Against modernist hermeneutics

[FSSL]

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).

This is a strawman. No one ever says that you need to know Greek or to be educated on the ANE mindset. These are helpful for the exegete. However, MANY Christians come to a great understanding of Scripture through study and comparisons of Bible versions in their own language.

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.

Well... I am the one who used the Bible only above and you didn't like the interpretation.

You kept saying that I needed to follow the "Protestant" tradition.

Which does bring me to a question: "How can you claim to be practicing exegesis when you disallow a study of the source language and historical culture?"

 

[bibleprotector]

Which does bring me to a question: "How can you claim to be practicing exegesis when you disallow a study of the source language and historical culture?"

The whole issue here is against modernist hermeneutics. So your question regarding the modernist use of the source language and the modernist use of historical culture, is of course exactly the wrong kind of exegesis that is being exposed.

You kept saying that I needed to follow the "Protestant" tradition.

The believing Protestant tradition. The whole point is that Protestantism has been leavened, particularly noticeably in more recent years, by modernistic ideology.

Well... I am the one who used the Bible only above and you didn't like the interpretation.

I don't know what exactly you are referring to, but you are playing a game here between the idea of "using the Bible only" which would mean just quoting Scripture, and "interpretation", which is what you are always employing to make the Bible say what you want it to say. I am not against proper interpretation, I am against your modernistic interpretation, which is usually synonymously called "hermeneutics" and "exegesis" (though technically not limited to your modernistic approach).

This is a strawman. No one ever says that you need to know Greek or to be educated on the ANE mindset. These are helpful for the exegete. However, MANY Christians come to a great understanding of Scripture through study and comparisons of Bible versions in their own language.

Really? Because that is what the books on your side teach, that interpretation really ultimately needs to be done based on the original languages, and with a retrospective mindset to bridge the cultural divide. These are in fact mandated tenets of your side's approach.

If you are really open to being able to interpret from a copy of the King James Bible, and to start from Scripture first and historical/scientific/reasoning second, then you would fundamentally be against the views and methodology that you actively support.

But really, you call my approach a "strawman", because you are trying to hide the fact that actually your approach is neither Scripturally derived, nor Scripturally dependant. In fact, you start with extraneous hypotheses and assumptions first (in line with rationalistic and empirical thinking) and then approach the Scripture. Always such interpretations are going to vary to the truth, just as we see in example after example.

What this results in is a person who can hold to the fundamentals, who can believe in creation, the miracles of the Bible and the doctrine of inspiration, and yet, reject all kinds of things, such as:
a. the movement of the Spirit of God in the beginning before the creation of light,
b. the firmament,
c. unicorns,
d. the name JEHOVAH,
e. JEHOVAH as applying to God the Father only,
f. the psalms a prophecy of and for today,
g. that promises in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, etc. are for Christians today,
h. that to be cold in the Laodicean prophecy is morally bad,
etc., etc.

Which does bring me to a question: "How can you claim to be practicing exegesis when you disallow a study of the source language and historical culture?"

I avoid using your kind of terminology, so I uphold actually believing and properly interpreting the Scripture, and while I don't disallow the original languages, I do not use nor support the use of them, as what is supplied in English is fully sufficient, and actually perfect, and therefore fully reliable, and likewise, by just reading the Scripture as is, find that what is communicated in the Scripture itself about what it is describing is fully accessible, especially by the truth that the Holy Ghost is presently at work, and so see and believe in no impediment for Christians to come to proper knowledge, but see that it is wrong to think otherwise. "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." (1 Cor. 14:38).

In other words, your method not only assumes that perfect understanding is impossible, it actually perpetuates it by setting up a set of false filters or lenses between the reader/hearer and the Scripture. Whereas, my believing approach is that God is able to bring people into understanding, and so I see the Scripture as present and perfect, and completely true.

And as much as your side says, "Well, that's your relativistic, subjective view, but this is our rational view", is as much as you are unseeing as to the actual objective truth of the Holy Ghost's manifest work.

 

[rsc2a]

What's so vastly amusing is the idea that the Bible is our sole source of spiritual authority, and especially by saying one translation is to be that authority, is an idea that is only possible with a modernist philosophy.  Physician, heal thyself!

