Against modernist hermeneutics

[bibleprotector]

I also defend YEC from the Hebrew Bible.

This will mean differences too in our YEC models and outlook. For example, to reject the English for modern imposition onto the Hebrew text/language will possibly lead to the rejection of unicorns (they say "wild aurochs"), rejection of the firmament (they say "expanse"), rejection of the creation of Heaven alone at the beginning of time (they say "heavens"), rejection of the moving Spirit (they say "hovering"), rejection of dragons (they say "jackals"), etc. etc.

 

[bibleprotector]

There is no condemnation for me, I am in Christ.

That's only half the verse. The other half says that you must not live after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

So, back to the interpretation of Rev. 3:

There is a lot we don't know about these churches,

Since when is knowing extraneous information more important that actually receiving what is stated in the Scripture? Where does the Scripture say the more additional information you know, the better you will understand what is written herein?

That is a naturalistic view of the Bible, as though it was written subject to a certain human way of thinking in the past, and now we have to understand that mindset in order to understand the Scripture. The proper approach is that the same Holy Ghost Who inspired is here today.

 

[FSSL]

Bibleprotector.... you still have not answered (or at least I have not seen), how do you conclude that "cold"=out? Jesus does not condemn the cold. Instead he commends the cold.

How do you have Jesus wishing that people were cold if it equals "out?"

 

[FSSL]

I also defend YEC from the Hebrew Bible.

This will mean differences too in our YEC models and outlook. For example, to reject the English for modern imposition onto the Hebrew text/language will possibly lead to the rejection of unicorns (they say "wild aurochs"), rejection of the firmament (they say "expanse"), rejection of the creation of Heaven alone at the beginning of time (they say "heavens"), rejection of the moving Spirit (they say "hovering"), rejection of dragons (they say "jackals"), etc. etc.

None of those issues makes/breaks a YEC viewpoint.

You will have a problem defending YEC altogether. "Day" as a 24 hour period of time involves peculiar/uniquely Hebrew usages. If you only use the English, you have little to no support for establishing a literal day.

 

[prophet]

There is no condemnation for me, I am in Christ.

That's only half the verse. The other half says that you must not live after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

So, back to the interpretation of Rev. 3:

There is a lot we don't know about these churches,

Since when is knowing extraneous information more important that actually receiving what is stated in the Scripture? Where does the Scripture say the more additional information you know, the better you will understand what is written herein?

That is a naturalistic view of the Bible, as though it was written subject to a certain human way of thinking in the past, and now we have to understand that mindset in order to understand the Scripture. The proper approach is that the same Holy Ghost Who inspired is here today.

There is a verse down the page, brother...

Rom 8:9
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

And...

Rom 8:14
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.


Making the obvious contextual delineation to be Salvation, and not lifestyle.

Too bad, you don't understand English well enough to know what "condemnation" means.
It is a legal term, like so much in our AV, carrying a definition able to be known.

If so be you are Christ's, there is no condemnation.

There is no condemnation for me, I am in Christ.

That's only half the verse. The other half says that you must not live after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

So, back to the interpretation of Rev. 3:

There is a lot we don't know about these churches,

Since when is knowing extraneous information more important that actually receiving what is stated in the Scripture? Where does the Scripture say the more additional information you know, the better you will understand what is written herein?

That is a naturalistic view of the Bible, as though it was written subject to a certain human way of thinking in the past, and now we have to understand that mindset in order to understand the Scripture. The proper approach is that the same Holy Ghost Who inspired is here today.

You are projecting on to me some belief that you learned of elsewhere.

God can tell you, through the words : "hot" and "cold", whatever He needs to at the moment.
You don't get to add that insight to the Scripture, as an addendum.

Every one of us is free to approach the same passage, without being limited to what private interpretation you feel has been revealed to you.
"Private" means "not available to all".
God may have showed you something in your life, through those words, but that was for you.  You can't demand that of others, that is not plainly written, else you set yourself up as the Guide, and He is Jealous.

We, who see Satan's hand in the process that brought the World its Nestle Aland et al, cannot afford to be found to add to the text our own revelation, lest we be like unto them.

There is no merit to shoving this square peg, through any round hole.
Hot for one, may be lukewarm for another, each has his own race.

Let the iron sharpen you, my friend, it isn't meant to break you.

There is no condemnation for me, I am in Christ.

That's only half the verse. The other half says that you must not live after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

So, back to the interpretation of Rev. 3:

There is a lot we don't know about these churches,

Since when is knowing extraneous information more important that actually receiving what is stated in the Scripture? Where does the Scripture say the more additional information you know, the better you will understand what is written herein?

That is a naturalistic view of the Bible, as though it was written subject to a certain human way of thinking in the past, and now we have to understand that mindset in order to understand the Scripture. The proper approach is that the same Holy Ghost Who inspired is here today.

 

[prophet]

I also defend YEC from the Hebrew Bible.

This will mean differences too in our YEC models and outlook. For example, to reject the English for modern imposition onto the Hebrew text/language will possibly lead to the rejection of unicorns (they say "wild aurochs"), rejection of the firmament (they say "expanse"), rejection of the creation of Heaven alone at the beginning of time (they say "heavens"), rejection of the moving Spirit (they say "hovering"), rejection of dragons (they say "jackals"), etc. etc.

None of those issues makes/breaks a YEC viewpoint.

You will have a problem defending YEC altogether. "Day" as a 24 hour period of time involves peculiar/uniquely Hebrew usages. If you only use the English, you have little to no support for establishing a literal day.

The words "evening" and "morning" help me determine that the word "day" in the Creation account means "1  revolution  of our sphere", and not "era", which the English would allow for, were it not for these contextual guide rails.

 

[FSSL]

It would be convenient if "evening/morning" was all we needed to establish a 24 hour period.

We agree about 24 hours and YEC.

 

[FSSL]

All of this discussion about the YEC position is curious in this thread. It wasn't until the 1960s that YEC was defended. So why does Bibleprotector hold to it? Wouldn't it be an outgrowth of modernism?

Whitcomb is definitely an ecclectic text man.
The most up-to-date Hebrew lexicons support a 24 hour meaning for day.
Current Hebrew grammars also provide support for a 24 hour day.

 

[bibleprotector]

Bibleprotector.... you still have not answered (or at least I have not seen), how do you conclude that "cold"=out? Jesus does not condemn the cold. Instead he commends the cold.

How do you have Jesus wishing that people were cold if it equals "out?"

Based on the actual teachings of the passage, since hot = zealous, then cold would be being against Christ, while lukewarm would mean half way between those two positions.

But we are not limited to just the passage, but also to the conference of scripture. Again, when he says he wishes them to be hot or cold, it is the same as Elijah wishing them to follow Baal. That is, to be fully committed one way or the other. It does not actually meant that God wanted them to be cold.

 

[bibleprotector]

You will have a problem defending YEC altogether. "Day" as a 24 hour period of time involves peculiar/uniquely Hebrew usages. If you only use the English, you have little to no support for establishing a literal day.

Really? Why, we have the word day meaning a day, we have evening and morning, and a number. That's pretty clear in English. I think going to Hebrew only serves to dilute the matter. It is the English which is the absolute authority. Thus, we have the strongest evidence for a normal day in the plain English we actually understand.

 

[rsc2a]

Dr. Ruckman, is that you?

 

[FSSL]

Bibleprotector.... you still have not answered (or at least I have not seen), how do you conclude that "cold"=out? Jesus does not condemn the cold. Instead he commends the cold.

How do you have Jesus wishing that people were cold if it equals "out?"

Based on the actual teachings of the passage, since hot = zealous, then cold would be being against Christ, while lukewarm would mean half way between those two positions.

But we are not limited to just the passage, but also to the conference of scripture. Again, when he says he wishes them to be hot or cold, it is the same as Elijah wishing them to follow Baal. That is, to be fully committed one way or the other. It does not actually meant that God wanted them to be cold.

We will just go round and round on this.

 

[bibleprotector]

All of this discussion about the YEC position is curious in this thread. It wasn't until the 1960s that YEC was defended. So why does Bibleprotector hold to it? Wouldn't it be an outgrowth of modernism?

This is not the case. The normal reading of Genesis was believed long before the 1960s. For example, the common use of Ussher's dates confirms this. It was not suddenly Henry Morris or someone standing for this truth in the 1960s that is the origin of this belief.

Something existing in the present does not equal modernism.

Modernism is an avowed rejecting of belief in what the Scripture states, including by doubting things while believing others, which is the case with the small "m" modernists.

So, YEC is not in any way modernistic. And the evidence is that a person can be YEC, yet doubt the proper preservation of scripture and doubt its meaning by employing modernistic hermeneutics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY_nn5OlFrk

 

[bibleprotector]

Too bad, you don't understand English well enough to know what "condemnation" means.
It is a legal term, like so much in our AV, carrying a definition able to be known.

If so be you are Christ's, there is no condemnation.

That's not right.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

This states that there is a condition. Not just to be in Christ Jesus (a believer), but to walk after the Spirit.

Since there are carnal brethren who walk after the flesh, they are condemned. They are saved, but are producing the works of wood, hay and stubble.

Therefore, accordingly, there are believers who are condemned, but are not damned.

