>There's a strong tendency for those committed to a belief or
interpretation to think and say that their particular interpretation --
and their corresponding interpretation or hermaneutical rule -- is
transparent while competing ones are not. This is false.<
I agree with a lot of what you say in this message. However, I don't think
you would say that hermeneutical rules are useless or merely "subjective."
That's what Glenn suggested, and I think that's as silly as saying the
rules of logic are useless.
<<The deeper problem, for evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, is
that
they tend to want to turn the Bible into what someone called a "paper
pope." They do this, I think, because they feel that salvation comes from
believing and observing the Bible.>>
As an evangelical, I don't believe this to be the case. I've never believed
this or heard it tuaght. Ever. Has Billy Graham ever said this? No. There
may be some fundamentalist pastors who teach this, but I've never met them.
<<I do not recall reading anywhere in the Bible that one has to believe in
any particular age for the earth or particular mechanism -- whether
naturalistic or miraculous -- by which the earth and the living things in
it came into existence in order to have salvation. People who try to read
this into the Scriptures are, I think, committing a grave error. >>
I absolutely agree with you. But I wonder who teaches such a thing? Do you
have some cites?
Jim