of human information and add that to Scripture. You are saying the Bible text + historical background as conceived by a modern day viewpoint imposing its view onto the past. That is an error.

We do not see that kind of "historical background" is necessary in how the Scripture interprets itself.

Also, when you say the "text", you are meaning something different too: you are meaning the original language, again with modern day understanding of meanings ascribed to those words imposed retrospectively.

 

[FSSL]

And don't give that excuse that 1 Kings is OT, for Israel, and not for us today.

Nope. I would not say that.

I will say that your connection to 1 Kings is contrived.

You still have not shown us where HOT=ZEALOUS and COLD=OUT.

 

[bibleprotector]

It is very simple... just take the KJV, at its own words. Prove the words.

I will demonstrate the correctness of my view using the context of the passage, plain and proper reading and the conference of Scripture:

1. Hot = zealous (Rev. 3:19).
2. Cold = the opposite to hot.
3. Cold = bad (Mt 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.)

 

[FSSL]

It is very simple... just take the KJV, at its own words. Prove the words.

I will demonstrate the correctness of my view using the context of the passage, plain and proper reading and the conference of Scripture:

1. Hot = zealous (Rev. 3:19).
2. Cold = the opposite to hot.
3. Cold = bad (Mt 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.)

Hot water is not mentioned in Revelation 3:19.

About the word "or." Jesus is not making a moral judgment against those who are Hot or Cold. He is making a moral judgement against those who are "lukewarm."

If you are going to jump to an utterly different context, then why not wrestle with Matthew 10:42? "And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.” Your approach is not convincing in the least.

For this reason, you should look to understand how words are used (and in this case not used) in the context. Since Jesus speaks approvingly of being either Hot or Cold and is disapproving of Lukewarm, you cannot mess up His point. Jesus is NOT disapproving of both Cold and Lukewarm people. That violates the Grammar and Logic of the passage. So, there must be something going on. Why did He use the metaphors of Hot and Cold? The Laodiceans could tell you, instantly!

 

[bibleprotector]

Hot water is not mentioned in Revelation 3:19.

Actually, water is not mentioned at all. But the contextual equivalence (by structural/relative means) is that hot = zealous.

About the word "or." Jesus is not making a moral judgment against those who are Hot or Cold. He is making a moral judgement against those who are "lukewarm."

Yes, but that does not mean that He is approving coldness, he is, in fact, approving that people should be definite and certain.

If you are going to jump to an utterly different context, then why not wrestle with Matthew 10:42? "And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.” Your approach is not convincing in the least.

That's not context, but conference of scripture with scripture, or in this case, of no conference, since the cold water is a literal thing, whereas in Revelation 3, the reference is to coldness (no mention of water) as figurative of a moral attribute. A cup of cold water is not a moral attribute, but that someone was giving a gift, thus, of no relation or bearing with Revelation 3.

For this reason, you should look to understand how words are used (and in this case not used) in the context. Since Jesus speaks approvingly of being either Hot or Cold and is disapproving of Lukewarm, you cannot mess up His point. Jesus is NOT disapproving of both Cold and Lukewarm people.

He is disproving of lukewarmness, which is a symbol for being half hearted, vacillating and between the two opinions of for Him (hot) or against Him (cold), just like the Baal worship example from 1 Kings.

That violates the Grammar and Logic of the passage.

Actually, your method is the problem, which confutes the meaning, and imposes relativism (under the guise of "grammar") and rationalism (under the guise of human reasoning) to the passage, which obviously results in an avowedly different interpretation.

So, there must be something going on.

Umm, yes, the Bible is God's message to us today. You are trying to read it like, what was God saying to them back then, but then have this whole scenario about the hills and the aqueducts, and then out of this huge concocted story, some teaching absurdly different to what the Scripture properly states, and different to what the Holy Ghost intended to communicate.

There is, however, a spiritual source for your methodology. It is not as if it is just a mechanic process pulling up random stuff (just like modern textual criticism does not just randomly pull up different words and beyond that different translations), but that there is the source of that being the spirit of the world today, the spirit of error.

Why did He use the metaphors of Hot and Cold? The Laodiceans could tell you, instantly!

What you mean is that modern scholars will tell you instantly what they think the Laodiceans were thinking, like how they suppose the meaning would have been to them. This is the worst sort of revisionism. And how can we trust Bible interpretation to folks leavened with unbelief anyway?