God can tell you, through the words : "hot" and "cold", whatever He needs to at the moment.

You are advocating a meaningless Bible, one where God moves in mysterious ways, and hot and cold are some sort of capriciously defined things hidden in the mind of God. What was the point then of God even speaking to us?

The word "hot" has an actual meaning in the Bible.

 

[rsc2a]

Some like it hot!

 

[rsc2a]

Drop it like it's hot!

 

[FSSL]

This is not the case. The normal reading of Genesis was believed long before the 1960s. For example, the common use of Ussher's dates confirms this. It was not suddenly Henry Morris or someone standing for this truth in the 1960s that is the origin of this belief.

BINGO!

So why do you reject "grammatical-historical"?

 

[bibleprotector]

So why do you reject "grammatical-historical"?

Because it is invented by German Higher Critics, e.g. Karl Kiel and then by Schleiermacher, etc.

Your "grammatical" is not the believing "words", but is based on subjective definitions of original language words.

Your "historical" is not believing "truth", but is based on subjective present day reading into the past as though we need to read the NT with a "first century near-eastern" mindset, etc. etc.

 

[FSSL]

"Creationist" was coined by Darwin.

You have a double standard.

A grammatical-historical approach, like a belief in young earth, existed before the modern terminology used.

The Higher Critcs did not INVENT a grammatical-historical approach. They gave it a name and perverted it.

 

[prophet]

Too bad, you don't understand English well enough to know what "condemnation" means.
It is a legal term, like so much in our AV, carrying a definition able to be known.

If so be you are Christ's, there is no condemnation.

That's not right.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

This states that there is a condition. Not just to be in Christ Jesus (a believer), but to walk after the Spirit.

Since there are carnal brethren who walk after the flesh, they are condemned. They are saved, but are producing the works of wood, hay and stubble.

Therefore, accordingly, there are believers who are condemned, but are not damned.

God can tell you, through the words : "hot" and "cold", whatever He needs to at the moment.

You are advocating a meaningless Bible, one where God moves in mysterious ways, and hot and cold are some sort of capriciously defined things hidden in the mind of God. What was the point then of God even speaking to us?

The word "hot" has an actual meaning in the Bible.

The wording in Rom. 8:1 is very obviously expounded on in verses 9-14.

From the ACTUAL context, we clearly understand that the line of demarcation betwixt flesh and spirit is regeneration.

This is God's definition of walking after the spirit.

You, repeating some man's interpretation, are trying to assign temporary qualities,  to what God assigns permanence.

The "qualifier" in this passage is not "have I sinned in the last 5 minutes?", but rather:

Jn 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

...the reiteration of the Promise on which we stand.

You have been lied to.

Condemnation is a permanent declaration of one's unworthiness.

Rom 8 expresses the "condition" over and over again.


Rom 8:8-9
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

As for "carnal brethren", look to the passage.  The carnal mind is at enmity with God, incapable of walking with Him.

Even when Paul said I must speak unto you as carnal, The Spirit said "as", making "carnal" a simile.
They werent actually carnal (dead in sins), but "AS CARNAL", seemingly unable to understand The Word.

This is a very big deal here, not to be taken lightly.

We are promised "no condemnation" twice, I've quoted both, and to misinterpret this passage is to open the door to Charismatic error concerning eternal security.


quote author=bibleprotector link=topic=5033.msg92596#msg92596 date=1414071053]

Too bad, you don't understand English well enough to know what "condemnation" means.
It is a legal term, like so much in our AV, carrying a definition able to be known.

If so be you are Christ's, there is no condemnation.

That's not right.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

God can tell you, through the words : "hot" and "cold", whatever He needs to at the moment.

You are advocating a meaningless Bible, one where God moves in mysterious ways, and hot and cold are some sort of capriciously defined things hidden in the mind of God. What was the point then of God even speaking to us?

The word "hot" has an actual meaning in the Bible.
[/quote]

Too bad, you don't understand English well enough to know what "condemnation" means.
It is a legal term, like so much in our AV, carrying a definition able to be known.

If so be you are Christ's, there is no condemnation.

That's not right.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

This states that there is a condition. Not just to be in Christ Jesus (a believer), but to walk after the Spirit.

Since there are carnal brethren who walk after the flesh, they are condemned. They are saved, but are producing the works of wood, hay and stubble.

Therefore, accordingly, there are believers who are condemned, but are not damned.

God can tell you, through the words : "hot" and "cold", whatever He needs to at the moment.

You are advocating a meaningless Bible, one where God moves in mysterious ways, and hot and cold are some sort of capriciously defined things hidden in the mind of God. What was the point then of God even speaking to us?

The word "hot" has an actual meaning in the Bible.