I should probably clarify "epiphany" . . . What really happened is that I have this really smart friend Dan who talks in really big words about theology and when he explains it, it both makes sense and makes my brain kind of freeze up when the truth contradicts what I've been told for a really long time as "truth". So after processing the discussion that I had with my friend Dan since august(and many other conversations before that), something finally clicked.
(and bear with me. . . damn it, I'm an engineer, not a . . person that . . talks . . . . . . . . .good)
How am I going to address the gospels? Good question. And I've got a really long answer processing, but I promise it won't take 3 months to write it out.
Let me start with what I think are some clarifications. The bible is errant. How do I know this? Because it's written down. That will take a really long time to explain, too, but if I can talk my friend Dan into it, I'll post the article he wrote based on his thesis.
And the bible is cultural. How do i know this? It was written down at different periods of time and then put together at another period of time. Think of words like "surfing" and "correspondence". Now think of those words before computers where even an idea in a science fiction writer's mind.
And the bible is not the "word of God" as reported by John. That was Christ. How do I know this? Because last time I looked, the bible was still a book and hadn't "become flesh".
So, to address the bible will be very difficult since I will be using a culturaly relative book that is left open to the interpretation of modern-day bias.
but i'll try.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well said. Does this imply that your understanding is from your experience alone or rather that your understanding of scripture isn't based on a literal translation using present day definitions? I'm looking forward to your post.
does Dan write online anywhere?
i don't think so becaus of how swamped he is with school.
Post a Comment