 

[Ransom]

What's so vastly amusing is the idea that the Bible is our sole source of spiritual authority, and especially by saying one translation is to be that authority, is an idea that is only possible with a modernist philosophy.

Bible"protector" doesn't even recognize the disconnect between the KJV being the final authority, and his own hyper-Pentecostalism. The foolish notion that Matthew Verschuur and his fellow elders at Victory Faith Centre have been given an "apostolic mandate" by Christ himself to preserve the Scriptures in the PCE is what the KJV would call a "private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20) - men inventing divine revelations out of their own imaginations.

 

[FSSL]

Because that is what the books on your side teach, that interpretation really ultimately needs to be done based on the original languages, and with a retrospective mindset to bridge the cultural divide. These are in fact mandated tenets of your side's approach.

Since I can read both Hebrew and Greek, why should I be prevented from reading the Bible in its original language?
Also, you did say above that studying the grammar and history is a sane approach to scripture.

There are no mandates placed on believers to consult the Greek or Hebrew. Why would we mandate that of believers who do not know Greek and Hebrew? Our approach is to ENCOURAGE multiple English translations.

Here is at least one statement from the "books on my side."

Arthur Pink: THE preacher should be, above everything else, a man of the Book, thoroughly versed in the contents of God’s Word, one who is able to bring forth out of his treasure “things new and old” (Matt. 13:52). The Bible is to be his sole textbook, and from its living waters he is to drink deeply and daily. Personally, we use nothing else than the English Authorized Version and Young’s concordance, with an occasional reference to the Greek Interlinear and the American Revised Version. Commentaries we consult only after we have made a firsthand and exhaustive study of a passage. Pink, A. W. (2005). Interpretation of the scriptures (25).

If you are really open to being able to interpret from a copy of the King James Bible, and to start from Scripture first and historical/scientific/reasoning second, then you would fundamentally be against the views and methodology that you actively support.

No, I am fundamentally against your methodology where you have set yourself up as the only proper interpreter of scripture.

I avoid using your kind of terminology, so I uphold actually believing and properly interpreting the Scripture, and while I don't disallow the original languages, I do not use nor support the use of them,....

But you did say you practice exegesis. So why are you against the term?

 

[rsc2a]

The Bible is to be his sole textbook. - A. Pink

Uugh.

 

[prophet]

What's so vastly amusing is the idea that the Bible is our sole source of spiritual authority, and especially by saying one translation is to be that authority, is an idea that is only possible with a modernist philosophy.

Bible"protector" doesn't even recognize the disconnect between the KJV being the final authority, and his own hyper-Pentecostalism. The foolish notion that Matthew Verschuur and his fellow elders at Victory Faith Centre have been given an "apostolic mandate" by Christ himself to preserve the Scriptures in the PCE is what the KJV would call a "private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20) - men inventing divine revelations out of their own imaginations.

It is astounding, that I cannot carry on a conversation with fellow defenders of the AV, because they apparently don't digest the text that they so ardently defend.

You are right on, here.

BP may as well be Penecostal.

"I reserve the right to private interpretation,  and to damn any more practical, Berean examination of Scripture".

With friends like these, I don't need enemas.

 

[bibleprotector]

Since I can read both Hebrew and Greek, why should I be prevented from reading the Bible in its original language?

The problem is actually with your modernist model of (mis)using those languages, and why and how you use them.

Our approach is to ENCOURAGE multiple English translations.

Which is consistent with modernism, in this case, a pluralistic approach because one of the tenets of modernism is that there is no singular absolute authority.

Here is at least one statement from the "books on my side."

I am not interested in the corpus of works from your side. What I mean, is that the leaven of Infidelity, the spirit of error, is permeating through what would otherwise be, and still are, books of some value.

No, I am fundamentally against your methodology where you have set yourself up as the only proper interpreter of scripture.

This is how you misrepresent those who do not follow a modernist/rationalist schematic or mechanically principled approach like your own. You describe or represent it (my opposing view) as subjective, arbitrary, private interpretation, etc. etc., because you think that the scholasticity of your approach gives it credence. These days unbelief passes as authority.

