(November 11, 2009 at 1:18 am)Arcanus Wrote: My beliefs are nearly identical to Matt's as well—
You don't happen to write for him do you? I read on his website that he now has others that help him.
(November 11, 2009 at 1:18 am)Arcanus Wrote: Am I a literal Bible believer? It depends on what you mean by "literal"—an important point to consider (especially in this place) because the term is often used pejoratively rather than responsibly. To interpret the Bible literally involves scholarly hermeneutics, a responsible exegesis that is conscious of theological themes and the details of the historical, linguistic, and textual context. If we held "literal" in its often pejorative sense with consistency, then the Bible has nothing to say to anybody today because, for example, Paul's two letters to the Christians in Corinth were written, well, to those Christians in Corinth. Christians in other places would have to ignore the letters, and even those in Corinth would have to ignore them a generation later because they were written to their predecessors, not them. What is often meant by "literal" turns out to be silly and unsustainable.
The Bible means what it says, and it says what it means. That's basically how we take the Bible "literally." Historical accounts are taken "literally" as historical, theological expositions are taken "literally" as theological, poetic praises are taken "literally" as poetic, etc.
I agree with this approach. What is your specific position on creation, the flood, etc.?
