nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 282:
Line 282: + + + + + +
Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally? (view source)
Revision as of 11:19, May 1, 2008
, 11:19, May 1, 2008→Faith in Christ Versus Faith In The Bible: commandment vs. history; "firmament" not solid; OT vs. NT.
:::: [[User:BenP|BenP]] 19:36, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: [[User:BenP|BenP]] 19:36, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: The reason that believing the virgin birth and practising circumcision are not in the same league is that one is a (claimed) historical fact and the other is a practice that is commanded. They are totally different things. The virgin birth is not a ''commandment''.
::::: It's not a "literal" reading that would lead one to read that the "firmament" was solid. Rather, it's reading it in an older translation, such as the Authorised version, or one based on that, that mistranslated the Hebrew word[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=firmament]. The Hebrew word means "expanse", which is what most modern versions render it as. Believing it to not be solid has nothing to do with modern astronomy.
::::: I agree about not relying "too heavily" on what the commentators say, and I was not suggesting that one do that. I was merely pointing out that, indirectly, this is what most probably do, rather than relying solely on their own reading of modern text.
::::: By the way, I was sent [http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/law2.htm this article] the other day, and it directly addresses your question about the status of the Old Testament laws.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)