John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
The only text that's supposed to be given by God directly letter-by-letter is the Pentateuch. All other scripture is given through verbal plenary inspiration whereby God's spirit so moves the writer that without riding roughshod over his (the human writer's) personal predilections and understanding, the holy spirit speaks through the writer's words as written by the writer according to his (the human writer's) own predispositions.
If we believe that the Pentateuch or the other scriptures are inerrant, that means if we finds something, or someone shows us something, that seems to be in error, it's only the understanding of what's being said in scripture that's in error, never the scripture itself.
Fwiw, many of the theories I espouse are at odds with orthodox exegesis of scripture. I hold to the principle that all scripture is God breathed, and that there are no errors in the scripture, only erroneous exegesis that must be corrected in a manner that seeks to bring every verse, word, letter, into as perfect and inerrant an understanding of the whole of scripture as we're able to accomplish. When I find orthodox interpretations that are out of sorts with the goal of a perfect and cohesive unity of all scripture I'm willing to go outside of orthodoxy if I find an interpretation that appears to be capable of forging a more perfect union of every narrative in the text.
I think there's a saying in biblical exegesis that when the literal sense makes sense seek no other sense. Seeking the literal meaning is important but sometimes tricky.
For instance, in the KJV the text says, God said let there be light and there was light. The KJV makes it sound like when God says let there be light, it automatically was so. But the expert Hebrew grammarians of the Jewish kabbalah point out that in the literal meaning of the Hebrew text the verse says, god said let there be light, and he noticed light already was. The most literal meaning of the text reveals some startling nuances (hidden in the less literal renditions of the text) required to makes sense of some seriously strange goings on in the early chapters of Genesis.
Someone reading no deeper than the KJV believes things about God, and creation, that are more of a veil to the deeper truths than a genuine presentation of them.
In the KJV, Psalms 2:6 reads, Yet I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. But the literal Hebrew says, I have poured out my king upon my holy hill of Zion. The latter sounds like God is offering king-messiah as a drink offering, pouring him out as a sacrifice, which is unacceptable to Jewish tradition. So the Masoretic Text which reflects how Jewish tradition interprets the raw Hebrew interprets a word that means "pour out" everywhere else but here to say that God "anoints" his king upon his holy hill of Zion.
Literally, the text says God pours out messiah as a drink offering on his holy hill of Zion. Jews change "pour out" to "anoint" (God anoints messiah, not his holy hill) and the KJV translates the Hebrew "pour out" נסכתי almost as though Dr. Seuss got into the act "I set" my king upon my holy hill. Jews say "anoint." The literal text says "pour out." And King James translators say "set."
John
Last edited:
