User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections/@comment-1777104-20100809222258

Des, I see your point. When we try to interject our limited intellect into the plain teaching of the Bible, we will tend to mess up the message. What we have to do is take it at its face value unless it is plainly presenting figurative language. We are even told it is not up to us to give our "private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost [Spirit]. (KJV)

I added the alternate TRANSLATION - those guys in the 17th century equated Spirit and Ghost. The English language has changed, but the original Greek has not. That illustrates a little problem when translating - minor interpretative decisions. The term "prophecy" here is a direct TRANSLITERATION - that is, borrowing a word from one language and altering its form only a little. Prophecy is more than what that part of the Bible that foretells future events. There is a lot of that, for sure, but there is also the "forth telling" of truth by the preacher. Peter is saying that preachers need to stick to telling the truth as God has put it down in the Bible, not to formulating theories as to what it might mean.