Support your claims

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&lt;sigh&gt; I should've known better than to expect a simple answer to this kind of question! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keeper I have yet to see a simple answer to any kind of question on this BB!!

 

Pastor Larry,

Thank you, thank you, thank you! That was very thorough and eye-opening (for those "who have eyes to see").

 

Kathy wrote:
&gt; What is BWSmith talking about? I'm lost...what happened to the topic this began as?

Well, the original post stated:

&gt;&gt; It has also been suggested that portions of the Bible (specifically the NT in this instance) only apply to certain ages...However, no one has shown me how we can know if or what verses, chapters, doctrines do not apply to us. &lt;&lt;

And following this, Penn asserted the following distortion:

&gt;&gt; I think I know to what you refer, however, and it involves "higher criticism". That's when a mere human being thinks himself to be "higher" than God and therefore sits in "criticism" of god's Word. &lt;&lt;

This ridiculous statement asserts that all scripture has exactly one interpretation, that is the way that everyone has always interpreted it, and that interpretation is synonymous with that of conservative Baptists. The insinuation is that conservatives are self-labeled "Bible-believers" that hold true to the "plain meaning" of the text and us moderates are the ones twisting the meaning.

My response is twofold: 1) today's conservative Baptists do NOT interpret the text based on its plain meaning, and 2) the interpretation of the text by the original recipients (as best we can determine that) cannot and should not be ignored. Moderates attempt first to isolate what the text "used to mean" to its original recipients, and weigh that in as a factor for our own interpretation.

The example that I gave was in Genesis, where the original reading of the Priestly versions of creation and flood support the notion of a flat earth cosmology (and that reading is STILL the "plain reading" in the original Hebrew, but has been "covered up" to an extent in English translations).

Comments?

 

Wells wrote:
&gt; BW's just hung up on "a hard, hammered metal object." If you want to find out where he got it from, go to www.talkorigins.org,

Actually, I got it from Gerhard Von Rad's Genesis commentary (one of the most respected in Biblical scholarship).

&gt; but if I were you I wouldn't bother. It's where his soul got lost!

Come on Wells, say it. You don't think I'm saved, do you? Do you hold the keys to the salvation of others?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BWSmith:
You don't think I'm saved, do you? Do you hold the keys to the salvation of others?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are they the same thing?

 

For those that claim that salvation requires belief in inerrancy and special creation, yes, they claim to hold a key.

Praise God that salvation is based on faith in the Word of God that became flesh and not the Bible!

 

Kathy wrote:
&gt; All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
&gt; I think this verse sums it up as used by brother wellsjs! AMEN!!

I don't disagree with this verse as I interpret it. I do disagree with it as interpreted by Wells.

 

What is your interpretation BWSmith?

Kathy
&lt;&gt;&lt;

 

I agree with the statement by T.C. Smith (Furman University) in his book, "How We Got Our Bible":

"Unquestionably, I believe that the writers of the Bible wrote by means of the inspiration of God, but to say that the content of their message was dictated by God has no validity and is pure speculation. Also, to say that the authors were inspired in no way suggests that what they wrote contained a greater degree of inspiration than that given to a teacher or minister of the gospel in our own day. The power of God's spirit was not restricted to a few individuals in the past but is available to all who submit to God in the present. Inspiration was not just for those who wrote the books of the Bible, but equally for those who determined the canon; transmitted, translated, and interpreted the text, as well as for those who preach, teach, and live the good news in Christ...While a few Palestinian rabbis may have supported something akin to a dictation theory of scripture, the vast majority did not."

Wells' view of dictation is a late construct on top of historic Christianity as part of the Protestant attempt to equate the scriptures with the authority of the Catholic church itself. Gerald Bray (Samford University) states in his book, "Biblical Interpretation, Past and Present":

"This outlook changed, however, as Protestantism became increasingly scholasticized. The use of the Bible as an infallable textbook suited the theologians and jurists of the later sixteenth century, because it supported their elaborate theological constructions. In their minds, infallability could mean only total inerrancy; that is to say, there are no errors or discrepancies of any kind, on any matter whatsoever, in the Biblical text. Evidence to the contrary must be explained either by appealing to corruption in the process of textual transmission (which could be corrected), or by saying that the intention of the author had been misunderstood..."

"By the early years of the 17th century, the ancient doctrine of 'verbal inspiration' had reappeared with a vengeance. This doctrine held that every word of Scripture was given by God, and therefore reflected his perfection in every aspect...As a result of this approach, statements of Scripture coudl be taken out of their context and used to elaborate theories on matters far removed from the original intentions of the writers. The most notorious case, of course, was the Creation account in Genesis, which was held to contain a perfectly valid scientific explanation of the way the universe came into being..."

 

BW said, "Moderates attempt first to isolate what the text "used to mean" to its original recipients, and weigh that in as a factor for our own interpretation."

And pound it, mold it, shape it, take out, add to, until it says what they want it to say!

Sorry BW . . . I just couldn't resist!

 

Cultures change, but God's Word does not. That gets a lot of people in trouble these days. I think you may have picked up on someone saying that an understanding of Jewish culture is required to understand in the right light, some things that are said in the Bible, and that would be correct. But it is wrong to say that once an understanding is reached of the intended meaning by the writers in the Bible, that we must also adjust their meaning to fit our modern cultures.

Some things have been twisted by liberals and moderates, who take liberty to adjust what the Bible says, concerning homosexuality, slavery, marriage, creation, and women's roles, because they feel compelled to shed "new light" on God's revealed Word.

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15 KJV)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KeeperOfMyHome:
Really folks, all I'm asking for is a simple answer! Nothing complicated . . . just scripture that says we are to read God's word according to culture (if that's what you believe).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it is required by the nature of language. All communication requires interpretation in its historical/cultural/linguistic context. We do it today. Its just that we live in the culture so we don't think about it.