Against modernist hermeneutics

[Ransom]

You claim that I have not established the case. And you say this, because you do not agree with what the Bible clearly states

Incorrect. You assert that the Bible clearly states that "hot" and "cold" in Rev. 3 are antitheses. Nowhere does the Bible "clearly state" this.

and because you are unwilling to accept that I have established the case.

I am unwilling to accept that you have established the case because you have not established the case. There's no "there" there.

Thus, my repeating of the correct view is called by you "circles".

Wrong again. I call your view "circular" because it is the definition of begging the question. You assume the conclusion you have yet to prove, and paint anyone who questions your reasoning as "modernists."

Of course I don't "recognise" error.

It's clear you don't recognize Holy Scripture, as originally penned by God's servant Moses.

Your mocking of a believing view puts you in a dangerous place.

Since your "believing" is of a nonsensical and suborthodox nature, there is no danger to be wary of.

 

[prophet]

So, what reason do you have not addressing these thoughts?

I wasn't going to say, but what you write/wrote is like a scatter gun.

So address one pellet, then.

 

[bibleprotector]

So address one pellet, then.

Why are you agreeing with those who are ardently against a believing view of the pure and perfect KJB?

 

[FSSL]

So address one pellet, then.

Why are you agreeing with those who are ardently against a believing view of the pure and perfect KJB?

This isn't an issue related to different versions.

Is there an understood loyalty among KJVOs so that they are supposed to give up soul liberty for the common good?

 

[prophet]

So address one pellet, then.

Why are you agreeing with those who are ardently against a believing view of the pure and perfect KJB?

Believing isn't a "view".

The problem with the MV's,  is, they descended from Rome's trash can.
I don't share this "view", that one can divorce the historical context from the interpretation of any biographical passage.

Neither do I accept the wrong premise, that medieval Europe couldn't grasp the historical concept.
I don't accept that post modern  man can't,  either.

I don't acceptany claim to the AV's superiority over the Reina Valera(1601), which came first.
I dont accept any claim to the AV's superiority over translations based on the AV.

I don't accept spiritualizaton of every square inch of every page to the whim, fancy, or more likely: glorification of the teacher.

I certainly don't accept Protestantism as a source of doctrinal/interpretive purity.

I'm a fan of face value first.

 

[bibleprotector]

This isn't an issue related to different versions.

Actually, false doctrines are related. The same reasoning behind modern versions is also the same reasoning behind modernist hermeneutics. Therefore the enemy is not modern versions, nor false hermeneutics, but the spirit of error.

Is there an understood loyalty among KJVOs so that they are supposed to give up soul liberty for the common good?

The Spirit of truth is absolute and has perfect doctrine. This means that all need to come into conformity and unity, including KJBOs, because it has been that many believers have not been right in all areas. There is even opportunity for repentance and conformity for ardent modernistic folks.

 

[FSSL]

With all of the ballyhoo we endure from the KJVO crowd as if we are the children of Rome, it is obvious there is a New Rome on the scenes.

This means that all need to come into conformity and unity, including KJBOs, because it has been that many believers have not been right in all areas. There is even opportunity for repentance and conformity for ardent modernistic folks.

Conformity and Unity over interpretative differences on Rev 3.15? We do not need the strong arm you apply. It is a violation of soul liberty.

KJVOs... remember the post above. You do not have the logical claim that you are in the tradition of the Reformation.

 

[rsc2a]

Trail of blood! Trail of blood!

 

[FSSL]

Trail of blood! Trail of blood!

If it were only that benign!

 

[bibleprotector]

Conformity and Unity over interpretative differences on Rev 3.15?

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

We do not need the strong arm you apply.

Anti-authoritarianism is just a fruit of the spirit of error.

You do not have the logical claim that you are in the tradition of the Reformation.

We are of the tradition of the Reformation, but modernists have erred. It is one thing to speak of "non-conformity" (e.g. Puritanism), it another to promote modernism. Do not pretend you are of the former. Your theology is like the spirit of the 1960s, and it is from that kind of nature that you would have resisted Queen Elizabeth's church.

 

[rsc2a]

It must be nice to be infallible.

 

[Ransom]

Trail of blood! Trail of blood!

In BP's case, extreme charismania.

The Elders of Victory Faith Centre have been mindful about the King James Bible since the very beginning, and have sought the exact text of the Word of God. . . . The Eldership of Victory Faith Centre recognise that the divine providence of God has led them to know the correct text, as shown in the[ir] previous statements on the Pure Cambridge Edition. . . .

The Eldership of Victory Faith Centre have specifically laid hold upon the Pure Cambridge Edition and have received it as provided by God, complete in its perfection, and the final form of the Bible (i.e. the final received text) forever. This shows that there has been an apostolic mandate given to the Elders, in discerning the correct text and in the bringing forth of the doctrine of it.

(Source, PDF)

Keep in mind when you read bible"protector"'s screeds against "moderinist hermeneutics," that his hermeneutic is never going to be any better: he believes he has a divine mandate to promote KJV-onlyism.  When you have a cowflop on a plate that you think Jesus served you, you're going to believe it's filet mignon.


Scott's Theological Law #1: "Apostolic" never is.

 

[FSSL]

There is no room for a "Berean" in this variety of KJVOism.

 

[subllibrm]

You are demonstrating my point exactly:

The revisionary modernist view of reading in meaning into the past from a modern perspective onto what Greek words supposedly "really" mean. And the revisionary modernist view of reading into the past from a modern perspective by attempting to view the Scripture from a concocted "first century near eastern" mindset.

The quote above exemplifies everything exactly wrong and misguided in the modernist view, because it is assuming that we cannot rely on the Holy Ghost instructing on what hot and cold really mean today to us, in English.

Translation: The original readers had no idea what God meant nor did they need to because He was actually writing it for people 1600 years into the future for a language that did not yet exist. Now that is novel.

 

[rsc2a]

"People of every tribe and tongue" really means "people of every tribe but only if they speak English."

 

[subllibrm]

Is there an understood loyalty among KJVOs so that they are supposed to give up soul liberty for the common good?

The Spirit of truth is absolute and has perfect doctrine. This means that all need to come into conformity and unity, including KJBOs, because it has been that many believers have not been right in all areas. There is even opportunity for repentance and conformity for ardent modernistic folks.

Translation: Yes.

At least to this guy.

 

[subllibrm]

Anti-authoritarianism is just a fruit of the spirit of error.

Sez the self appointed authority.

 

[subllibrm]

"People of every tribe and tongue" really means "people of every tribe but only if they speak English."

Dat be da king's english bro!

 

[bibleprotector]

Translation: The original readers had no idea what God meant nor did they need to because He was actually writing it for people 1600 years into the future for a language that did not yet exist. Now that is novel.

God's Word was for all who receive it, whether first century or this. The modernistic approach pretends that God only spoke to the first century, and thus impose a modern day artificially constructed first century mindset so that only then they can understand what He is saying. In other words, it is a mechanism for making the Bible say whatever they want it to say today, or else, to say something, by pretending to be "faithful" to the original mindset, but in fact producing varieties of errors in interpretation.

Those who deny that the Scripture was written for people 1600 years in the future are anti-Reformation.

 

[bibleprotector]

There is no room for a "Berean" in this variety of KJVOism.

Modernism really is against Bereanism, because they may say, in order to be a Berean you need:
a. the Scripture in the same language the Bereans had (i.e. Greek), and
b. to be of the classical town Berea the time that Paul lived (i.e. first century near eastern/classical mindset).

If they allow being a Berean to be applicable to the present time by means of metaphor or symbol, they will say modernists are the Bereans because they lock the Scripture to the modern-imposed meanings of the Greek language, and because they lock Scripture meaning to an imposed mindset applied to how they think people thought in the past. They never allow that people could just take the Bible in English (a King James Bible) and believe it as is, as true today. Somehow, they always have to divorce it from being present reality, and make its promises apply either to the distant past or to the distant future (or both, or neither), but never now.