My method is very simple. You read something and take it to mean literally what it says. I was never taught or told that the bible was not intended to be read this way. This whole thing is really very new to me.
Please understand mag, that "literal" depends on the context. I've already given you several examples, like... if I said, "The Heat or going to slaughter the Thunder," would you literally think I was advocating murder? No, of course you wouldn't. Because you understand what I am literally saying is based on cultural idioms and hyperbole common in our language. Now consider that someone from a completely diffferent culture had my words translated into their language, how should they read them? Should they consider the way we speak today? Would they be wise to want to "literally" know what this meant to the original audience? Absolutely. And keep in mind this could be a contemporary culture, not familiar with our terms. It doesn't have to be 2,000 years later. They would still be following a Grammatical Historical hermeneutic. If they refuse to do that, and read it with only individuality as a lens, it is quite possible that they would think I was advocating some sort of mass murder.
So, you see, you don't really read anything the way you claim to. When you pick up a novel, you don't read it "literally" like you do a newspaper. You make distinctions, most without ever even thinking about it. So, since you ALREADY do this, why not approach the Bible the same way?
Can you show where I have shown to not understand what was plainly written, other than a time when I specifically said I didnt understand the question being asked.
I can. The example with Uzzah, obviously. You refuse, even though given scholastic reason, why the text should be approached with a grammitco-historical hermeneutic. The exact same that I just demonstrated in the above example.
Are you saying that the bible cannot be picked up by any average person and plainly read and expected to mean precisely what it says? Is the bible to be read wondering if each verse means what it plainly says or if it means something completely different? That is my first question. My next question is this; how do you know when you need to use some form of an interpretation method and when you can take a verse to just mean what it says.
The same method of interpretation should always be used. That is why a GH hermeneutic is so effective. It ask, "what was the original author literally trying to communicate to the original audience?"
I would say there are parts of the Bible that the average person can pick up and read and understand exactly what it means. For example, we may disagree as to the nature of God and how Uzzah was struck down, but the average person can still understand the basics in the text. Touching the Ark had deadly consequences. The consequences relate to the rule of God. The reader then has to decide whether they want to pursue the text for deeper understanding, such as "why did this happen? Or, why did God do this?" All of which are genuine questions. That is when a little common sense and basic scholarship will come into play.
Other parts are not that way, and the Bible usually warns the reader. For example, there are very easy parts of Daniel to understand, basically up through chapter 7. Then things get difficult. How do we know? Well, Daniel says so. (Daniel 8:27)
Or, the writer will inform the reader, such as done in Revelation. (Rev. 1:10) We are early told that this is a vision, and that things in the vision have symbolic meanings. So, it would not be "literal" to assume that seven lampstands actually meant literal lampstands, since the text plainly says so. (Rev. 1:20)
Another example are parables. We are informed that Jesus is speaking in parables, which means these were not events that literally happened, but are stories used to teach a truth.
The name of the book is, "Is God a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan.