But you did say you practice exegesis. So why are you against the term?

I am against unbelieving, modernist approaches of interpretation, which usually identify themselves with technical terms to describe facets or components of their approach in opposition to simply believing what is written and the work of the Holy Ghost. Thus, the tenancy of a modernist is to say, "hermeneutics and exegesis", while a believer might say, "interpretation".

 

[bibleprotector]

It is astounding, that I cannot carry on a conversation with fellow defenders of the AV, because they apparently don't digest the text that they so ardently defend.

Why are you accepting the propaganda of the opposition?

Also, KJBOs and TROs are two different things.

BP may as well be Penecostal.

Maybe you could check out my website to be certain.

 

[prophet]

It is astounding, that I cannot carry on a conversation with fellow defenders of the AV, because they apparently don't digest the text that they so ardently defend.

Why are you accepting the propaganda of the opposition?

Also, KJBOs and TROs are two different things.

BP may as well be Penecostal.

Maybe you could check out my website to be certain.

How about I've seen enough of your assinine interpretive methods to wonder if you hear His voice.

I believe the The Living Word = The Written Word, which makes me a heretic in everyone's book.

I don't get to have a side.

If I was to side with someone, it won't be some modernist medium who thinks that he can impose non-evidential interpretation to a text, and claim the evidence of such interpretation is found in the final authority of Protestant commentaries.
Those same Protestants can't even get Salvation right, so who cares what else they have to say?
Why would I call someone brother',who says that there is no Eternal Security, or chops the Bible up into mincemeat for the sake of imaginary dispensations?

I'm not against the hermeneutical postion that: history plays a part in determining context. God knew full well that we would have written history to enlighten us and expose His Word.

I'm against 2 dumpster divers, whose own words expose them as sceptics, Maryolators, necromancers, etc., who put together a collage and foisted it on the world as if it was re-revealed by God.

I'm against hiding behind labels.

You can say that the Word of God is your final authority, and that in English, the last authoritive translation or version is the AV, but what good does that do when you lean on Popish persons for interpretations?

 

[FSSL]

The problem is actually with your modernist model of (mis)using those languages, and why and how you use them.

I can show you posts by KJVOs that misuse the Hebrew and Greek... nearly every time they attempt to do so.

I am not interested in the corpus of works from your side. What I mean, is that the leaven of Infidelity, the spirit of error, is permeating through what would otherwise be, and still are, books of some value.

See... it wasn't difficult to admit you haven't read them. You just smear them with no knowledge.

You describe or represent it (my opposing view) as subjective, arbitrary, private interpretation, etc. etc.,

.... now add self-authenticating, quasi-authoritative and infallible.

...simply believing what is written and the work of the Holy Ghost.

You have shown that you do not simply believe what is written. Your insistence that I adopt popular Protestant interpretations on Rev 3.15 belies that point.

Thus, the tenancy of a modernist is to say, "hermeneutics and exegesis", while a believer might say, "interpretation".

But YOU used the term "exegesis." AGAIN... you have a double standard.

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php?topic=5033.msg92959.msg#92959

 

[rsc2a]

Our approach is to ENCOURAGE multiple English translations.

Which is consistent with modernism, in this case, a pluralistic approach because one of the tenets of modernism is that there is no singular absolute authority.[/quote]

Interesting. Prior to the French Revolution (or there abouts), people believed in many authorities depending on the question being asked. For state matters, it was the king. Local issues were in the purview of the baron. Of theology, they asked the Church. On questions of natural history and philosophy, they asked the colleges. Even the Church appeal to both Scripture and Tradition as authoritative instead of having one sole source.

Granted, the French Revolution pushed to end all that and declare there is a singular absolute authority, but we wouldn't expect you to hold to such a modern idea with all your railing against "modernism"...

...well crap...those exact words were in your mouth.

 

[bibleprotector]

I can show you posts by KJVOs that misuse the Hebrew and Greek... nearly every time they attempt to do so.

This is a fallacious argument since I don't use the Hebrew and the Greek.

