Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 194:
Line 194: + + − : − Every person who approaches Bible study, usually to learn about the historical events it relates, is heavily influenced by the hermeneutical theory, or interpretive understandings, he or she brings to the text, consciously or unconsciously. According to Dr. J. Philip Hyatt, very little of the Bible relates history for its own sake, or for the purposes that a modern historian would adopt. It is, therefore, history of a special order, designed not simply to inform the reader, but to awaken in the reader a response to what the Lord of history has done.<ref name=Hyatt>John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860), p. 162 –<small>book in the public domain</small></ref><ref name=Bond>"Bible hermeneutics", Steve Bond, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 203–207.</ref>
→Third objection: They do not have the "marks" of inspired writing: moved a paragraph
:
:
Those who have adopted the views of [[Liberal Christianity]] tend to see religious knowledge emerging from research and the use of reason, as superior to Biblical revelation. Thus the liberal idea of religion as a personal relationship with God is one which is not necessarily bound to a Biblical doctrinal basis. This stands in in contrast to salvation resulting from faith in the Biblically substantiated gospel of grace, and in conformity with orthodox theological beliefs. They see the controversy over canonicity of any part of the Bible as pointless and somewhat irrelevant. Reading the texts of scripture does not indicate to them personally that one part is superior to another, or that any of it is inspired by God, although many of them acknowledge that some of it tends to be "inspiring" as a classic of world literature.
Those who have adopted the views of [[Liberal Christianity]] tend to see religious knowledge emerging from research and the use of reason, as superior to Biblical revelation. Thus the liberal idea of religion as a personal relationship with God is one which is not necessarily bound to a Biblical doctrinal basis. This stands in in contrast to salvation resulting from faith in the Biblically substantiated gospel of grace, and in conformity with orthodox theological beliefs. They see the controversy over canonicity of any part of the Bible as pointless and somewhat irrelevant. Reading the texts of scripture does not indicate to them personally that one part is superior to another, or that any of it is inspired by God, although many of them acknowledge that some of it tends to be "inspiring" as a classic of world literature.
:
Every person who approaches Bible study, usually to learn about the historical events it relates, is heavily influenced by the hermeneutical theory, or interpretive understandings, he or she brings to the text, consciously or unconsciously. According to Dr. J. Philip Hyatt, very little of the Bible relates history for its own sake, or for the purposes that a modern historian would adopt. It is, therefore, history of a special order, designed not simply to inform the reader, but to awaken in the reader a response to what the Lord of history has done.<ref name=Hyatt>John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860), p. 162 –<small>book in the public domain</small></ref><ref name=Bond>"Bible hermeneutics", Steve Bond, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 203–207.</ref>
:
:
It is evident that those portions of the Book of Daniel called ''The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Story of Susanna,'' and ''Bel and the Dragon,'' cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of Jewish rejection, apparent lack of evidence of an original Hebrew text, and subjective assessment of content according to what seems ''to the reader'' to be marks of inspired writing.
It is evident that those portions of the Book of Daniel called ''The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Story of Susanna,'' and ''Bel and the Dragon,'' cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of Jewish rejection, apparent lack of evidence of an original Hebrew text, and subjective assessment of content according to what seems ''to the reader'' to be marks of inspired writing.
===The consensus of the majority of Christian believers===
===The consensus of the majority of Christian believers===