2 thoughts on “Luther rejected the popular allegorical interpretation of Scripture in favor of a historical, literary and philological interpretation. Although Luther saw the Bible as much more than a historical document, he did not find the study of the Bible as a historical document, including it’s textual errors, to be a threat to its status as the word of God.”
RT @ELCA: Today, we encourage you to learn about the Indigenous people on whose land you are gathered ( native-land.ca) and practic… 4 days ago
RT @RyanHaecker: "The earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to… 6 days ago
RT @LIRSorg: “Someone in your family made the decision to come to this country & thank goodness for that.” @KrishVignarajah recently spoke… 2 weeks ago
RT @astros: Some parade reminders:
- Starts at 12 PM
- Arrive early
- Bring food + water
- Utilize designated areas on map for rideshare s… 3 weeks ago
Bishop Michael Rinehart 
January 8, 2011 at 8:49 am
Not necessarily what Dr. Craig Nessan of Wartburg said in his lecture: “Interpreting the Bible Lutheranly: Between the Undertow and a Tsunami”.
Click to access Hein_Fry_2009_Nessan.pdf
January 8, 2011 at 10:07 am
Agreed. Excellent article Kevin.
I suspect Nessan and Taylor would have an interesting conversation.
I tend to think of Luther as between the under-determination of
postmodern interpretation and the over-determination of modern
fundamentalism.
Perhaps Wally was saying what Nessan reflected:
“Luther… understood that the Bible developed in a process subject to
the vagaries of human authorship and redaction.”