So you're Ok with the notion that Jesus' mother's ancestors were monkeys? In spite of the clear teaching of scripture? Yeah, I guess you're right, one ought not argue about what words mean. After all, maybe there is no salvation, and maybe Jesus dosen't save. /s/
"I think we may be arguing the same point. The ultimate goal is salvation through Jesus. If that be the case, why argue about the meaning of days in Genesis and other arbitrary factoids that people some folks seem to dwell on. I am not trying to minimize the scripture, but people have gleaned individual quotes out of the bible to serve their own purposes. These motivations were usually those of man and not those of G_d. Slavery would be a good example.
I have enjoyed our discussion thus far."
Heheheh...I didn't realize we were arguing, thought we were just rattlin'! haha
I don't disagree with that logic on salvation. The important thing is that it happened. Or even that man uses some passages for their own agenda. I think Jesus' point on slavery is more in relation of obedience (especially when many people of the day sold themselves in slavery) and how that translates to a form of obedience to God. Much in the same way we are commanded to be obedient to God, to parents, etc. and turn the other cheek if offended. Obedience to the things of men (like complying with civil law, tax laws, etc) is a reflection of our obedience and commitment to God--because that what He desires.
I think the idea of arguing on points about Genesis is important because it threatens the validity of the Scriptures. Too many times today, many try to question the legitmacy of Genesis as a way or method to discredit the Bible. And if Genesis is wrong, this brings in question what other parts of the Bible are wrong? Yes, I'm a literalist. I believe the Scriptures are correct and without error.
It has been an enjoyable exchange. :)