Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I like the way Juan puts it.
The funny thing is that while I would not join with those who argue so strongly for inerrancy, I do believe that the scriptures are true and accurate, but in a different sense than is meant by inerrancy. They accurately portray God — not always through a litany of details, but through what we see in the picture painted with the words spoken. That takes a lot of focus off of the specific words used and places it on the whole of the writing that is painting the picture.
That does not mean that specific words are not sometimes important. But I honestly think that it is a lot less often than so many would want to assert.
That is the reason that I am much happier reading the NIV or some other translation that is focused on the whole rather than on the words. I'm not a huge fan of The Message. But I do think that the way it removes you from the background of words and phrases that are familiar makes every passage speak with new life and light.
|
Expressing our opinion about the bible is not bad for as long as we do not make our opinion the absolute truth which only emanate from God alone. We can have this discussion in a peaceful way by acknowledging that what we all are saying here are purely our own understanding/opinion of the things we read and understood in the bible and that we have it contained just within our minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I bThe Bible is very true and accurate in the things that it is true and accurate about. But it is not presumed to be true and accurate about what it clearly is wrapping in sideways and metaphorical terminology. The land produced vegetation, as well as living creatures. It is described as a 6-day adventure. But is the day literal?
And is it important?
Why is this account there? To lay out the hows of creation? Or to tell that it was God that ordained it? I say the latter. For all the textbooks on biology, geology, physics, etc., they can only deal with aspects of it all. How is a telling to a people who wouldn't understand the opening paragraph of a biology textbook going to understand the details of creation? So make the long story short. "I did it. It was a combination and series of parts that I will call days. Eventually, there was man. We had a falling out and that is why things are as they are now." Was "Adam" 6,000 or 60,000 years ago? Was the flood a simple 40 days of raining followed by a period of drying after which 8 people repopulated the earth, or something else told in this manner that was understandable at the time?
I honestly don't think haggling over these as items of "inerrancy" is worth the breath we would breathe during the process. Some will disagree. But that is my take.
|
Sadly for all who engage themselves in too much arguments, why the need to haggle over these things of accuracy, the hows of creation, and this never ending debate of "inerrancy" as if God were not here with us in all ages to help us resolve problems like these ones which truly burdened and divided many people all around the globe? The wars in the ME have their origin traceable to the history of their ancestral religion similar to what the whole world of biblical Christianity today is exactly experiencing around their midst. God is here with us in all ages, what hampers us from coming and learning from Him in the way how He prescribed it to be working efficiently for all of us?