I just wrapped up a video analysis of No Country for Old Men. youtu.be/xKyp9rGzZ20 I've also done them for the Shawshank Redemption and Groundhog Day. I invite you to check them out.

I think we can better understand the Bible's stories by understanding the way movies work. By that, I'm not saying the Bible is fiction. I'm saying that the way we as humans invest events with meaning continues to be the same. And thus the same hermeneutical principles apply. And I say film over books because movies are packaged so that they be publically consumed all it one sitting just as each biblical book was.

Some of you have challenged me on my hermeneutical approach and I think this about sums it up. The narrative books of scripture are meant to be understood in the same way we interpret stories today. The Bible may be inspired but its still human.

Here's the link to Shawshank Redemption youtu.be/-2hWKvq35RM and to Groundhog Day youtu.be/FSGrnCCmXes

@DickHarfield Thanks for the reply, Dick. Not sure how the recap helps, since my note to you was wholly in response to something you said in chat, as should be clear from my comments.

You also appear to have rather impressive psychic powers, but I believe we've noted that in an exchange before.

I was not assuming that you would rely wholly on web extracts, though. I was assuming that you live near a library, and could find copies near you, if you were sufficiently interested.

@DickHarfield So you didn't see pp 145-9 which outline relationships between "inspiration" and human agency which would have addressed your comment which first elicited my reply above? It should at least suggest to you that holding to inspiration and application of hermeneutics is not incompatible.

@DickHarfield But this comment worries me: how carefully do you read? This phrase, on p. 10, is one which Webster is repudiating. You need to read (attentively!) his pp. 30-39, preferably the whole chapter in which they appear. But since "page or para" might help, here's Webster's conclusion to that discusson on p. 39:

> Properly understood, 'verbal' inspiration does not extract words from their field of production or reception, does not make the text a less than historical entity, or make the text itself a divine agent. Nor does it entail neglect of the revelatory presence of God in favour of an acount of originary inspiration. It simply indicates the inclusion of texts in the sanctifying work of the Spirit so that they may become fitting vessels of the treasure of the gospel.

But I'll leave it there. I hope that helps clarify my reaction to your chat claim which struck me as nonsensical. There's plenty of literature there to follow up, if you have the inclination to do so.