Chris Tilling offers some open and honest reflections on Propositional Revelation and Scripture, and a 2nd installment on the same theme. I must confess that I am close to Chris' position, but further nuancing and additions are inspired... [By his comments and not necessarily by GOD, of course!]For example, I am quite happy to affirm that in the gospels we have the voice of Jesus, and not necessarily the words of Jesus. Although, even this dichotomy needs to be challenged at times. For the gospels may convey Jesus' teachings in Greek [assuming that Jesus didn't speak Greek, contra Stan Porter], but if they communicate the same thing, then they are still the words of Jesus. If I write: "Ek is lief vir my vrou." or "I love my wife." [Words I hope to announce in the future!] I am still communicating the same thing, despite the fact that it is in another language. But let's take this further. If I was to act this out, or tell a story that somehow still conveyed this, then I am still communicating this. And unlike forms of postmodernity, I would contend that there are limits to interpretation so as to guard us from misunderstanding. In this way, I would suggest that the gospels, and their writers, adequately and sufficiently communicate what Jesus had communicated to them. So even if Jesus had told the story of the prodigal son in a vastly different manner, the way Luke has told it still captures the point(s) and message that Jesus was communicating. And that furthermore, the Spirit has adequately and sufficiently communicated to us a message from YHWH [however contextual] in the writings of scripture. Of course, I have moved from Chris' original point at this stage of my comments, but this would be my $0,25 to add to the conversation.