George Bush was asked in the Monday night’s Nightline interview by Cynthia McFaddenif he thought the Bible was literally true."You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'"There is no one that really suggests that the Bible is literally true. For example, Jesus made the command, “If your right hand offends you, cut it off.” And “if your eye offends you pluck it out.” Where are all the newspaper articles of churches having hand cutting and eye plucking rituals? There is a right way of literally interpreting the Bible.
This book was never meant to be a cosmic Wigi Board to guide anyone anyway they seem fit. How did the early Jews interpret Genesis? What were comments made by Jesus, Peter and Paul that related to Genesis. The truth is that evolution could have been described in the Bible in some form or fashion but it did. There is no record of early Jews and Christians interpreting Genesis as anything more than special, immediate creation of the world, plants, animals and humankind. This type of interpretation is called the grammatical historical method of interpretation. This method entails taking passages in context, word usage and historical timing of when written and who it was first written. This is why we should literally see a hand chopping ceremony at church.
President Bush should have given a better response to interpreting the Bible. It is apparent in the interview that Bush has not allowed the Bible to guide him very much as president. Perhaps this would be the real lasting legacy of man who disappointed even loyal followers. Where was the Bible really in his administration was it just another book or was it literally a part of his life.
1 comment:
I heard the interview too. I certainly did not like his responses to most of McFadden's questions.
Post a Comment