Is KJVO a mental disorder?

[bibleprotector]

So, what you have done is descended into Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy, taking established theological terms and redefining them to fit your false doctrine.

What you have done is exactly the opposite of what I have done, i.e. there is nothing "Barthian" about my view, since it is ANTI-barthian, anti-bonhoefferian and anti- all those things which are subsets of Modernism.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

.... Modernism repudiates the biblical description of the nature of God. The God of the Old Testament is seen as a hateful deity of vengeance and is rejected. ... Modernism attacks the scriptural account of creation, suggesting that the Mosaic record is simply an ancient “myth.” Modernism adopts a “higher critical” attitude toward the Bible .. Modernism contends that the Bible, as a historical record, is not trustworthy. ... Modernism, therefore, seeks to “de-mythologize” the Scriptures. ... Modernism asserts that human conduct cannot be regulated by a “rule book” such as the Bible

It looks like you are mixing a lot of different isms into modernism. Here is a theological definition of modernism:

Understanding World Religious Fundamentalisms, Part 4: Doctrinal Distinctives of Protestant Christian Fundamentalism
http://www.michalannmcarthur.com/doctrinal-distinctives-of-protestant-christian-fundamentalism.html

The specifically theological term “modernism” refers to differing theological movements within Protestant, Anglican, and Roman Catholic traditions. Protestant modernism originated in the second half of the nineteenth century and was an attempt to harmonize the Christian faith with modern knowledge. A well-known leader in the movement was Henry Emerson Fosdick. The threat of modernism precipitated the reaction which came to be known as fundamentalism with its emphasis on biblical literalism.

So I don't see any difficulty with seeing the hortian movement as textual lower criticism modernism, a part of the modernism movement of the late 1800s.

And the Byzantine priority movement is a milquetoast reactionary response to the hortian apostasy, giving lip service to the same false modernistic textual concepts while trying to find a third way.

Steven Avery

 

[bibleprotector]

It looks like you are mixing a lot of different isms into modernism. Here is a theological definition of modernism:

I think its particular early manifestations were its influences from the German Theologians from the late eighteenth century, through the nineteenth, that it filtered through into much of Christian thinking.

In Australian Pentecostalism, it entered in relatively recently approx. from the late 60s to the mid 80s. The replacement of the KJB happened in that same timeframe.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

It looks like you are mixing a lot of different isms into modernism. Here is a theological definition of modernism:

I think its particular early manifestations were its influences from the German Theologians from the late eighteenth century, through the nineteenth, that it filtered through into much of Christian thinking.

In Australian Pentecostalism, it entered in relatively recently approx. from the late 60s to the mid 80s. The replacement of the KJB happened in that same timeframe.

The fact that you turned a thread about KJVO = mental disorder into a thread about modernism (which you still won't define):

 

[Ransom]

Watching Bibleprotector throw around all these multisyllabic theological terms is rather like listening to parrots talk. They're impressive-sounding, but really, you know they have no clue what they're saying.

http://youtu.be/kXUrVXtCprU

 

[subllibrm]

Hi,

.... Modernism repudiates the biblical description of the nature of God. The God of the Old Testament is seen as a hateful deity of vengeance and is rejected. ... Modernism attacks the scriptural account of creation, suggesting that the Mosaic record is simply an ancient “myth.” Modernism adopts a “higher critical” attitude toward the Bible .. Modernism contends that the Bible, as a historical record, is not trustworthy. ... Modernism, therefore, seeks to “de-mythologize” the Scriptures. ... Modernism asserts that human conduct cannot be regulated by a “rule book” such as the Bible

It looks like you are mixing a lot of different isms into modernism. Here is a theological definition of modernism:

Understanding World Religious Fundamentalisms, Part 4: Doctrinal Distinctives of Protestant Christian Fundamentalism
http://www.michalannmcarthur.com/doctrinal-distinctives-of-protestant-christian-fundamentalism.html

The specifically theological term “modernism” refers to differing theological movements within Protestant, Anglican, and Roman Catholic traditions. Protestant modernism originated in the second half of the nineteenth century and was an attempt to harmonize the Christian faith with modern knowledge. A well-known leader in the movement was Henry Emerson Fosdick. The threat of modernism precipitated the reaction which came to be known as fundamentalism with its emphasis on biblical literalism.

So I don't see any difficulty with seeing the hortian movement as textual lower criticism modernism, a part of the modernism movement of the late 1800s.

And the Byzantine priority movement is a milquetoast reactionary response to the hortian apostasy, giving lip service to the same false modernistic textual concepts while trying to find a third way.

Steven Avery

Ruh roh, you used the lower case "m" word while defining the upper case "M" word. 

Obviously you haven't learned that, according to BibleProtector dude, they are two entirely different words with two entirely different meanings. One of which he invented all by himself. He is quite proud of having done that. He even has YouTube videos to explain it all of us who thought they meant the same thing.  YouTube videos! How cool is THAT? 8)

 

[bgwilkinson]

Watching Bibleprotector throw around all these multisyllabic theological terms is rather like listening to parrots talk. They're impressive-sounding, but really, you know they have no clue what they're saying.

http://youtu.be/kXUrVXtCprU

Yep, bp has no idea what those terms mean, but they sound good.