See... it wasn't difficult to admit you haven't read them. You just smear them with no knowledge.

I said that I do not consider them of value. Of course I have read them. I own a number. I even quote a whole section of Pink in one of my books.

Your insistence that I adopt popular Protestant interpretations on Rev 3.15 belies that point.

So you admit that my views concerning Rev. 3:15 are the "popular Protestant interpretations".

But YOU used the term "exegesis." AGAIN... you have a double standard.

I also used the term "hermeneutics" in the title of this thread. The point is that I am against your modernist interpretation rules, which your side calls "hermeneutics" to make them sound more credible.

 

[bgwilkinson]

The problem is actually with your modernist model of (mis)using those languages, and why and how you use them.

I can show you posts by KJVOs that misuse the Hebrew and Greek... nearly every time they attempt to do so.

I am not interested in the corpus of works from your side. What I mean, is that the leaven of Infidelity, the spirit of error, is permeating through what would otherwise be, and still are, books of some value.

See... it wasn't difficult to admit you haven't read them. You just smear them with no knowledge.

You describe or represent it (my opposing view) as subjective, arbitrary, private interpretation, etc. etc.,

.... now add self-authenticating, quasi-authoritative and infallible.

...simply believing what is written and the work of the Holy Ghost.

You have shown that you do not simply believe what is written. Your insistence that I adopt popular Protestant interpretations on Rev 3.15 belies that point.

Thus, the tenancy of a modernist is to say, "hermeneutics and exegesis", while a believer might say, "interpretation".

But YOU used the term "exegesis." AGAIN... you have a double standard.

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php?topic=5033.msg92959.msg#92959

BP is a modern liberal, do as I say not as I do.

 

[bibleprotector]

BP is a modern liberal, do as I say not as I do.

How can you conclude that ... especially based on the equally fabricated accusation on the other side of your equation?

 

[bibleprotector]

Granted, the French Revolution pushed to end all that and declare there is a singular absolute authority, but we wouldn't expect you to hold to such a modern idea with all your railing against "modernism"...

These bizarre and nonsensical accusations do nothing but reinforce the idea that your side is way out there somewhere.

 

[rsc2a]

BP is ignorant of history!?!

 

[FSSL]

This is a fallacious argument since I don't use the Hebrew and the Greek.

You made a generic mythical charge against modernists because they supposedly misuse the Greek and Hebrew.

I am making the generic factual charge that your side misuses the Hebrew and Greek.

I would love to share those examples.

I also used the term "hermeneutics" in the title of this thread. The point is that I am against your modernist interpretation rules, which your side calls "hermeneutics" to make them sound more credible.

Well then... stop using our terms. It is clouding your position.

 

[bibleprotector]

I would love to share those examples.

So, modernism is based on a series of assumptions which derive from Infidelity, but are Deistic, in that they actually still believe in a divine origin.

Your side is all about how information, wording, readings, understanding, etc. has been lost over time, and all the various methods and safeguards you need to employ to try to recover or get what God meant in the Scriptures. That's a very weak view.

One striking example of this in practice has been the idea that the recent decades new interpretation of Revelation 3:15 must now trump pre-existing interpretations. But more importantly, instead of Revelation 3:15 being considered to exist in the present, as a means of God's communication in the present, it is viewed as a vague copy of what God had someone write somewhere for some unclear reasons in the past.

Modernism makes everything have unmeaning, except the great Meaning of modernism.

Well then... stop using our terms. It is clouding your position.

Your position, shrouded in the foggy thinking that it is, has denied the proper and believing means for understanding Scripture, substituting instead man made rules based on the assumptions of God's weakness or absence, prevailing imperfection, entropy and the seeming inevitable juggernaut of the spirit of error.

 

[Ransom]

The problem is actually with your modernist model of (mis)using those languages, and why and how you use them.

Bwahahahaha!

OK, you've already proven me right when I said that "modernist" was an empty term. Not only have you failed to define "modernist" in any specific way, now you're just attaching it to whatever random sentences you feel like.

You've become a bad parody of yourself, not worthy of taking seriously.