<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Interpretive Methods in &#8220;The Last Word&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mattwiebe.com/2007/02/interpretive-methods-in-the-last-word/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mattwiebe.com/2007/02/interpretive-methods-in-the-last-word/</link>
	<description>Matt Wiebe's blog about faith and life.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:55:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://mattwiebe.com/2007/02/interpretive-methods-in-the-last-word/#comment-607</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattwiebe.com/2007/02/interpretive-methods-in-the-last-word/#comment-607</guid>
		<description>Hey Colin

KJV indeed ;)

Of course, we do need to be careful in rethinking the Bible on account of the findings of modern science. Science often oversteps its bounds into metaphysics, saying that there is nothing beyond the natural world. This cannot be accepted by Christians.

Yes, as you hint at, there must be some notion of the Holy Spirit making the Scriptures "come alive," even though I don't know how to spell that out exactly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Colin</p>
<p>KJV indeed <img src='http://mattwiebe.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
Of course, we do need to be careful in rethinking the Bible on account of the findings of modern science. Science often oversteps its bounds into metaphysics, saying that there is nothing beyond the natural world. This cannot be accepted by Christians.</p>
<p>Yes, as you hint at, there must be some notion of the Holy Spirit making the Scriptures &#8220;come alive,&#8221; even though I don&#8217;t know how to spell that out&nbsp;exactly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: colin</title>
		<link>http://mattwiebe.com/2007/02/interpretive-methods-in-the-last-word/#comment-606</link>
		<dc:creator>colin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:59:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattwiebe.com/2007/02/interpretive-methods-in-the-last-word/#comment-606</guid>
		<description>Only if it's the same King James Version that Jesus used. :)

When I was in University (many moons ago) I remember the 'Survey of the OT' professor standing up with the Bible in one hand and a novel in the other. He said, "How do you know what Margaret Lawrence meant to say when she wrote 'The Stone Angel'?"

Ultimately, his point (sparing you the complete lecture) was that we need to read the Bible in the same way we would read, and come to understand, any other book of literature: we needed, in essence, to submit its text to certain principles of cognitive reasoning (as if there is any other kind). Therefore, if there existed, in our reasoning, certain archaisms in the text which did not resonate with current scientific norms, then we were at liberty to discard such notions, as we would do in any other academic discipline.

We were therefore justified in putting aside belief in things such as a six day creation, a cataclysmic flood, the exodus, Job, Jonah and his big fish etc. Of course we were still being true to the spirit of the Scriptures because we still endeavoured to learn 'the lesson' behind these spurious stories. 

Now I am not, by any means suggesting, that these aforementionned stories constitute in themselves articles of faith (as you previously suggested, we need to understand God's truth not just in light of "the facts" but also in light of its "metaphors" etc.)They are just typically the elements that most point to when discussing the trustworthiness (believability)of the Bible.

Wright's conclusions, I would suggest, as you have documented them, are therefore quite helpful. I would add that there is a mystical (spiritual) side to the equation. To a great degree, the Scriptures are only truly understood (although not usually in their entirety) by those with eyes to see. 

So, to answer your question - sort of. Can I "bear to submit experience, tradition, and reason to the authority of Scripture?" I would answer: Ideally, yes! Practically, hmmmm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Only if it&#8217;s the same King James Version that Jesus used. <img src='http://mattwiebe.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>When I was in University (many moons ago) I remember the &#8216;Survey of the OT&#8217; professor standing up with the Bible in one hand and a novel in the other. He said, &#8220;How do you know what Margaret Lawrence meant to say when she wrote &#8216;The Stone Angel&#8217;?&#8221;</p>
<p>Ultimately, his point (sparing you the complete lecture) was that we need to read the Bible in the same way we would read, and come to understand, any other book of literature: we needed, in essence, to submit its text to certain principles of cognitive reasoning (as if there is any other kind). Therefore, if there existed, in our reasoning, certain archaisms in the text which did not resonate with current scientific norms, then we were at liberty to discard such notions, as we would do in any other academic discipline.</p>
<p>We were therefore justified in putting aside belief in things such as a six day creation, a cataclysmic flood, the exodus, Job, Jonah and his big fish etc. Of course we were still being true to the spirit of the Scriptures because we still endeavoured to learn &#8216;the lesson&#8217; behind these spurious stories. </p>
<p>Now I am not, by any means suggesting, that these aforementionned stories constitute in themselves articles of faith (as you previously suggested, we need to understand God&#8217;s truth not just in light of &#8220;the facts&#8221; but also in light of its &#8220;metaphors&#8221; etc.)They are just typically the elements that most point to when discussing the trustworthiness (believability)of the Bible.</p>
<p>Wright&#8217;s conclusions, I would suggest, as you have documented them, are therefore quite helpful. I would add that there is a mystical (spiritual) side to the equation. To a great degree, the Scriptures are only truly understood (although not usually in their entirety) by those with eyes to see. </p>
<p>So, to answer your question - sort of. Can I &#8220;bear to submit experience, tradition, and reason to the authority of Scripture?&#8221; I would answer: Ideally, yes! Practically,&nbsp;hmmmm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
