nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 258:
Line 258: − + + + + + + + +
Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally? (view source)
Revision as of 11:53, April 30, 2008
, 11:53, April 30, 2008→Faith in Christ Versus Faith In The Bible: We can be sufficiently sure.
::Respectfully yours in Christ,
::Respectfully yours in Christ,
[[User:BenP|BenP]] 05:14, 29 April 2008
::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 05:14, 29 April 2008
::: I said that by not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are ''true'' and which are not. Judging which were applicable for the Jews and which are still applicable now is a different thing altogether. For example, rejecting the historicity of the creation and flood accounts often leads to rejecting other "unscientific" historical accounts, such as the virgin birth or Jesus rising from the dead (neither of which are "scientifically possible"). Judging whether or not to continue practising circumcision is not quite in the same league.
::: Messianic Jews likely still practice circumcision, but don't practice animal sacrifices. So even they recognise that the old covenant no longer applies.
::: Certainly there are parts where different people can come to different interpretations, but there are also parts where the teaching is sufficiently clear. Sure, there are parts where it is not ''crystal clear'', and there have therefore been small groups that have had different views, but there will always be those who disagree for some reason, and we shouldn't allow people who prefer their own opinions over clear teaching to cause us to think that it's not really that clear. For example, as mentioned above, there are those who call themselves Christian who don't actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
::: I don't think it's true to say that the vast majority are relying on modern translations. Most probably rely on what their Minister preaches, and he is relying on what the leading commentators say, and they have studied the text in the original languages.
::: How do we determine with absolute certainty? Well, for a start, it depends on what you mean by "absolute certainty". Are you ''absolutely'' certain that your parents named you Ben? Perhaps the nurse wrote it down wrong, and your parents decided to stick with it? The point is that we can be ''sufficiently certain'' of many things, but if you are inclined to ''not'' believe, perhaps one can't be ''absolutely'' certain. But to be ''realistic'', as opposed to ''absolutely'' certain, then yes, we can be sure, in the vast majority of cases at least, what the authors meant. See for example in [[biblical creation account]], the sections titled "Length of the days" and "Narrative or poetry?".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 30 April 2008 (EDT)