I’ve previously expressed my surprise about what some people can believe about the Bible and yet call their belief “inerrancy.” As an example, I responded to Earnest Lucas’s excellent commentary on Daniel in which he maintains that one can hold both inerrancy and a late dating of Daniel. I think a good one sentence summary…
In my Google Hangout discussion I mentioned using the development of theological concepts in dating a particular writing. I don’t think I really covered the issue involved all that well, so I’m going to follow up briefly here. My purpose is not to argue any particular position, but to illustrate the issues. If I might start…
I’m frequently struck by how often we deal with trivia in our Bible study. In some cases we might not call it “trivia” but we certainly are dealing with something other than the main message of the text–the stuff that is in black and white. We imagine what the characters might have said, we fill…
It is sometimes difficult to discuss scriptural issues involved in many modern debates simply because there is so little explicit liberal hermeneutic. It’s not that there is no liberal hermeneutic; it’s simply that so few people are aware of such a thing, and it’s so badly communicated to people in the pews. Moderates have succeeded…
There’s one use of the phrase “just your interpretation” that implies that no interpretation is better than any other. This is often used by people who have no idea how a particular text should be interpreted, but nonetheless feel like rejecting your interpretation in particular. Either they think all interpretations are equal–a common idea these…
Considering my recent posts, I wanted to call attention to my interview last night with Dr. David Moffett-Moore, pastor and author of five Energion titles: Life as Pilgrimage, The Spirit’s Fruit: A Participatory Study Guide, Creation in Contemporary Experience, Wind and Whirlwind, and of course Pathways to Prayer (in the Topical Line Drives series). I…