I agree with you and have studied this matter a fair amount.
What you said is basically what I told my friend, but he doesn't seem to see that his understanding puts anything in danger.
From talking to him, I think he knows this subject better than I do and used to hold to it (what he calls the "literalist" view).
He asked me to give examples of how his view puts any major doctrines in question. But, since I don't think well on my feet and for that matter I am having trouble thinking of a way to show him this, I thought I would ask people on the Highway to help me.
He also knows that we believe that the originals are inspired, not the translations, but sees this as a problem as well.

One thought I had about this issue, is that I don’t know of any Conservative theologians that hold to his view. If I am correct only liberal theologians have his view.
Am I correct about this?
I am not sure where I am going with this thought yet, nor am I sure it is a legitimate argument to use in this matter.

One more thing to add.
He said he believes the word "inspired" should be taken in the same manner that someone would be inspired to write someone’s life story. In this case God "inspired" the writers of scripture to write what they are told down, in their own words and with their own human faults.

Personally I think this view make the Bible somehow less than "God's Word".
Yet he is more comforted by it than the verbal plenary inspiration view, or as he would call it "the dictation view".


Last edited by Tom; Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:38 PM.