Jump to content

Burl

Senior Members
  • Content count

    955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Burl last won the day on August 8

Burl had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Burl

  • Rank
    Site Sponsor
  • Birthday September 17

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Central Florida
  • Interests
    Woodworking & photography. Care for the aged, intellectually handicapped, homeless and the emotionally disturbed. Comparative religion, esp. Islam.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,010 profile views
  1. Start with Wikipedia on Darby. Lots of YouTube stuff on him too. Darby, Scofield, Miller and that thread is where inerrancy, dispensationism, rapture theology and the other wierd ideas started. Like all cults they centered around a single person, usually one with a self-translated Bible to support their eccentric ideas. As for the literary interpretations of the Bible in Christianity absolutely everything written before the Protestant Reformation will serve. A really great, short book on the pioneer American circuit rider is The Autobiography of Peter Cartwright. I used to work it into my classes on Methodism whenever possible.
  2. The Christian opinion until the 1800's has always been that the Bible must be read as a Divine symbolic and poetic narrative. Reading the Bible 'literally' meant reading it as literature, and taken along with with the oral history, tradition, reason and experience. A 19c lay preacher named Darby was the guy who taught the Bible must be interpreted strictly as inerrant fact. He was rejected by Christian Europe and finally found succor on the American frontier. Mix a wannabe preacher with no training and a bunch of hardscrabble pioneers in a dangerous and unforgiving land and you get inerrancy. This inerrancy concept simply did not exist earlier.
  3. By inerrant I assume you are referring to the Chicago Statement? The Bible never claims inerrancy, so I don't pay much attention to that type of Darbyist dogma.
  4. K Jesus took a bundle of cords and whipped the animals, not the moneychangers.
  5. I dislike these long, multi-part posts. Better to discuss a single point at a time. The non-existence of autographs of the Gospels are only important to hyper-fundamentalists, of which we have exactly zero. We have found many newer and better copies of the Gospels We have a tremendously greater knowledge of Koine Greek, and the translations continue to improve. History and archaeology have supplied much more context, and those of us who who believe in divine inspiration also tend to believe in progressive revelation. Interpretations grow and change along with society, general knowledge and in line with tradition. And please read the text before commenting. Jesus did NOT whip any moneychangers. Look in the book and read closely.
  6. Instead of looking for answers, try discovering better questions. Just making a list of things God finds important is a very revealing exercise.
  7. Burl

    Bible Commentary

    There is also the value of approaching truthful cultural and historical perspectives. Assessing righteousness by personal opinions and by the arrogant discounting of ancient scholars has no more coherence than a fistful of flutters.
  8. Burl

    Bible Commentary

    Yes! I find Heiser's arguments compelling and quite different from what I was taught in seminary. It shows the value of accurate bible reading over the mere repetition of old ideas and dogmas. His YouTube channel is a good introduction.
  9. Burl

    Bible Commentary

    Welcome Ryan! Care to pick out a single observation from your reading list? The questions that interest me the most about Genesis are: 1) Why was God so interested in how Adam would name the animals, and why didn't God know beforehand? 2) What is the plural nature of the Elohim and God's heavenly council? 3) The narratives of the nephilim and raphilim. 4) The theophanies; particularly in the garden.
  10. Burl

    Heathens! 2

    I think the song titles are PS but the rest of the cover seems genuine.
  11. We cannot rationally reconcile the rational with the suprarational. We need to define pragmatic questions and work from there, realizing an ontological description of God is not achievable. We can only define signs which point to God. I can tell someone how to move northwards by following the pole star, but if they insist on trying to jump to Polaris vertically they are absurd. I can tell someone how to move towards God, but if they insist on a definition instead of following the signs they are in a semantic trap and will get to Polaris before they get to God.
×