
I agree that there is truth in scripture.  There are principles to be 
learned from it.  Claiming that that truth is absolute, though, seems 
to imply a literal reading of the Bible.  If it were absolute truth 
(constant across time, culture, etc.) then no interpretation would be 
necessary.

It may be that the lessons gleaned from various passages are different 
from person to person.  To me, that doesn't mean that one person is 
right and the other is wrong.  I believe that God transcends our simple 
minds, and that scripture may very well have been crafted with exactly 
this intent.  God knows me, and knows that my needs are different 
from yours or anyone else's.  By claiming that scripture is absolute,
then at least one person in every disputed interpretation must be wrong.
I just don't believe that God is that rigid.


This is where the arrogance comes in to play.  Since these principles 
are crystal clear to evangelicals, maybe the rest of us should just take
their word for it?  Maybe it isn't at all crystal clear to *me* that 
their fundamental principles are either fundamental *or* principles.

I think we've established that figuring out Biblical truth is a matter 
of human interpretation and therefore error-prone.  Yet you can still 
claim that some of them may be crystal clear?  Maybe to a certain 
segment of Christianity, but to all.


Not at all.  I think it supports my position much more effectively 
than yours.  :-)

So, I think that your position is:
The Bible is absolute truth, but as we are prone to error in our 
interpretation, we cannot reliably determine if we have figured out 
what that truth is.
Did I get that right?

What's the point of spending all this time claiming and defending 
absolute truth, when we can never know what those truths are, and we 
can never (or at least shouldn't) act upon them?  What practical 
difference can this make?