07 Jul '10 20:20>
Originally posted by twhitehead==========================================
It isn't. I don't think the gospel writer expected to be taken literally.
I think it was all about theology and fulfilling prophesy, and I think he expected his readers to understand that.
I think the idea of taking it all word for word is a more modern and rather naive position.
It isn't. I don't think the gospel writer expected to be taken literally.
I think it was all about theology and fulfilling prophesy, and I think he expected his readers to understand that.
I think the idea of taking it all word for word is a more modern and rather naive position.
=========================================
That is not the impression I get from your comments. I get the impression that details were made up to manipulate the reader.
There are plenty of places in the Bible where the seam can be detected between theological concepts and historical details. The line is rather clear in most places.
Perhaps you simply pre-suppose that certain miraculous things never could happen. Yet, you would like to glean something positive from the story. So your "filter" works to explain away what you have rejected a prior.
I still think a good deal of your attitude tells us more about yourself then it does about the Bible.
"As in water face answers to face, so the heart of man to man. " (Prov. 27:19)
The things I am saying to you are not meant disrepectfully. They are my own experience in years of personal Bible reading.
I have just as many thoughts and opinions about things as you do. I learned through experience how man's heart and the word of God can act.