Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9675 | ||
Thanks for the reply - no criticism taken. And thanks for providing the link to the web site where you got the quote - it looks interesting and informative. Let me be clear on what I was suggesting (or not suggesting, perhaps.) I am NOT suggesting at all that Genesis 1:1 is not true - I believe that with all my heart. But does it necessarily follow that the blow-by-blow description of the creation story is a completely factual recounting of what happened? I don't believe so. All I'm saying is that we don't know. Creation exists in all its' glory - bite it, taste it, it's real. If you believe (and I do) that God is the responsible Fact behind creation, do you also have to believe that on the third day of creation, God created plants? I really don't think so. There are a couple of quotes by Dr. Gregory Boyd from Letters from a Skeptic that are appropriate, I think: "I see no reason why God would have to limit Himself to the genre of literal istory in revealing Himself to us. There is no reason why certain sections of Scripture could not contain some symbolic elements. If using teh literary genres of myth or allegory would better express the point God is trying to make, then what would prevent Him from using them? Nothing." "The idea that the Bible must be 100 percent literal if it is 100 percent inspired is a very recent, and quite misguided notion." These sum up what I was trying to express very well. In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
2 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9870 | ||
Greetings Jim! I understand what you are trying to say in this post, I just don't agree with the definition you quote from Dr. Boyd. His definiton of 'literal' is a straw-man philosophically speaking. No one that I know of, who believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, believes that 'literal' rules out the use of literary genres. Could God have used symbolism in Genesis to recount the creation account? Of course He could have! The question is, "Did He?" The answer that most give is "No!" The reason is simply that Gen. 1 and 2, doesn't present itself as symbolism. It says on this day, God created this. On this day, God created that. The important point is that the definition of 'literal' that you seem to be using is not accurate. This is what has caused so much stir on this thread. You seem to be saying that some passages use literary devices. If this is what you mean, most of us on the forum would agree with you. If you mean that because literary devices are used then Scripture is in error, most of us on the forum would disagree with you. Hopefully, you can clarify your position! Thanks, Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9921 | ||
Tim - Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. You are correct - it was not my intention in any way to suggest that there is is any error in Scripture - I don't believe there is. In fact, what I was trying to say was just the opposite! Scripture is full of literary device - parable, allegory, poetry, hymn, and story - and it is both inspired and inerrant! And yes, what I was trying to get people to see (and what I believe Dr. Boyd was trying to say) is exactly what you said - no one I know of who believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures believes that "literal" rules out the use of literary genres. As it happens, I think we disagree about the creation account. I don't believe that it's a literal account of what happened. I think it is a literary form used to present an essential truth - God created the heavens and the earth. But people of faith can disagree on such things, I believe, without the sky falling in. God bless you for your insight and perception. In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
4 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9938 | ||
Greetings Jim! Thanks for the clarification! I thought that was what you were trying to say. The Genesis issue is one for another thread! I understand where you are coming from, but I think there are reasons to see it as history, not symbolism. We can do that discussion some time if you would like. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||