Publisher Whitaker House KJV Sword Study bible is NOT a true KJV

[Konstantin]

5 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

I don't understand it, because doctrinally and theologically, it is complete gibberish.  It is like those who say that each day of creation is a thousand years, because in 2Peter 3:8 says that with the Lord a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years-the two have nothing to do with each other, as one is history, and the other speaks of prophecy. Though at least there, there is somewhat of a reason people mistake them, since both have to do with God and how He understands time, while yours have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

I am just curious of where you get it, because I'd be interested to see if there is any kind of logical joining of these completely disparate things by whoever interpreted it as such.

Maybe you do not understand this, because you believe in the human sciences exegetics and hermeneutics?

[Jordan Kurecki]

10 hours ago, Konstantin said:

Hi, a King James guy. Here we are considering the prophetic meaning of verses, i.e. "a more sure word of prophecie" (2Peter 1:19), not literal ones, i.e. "not as the word of men" 1Thess. 2:13

Charles Ryrie in his Systematic Theology has an excellent section in Bibliology about Interpretation of the Bible. 

Of course he mentions the different systems such as the Allegorical, Literal and Semi Allegorical. He of course advocates for the Literal Hermaneutic, he gives a few reasons:

1. The Need for Objectivity “If one does not apply normal interpretation, then objectivity is lost to the extent that he does not use it consistently. Switching the hermeneutic base from literal to allegorical or to semi allegorical… inevitably results in different, inconsistent, and often contradictory interpretations.” 

2. The example of the Bible. “The prophecies of the first advent of Christ were all fulfilled literally. This obvious but extremely significant fact argues for the validity and the use of literal hermeneutics in all of biblical interpretation... It is said that over 300 such prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled…”

Ryrie does go on to acknowledge that “some prophecies of the Old Testament are given a typical fulfillment in the New, and certain of those prophecies are cited by non literalists as biblical sanction for a nonliteral hermeneutic… However, of the approximately twenty four prophecies which the New Testament gives typical fulfillment, only seven  are cited as examples of nonliteral hermeneutic (and of course not all agree that these seven prove this)…remember, however, that we are not just comparing seven out of a total of twenty four, but seven out of a total of hundreds, for almost all Old Testament prophecies are clearly fulfilled literally in the New Testament..”

Now, I think most relevant discussion however for us is what Ryrie says later in his section on Objections to Normal Hermeneutics: 

“The most frequent objection by Evangelicals to normal interpretation points out that since the New Testament uses the Old Testament in a non literal sense we also may interpret Old Testament Prophecies (about the millennium for example) in a non literal sense. Or to put it more simply: since the New Testament spiritualizes the Old Testament, so can we… The rule is that they [New Testament Authors] interpreted the Old Testament plainly, exceptions are rare and typological”

Now, the point Ryrie makes next I think is spot on:

“The crux of the matter is this: can we as interpreters follow the example of the biblical writers in these rare exceptional uses of the Old Testament that seem to be non literal? Of course the answer is yes, if we want to. But if we do, we do so without apostolic authority, only with personal authority, and comparatively, that is not much authority. Any and all uses of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers made were made under divine inspiration and were therefore done properly and authoritatively. If we depart from the plain sense of the text we do so improperly without such authority. What the biblical writers wrote was infallible; the work of all interpreters is fallible.” 

[Konstantin]

12 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Charles Ryrie in his Systematic Theology has an excellent section in Bibliology about Interpretation of the Bible. 

Of course he mentions the different systems such as the Allegorical, Literal and Semi Allegorical. He of course advocates for the Literal Hermaneutic, he gives a few reasons:

1. The Need for Objectivity “If one does not apply normal interpretation, then objectivity is lost to the extent that he does not use it consistently. Switching the hermeneutic base from literal to allegorical or to semi allegorical… inevitably results in different, inconsistent, and often contradictory interpretations.” 

2. The example of the Bible. “The prophecies of the first advent of Christ were all fulfilled literally. This obvious but extremely significant fact argues for the validity and the use of literal hermeneutics in all of biblical interpretation... It is said that over 300 such prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled…”

Ryrie does go on to acknowledge that “some prophecies of the Old Testament are given a typical fulfillment in the New, and certain of those prophecies are cited by non literalists as biblical sanction for a nonliteral hermeneutic… However, of the approximately twenty four prophecies which the New Testament gives typical fulfillment, only seven  are cited as examples of nonliteral hermeneutic (and of course not all agree that these seven prove this)…remember, however, that we are not just comparing seven out of a total of twenty four, but seven out of a total of hundreds, for almost all Old Testament prophecies are clearly fulfilled literally in the New Testament..”

Now, I think most relevant discussion however for us is what Ryrie says later in his section on Objections to Normal Hermeneutics: 

“The most frequent objection by Evangelicals to normal interpretation points out that since the New Testament uses the Old Testament in a non literal sense we also may interpret Old Testament Prophecies (about the millennium for example) in a non literal sense. Or to put it more simply: since the New Testament spiritualizes the Old Testament, so can we… The rule is that they [New Testament Authors] interpreted the Old Testament plainly, exceptions are rare and typological”

Now, the point Ryrie makes next I think is spot on:

“The crux of the matter is this: can we as interpreters follow the example of the biblical writers in these rare exceptional uses of the Old Testament that seem to be non literal? Of course the answer is yes, if we want to. But if we do, we do so without apostolic authority, only with personal authority, and comparatively, that is not much authority. Any and all uses of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers made were made under divine inspiration and were therefore done properly and authoritatively. If we depart from the plain sense of the text we do so improperly without such authority. What the biblical writers wrote was infallible; the work of all interpreters is fallible.” 

