Qre:us
New member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 4,890
Let's look at your post: I can't even take THAT literally.
the literal is slightly better than the "liberal interpretations" because all you can do is take the authors at their own word.
You used the term "word" instead of "words."
Hmm. I guess they all had the same word, rather than each having separate "words."
Actually, the words 'their own' suggests an individual thought/separate 'word' by each author. The difference between pluralization of the word, 'word' vs 'word(s)', would be more indicative of one collective idea/word, versus, many different p.o.v....still all within one individual author. /anal
But, to elaborate on Babylon Candle's thought, I guess it comes the question of how to study theology? If there can be both a literal and a liberal interpretation...moving beyond the philosophical...to applicability (which is the case for a lot of theists - i.e., amounts to a certain adherence/practice in their every day lives).....how does one reconcile that whatever interpretation they are believing is fitting? Is it about experts? Is it about different thoughts and picking and choosing what fits best with one's own inherent ideology (is there even an inherent ideology?)? Or, is it following the masses? Or, default, picking one at a time, and finally settling on the one that works 'best'?