Reply to Morriston

Swinburne Richard

in Divine Evil?

Published in print November 2010 | ISBN: 9780199576739
Published online January 2011 | e-ISBN: 9780191595165 | DOI:
Reply to Morriston

Show Summary Details


relphiPhilosophy of Religion

I claimed that if the Bible (including the Old Testament) is to be understood as ‘revelation [from God] without error’, it should be the Bible interpreted in the way that some of the Fathers taught us; that is in the light of Christian doctrine (including Christian moral teaching) and scientific knowledge. God's ‘inspiration’ of the Bible might involve God's inspiration not of the first author of short passages but of compilers of these into larger units. So there is no need to hold (and I don't hold) that God had any role in inspiring the first human author of Psalm 137: 9. But what I refuse to say is what Professor Morriston seems to want to say of that verse and other passages which he regards as morally inadequate, that they are simply false: ‘They don't speak for God.’ And why I refuse to say this is because I think that these passages have different meanings according to the context in which they are inscribed. And when regarded as part of the Christian Bible, and interpreted in the way that that demands, they certainly do ‘speak for God’....

Chapter.  1207 words. 

Subjects: Philosophy of Religion

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.