Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: raynearhood
No doubt, when the song writer wrote "we'll have a gay old time" he plainly wrote that Flinstones and the Rubbles were intending to have homosexual escapades...

I don't know when queers started calling themselves gay but my Grandmother never heard of it...In the 60's and 70's she used the term often and it never meant queer...

So hermeneutics taught you that the bible is valid for history and not much else??? Hermeneutics teaches you which verses to take literally and which one not to???

199 posted on 02/27/2009 11:20:42 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]


To: Iscool; topcat54
So hermeneutics taught you that the bible is valid for history and not much else???

I have absolutely no idea how you get this from anything I've said. Especially when, on my blog, which you referenced earlier, I wrote:
The Bible is an historical book. Although the lessons and message of the Bible is timeless and applicable to all eras, it was written to specific audiences, at specific times, in specific cultures, with specific understandings of the languages in which it is written. Thus, in order to best understand what is written we must understand its historical background and context. Just like the language study, no passage of Scripture can be separated from its historical context in order to develop a modern application.
On top of that, I quote the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which, among other things, states:
Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.
Your question is a misrepresentation of everything I've said.

Hermeneutics teaches you which verses to take literally and which one not to???

No. Systematic theology as an entire discipline helps with that. As far as literalism is concerned, I defer to topcat54's reply #198.

But, that is neither here nor there in this line of discussion. I agree with accepting the "plain and simple meaning" of the text in this instance. There is no hard to read symbolism. But the simple symbolism is understood only if one understands the historical context of the Scripture. "Thief in the night," means swift, unexpected destruction. Plain and simple.
200 posted on 02/27/2009 8:54:57 PM PST by raynearhood ("I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels" -John Calvin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson