After all the debate on other boards that should have gone here, Once Mark created this board, there was nothing to say

The title is broad enough, however that we can use it for certain other topics that arise in the "wrong" board because there isn't a "right board for them, yet.

For example, there is debate over Biblical Inerrancy and Literal Meanings going on in, of all places, Life After Death, which can be moved here.

---------

The theory of Biblical Inerrancy is the proposition that the Wisdom (Chokmah) of God inspired the writers of the books in the Canon, and the councils which compiled them so that the Bible as we have it now contains exactly what God wants us to learn about Him and His plan for us. That Every word in the Bible is God-breathed.

There is a straw man argument that assumes that believing in Biblical Inerrancy means believing that every sentence of the Bible must be understood in its most literal sense. That there are groups out there (such as the Flat Earth society) that appear to do just that does not justify extending the argument against blind literalness to claim it disproves Inerrancy.

Most people who believe in Inerrancy recognize the difference between literal statements and poetic statements, or hyperbole, or analogy, etc. in ordinary speech. They do not lose that ability just because they believe the Bible is Inerrant.

The principle we use in approaching the Bible is the same one we use when approaching any other piece of literature. We are guided by the "tone" or "mood" as much as by the meaning, and especially by how the context agrees with a potential interpretation.

There is the added difficulty that it was written in a language (actually in at least three languages) which is foreign to most of us. Sometimes an idiom is lost or added. Sometimes the best phrasing in the translated language is, or, at least, can be, slightly misleading. The "flow" of poetic passages is lost, so we need to be reminded that it is poetry.

It is not always possible to be sure how literally to interpret certain passages, but all of the most important factors ar repeated often enough by different authors in different ways that we can usually be reasonably sure of those.

TomM, I am not quite sure what to make of you lately. You explain things sso beautifully, but yet you also seem to think it is all claptrap type nonsense.

...you also seem to think it is all claptrap type nonsense.

No, but I am beginning to recognize when not to waste my time trying to press home a point to someone who is not really ready to hear it.

I think I understand what you mean, Tom.

If I caught your jiff correctly, you mean that it's not so much the literal description that matters as the messages behind those descriptions (that's how I choose to approach this issue in any case).

Jwb is just hitting really low, that's all.

No, that is not what I meant, but I respect that you have come to that decision (for yourself) at this point. What I meant was that you would not appreciate my telling you three times a day why I think that that decision is not enough. (Jwb's complaint was that I explained the consevative position so well, but stopped short of "shoving it down your throat." I've noticed he, too, is now beginning to learn that lesson.)

Not three times a day, but perhaps if I explain it just once, I'll find you are more ready than I expected.

When Jesus spoke a parable, and his disciples understood it as a parable, we should also understand it as a parable. When David wrote a psalm, and the Hebrew people understood that it was a poetic expression, we should understand that it is a poetic expression.

But when Moses* wrote that Methuselah lived to the age of 969 years, there is nothing to indicate that he was being poetic. The only reason to disbelieve it on the surface is that it goes against our experience (but it need not be physically impossible). In this case, we assume that Moses is being literal, unless some later verse shows that the 969 is more symbolic than literal.

When Joshua's "Watson*" writes that the sun stood still in the sky for several hours, we mentally change the movement of the sun into rotation of the Earth, while noting that even today we speak of the sun rising at dawn and setting at dusk. We also acknowlege that there would have to be global consequences if the Earth did stop rotating for several hours. There are two choices: either "Watson" is being over-dramatic, or a miracle of some kind occurred.

Traditionally it has been accepted that a miracle occured. Because of the global ramifications that have to be accounted for or compensated for, it would have been a much greater miracle than earlier readers would have realized, and it seems therefore to be overkill to "waste" this miracle on a minor miltary victory.

Because of this, I am logically inclined to assume that "Watson" was being over-dramatic, but since there is nothing but my 21st century sensitivities to indicate that, I read it as being literal, but note that I have reservations.

The problem with your approach which, if I may, I would characterize as "It doesn't matter if the "story" is true or not, as long as we understand the "truth" of the lesson it teaches" [Please correct me if I have mis-understood you.], is that it makes the whole of the Bible nothing more than a collection of parables, and its value becomes that of a moral primer, no more sacred than Æsop's Fables. There is just so much more to be gained from it if you approach it as God's breathed Word.

*I am aware that many people believe that the books of Moses were not written by Moses, but I have to use some name or else keep repeating the phrase "the writer of the book of Genesis." Similarly I call the writer of the book of Joshua his "Watson." I would have used "Boswell" as my example, but I figured that Sherlock Holmes was more accessible to the people on this list than Samuel Johnson, and they would be wondering why I was associating Joshua and Charlie's Angels.

::Jwb is just hitting really low, that's all.:: Steve Bryce

No, I'm not. I made an appraisal of what was said.

::Jwb's complaint was that I explained the consevative position so well, but stopped short of "shoving it down your throat.":: TomM

That's not what I meant. I said you understand and explain it nearly letter perfect, but you still appeared to think it was cr ap at the time.

The problem with your approach which, if I may, I would characterize as "It doesn't matter if the "story" is true or not, as long as we understand the "truth" of the lesson it teaches" [Please correct me if I have mis-understood you.], is that it makes the whole of the Bible nothing more than a collection of parables, and its value becomes that of a moral primer, no more sacred than Æsop's Fables. There is just so much more to be gained from it if you approach it as God's breathed Word.

You're probably confusing Steve Bryce with me. Except this isn't precisely what I think, but this type of discussion never gets anywhere on the Internet. Increasingly I am convinced that nobody ever learned anything about religion from an Internet discussion board.

Matthew-

Actually, I based it on Steve's statement "...it's not so much the literal description that matters as the messages behind those descriptions (that's how I choose to approach this issue in any case)," but I admit that it is also my impression of your position. As I said to Steve, "Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

_____

JWB--

I do realize that I was being flip when I characterized your post, and I apologize. I was mainly interested in letting Steve know that my position is much closer to yours than to his, as he assumed, and that I knew that you were not castigating my position, but rather my fervour.

I would characterize as "It doesn't matter if the "story" is true or not, as long as we understand the "truth" of the lesson it teaches" [Please correct me if I have mis-understood you.], is that it makes the whole of the Bible nothing more than a collection of parables, and its value becomes that of a moral primer, no more sacred than Æsop's Fables.

I wasn't trying to make any assumptions on the 'truth' of the book, but otherwise you got it about right. I prefer not to make any assumptions on that issue one way or another because I can find little to no evidence to prove or disprove its validity. As an agnostic, I don't feel too comfortable making a commitment to something without knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that what I'm being told is accurate. I approach all of life this way, so I'm not singling out religion, BTW.

(P.S. to JWB: I think everyone's right, about my misinterpreting your posting. My apologies.)