nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 226:
Line 226: + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally? (view source)
Revision as of 10:33, April 29, 2008
, 10:33, April 29, 2008→Faith in Christ Versus Faith In The Bible: Response to BenP
[[User:BenP|BenP]] 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EST)
[[User:BenP|BenP]] 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EST)
:There's a big difference between worshipping the Bible and treating it as inerrant. There's also a significant difference between reading the Bible literally and reading it plainly, or reading it the way it was meant to be understood. Strict literalism would read the parables, metaphors, figures of speech, etc. as literal, but most Christians don't do that, instead reading them the way they were meant: as parables, metaphors, etc. But a fair bit of the Bible is ''history'', and this was meant to be read as ''history'', which means that it is not metaphor, etc., but actual ''history''. This includes, for example, the creation account.
: Jesus ''did'', in effect, say that the Bible was the truth. He, along with other biblical writers, quoted from it as authoritative. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3112/ here] for more.
: "''It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia.''": No, it's not undeniable. I deny it, for starters. Okay, I better qualify that. Yes, it has been copied many times. But when the Jews copied it (the Old Testament) they did so with an overriding desire to ensure that it was accurate, employing various methods to guarantee it's accuracy, such as counting the number of words on a line, lines, on a page, etc., and comparing those figures with previous tallies. And we have an enormous number of manuscripts of various parts of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) which show very little in the way of changes.
: Yes, it has been translated many times, but unlike bibliosceptic charges that I've often heard and as your statement might infer, this is ''not'' a ''series of translations'', but numerous "original" translations. That is, most modern English translations have been made from the ''original'' languages, not from translations of translations of translations, etc. So that being the case, your comment about it having been "translated ... many times" seems rather pointless.
: No, it has not been "revised many times". Apart from being translated into English, the Bibles we have today are as close as we can make them the originals.
: Those that believe in inerrancy generally believe that inerrancy applies to the originals, not to copies or translations, despite how close the latter are to the originals.
: The changes due to copying and translation ''are'' only superficial. The Apocrypha is a separate issue.
: Believing the Bible to be inerrant and not following Old Testament regulations does not mean that we don't practice what we preach. As you mention being aware of, the punishments and rituals given to the Israelites in Old Testament times are not applicable to Christians. Do you believe in the Trinity? That's not explicitly mentioned either, but it's clear from a careful reading of the Bible. Similarly, that Old Testament regulations don't apply is also clear from a careful reading and understanding.
: By not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are true and which are not. That road is a steep, downhill, dangerous, road.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)