Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

True Biblical Interpretation

Over at Kevin Harris' blog, his brother Craig and I were discussing the interpretation of specific Biblical passages, and I could not understand how certain orthodox interpretations were known to be so certainly true. For example, Craig was adamant that Genesis 3 "provides incredible symbolism of a serpent (Satan) striking the heel of the woman’s offspring (Christ),"even though neither of those two parenthetical characters are mentioned in the text.

Now I think I have found some insight, courtesy of the Penitent Atheist. In his blog, he describes how, as a former pastor, he considered it part of his job description to "explain away" troubling inconsistencies such as that above. He also gives instructions on how to approach the Bible correctly, without the orthodox assumptions that color one's interpretation.

What he describes is similar to my own watershed realization: that if the Bible is truly the word of God, then any neutral assessment should show it to be so, even without the presupposition of divine inspiration. His conclusion from that point mirrors mine uncannily.

via Atheist Revolution

Post a Comment


At 9/15/2007 1:05 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

"Paul said Christianity is foolish to non-believers."

Hmmm. 'Learn something new every day. For all my study, I've truly never run across that one before, at least not at a time when it jumped off the page at me.

I think the correct biblical interpretaton of this is to say that Christianity is only not foolish to believers. Since believers are inside a closed system of excuses and self-serving interpretation, which group then becomes the one with the more trustworthy opinion of the matter?



Create a Link

<< Home