Quote:
Originally posted by stuartj
Are the Scriptures THE WORD OF GOD, or are they the Word of God*
*clarifications, context and obfuscations included in pack.
|
If I understand you correctly, you're asking if I believe in the "Literal interpretation" of the Bible (as the term is generally used by "Fundimentalists" as
that term is generally used), or in a more liberal interpretation?
I guess I'd put myself in the middle of those two extremes since I try to consider both when I'm reading the Bible. I also have issues with both extreme views. Each in turn...
Literal Interpretation which includes things like the earth being created in 144 hours, and only 6000 years old and stuff like that.
Personally I'm not sold on that sort of interpretation. The Bible is far to rich and complex of a document to read at such a simplistic level, especially since many claiming "Literal Interpretation" often seem to take it as meaning literal in contemporary English. The middle-ages idea of "Literal Interpretation" meant that the only way to read the Bible was in Hebrew (for the old Testement) and Latin (for the New Testement), and I think that was flawed too since it kept study of they Bible out of reach of the common person. Certainly 90% or more of what is in the Bible can be readily understood in contemporary English, German or whatever. Either way, a common use of "Literal Interpretation" is often used by Athiests who will pick out one verse without considering the context of the whole. For example: Genesis 6:14 says the following.
(Note that the numbers next to the words are a cross reference to the Hebrew text, which I then cross referenced to the Lexicon which is listed below the verse.)
So does this mean that all Jews and Christians should be building a large ship (or at least a small basket per the Hebrew word cross referenced by the number 8392) in our back yards? Nah. That was a specific command which was given to Noah at a certain point in time. Prior to looking this up, I had never known that the Hebrew word used for Noah's ark is actually a different word then was used for the Ark of the Covenant. (Hmmmm....
Interesting!) Anyhow, my point is that specific versus need to be understood within the context of the specific text in the Bible, as well as the Bible as a whole. It also helps if you are going to be literal to take the time to look up the words in their original language and what we know of those words at this time to understand the translation better. I don't believe that an analysis such as this constitutes "clarifications, context and obfuscations".
Liberal Translation which often winds up with people discarding certain passages as not applying to them for X, Y and Z reasons. Without some deeper understanding of the passage, I find it difficult to completely justify this approach. It often winds up just an excuse for doing what a person wants. There are countless examples of this and I'm not going to pick one at this time. But on the other hand, without some understanding of time, place and audiance to which passages were addressed which this approach brings to the table, we'd all wind up with arks or baskets in our back yards.
So that puts me in the middle. I think a person needs to thoughtfully consider both (all) views and then try to execute against their understanding to the best of their abilities.