At 11:51 PM 22/04/02 +0000, Jim Eisele wrote:
>Mike writes
>
> >If they are allowed to accept
> >what organizations like Answers In Genesis tell them are the teachings of
> >scripture, many of them will lose all respect for the Bible, and all belief
> >in the One it tells them died for them, when they learn in our schools and
> >colleges that YEC teachings are false.
>
>Bingo! And organizations like the ASA are part of the problem
>when they don't vigorously promote the historical, non-YEC
>interpretation of the Bible. (I wonder what type of flower
>this reminds me of...)
>
>Jim
Apparently the list had a vigorous discussion (and name-calling) in the
weeks I was away. I do think we should accept anyone who confesses Jesus
Christ as Saviour, however, none of those who need a Saviour is
sinless. Name-calling does hurt, and is a sin which may be forgiven, but
does not get anyone anywhere. In connection with Jim's posting above: I am
surprised that he can talk about a "historical, non YEC interpretation of
the Bible." Which one is that? To my knowledge there has never been a
time in history, when every Christian believed the same thing. Discussions
have been going on, even in OT times, about what certain words mean. I
have pointed to words like "nephesh" which is translated more often
according to the beliefs of the translators than leaving it as one word in
translations. "Ruach" is a similar word. Words like that are in the NT.
That means that anyone who wants to do a thorough investigation of
Christian beliefs must know OT Hebrew, Aramaic, history of the countries
talked about in the Bible, NT Greek and its connection with classical
Greek, history of dogmatics, use of numbers in the Bible, OT times, and in
the areas around Israel, and must know the Bible so well, that he can
immediately connect certain texts using the same words (in the original)
and the development of the words in history. Besides he must know the
development of the Western languages, and the change in meaning of certain
words, and probably some more theoretical backgrounds.
I am not saying that every believer, or even any believer has the necessary
background to do know all that. Far from that. That is why we have to
have patience with people who have another understanding of Scripture than
we have, and patiently talk with them for as much time as we have, even if
they keep insulting us as Christians never should. But all of us are
sinners, so we have no advantage over anyone. All of us must try to talk
to anyone who is willing to listen about God's Word and its interpretation.
Having said all that, I must say, that some people obviously do not want to
take part in a discussion, but keep on shouting: "I am right." but do not
listen to counter-arguments. As said above, I did not hear the beginning
of this very "strange" discussion, but it appears to me that Jim is only
wanting to hear himself, and then talking is useless, except of course, we
must encourage him to study. ASA the problem? It is one place where any
Christian can express his thinking, and engage in a discussion. But if one
starts and in general accuses everyone but himself of not listening, it is
better to keep quiet, and hope that the offending party learns from the
discussions going on here
Jan de Koning.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 10:12:49 EDT