by Jimmy Stephens Yeah, I agree with @Spicy, this is intended as a hermeneutical problem of the criterion. So @Sachairi, we would all agree you should definitely look to the historical and cultural milieu of a work to interpret it. … Continue reading The Hermeneutical Problem of the Criterion
Robert Rowe has gone around popularizing an argument against KJV Onlyism. While I agree with there existing tension between the Grammatical-Historical method of interpretation and KJV Onlyism. I don’t think Psalm 145 is as ironclad as Robert has presented it from my understanding. Let’s look at the argument: http://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2016/04/01/translation-errors-in-the-king-james-version-psalm-145-wheres-the-nun/ KJV: 12 To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom. 13 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations. 14 The Lord upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down. ISV: … Continue reading Robert Rowe on KJV Onlyism
Here is a random collection of articles on the topic of Genesis 1-3. Steve Hays: Introduction to Genesis Is Genesis preexilic? From first day to fourth day Very good East of Eden The Fall Cain & Abel Change in the … Continue reading The Creation Account
The KJV onlyist position maintains that God perfectly preserved his words through the King James version of the Bible.That entails all other translations that disagree and depart from the King James version are inaccurate. What kind of hermeneutic does that leave us with? If the words are preserved in the KJV, then it seems to logically imply that the concepts have been preserved as well. Where do these concepts reside? Concepts belong to minds. Where would God preserve the concepts? I assume the easiest answer would be that the concepts were preserved with those that were used to preserve the King James. … Continue reading KJV onlyism and Hermeneutics
Roses are Red, violets are blue. Another bad argument Dr. Flowers has brought to you. Enjoy! Dr. Flowers from “Soteriology101” and our own Bryan Forbes engaged in a conversation over twitter. Nate Davis said: The question that needs to be asked is what are the attributes of those who do cleanse themselves? Is it all their doing or God working in them? Later on in 2 Timothy it says it is God who grants repentance. Not someone waking up out of the blue (v 25) Dr. Flowers said: Never said it was “out of the blue” but in response to … Continue reading Every Flowers has its thorn
I asked a question over at T-blog and someone gave a nice response on an issue regarding Genesis 1:1-2. Here was my question: Doesn’t the vocalization of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 being בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית and not לָרֵאשִׁ֣ית give more credence to it being “When God began”? JeremiahZ9 responded: The short answer is no. I wish scholars would be a bit more careful and honest. Reshit is a noun whose semantic range is quite often inherently definite. When you are talking about “a beginning” it is always “the beginning” of something. In fact, reshit only occurs vocalized with an article once … Continue reading Vocalization and Genesis 1:1
I was recently in a discussion with two dispensationalist about spiritual bodies. They argued that the “body of Christ” is Christ “spiritual body”. They attached it to 1 Cor. 12:11-27 and Eph. 3:6, 4:4-16. That is what Paul means by our “spiritual bodies” in 1 Cor. 15:40-44 and what Christ met when he said we will be like the angels (Matt.22:23-34, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-40). 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another … Continue reading “Spiritual Bodies”
The Council 
You must be logged in to post a comment.