Great entertainment.

 

[bgwilkinson]

hortian movement, lol

 

[Izdaari]

Modernism: That which pre-moderns had not yet figured out, and which we post-moderns have moved beyond.  ;D

 

[rsc2a]

Modernism: That which we post-moderns have moved beyond.  ;D

Pomos are an abomination.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Modernism: That which pre-moderns had not yet figured out, and which we post-moderns have moved beyond.  ;D

Yes, postmodernism is such an intellectual and cultural awakening.  Take this postmodern essay, for example: 


Subconceptual discourse, realism and feminism

H. PAUL LA TOURNIER
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

1. Realities of meaninglessness

“Society is part of the stasis of culture,” says Baudrillard; however, according to Parry[1] , it is not so much society that is part of the stasis of culture, but rather the absurdity, and therefore the genre, of society. An abundance of narratives concerning the role of the poet as observer may be found.

Therefore, Marx’s essay on neostructural textual theory implies that context is created by the collective unconscious, given that prematerial discourse is valid. The subject is interpolated into a realism that includes language as a whole.

Thus, Derrida’s critique of neostructural textual theory holds that truth has intrinsic meaning. Foucault suggests the use of Sartreist existentialism to modify and analyse sexual identity.

In a sense, the characteristic theme of Hubbard’s[2] analysis of modernist situationism is a subtextual totality. Any number of discourses concerning Derridaist reading exist.

2. Joyce and modernist situationism

If one examines neostructural textual theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject modernist situationism or conclude that the raison d’etre of the writer is deconstruction. Therefore, Baudrillard uses the term ‘neostructural textual theory’ to denote not materialism, but postmaterialism. If modernist situationism holds, we have to choose between dialectic nationalism and neocultural textual theory.

The main theme of the works of Joyce is a self-fulfilling whole. It could be said that the fatal flaw, and some would say the meaninglessness, of realism depicted in Joyce’s Dubliners emerges again in Ulysses. Sartre uses the term ‘neostructural textual theory’ to denote the absurdity, and subsequent collapse, of subconceptualist society.

But Finnis[3] implies that we have to choose between modernist situationism and neosemantic objectivism. Neostructural textual theory states that narrative comes from communication.

It could be said that if capitalist substructural theory holds, we have to choose between modernist situationism and the constructivist paradigm of context. Lacan uses the term ‘preconceptual nationalism’ to denote the role of the participant as reader.

However, von Ludwig[4] implies that the works of Joyce are reminiscent of Gibson. Sartre promotes the use of modernist situationism to challenge hierarchy.

3. Realities of dialectic

In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the concept of deconstructivist consciousness. It could be said that many theories concerning not discourse, as realism suggests, but postdiscourse may be revealed. The subject is contextualised into a modernist situationism that includes language as a totality.

“Class is used in the service of the status quo,” says Derrida. However, any number of narratives concerning realism exist. In Finnegan’s Wake, Joyce analyses the subdialectic paradigm of discourse; in Ulysses he denies neostructural textual theory.

It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a modernist situationism that includes reality as a paradox. Marx suggests the use of realism to deconstruct sexual identity.

However, Derrida uses the term ‘cultural pretextual theory’ to denote the meaninglessness of capitalist society. Lyotard promotes the use of modernist situationism to challenge sexism.

It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a neostructural textual theory that includes truth as a whole. Sartre uses the term ‘realism’ to denote the bridge between sexual identity and class.

In a sense, the characteristic theme of Finnis’s[5] critique of neostructural textual theory is not, in fact, sublimation, but postsublimation. Marx uses the term ‘realism’ to denote the difference between sexual identity and language.

1. Parry, A. S. C. (1971) The Expression of Dialectic: Realism and neostructural textual theory. Schlangekraft

2. Hubbard, Z. ed. (1989) Neostructural textual theory in the works of Joyce. O’Reilly & Associates

3. Finnis, M. R. (1997) The Iron Fruit: Neostructural textual theory and realism. Schlangekraft

4. von Ludwig, M. P. F. ed. (1981) Realism in the works of Mapplethorpe. University of Georgia Press

5. Finnis, I. (1978) The Narrative of Dialectic: Realism and neostructural textual theory. University of Illinois Press

The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.

The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).

This installation of the Generator has delivered 11259626 essays since 25/Feb/2000 18:43:09 PST, when it became operational.

More detailed technical information may be found in Monash University Department of Computer Science Technical Report 96/264: “On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks“.

More generated texts are linked to from the sidebar to the right.

If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliant(ly meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism publication.

http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

 

[Izdaari]

RT, that's more unintelligible than the original 1611 KJV!  :

 

[Izdaari]

Modernism: That which we post-moderns have moved beyond.  ;D

Pomos are an abomination.

