At 03:58 PM 06/05/02 -0600, Burgy wrote:
>Jan wrote: "I probably have said this before. I accept all people who
>believe the infallibility of the Bible as Christian brothers and sisters,
>who depend for their salvation on Christ's death."
>Do you accept me too? I could not subscribe to the above (narrow)
Depends. Also, my definition may not be perfectly clear. "Infallibility"
does not mean that I accept every interpretation, nor will I hold everyone
to my interpretation. As a matter of fact, according to some on this list,
I don't believe in the "infallibility" of the bible. And though I tried to
explain, they don't believe me. Reading is often interpreting. I do very
strongly believe, that God created, and since God created there is no
contradiction between what we read in science, in nature etc. and the
Bible. Consequently, I reject what some people call the "literal reading
of Gen.1 - 11" since it contradicts what God tells us in nature, and
science. Nature and what we study in science is also created by God. God
is not trying to fool us, so we must do a lot of studying. It does not
take away from my contention, that there must be a solution, which we
probably will not know until we live on the New World, after Christ returned.
There are some provisos though. There have been errors in copying, and
translations are not always dependable. Translations (and to a lesser
degree copying) are very much influenced by what we think it ought to
say. Thaat is already so in translating from a modern language into
another, but much more from an ancient language into a modern
one. Personally I have very great doubts and find it often necessary to
check the translation. For example, when I meet words like "heart",
"soul", "spirit" and don't quite get the meaning. Don't forget that these
words in the original are translated into English according to what
translators thought it might mean. "nephesh" in Gen.1 "living being", in
Gen.2 "soul" according to some translations. "Ruach" may mean "spirit",
"wind", "direction", etc.
Since that is so, my own interpretation may be different than the
interpretation of the translators. Another reason to be wide in accepting
brothers and sisters in the Lord. Very basically, though, all Christians
must accept Jesus as their personal Saviour, if they want to be called
If I knew, what your objection to "infallibilty" is, I might be able to
clarify. I do not think that any translation is automatically "infallible"
talking God's Word.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 06 2002 - 21:30:44 EDT