Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9928 | ||
Tim - I think some of this I've covered in another response to one of your posts, but I want to flesh out answers to a couple of the questions you asked. As I say elsewhere, we appear to be very much in agreement on all of this. Interpreting Scripture as it was written is exactly what I'm talking about. In reviewing everything that's been posted, I have come to believe that what I've managed to get everyone upset about is something I NEVER said. People seem to be insisting that I'm saying that because I believe, for example, that the Creation story isn't "literally" true - I don't believe that it necessarily happened day by day, blow by blow the way it's written in Genesis - that I'm therefore saying that the Bible is in error. That's simply not true! The Bible can't be in error - it is Inspired. But it can be something other than "factual" - not in message, but in method. The Bible isn't a dry recitation of "facts", it's story and song and poetry and beauty and glorious tales - all of it god-breathed and suitable for teaching and instruction. That doesn't make it flawed or full of errors - that makes it what it is - unique, holy and beautiful. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with your definition of "literal", only because it's kind of the opposite of what I've heard before. I thought that to take something "literally" is to take it exactly as it's written. To interpret it, on the other hand, is to take into account the authors' intent when it was written. So, for example, to say "he has the manners of a dragon" would mean literally that someone does in fact have draconian manners (g), while the interpretation of that sentence would perhaps be "he is a crude and voracious person." I hope this helps you and everyone else understand what I'm trying to say. Thanks again for being willing to take the time to ask reasonable questions, and provide helpful insight. Yours in Christ, Jim Dunne |
||||||
2 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9939 | ||
Greetings Jim! I too had the impression that you were trying to say one thing, but it was sort of coming out a different way. I'm glad that you have had to opportunity to come back and clarify your position. This is an excellent leason for all of us on the Forum. We must be very careful how we say things. We must also define our terms. For instance, in this particular thread there were two definitions (or more) of literal being used. The result was that communication wasn't really taking place. Concerning my definition, it is a simple definition that I have worked out over the years which I think most who believe in inerrancy would agree with! The word 'literal' has a lot of baggage associated with it in our day. It is hard to pin down. Even in your example, you said that if someone "had the manners of dragon," taking that literally would mean that someone has draconian manners. However, you could also make the case that taking that literally means the person is a dragon. I like my definition (no bias here :-).) It is simple and gets to the heart of the matter. We need to read Scripture for what it is. If it's history, we read it as history. If it's poetry, we read it as poetry. If it's a parable, we read it as a parable. To me, that is taking Scripture literally. Thanks for your response! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10009 | ||
Tim - Agreed. 100 percent. Although I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with saying that someone with the manners of a dragon really was a dragon! (g) Take care, Jim D. |
||||||