Since he's on a myspace.com blog and you have to register to comment, you can come back and leave comments here. Below is his post in it's entirety:
i have no interest in trying to seem profound.. i hold no delusions that the absolute answers to questions about life and existance can be ascertained through a humble, expertly written, exquisitly clever myspace.com blog. and i am positive that i'm not even close to being the first one to ask this question... but i am curious as to what the folks i know (or anyone else who sees this) think about this question.. or, whether or not those people have ever asked themselves this question.
the scriptures... the bible.. one's interpretation / resolution of these writings can (actually, must is more appropriate) have a direct influence on their personal spiritual stance. i've spent most of my life in a baptist setting, most of my (theologically) formative years in a fairly liberal church of christ setting, most of aught-six in neither.. throughout, words like 'infallibility' and 'inerrancy' have been bandied about, but not necessarily with any high blood pressure revivalist fervor.. most often as a pre-established concept, one of those pulpit cliches that rolls of the tounge the way yo-yo ma runs through his scales. either in spite of these settings or because of them, my own beleifs were aligned as such - until i devoted thirty or forty seconds of critical (read cynical) thought to the subject several years ago. since then my nether-regions have grown calloused from riding the fence. i understand the relivance and validity of both arguments. now if only there was peace to be found in neutrality..
here is the tenet:
the original text of the bible is God's word - wholly inpired and infallible.
here are the questions:
a.) if so, and there was no infiltration of humanity or personality, why has there ever been a need for scriptural exigesis? (DANIEL'S NOTE: exegesis is defined as "critical explanation or interpretation of a text; esp. of scripture")
b.) if not, which parts should be applied to current day? which shouldn't? who gets to discern?
yes, these questions are mostly rhetorical. but don't mistake this for baiting or gnostic flexing. i lost interest in debate for the sake of itself some time back. i'm simply and sincerely asking, for purposes of discussion.
(in order to shamelessly elicit additional commentary, ross, feel free to cut and paste)
This is a extrememly important question, I believe. Please comment.