From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 13:36:41 EST
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 22:42:32 -0500 Walter Hicks
<wallyshoes@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> >
> > I'll repeat something that I said in an exchange here a
> few weeks ago. One
> > should be a "biblical literalist" in the sense of taking the
> precise letters & words of
> > scripture seriously.
>
> How can one accept that, George? You would expect that the Bible
> should specify the exact
> chemical composition of a man --- other wise it becomes an excuse
> to:
>
> > But one should _not_ be one in the sense of assuming that all the
> > texts of scripture are to be read as accurate historical
> narratives.
>
> As the only alternative?
>
> Sounds like a set-up to me ---- just a hokey way to turn everything
> into a non literal
> interpretation.
>
> Walt
>
May I suggest that the confessions coming from the Reformation and the
time immediately following, if they mentioned scripture, specified that
its truth is for faith and practice, or that it tells us all that we need
to know for our salvation. This is classical protestant orthodoxy. To
claim more for biblical interpretation (and for God's sake don't contrast
Genesis 1 and 2, and don't recognize that the church fathers figured out
that days can't be literal) then has to be heterodox.
Of course, if you want to be exactly correct, the King James Version is
THE inspired Word and unconditionally authoritative for history, science,
mathematics, and every other study. Any departure therefrom condemns one
to hell--the hokey way to perdition.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 13:44:19 EST