Literal Interpretation of Genesis

I believe the Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that my understanding
of all the Bible is inerrant.

You believe your Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that your understanding
of all your Bible is inerrant.


Surely i have respect enough for my
Sibling in Christ that i will allow you your
opinion. If further you believe your
opinion, i will allow that also.
But i will receive the same consideration
for my opinion/belief.
I am speaking of my opinion of what the Bible
said versus your opinion of what the Bible said.
What the Bible said is true, what
the Bible means is your opinion or
is my opinion.
Don't get your opinion of what the Bible meant
get confused with what the Bible said.

 

What difference does it make?

 

Thanks, Dr. Bob. Never though of that.

 

Ed, Not sure where, if at all, we are disagreeing???

I was addressing the ridiculous notion that the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis is allegorical and should not have the literal method of interpretation applied to it.

 

Artimaeus: //Ed, Not sure where, if at all, we are disagreeing???//

I'm not sure we disagree. Sorry, i was using a prewritten
snippit. Read 'you' as 'the ones of you all to whom it pertains'
instead of 'Artimaeus'. Instead of the editorial 'we' it is
more like the editorial 'you all'.

Anyway, I find that the Bible Collages don't teach any
retorical devices (literary techniques) and the Seminaries
very few. Maybe this is a problem with stressing the
Literal Interpertation Technique?

 

This does seem to be a problem with people seening to refuse to understand the difference between using a literal method of interpretation and merely saying that everything is literal. They think it is a compromise.

 

Genisis does'nt tell us the shape of the earth.So what.

 

The poll question seems irrelevant to Genesis. All Genesis makes a case for is the length of time God employed and the way that God created things. To pull out of the air that Genesis says the earth is round or flat is like those goobers who try and say that a literal interpretation of Genesis says that God made the earth and then Satan fell and destroyed it so God had to make it again. It's silly.

Just my 2 Cents.

 

You're 100% correct. The Hebew word used in Isaiah (translated "circle") is "chuwg", which is a flat disc shape. The words was used by the early Hebrews to discribe the earth. Early Hebrews and Egyptians thought the earth was flat. Not until Pythagoras' time (about 500 years before Christ) was it surmised that the earth had a curved shape, and even then, it took another 500 years for Ptolemy to surmise that the earth was sperical. The Arab world adopted the knowlege of the Greeks, but Greek knowledge was considered heathen, and avoided by the western world during the Dark Ages (c400-1200). It was not unil the Age of Discovery that Ptolemy's idea were rediscivered by westerners trading with the Arab world. The expeditions of Columbus and Magellen finally put to rest the flat earth belief.

Anyhoo, I'm getting long winded. My point is that anyone who uses the word "chuwg" to claim that scripture describes the earth as round is completely wrong, and is demonstrating a lack of scriptural knowlege. Since puspose of the verse in Isaih was not to describe the shape of the earth, the point is moot.