I come down on "divinely inspired" rather than "divinely dictated". As far as the miracle accounts, I first and foremost read them literally, but I am also aware of the more figurative/mystical interpretations of the same passages. I think it is a "both/and" rather than an "either/or".
OK. Not I. I may "allegorize" the Creation accounts, but the giving of the Law I take literally. I think you have to.
If there was no literal giving of the Law, then there was no literal "blood throwing" acceptance of the Covenant at Sinai, right?
As far as the miracle accounts, I first and foremost read them literally, but I am also aware of the more figurative/mystical interpretations of the same passages. I think it is a "both/and" rather than an "either/or".
Yes, we can read them both as history and as events that tell of a deeper meaning. But, at the end of the day, we have to decide whether God really acted, or if this "God" is just a figment of our collective human experience.
If God did not create the world (in some manner), if God did not bring His people out of Egypt, if God did not deliver unto them the Law, then of what use is this religion? Your Passover is a commemeration of an event that never happened?
If Jesus did not die and rise again, Christianity is pointless.
SD
I come down on "divinely inspired" rather than "divinely dictated".
I tend to favor this approach, as well.
As far as the miracle accounts, I first and foremost read them literally, but I am also aware of the more figurative/mystical interpretations of the same passages. I think it is a "both/and" rather than an "either/or".
If I understand what you're saying here ... this does no injury to your belief in the literalness of the Bible (Old & New Testament) miracles ... yes ?
For instance, could it not be true that JESUS is the Son of God, the eternally existent Second Person of the Godhead ... and ... a Tzaddik ?