Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
So while burying Lee Nigel had to bury the Bible too.
|
For me, Tomes didn't so much "bury" the Bible. He did state that Lee's method of etymological interpretation is invalid and made correct interpretation the province of linguistic experts, thus taking it out of the hands of amateurs like us. So, to me, it's more like Tomes placed the Bible out of my reach.
Quote:
|
Higher caliber Bible scholars than Tome's are participating on social media.
|
Really? According to what "calibration"? Or is it safe to say that the calibration is no more than your own subjective evaluation? Not that I have a problem with that. Just that if that is what it is i would like to be able to understand it as such.
Quote:
|
But don't get me going on 2 Tim 3:16. I don't need Barr to tell me how that verse has been misapplied by inerrantists today. That would require a new thread ... on Alternative Views.
|
Oh let's do talk about it. Witness Lee usually used 2 Timothy 3:16 not to show that the Bible was infallible but rather spiritual as he does here:
Quote:
|
For example, I would like to point out again that 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed.” The Scriptures are the breath of God, or the breathing out of God, God's breathing out of Himself. The Bible, therefore, is God's breath, and God's breath is the Spirit of God, for God is Spirit (John 4:24). The Greek word for Spirit is pneuma, which is also the word for breath. Thus, we may say that the Holy Spirit is the holy breath (cf. 20:22). God is Spirit, and the Spirit is the holy breath. To say that all Scripture is God-breathed is to say that the Bible is the breath, the breathing out, of the very God who is Spirit. God has breathed Himself out, and this breathing out of God is the Bible. This is what 2 Timothy 3:16 is saying when it tells us that the Scriptures are God-breathed.
|
Now, ironically, this interpretation is etymological and therefore, undercut by Tomes' thesis. Would Tomes' linguistic experts also undercut the standard inerrantist appropriation of the verse? I don't know. I am hopelessly lost on the matter according to Tomes' analysis. Far safer for me to stop reading the Bible and start reading the linguists so that hopefully someday I can begin to understand it correctly through them.