Hoops wrote:Except my "ifs" above are not assumptions. I think it reasonable for one to answer those questions based on a process that can include or entirely ignore assumptions.
I disagree. How I answer those questions depends on assumptions.
That's up to you. Not veer away too far, but I think God would (and has) asked you to use all your available faculties to answer these questions. And that He would ask that you pursue them honestly.
I have pursued these questions honestly. I've never felt the need to believe in inerrancy because nothing I have ever experienced or learned (or even been inspired to believe) tells me that inerrancy is important. But because I've been challenged on this many times by literalist and inerrantists, I have looked into the matter, studied and given the matter a lot of thought and prayer. It simply doesn't register as an important issue for me, though I understand it is for you and others.
I don't know anyone who argues that. Certainly not me.
But you are arguing for a relatively pristine meaning, aren't you? If not, I'm misunderstanding.
No, that's incorrect. Biblical literalists believe we should take the Bible literally whenever possible.
I don't have a problem with that. Where we differ, I suppose, is in the need to take the Bible literally when it clearly shouldn't be, such as in the case of a young earth or a global flood. I don't believe God expects us to ignore all the other evidence just because we ought to err on the side of literalness. Sorry, that's foreign to me.
Assuming we both have a good idea of what you mean by "messy", how would you know this? Couldn't I argue that you are making assumptions as well? And ones that serve your argument in the same way my assumptions serve mine (assuming I've made the assumptions you claim, see above)?
Oh, I readily admit I based my statements on assumptions. Every text I've ever encountered is messy, and I see no reason to assume that one text alone among all the others isn't messy and messed up by human interaction. The difference between us, I think, is that you would probably acknowledge that every other text, from a bus ticket to
Ulysses, is open to interpretation, flawed, and depends at least as much on the reader as it does the actual text. But you don't apply that to the Bible. I do. We disagree. Big deal.