"::Yes, I think we've achieved understanding! I think the distinction I make is useful for purposes of clarity, since the ""liberal Christians"" who agree with what you called the ""historical school"" are, in doing so, taking a controversial (to Christians) stance on the inspiration of scripture. They are rejecting the book's own claim to be foretelling the future, and agreeing with the criticism which classifies it as a pseudo-prophecy. It would be hard to include that as a ""school of interpretation"" without violating NPOV as to questions of authority, inspiration, etc.

"