nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 169:
Line 169: + +
Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant? (view source)
Revision as of 14:20, April 6, 2007
, 14:20, April 6, 2007→What's this article trying to achieve?: Yes, but no, that was not the cultural context.
:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.
:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.
:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are. They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are. They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::I agree that it should be understood in its cultural context; that's effectively one of the things I've been saying. But I disagree that the cultural context is that of trying to explain the unknowable. If the Bible is correct, the "unknowable" was revealed by God, thus known. I don't understand the reference to 160 years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
== Protected debate page? ==
== Protected debate page? ==