We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
Podcast: How Can We Objectively Know What is Literal in the Bible and What is Not?
Greg discusses bible interpretation, and all that that implies. Greg goes toe-to-toe with fundamentalist bible interpreters.
Send Questions To:
Dan: @thatdankent
Email: askgregboyd@gmail.com
Twitter: @reKnewOrg
Greg’s new book: Inspired Imperfection
Dan’s new book: Confident Humility
Subscribe:
Category: ReKnew Podcast
Tags: Bible Interpretation, Hermeneutics
Related Reading
Do We Read Bible-Violence to Children? (podcast)
Greg on children and Bible violence. Episode 658 http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0658.mp3
Podcast: What is ‘Deep Literalism’?
Greg discusses different levels of literalism and does a darn good impersonation of Garth Brooks. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0214.mp3
How the Church Fathers Read the OT
After the completion of the New Testament, the church fathers developed theology in their increasingly Gentile post-apostolic church in such a way that many of the distinctively Jewish features of the NT’s use of the OT diminished. However, this was not the case with regard to the Christocentric interpretation of the OT that was so…
Podcast: Can a Verse Ever Mean What the Original Author Never Intended It to Mean?
Greg talks about the theological interpretation of scripture in this rapid-paced, controversial episode. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0191.mp3
The Cross and the Witness of Violent Portraits of God
In my previous post I noted that the prevalent contemporary evangelical assumption that the only legitimate meaning of a passage of Scripture is the one the author intended is a rather recent, and very secular, innovation in Church history. It was birthed in the post-Enlightenment era (17th -18th centuries) when secular minded scholars began to…
Is the Bible History?
Even though I argued for interpreting the final form of the biblical canon as opposed to using the history behind the text in my post yesterday, I am not endorsing the radical post-modern view that biblical texts possess “semantic autonomy” and thus lack any historical referentiality. While I have no problem whatsoever accepting that God used folklore and myth…