Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeImplication of the text. Did you write it? Author intent is what I was getting at.
You said 'The implication here, which I hope most of us can agree, is that sex outside of marriage is immoral.'
How is that not a question about my personal morality? You ask if we agree with the implications of the text. I don't.
We'll see if dive responds to this thread. I started it for him.
Originally posted by EladarThis is rich.
Implication of the text. Did you write it? Author intent is what I was getting at.
We'll see if dive responds to this thread. I started it for him.
One of the literalists talking about "author intent".
I doubt you have any clue about the "author intent". Your posting history in this and other forums shows that you don't.
Originally posted by SuzianneAuthor intent is what literalists are all about. What does the sentence mean, not what do we want it to mean.
This is rich.
One of the literalists talking about "author intent".
I doubt you have any clue about the "author intent". Your posting history in this and other forums shows that you don't.
Originally posted by EladarNo, literalism has zero to do with 'author intent'.
Author intent is what literalists are all about. What does the sentence mean, not what do we want it to mean.
The Bible is still valid today because it was written for ancient man (literalism), and yet understandable today by modern man because we can see through to author intent.
You, like RJH before you, are still stuck in the dark ages of understanding.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneOkay suzi, you and I both know that there are those who call evil good and good evil. At least one of us is calling evil good. I say let God make the call.
No, literalism has zero to do with 'author intent'.
The Bible is still valid today because it was written for ancient man (literalism), and yet understandable today by modern man because we can see through to author intent.
You, like RJH before you, are still stuck in the dark ages of understanding.