Comments on: Thinking “Outside the Box” about the Bible http://undeception.com/thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible Faith, mutatis mutandis Sun, 20 May 2012 22:17:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Steve http://undeception.com/thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible/#comment-14237 Steve Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:06:14 +0000 http://undeception.com/thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible/#comment-14237 G3 (or whatever you wish to be called), Thanks for your comments. I agree that both of the concepts you mentioned need to be treated to more scrutiny than they have been hitherto because of issues of "orthodoxy". Luke, I quite enjoyed your father's post, which incidentally I read when he first posted it. I love that he's taking issues of genre so seriously, as I believe should be done with all Scripture (and other literature, for that matter). His question about the validity of Jesus' parallel if Jonah was not a historical story is closely parallel to the issue raised when people mention that Jesus alluded to Genesis 1.27. Suffice it to say here that nothing about these references necessitates or depends upon their precise historicity. G3 (or whatever you wish to be called),
Thanks for your comments. I agree that both of the concepts you mentioned need to be treated to more scrutiny than they have been hitherto because of issues of “orthodoxy”.

Luke,
I quite enjoyed your father’s post, which incidentally I read when he first posted it. I love that he’s taking issues of genre so seriously, as I believe should be done with all Scripture (and other literature, for that matter). His question about the validity of Jesus’ parallel if Jonah was not a historical story is closely parallel to the issue raised when people mention that Jesus alluded to Genesis 1.27. Suffice it to say here that nothing about these references necessitates or depends upon their precise historicity.

]]> By: Steve http://undeception.com/thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible/#comment-92588 Steve Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:06:00 +0000 http://undeception.com/thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible/#comment-92588 G3 (or whatever you wish to be called), Thanks for your comments. I agree that both of the concepts you mentioned need to be treated to more scrutiny than they have been hitherto because of issues of "orthodoxy". Luke, I quite enjoyed your father's post, which incidentally I read when he first posted it. I love that he's taking issues of genre so seriously, as I believe should be done with all Scripture (and other literature, for that matter). His question about the validity of Jesus' parallel if Jonah was not a historical story is closely parallel to the issue raised when people mention that Jesus alluded to Genesis 1.27. Suffice it to say here that nothing about these references necessitates or depends upon their precise historicity. G3 (or whatever you wish to be called),
Thanks for your comments. I agree that both of the concepts you mentioned need to be treated to more scrutiny than they have been hitherto because of issues of “orthodoxy”.

Luke,
I quite enjoyed your father’s post, which incidentally I read when he first posted it. I love that he’s taking issues of genre so seriously, as I believe should be done with all Scripture (and other literature, for that matter). His question about the validity of Jesus’ parallel if Jonah was not a historical story is closely parallel to the issue raised when people mention that Jesus alluded to Genesis 1.27. Suffice it to say here that nothing about these references necessitates or depends upon their precise historicity.

]]> By: Luke Holzmann http://undeception.com/thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible/#comment-14227 Luke Holzmann Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:38:56 +0000 http://undeception.com/thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible/#comment-14227 It's been interesting to read more and more about these "unorthodox" views of Scripture. I've been chatting with my dad about related ideas here and there as well. For instance, my dad's recent post on Jonah: http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/10/jonah.html We chatted about the validity of Jesus equating this story to His own death and resurrection if it were not historically true. I pointed to Paul's quoting of pagan poets to help communicate his message. Very fascinating stuff! ~Luke It’s been interesting to read more and more about these “unorthodox” views of Scripture. I’ve been chatting with my dad about related ideas here and there as well. For instance, my dad’s recent post on Jonah: http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/10/jonah.html We chatted about the validity of Jesus equating this story to His own death and resurrection if it were not historically true. I pointed to Paul’s quoting of pagan poets to help communicate his message.

Very fascinating stuff!

~Luke

]]> By: Luke Holzmann http://undeception.com/thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible/#comment-92587 Luke Holzmann Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:38:00 +0000 http://undeception.com/thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible/#comment-92587 It's been interesting to read more and more about these "unorthodox" views of Scripture. I've been chatting with my dad about related ideas here and there as well. For instance, my dad's recent post on Jonah: http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/10/jonah.html We chatted about the validity of Jesus equating this story to His own death and resurrection if it were not historically true. I pointed to Paul's quoting of pagan poets to help communicate his message. Very fascinating stuff! ~Luke It’s been interesting to read more and more about these “unorthodox” views of Scripture. I’ve been chatting with my dad about related ideas here and there as well. For instance, my dad’s recent post on Jonah: http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/10/jonah.html We chatted about the validity of Jesus equating this story to His own death and resurrection if it were not historically true. I pointed to Paul’s quoting of pagan poets to help communicate his message.

Very fascinating stuff!

~Luke

]]> By: Windpressor http://undeception.com/thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible/#comment-14226 Windpressor Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:30:05 +0000 http://undeception.com/thinking-outside-the-box-about-the-bible/#comment-14226 * Well, I have been one to puzzle over how to take the Bible "at face value", as Walton intimates. Somehow it seems a stretch to force scripture into a doctrinal framework that it does not make for itself. The Bible presents more as "reliable witness to" rather than overtly and inherently the "Word of God". Likewise, the doctrine of the Trinity strikes me as an overwrought attempt to do something like carving a five-sided staff down to a triangular peg so it might fit into a round hole. My question is: "Why is all this necessary?" Isn't this like trying to tailor Saul's armor on one that is clothed in faith and skilled slingmanship with only a need of a few smooth stones to complete his accoutrement? The concept of an "Immaculate Conception" is only necessary under particular presuppositions about "Original Sin" which is of questionable interpretation. How much of cherished doctrine is based more on reiteration rather than sound provenance? Wind .-= Windpressor´s last blog ..<a href="http://windpressor.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/the-smith-suprynowicz-test/" rel="nofollow">The Smith-Suprynowicz Test</a> =-. *
Well, I have been one to puzzle over how to take the Bible “at face value”, as Walton intimates.
Somehow it seems a stretch to force scripture into a doctrinal framework that it does not make for itself.
The Bible presents more as “reliable witness to” rather than overtly and inherently the “Word of God”.
Likewise, the doctrine of the Trinity strikes me as an overwrought attempt to do something like carving a five-sided staff down to a triangular peg so it might fit into a round hole.

My question is: “Why is all this necessary?”
Isn’t this like trying to tailor Saul’s armor on one that is clothed in faith and skilled slingmanship with only a need of a few smooth stones to complete his accoutrement?

The concept of an “Immaculate Conception” is only necessary under particular presuppositions about “Original Sin” which is of questionable interpretation. How much of cherished doctrine is based more on reiteration rather than sound provenance?

Wind
.-= Windpressor´s last blog ..The Smith-Suprynowicz Test =-.

]]>