JY writes
My 'hermeneutic', or interpretive approach, is to assume that the works were written by one or more humans to communicate to humans, and that they largely mean what they say. It's fairly straightforward. One runs into difficulty, of course, when you encounter poetic sections, highly metaphorical sections, and so forth, at which point you have to understand what various metaphors mean, which requires understanding things about the period. Nevertheless, it's easy to find plainly written, non-poetic sections of the Bible which contradict other non-poetic, plainly written sections of the Bible.
Approaching a text attempting to prove inerrancy is not honest, if one is already committed to the idea of inerrancy and divine inspiration, because of the ease at which literary 'problems' can be rationalized. The types of justifications that 'rescue' problems in the Bible from being seen as inerrant can rescue any text from such problems. The Bagavad Gita, the Quran, the I Ching, or Moby Dick, all could be approached with the assumption of inerrancy, and post-hoc rationalizations can always be used to 'solve' problems in the text. Ishmael famously declares whales to be fish (in Moby Dick, not the Bible). This is an obvious error. But it's easily rescued by pointing out that the goal of Moby Dick is not to provide information about the nature of whales, but the nature of man, and the whale is being used throughout Moby Dick in a metaphorical sense.
Recent Comments