7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13 '17 at 12:56 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/
Oct 1 '12 at 22:17 comment added David Stratton @Caleb - fair point. I re-phrased that portion because I agree I worded it badly. Thanks for the prod!
Oct 1 '12 at 22:16 history edited David Stratton CC BY-SA 3.0
added 192 characters in body
Oct 1 '12 at 7:19 comment added Caleb There is a lot of good stuff in this answer, but I would disagree right off the bat with the idea that "Biblical Literalism also goes under the moniker 'the historical-grammatical method of interpretation'.". The H/G hermeneutical approach is used by people who don't fall into the "Biblical Literalist" camp, although that is hard to define because it seem to be used two ways. Speaking of which, defining that term would help this whole topic.
Oct 1 '12 at 6:49 comment added dongle26 I disagree that the original Hebrew needs to be examined as long as you are using a faithful translation such as KJV or ESV. The translators were full of the holy ghost, and very learned in language. I realize they translated it mostly from the Latin Vulgate, which I believe to have the same properties (scholarly, spirit-filled translation).
Oct 1 '12 at 3:22 comment added David Stratton This isn't something I wanted to include in the answer, but I do realize that the Literalist view I've outlined is in and of itself fodder for the atheists and detractors, primarily because of a flat out refusal to believe that any evidence presented by fallible man could deny the truth of Scripture. I realize this makes us look like we simply stick our heads in the sand whenever some "evidence" comes about that "refutes Scripture". I'm perfectly OK with that. My intent wasn't to make the viewpoint look appealing, just to portray it accurately and fairly.
Oct 1 '12 at 3:09 history answered David Stratton CC BY-SA 3.0