[quote]futuredave wrote:
JPBear wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Still haven’t explained this to me
http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=dinosaurs
Go here and read to your heart’s content.
Dinos were my big hang up too when I was an atheist. Once I knew God though, it really did not bother me any more.
Solomon,
I’m going to address my comments to you, since you made such a sincere effort at asking non-Christians about their positions.
First, that website JPB pointed out actually made me sad.
The orthodox jews I know don’t even believe in a literal interpretation of genesis. (and yes, I know there are a few who do, but I’m talking about the vast majority).
You know why they don’t believe dinos and man lived side by side 6k years ago? Is it because their hearts were hardened because they didn’t accept Jesus as the messiah and abandon the law that God commanded them to keep forever?
No, it’s because they understand that Genesis is most likely an allegory.
They also have the Oral Tradition and Midrash, hundreds of pages of very complex commentary, developed over thousands of years by various learned rabbis. And these are crucial to understanding the Torah. In fact, do you know there is no Page 1 of the Torah? Why? Because of the Oral Tradition which is needed to understand it. You are not allowed to study it by yourself because you will be unable to understand it.
This I’m cutting/pasting from a Jewish literacy website:
[i]It is a foundation of our faith to believe that God gave Moses an oral explanation of the Torah along with the written text.
This oral tradition is now essentially preserved in the Talmud and Midrashim.
We thus speak of two Torahs. There is the Written Torah (Torah SheBiKetav) and the Oral Torah (Torah SheB’Al Peh). Both are alluded to in God’s statement to Moses, “Come up to Me to the mountain, and I will give you… the Torah and the commandments” (Exodus 24:12).
In many instances, the Torah refers to details not included in the written text, thus alluding to an oral tradition. Thus, the Torah states, “You shall slaughter your cattle… as I have commanded you” (Deut. 12:21), implying an oral commandment concerning ritual slaughter (shechitah).
Similarly, such commandments as tefillin and tzitzit are found in the Torah, but no details are given, and they are assumed to be in the Oral Torah. Although observing Shabbat is one of the Ten Commandments, no details are given as to how it should be kept, and these are also in the unwritten tradition. God thus said, “You shall keep Shabbat holy, as I have commanded your fathers” (Jeremiah 17:22).
Just as we depend on tradition for the accepted text, vocalization, and translation of the Torah, so must we depend on tradition for its interpretation.
The Written Torah cannot be understood without the oral tradition. Hence, if anything, the Oral Torah is the more important of the two.
Since the Written Torah appears largely defective unless supplemented by the oral tradition, a denial of the Oral Torah necessarily leads to the denial of the divine origin of the written text as well…[/i]
All of this valuable information was thrown out by whom? Not Jesus, not James, not Peter… but Paul (who never met Jesus). Why? Because the Gentiles he was marketing to found his product too confusing. Plus, they didn’t want to be circumcised and they wanted to keep eating the meat sacrificed to pagan gods.
Therefore, if you read the Bible literally, and not the way it was meant to be read/studied, you come to absurd conclusions like those of the website above.
Peace.[/quote]
I went to that website too. It was not what I had expected.I don?t consider anything that I saw a ?deal breaker? in reference to salvation. I would probably agree that the creation account in Genisis is not literal. I would not consider it false though. I can accept that this was given to teach man to rest on the 7th day and also that it was described in the most basic terms. The explanation was probably sufficient for a pre-science culture. I can?t imagine trying to explain something like that without getting too deep. I think it would be like explaining it to a child. The oral tradition of the Torah is interesting. I had always thought of it as a cultural way of passing history to the next generation and not a biblical necessity. How did you come to the conclusion that Paul threw this out?
I think your final conclusion is a bit limiting. I would say that parts of the bible are to be taken literally. The historical books (kings, Chronicles) in the Old Testament contain historically accurate lineages that have been proven archeologically. I do think it is an important point to read and study the Bible as well as the culture to get an accurate picture of what is stated.
As a side bar: Ask your Jewish friends at what point blood atonement for sin was no longer necessary, or what they do now.
Me Solomon Grundy