Billiards Ball Posted December 21, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,502 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 662 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2018 38 minutes ago, Uber Genius said: So I'm having a hard time reconciling your earlier statment (1 hour ago) with your more recent statment suggesting the Gospel authors didn't have direct revelation (34 minutes ago). Did I misinterpret your earlier statement (interpreting it literally, when it was meant hyperbolically)? My definition of ammaneunsis will help: "God used author's own voices/personalities yet ensured the text was perfect". There was some direct revelation to some of the authors of the Bible, not just the gospel authors. Paul died and went to Heaven. Isaiah and the prophets had visions, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiards Ball Posted December 21, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,502 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 662 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2018 56 minutes ago, Uber Genius said: Again this is a false dilemma. One should use the historic-grammatical method as the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy suggests! This involves recognizing a verbal plenary view of inspiration. Namely that God knew what the authors would write before he chose them. Further in cases whe God doesn't dictate (we would want to recognized Jeremiah, Moses receiving the Ten Commandments, most prophecies and Revelation or parts of that book as dictation), we examine the culture context of the author, and the authorial intent, and use of idiomatic language, and literary style. Further if the author used a source that was a previous extra-Biblical source we would examine that source to see how the Biblical author modified it to dramatically change the message that the authors culture would have taken. Just like authors who recast Shakespearean plays with modern themes, we want to know how are the themes parallel and how are they different. So while there are hundreds of extra-biblical references there are over 30,000 verses and 800,000 words so it is rare that one needs to spend time but I'm not the one making sweeping geralizations. So follow the method that recommended by the Conservative Evangelicals outlined in Chicago Statement of Innerrancy and it will lead you occasionally to studying these extra-Biblical stories. Now I do want to poison the wells to any claims that I am saying these sources have some authority just because the HS approached of the use of these sources. That has never been my claim. It's not a false dilemma: 1) The 66 contain codes, direct statements using the tetragrammaton, etc. that affirm their status as efficacious for life changes and eternal life 2) No person need spend a lifetime studying and obeying the apocrypha, Book of Mormon, Noble Qu'ran, etc. although I have a Bachelor's from a secular university emphasizing NT and textual studies, and have studied these and other texts more than most other Bible believers 3) I'm making a generalization based on decades in the texts--every NT doctrine with very few exceptions comes straight from the OT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts