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?
Literalism is a fatal disease
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by thomas15, Aug 16, 2012.
Page 2 of 4
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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? -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
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."
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.
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 -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
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. -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 Archangel Well-Known Member
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%.
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 -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Your interpretations are certainly not inerrant. :laugh:
How about answering a few of my previous questions? -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And yes, I get it. -
You are trying to invent a discrepancy where there is not one.
Page 2 of 4