This would be the proper approach:

1. The Scripture is true.
2. The Scripture refers to hot, cold and lukewarm.
3. Archaeology etc. confirms the existence of lukewarm springs or water sources with Laodicea.

Notice that nothing there then leads to the absurd conclusion that Jesus' proper goodwill is that He wants Christians cold, nor does the passage make any allusion to the idea of "refreshing".

If that be so, then come out now and parade it, say how you are a cold Christian. Be definite. Say you are a cold Christian!

And if you want to say you are also a hot Christian as well as a cold one, then you are the mixture of hot and cold, which is the exact thing Jesus condemned.

 

[Ransom]

The sum total of bible"protector"'s definition of "modernist hermeneutics is the

need to understand the mindset of the scripture and read it within its own historical context

So, please tell us: when you define the term so simplistically, are you being deliberately dishonest, needlessly reductionistic, or both?

 

[bibleprotector]

The sum total of bible"protector"'s definition of "modernist hermeneutics is the

need to understand the mindset of the scripture and read it within its own historical context

So, please tell us: when you define the term so simplistically, are you being deliberately dishonest, needlessly reductionistic, or both?

A simplistic definition in passing should not be taken for the fuller definition. To imply that I sought to constrain a complex and spiritually definable topic to that statement is just glib pedantry on the part of the accuser.

 

[Ransom]

A simplistic definition in passing should not be taken for the fuller definition.

Or, in your case, the correct one.

To imply that I sought to constrain a complex and spiritually definable topic to that statement is just glib pedantry on the part of the accuser.

If that is the case, then I retract my previous accusation, because apparently you didn't attempt to define "modernist hermeneutics" at all, and are merely casting vague aspersions against nothing in particular. It seems that like every KJV-onlyist under the sun, you like to rant and rave about "modernists," "apostates," "hereticks" and the like without ever providing a concrete definition of what these ever-malleable terms actually mean.

Also, with only vague aspersions substituting for any tangible criticism of the practice, I submit that understanding and interpreting the Scriptures in their original historical, literary, and cultural contexts is both a sound hermeneutical practice, and a necessary one.

 

[bibleprotector]

It seems that like every KJV-onlyist under the sun, you like to rant and rave about "modernists," "apostates," "hereticks" and the like without ever providing a concrete definition of what these ever-malleable terms actually mean.

I understand that problem. But it is not limited to some or many KJBOists. In ultra simplistic forms:

Capital "M" Modernism means Higher Criticism, Theological Rationalism, Liberal Theology and Scepticism.
Lower case "m" modernism means Christianity that is influenced by those views, but not totally, in the fields of Biblical/textual criticism, modern versions and translations, preservation, transmission, interpretation, hermeneutics and exegesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jd9bU-eLEg

 

[Ransom]

I understand that problem. But it is not limited to some or many KJBOists.

It is, however, a hallmark of empty, KJV-only rhetoric - a fact not changed by your weak attempt to shift the blame to others.

Lower case "m" modernism means Christianity that is influenced by those views, but not totally, in the fields of Biblical/textual criticism, modern versions and translations, preservation, transmission, interpretation, hermeneutics and exegesis.

Not surprisingly, you fail to define "modernism" at all. This is exactly what I meant by vague aspersions.

 

[bibleprotector]

Not surprisingly, you fail to define "modernism" at all. This is exactly what I meant by vague aspersions.

Just because I did not define it there, does not mean it is without meaning. I did show the exact fields where it manifests. The definition is described in my youtube videos and on my website.

 

[Ransom]

Just because I did not define it there, does not mean it is without meaning.

Being weaselly about defining your terms is not an intellectual virtue.

The definition is described in my youtube videos and on my website.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in racking up your hits on YouTube. You came to play in our sandbox, so feel entirely free to provide a definition here.

 

[bibleprotector]

Sorry, but I'm not interested in racking up your hits on YouTube. You came to play in our sandbox, so feel entirely free to provide a definition here.

Here is what the blurb on the youtube video that you refuse to watch states:

In Christianity, big "M" Modernism means unbelief, it means doubt, scepticism, Higher Criticism and Liberal Theology.

The problem is that good Christians, who reject those ideas and believing in traditional doctrines are far too often accepting the same assumptions and ideas of rationalism when it comes to how the Bible has been transmitted through time. Small "m" modernism has the same view of Bible preservation as what a big "M" Modernist has. Thus, small "m" modernists are actually compromised on an important doctrine, because they deny actually having a perfect copy of the Scriptures today.