I really don't think I'm an abomination, nor do I much like living in an Obamanation.

But I'm not pomo in the academic philosopher way, like that stuff RT quoted which makes no sense at all. But I do happen to like emergent pastors such as Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, who have sometimes described themselves as post-modern.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

What word do you use to describe the broad category of late eighteenth century to present critical and Majority biblical textual studies, contemporary translation view and grammatical-historical hermeneutics?

I use the correct term. "Fundamentalism."

 

[bibleprotector]

What word do you use to describe the broad category of late eighteenth century to present critical and Majority biblical textual studies, contemporary translation view and grammatical-historical hermeneutics?

I use the correct term. "Fundamentalism."

Yes, my point is that the leaven of Infidelity has come into what you are calling Fundamentalism. It has come in some degree into all the Bible believing denominations, e.g. Calvinists, Fundamentalists and Pentecostals.

 

[prophet]

The corrupt-pure line of texts argument is among the most fallacious of the arguments, and is indicative of a complete disregard of original material that is readily accessible by anyone.

If one were to research this argument without the blinders of a KJVO mindset he would find that it falls apart of its own weight.

I understand that. I guess my point is being missed. Actually, it probably isn't a point that needed to be made in the first place.

My point was, both sides can accuse the opposing side of putting their fingers in their ears and refusing to listen to the "facts" presented by their respective side. That is not an indication of a mental disorder but more so of a closed mind full of preconceived ideas.

When I read things like "The KJV corrects the Greek", numerology arguments, and arguments that the scripture "purified seven times" refers to the KJV, I call that a mental disorder.

Translation : "When I read Riplinger".

 

[prophet]

Is KJVO a mental disorder?

It is primarily laziness, for those who simply parrot what they hear, but could never defend their position.

For those who are brilliant, yet want us to believe that the "pure words of God" were MIA until 1611, there is definitely some sort of disorder present, possibly Satanic in origin.

For those who believe the the King James is the Word of God in English, and updating the language is the only necessary device for keeping it comprehensible, I find no fault.

I dont know why comparing ALREADY PURIFIED silver, to the Pure Words of God,  gets misrepresented into saying that the Words of God needed purifying, plainly they were being declared pure by the Psalmist.

Psa 12:6-7
6 The words of the Lord are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The Simile here isnt to the refining process, but to the refined product.

So, YES, apparently there is a mental disorder involved....or, rather, Satan seeking to discredit God's Word, has his many false teachers propagating the KJVO positions as a manner of subterfuge meant to undermine the real issue. 
This is my opinion, I think that they are worse than sincerely wrong.
If none of them had spoken, the AV would remain, by default, historically, the common English Bible.
Now, guilt by association, which in itself is unscholarly, has impuned the very Word to several generations, causing them to believe that the AV is somehow the source of the prating fool's babbling.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Is KJVO a mental disorder?

It is primarily laziness, for those who simply parrot what they hear, but could never defend their position.

For those who are brilliant, yet want us to believe that the "pure words of God" were MIA until 1611, there is definitely some sort of disorder present, possibly Satanic in origin.

For those who believe the the King James is the Word of God in English, and updating the language is the only necessary device for keeping it comprehensible, I find no fault.

I don't know why comparing ALREADY PURIFIED silver, to the Pure Words of God,  gets misrepresented into saying that the Words of God needed purifying, plainly they were being declared pure by the Psalmist.

Psa 12:6-7
6 The words of the Lord are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The Simile here isn't to the refining process, but to the refined product.

So, YES, apparently there is a mental disorder involved....or, rather, Satan seeking to discredit God's Word, has his many false teachers propagating the KJVO positions as a manner of subterfuge meant to undermine the real issue. 
This is my opinion, I think that they are worse than sincerely wrong.
If none of them had spoken, the AV would remain, by default, historically, the common English Bible.
Now, guilt by association, which in itself is unscholarly, has impugned the very Word to several generations, causing them to believe that the AV is somehow the source of the prating fool's babbling.

Nice short summation of the KJVO philosophy.

I think the cover on that Book about New Age bibles speaks for itself, the origin is Satanic.
It is all about discrediting and blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Who would want that more than Satan?

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Yes, my point is that the leaven of Infidelity has come into what you are calling Fundamentalism.

Yes, it has. It is called KJVOism.

It has come in some degree into all the Bible believing denominations, e.g. Calvinists, Fundamentalists and Pentecostals.

Calvinism is not a denomination. Fundamentalism is not a denomination. Pentecostalism is not a denomination.

We see something else you know absolutely nothing about.

 

[bibleprotector]

Calvinism is not a denomination. Fundamentalism is not a denomination. Pentecostalism is not a denomination.

We see something else you know absolutely nothing about.

Of course there are denominations under each of those classes, but it is easier and indeed the deliberate direction to call into question everything I say rather than admit that your views have influences from the Enlightenment/Rationalism/German Theologians/Infidelity.