Featured Literalism is a fatal disease

Who says I do not trust them. I trust them very deeply. I have faith that God can speak literally, metaphorically, in allegories, in parables ... in may ways to help us understand. Do you trust him that much?

 

OK, enlighten me. I would appreciate it very much.

You did not answer my question on Origenism. If it is not about the very early church father than I see you have coined a term. What do you mean by the word? I have not found the word in any dictionary I have checked and I have checked several.

And try to be polite. Thanks.

 

Its not that crabby cannot trust them, its that if he interprets scripture by the literal method then he has to support an ideology contrary to his deeply seated liberalism. When it comes to the beginning of scripture then in his world evolution determines how he sees it. Heaven forbid he must hold to anything other than ungodly evolution.

 

Hmm, have I mentioned evolution. My, you dance around to avoid a discussion and answering questions.

You are the one making a liberal interpretation. I take Gen. 1 and 2 quite literally. You cannot do so for the two contradict each other. But you would never admit that as it would require you to do some deep thinking that you are not willing, or so it seems, to do.

OK, let's drop Genesis.

You are talking about literal. What do you do when the Bible says that

Matthew says that Judas hanged himself
Acts says Judas threw himself down and his insides burst open

Which way did he die? And don't give me the song and dance about the rope breaking. Surely Matthew would have said so if this had been true.

Also Matthew says that Judas bought the field
Acts says that a priest or priests bought the field

Which is it?

 

A metaphor or a parable can and should have a literal interpretation applied to it. This is to say that the metaphor or the parable serves the main point of the passage, in some way, and the literal application of the metaphor or parable must serve the main point of the passage.

For instance...the parable of the Prodigal Son has one main point--it is to accuse and convict the Pharisees. There are several sub-points that can, and should, be brought out in preaching or teaching this parable, such as the son feeding pigs or the father running. These things, feeding pigs or the father running, would have shocked the audience and they show how low the son had fallen and how much the father loved his son. But, neither of these things "actually" happened, per se. Yet they serve the main point--to accuse and convict the Pharisees--and they serve to show God's love for his children.

Next, "Four corners of the earth" is not meant by the author to be scientific statement. Rather it is an idiom. In fact, it is an idiom we still use today to indicate "the whole earth."

Again, we have to deal with the main point. Usually, when Paul speaks his opinion, his opinion serves the greater main point. We also have to remember that Paul, being an Apostle, giving his opinion carries much more weight than say Fred the Plumber giving his opinion.

Furthermore, we don't (or shouldn't) believe in direct inspiration of scripture. Rather, the more proper mode is "Verbal-Plenary Inspiration." This is why all of Paul's writings are similar in style, even if they vary stylistically.

This is not a reversal. The retelling of creation in Genesis 2 is a typical Hebrew discourse in which the reader/listener is re-focused on one aspect of the creation account. Obviously, in this particular discourse, it is the creation of Man.

A FURTHER COMMENT:

All interpreters of scripture have but one goal: To rightly divide the word of truth. In doing so, the interpreter must find the main point of any given passage and make that main point the main point of his preaching or teaching. Only then can the expositor rightly say "Thus says the Lord."

If we don't find the main point or if we don't acknowledge the main point even while preaching a sub-point of the text, we are doing violence to the text of scripture itself and we are putting our opinions out there as God's word--a very dangerous scenario.

The Archangel

 

Thank you very much for a reasoned reply. I truly appreciate it very much.

 

The two accounts are, indeed, complimentary. Matthew doesn't focus on the gory details. Luke, for some reason, does--perhaps it's because he is a doctor. It is also possible that Luke is using the word translated "headlong" in another, far less popular, rendering--"to swell up."

Who knows why Luke thought Theophilus need to know this. But, it is interesting that nowhere do the accounts contradict one another.

Even the question of who bought the field is complimentary--because the money was blood money, the Pharisees had to buy the field in Judas' name, which compliments Luke's account. Had the Pharisees purchased the field in with the 30 pieces of silver in their name, they, likely, would have implicated themselves in the "plot." Not to mention, they couldn't use the money themselves or let anyone else use it for God-things. It was tainted, blood money. So, you buy a field in Judas' name--a brilliant way to launder the money.

The Archangel

 

Guys, CTB does not want to admit that he only believes the words of Jesus are inerrant.

We end up frustrated with the discussion because we expect him to believe like most of us believe - that the Bible is totally inerrant. He doesn't.

 

Which Bible is inerrant? A modern one? Or is it only the originals ... which we do not have and that makes inerrant an academic discussion.

That is not the problem. It is in the interpretation. We can both say that a particular scripture is inerrant but disagree on the interpretation.

 

The original "autographs" are said to be inerrant. But, this is why we have textual criticism. Overall, however, we know most of what the originals said--probably some 97%-99%.

Not necessarily. Finding the proper meaning of the text is an exercise of intense study of language, historical context, textual context, discourse analysis, story-line of scripture, biblical theology, and systematic theology. Applying a proper discipline of hermeneutics to interpretation will greatly reduce the instances of getting interpretations wrong.

For instance: How many messages have I heard on Matthew 28's "Great Commission" that make "Go" the main point. Go is not the main point. God is a participle that serves the main verb "Make Disciples." The main point of that particular pericope is "Make Disciples."

Make no mistake, a mistake in finding the main point is not a matter of interpretation. Perhaps a different application of a main or sub point is a matter of interpretation. But, the text says what the text says and it is hard to miss if you approach it properly.

The Archangel

 

Wow. You took my footer - half of it, actually - and just used it make your own outrageous points.

Take a second look at my signature. Do you see the connection? I quoted 2nd Cor. 3:6 to show that the legalism of the Jews had a killing effect. They focused on the Letter of their Law, rather than on the Spirit. They mistook superficial and traditional compliance for spiritual obedience.

And they took literally many of the teachings of Christ that were intended to be understood spiritually. In this regard they were very much like some Christians today.

 

What parts of the Bible are inerrant? Are Jesus words? Paul's writings? Moses?

 

Don't you know?

Your interpretations are certainly not inerrant. :laugh:

How about answering a few of my previous questions?

 

Well said. Literalism becomes legalism and we know from the NT how Jesus reacted to the legalists.

 

Just as I thought

 

You say you are a literalist, an inerrantist. What is your opinion of legalism? They go together.

 

No outrage here. Not all outrageousness provokes - or merits - outrage.

And yes, I get it.

 

You are not taking it literal. I Genesis 1 God makes the Universe. Genesis 2 describes a DIFFERENT event, where God plants a garden. If you took it literally, you would recognize that the earth was made in 6 24 hour (evening and morning) days (not millions of years). Then, on the sixth day, in a particular plot of ground, God plants a garden and places man in the middle of it.

You are trying to invent a discrepancy where there is not one.