Mr. Charles Ryrie draws in his conclusions according to the sciences invented by people exegetics and hermeneutics. Therefore, his conclusions cannot correspond to the word of God.

[Jordan Kurecki]

11 hours ago, Konstantin said:

Mr. Charles Ryrie draws in his conclusions according to the sciences invented by people exegetics and hermeneutics. Therefore, his conclusions cannot correspond to the word of God.

Sorry but no, He draws his conclusions from how the scriptures themselves interpret them and according to logic. 

Your method of interpretation of scripture is arbitrary and you do as the Gods word says "wrest the scriptures". 

The method of handling the scriptures you have have shown here in this thread is one in which you abuse the use of language and you make authoritative statements that the Bible itself does not make. You make numbers like 60 to somehow mean 66, and you substitute words and phrases at your own discretion and pleasure. In a sense you have set yourself up as the authority when God has not given you the authority to do so. You are no prophet and have NO authority to claim that when God said 60 he somehow meant 66. 

It would seem that you are the one drawing in conclusions according to your own interpretation that was invented by yourself, and frankly sir you have no authority over the word of God. in fact sir, your handling of God's word is more akin to that of Satan in which he says "hath God said". You twist God's words like Satan did in the garden of Eden. God clearly told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good in evil, and he said so in plain language. When God said tree, he meant tree, when he said not to eat of it, he meant not to eat of it.

"Humility before the truth of Scripture, and before the authority of Christ, demands submission to logical consistency. If you abuse logic, what are you expecting your people to base their agreement on? You can’t answer, “Scripture,” unless you are committed to logically consistent explanations that your conclusions actually come from Scripture. Scripture will only have authority in your preaching if your appeal to Scripture can be seen to be a valid appeal. If you draw invalid inferences from Scripture, it won’t matter how loud you protest your belief in biblical inerrancy; you will not be helping your people base their lives on Scripture. You will be expecting them to base their lives on your faulty inferences from Scripture. That is not humble. It is proud. And it jeopardizes the authority of Christ, who speaks through true, and valid inferences from Scripture” -Expository Exhultation John Piper

 

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Jordan Kurecki

[Konstantin]

59 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

...You make numbers like 60 to somehow mean 66, and you substitute words and phrases at your own discretion and pleasure. In a sense you have set yourself up as the authority when God has not given you the authority to do so. You are no prophet and have NO authority to claim that when God said 60 he somehow meant 66... 

You probably do not read carefully. Scripture says:  the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.
 

[Jordan Kurecki]

1 hour ago, Konstantin said:

You probably do not read carefully. Scripture says:  the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.
 

The height is 60 and the width is 60.

Apparently you can neither read nor do you know numbers. Do you know how to count? 

How do you get 66 from 60 and 60? 
60+60=120  

60+60 does not equal 66. 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Jordan Kurecki

[DaChaser]

21 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

The height is 60 and the width is 60.

Apparently you can neither read nor do you know numbers. Do you know how to count? 

How do you get 66 from 60 and 60? 
60+60=120  

60+60 does not equal 66. 

Should we not have units and measures updated to let us know what they are in today's vernacular?

[Konstantin]

16 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

The height is 60 and the width is 60.

Apparently you can neither read nor do you know numbers. Do you know how to count? 

How do you get 66 from 60 and 60? 
60+60=120  

60+60 does not equal 66. 

 the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits

 

Yes, I know how to count.  

If you consider this verse "as the word of men" 1Thess. 2:13, then 60 + 60 = 120. If we consider this place as "a more sure word of prophecie" (2Peter 1:19) then 66.

[Jordan Kurecki]

4 hours ago, Konstantin said:

 the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits

 

Yes, I know how to count.  

If you consider this verse "as the word of men" 1Thess. 2:13, then 60 + 60 = 120. If we consider this place as "a more sure word of prophecie" (2Peter 1:19) then 66.

 

Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV
[5] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV
[2] Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

2 Peter 3:16 KJV
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 

[Konstantin]

11 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

 

Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV
[5] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV
[2] Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

2 Peter 3:16 KJV
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 

Thanks. I have a Bible.

[Jordan Kurecki]

1 hour ago, Konstantin said:

Thanks. I have a Bible.

Well so do many other false teachers.

[Konstantin]

1 hour ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Well so do many other false teachers.

Are you a false teacher?

[Ukulelemike]

On 6/3/2020 at 8:15 PM, Konstantin said:

Maybe you do not understand this, because you believe in the human sciences exegetics and hermeneutics?

No, I don't understand it because it is gibberish and makes no sense. I believe the Bible and what it says. I understand types and pictures, even allegory, but this is none of those, you have simply pulled together a bunch of things from scripture and wrested them into your own idea of what they mean. It is vain babblings with no profit to them, and t is time to put it to bed.

 

I am closing this thread, as it has become vain and worthless.