FK, did Jesus use parables? A parable is a fictional story, is it not? But it gives an underlying teaching, one that has spritual connotations - and is inerrant. Does the fact that there are fictional stories in the GOSPELS bother you? So why can't the WORD inspire another story, the creation story, to teach what God wants us to know? IF science comes out with hard evidence of earth's old age, we, as God's creation who seeks God out, (who is Truth) we should NOT be embarrased to admit that Gen 1-3 MIGHT be a "parable". The bible teaches theological truths, and science teaches observable truths. We don't have to leave our brain at the door to be a Christian. If science says that the earth revolves around the sun as the cause of night and day, do we refuse to believe it because it interferes with the Fundamentalist's concept of Scriptures?
Regards
[Jo kus to FK] The bible teaches theological truths, and science teaches observable truths. We don't have to leave our brain at the door to be a Christian. If science says that the earth revolves around the sun as the cause of night and day, do we refuse to believe it because it interferes with the Fundamentalist's concept of Scriptures?
Very well put, Jo. Science does not diminish spiritual truths of the Bible. Science does not diminish God. If anything science only reveals His greatness.
Because the Bible does not only reveal God's truth, but the knowledge of the world of its authors, there are factual "errors" in the Bible, such as the earth having a physical end, being flat and four-cornered; or bats being seen as birds, etc.
None of their own lack of knowledge of the world as we know it today (and none being their own fault) affect the eternal spiritual truth conveyed in the Bible. It is quite comforting to realize that the truth of God does not depend on how much we know of the world!
It doesn't bother me at all. The difference is that Jesus was OPEN about it. He even announced at least one parable as a parable and then explained its meaning. He was "open and notorious" about it. The same cannot be said about the other stories that are being questioned by some here. There is no hint that the flood was just an illustration, or that Jonah never spent time in the belly of the whale. Only human disbelief accounts for dismissing the truth of these stories.
So why can't the WORD inspire another story, the creation story, to teach what God wants us to know?
For the same reason the WORD CANNOT inspire the "story" of the resurrection as an allegory. Or do you believe that Jesus did not literally rise from the dead? I mean, the story tells us everything we need to know, right? It didn't really have to happen for us to get the message, right? How would your science judge a story of literally raising from the dead to a story of spending 3 days in a FISH? (Note to Kosta, just like with the bats, it was only later that man decided to reclassify the animals, it doesn't make this wrong.) How do you judge which stories are literally true and which are literally false? Today's level of science? Do you think that's going to hold up forever?
IF science comes out with hard evidence of earth's old age, we, as God's creation who seeks God out, (who is Truth) we should NOT be embarrassed to admit that Gen 1-3 MIGHT be a "parable".
You just elevated man's current science above God's word. Therefore, to you, man's science determines the truth of the Bible. Man's science is ever-changing, so it makes sense that your views as to which stories in the Bible are true will also be ever-changing. Choose as you will, I'm sticking with God's word. It doesn't change.