- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The National Enquirer works very hard to confirm it's sources.
Upvote
0
I do not believe that the Bible is literal, inerrant perspicupus and self-interpreting product pf Plenary Verbal Inspiration. I don't know how the Bible was inspired nor whether it was inspired by the same method throughout. There are other theories about it, older and more convincing than Plenary Verbal Inspiration. I don't believe that only scripture should be used to interpret scripture. There are many extra-biblical contemporary texts which need to be examined--not for doctrine--but for linguistic and narrative practices as an aid to interpreting biblical texts, as well as findings from archaeology and anthropology. I don't believe the Bible is perspicuous--it's not the National Enquirer. The layman, with instruction, can expect to find his Salvation revealed therein, but anything beyond that requires scholarly expertise and careful, prayerful study. I don't believe that the Bible is "literal and inerrant" in all that it affirms about any sphere of human knowledge. The knowledge of the natural world it contains is purely phenomenological and need not reflect the findings of modern science. Likewise, I see the Bible not as a single text by a single author but an heterogeneous collection of texts by many inspired authors, editors and redactors over a long period of time and widely scattered locations. Consequently, I don't expect the texts to be fully coordinated. I do not, for example, see a "Synoptic Problem" nor am I much concerned with the apparent discrepancies in Jesus' two genealogies.
Sacred Tradition, divinely inspired Scripture and reason--in about that order.
How would the Bible be just a moderately interesting collection of ancient texts to you if you believe that they are fully authoritative based on divine inspiration?That order represents how I feel the strength of each supports my faith. The Bible is the source of our doctrine, but doctrine aside, the main reason I believe is tradition, not scripture. The Christian faith could survive without the Bible, but without tradition it would just be a moderately interesting collection of ancient texts.
I'm not talking about "traditions." I am talking about Sacred Tradition--the truth of Christ's death and bodily resurrection conveyed by the companions of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit to those they converted and by them to their followers in turn and so on in unbroken succession of believers down to me. That's where my faith comes from, not the Bible. The Bible is just there so we keep the story straight.I'm not sure which traditions you have in mind.
I'm not talking about "traditions." I am talking about Sacred Tradition--the truth of Christ's death and bodily resurrection conveyed by the companions of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit to those they converted and by them to their followers in turn and so on in unbroken succession of believers down to me. That's where my faith comes from, not the Bible. The Bible is just there so we keep the story straight.
Only a few of the most recent, but it's OK because I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, and I'm not a Donatist.
I am talking about Sacred Tradition--the truth of Christ's death and bodily resurrection conveyed by the companions of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit to those they converted and by them to their followers in turn and so on in unbroken succession of believers down to me. That's where my faith comes from, not the Bible.
Sorry, I explained it as clearly as I could. The "tradition" I am referring to is the "tradition" that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose again on the third day after. Let me put it another way: I believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, but not just because "it says so in the Bible."OK. I still don't know what tradition you are referring to.
Sorry, I explained it as clearly as I could. The "tradition" I am referring to is the "tradition" that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose again on the third day after. Let me put it another way: I believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, but not just because "it says so in the Bible."
Just about as plausible as building a 75ft high gallows to hang someone from as shown in Esther 7. Is that just allegory, and why use that particular measurement? I mean, that is practically 7-8 stories high..........If there was no Ark, what is all that talk about exact dimensions about referring to how to build it?
Is that just made-up bumbo jumbo? I don't know, I'm asking.
Just about as plausible as building a 75ft high gallows to hang someone from as shown in Esther 7. Is that just allegory, and why use that particular measurement? I mean, that is practically 7-8 stories high
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?