Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Claud; Zionist Conspirator
Where the error might come in is our mistakenly interpreting a completely incidental figure of speech for a statement of fact

Yes, exactly. Note that in #19 Zionist Conspirator begins by inserting a false interpretation of my post in parenthesis, then proceeds to say that the parenthetical part (his) is condemned by the popes.

On the other hand, I was unclear, because I gave an impression that the Bible is divided in inerrant theological part and fallible non-theological part. What I was trying to say was that the apparent error comes from our reading with the mind different from the mind of the inspired author, and is not the revealed divine truth to begin with.

28 posted on 08/21/2008 8:47:59 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: annalex; Claud
Yes, exactly. Note that in #19 Zionist Conspirator begins by inserting a false interpretation of my post in parenthesis, then proceeds to say that the parenthetical part (his) is condemned by the popes.

In what way did I misinterpret you? You plainly stated that non-theological matter in the Bible is "not part of revelation."

But pay no attention to me. I'm going to Hell as a punishment for my rebellious "literalism."

Are we really going to rehash our well-known arguments for the blue-millionth time? I've already apologized for getting involved in this thread.

32 posted on 08/21/2008 9:04:00 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson