[OBW]

I like the way Juan puts it.

The funny thing is that while I would not join with those who argue so strongly for inerrancy, I do believe that the scriptures are true and accurate, but in a different sense than is meant by inerrancy. They accurately portray God — not always through a litany of details, but through what we see in the picture painted with the words spoken. That takes a lot of focus off of the specific words used and places it on the whole of the writing that is painting the picture.

That does not mean that specific words are not sometimes important. But I honestly think that it is a lot less often than so many would want to assert.

That is the reason that I am much happier reading the NIV or some other translation that is focused on the whole rather than on the words. I'm not a huge fan of The Message. But I do think that the way it removes you from the background of words and phrases that are familiar makes every passage speak with new life and light.

As to literal translations, I have a Christian friend that I get to see rather infrequently because he and his wife spend most of their time in remote parts of India meeting with others from various places in and around India. Their objective is to help in the translation of the Bible into the multitude of dialects found in that part of the world. He does not know any of these languages, but is working with locals who do, and who also know English. His objective is to help them understand what they are translating, then get them to give it back to him from their translation after they are done.

He recently told a story about a particular dialect/language that had a different way of saying "fisherman." It would literally translate to "killer of fish." That posed a unique problem when they went to translate "I will make you fishers of men." At that point, you have to throw the idea of a literal translation out the window and find a different metaphor — one that will say what Jesus said without using the "fisherman" analogy.

The Bible is very true and accurate in the things that it is true and accurate about. But it is not presumed to be true and accurate about what it clearly is wrapping in sideways and metaphorical terminology. The land produced vegetation, as well as living creatures. It is described as a 6-day adventure. But is the day literal?

And is it important?

Why is this account there? To lay out the hows of creation? Or to tell that it was God that ordained it? I say the latter. For all the textbooks on biology, geology, physics, etc., they can only deal with aspects of it all. How is a telling to a people who wouldn't understand the opening paragraph of a biology textbook going to understand the details of creation? So make the long story short. "I did it. It was a combination and series of parts that I will call days. Eventually, there was man. We had a falling out and that is why things are as they are now." Was "Adam" 6,000 or 60,000 years ago? Was the flood a simple 40 days of raining followed by a period of drying after which 8 people repopulated the earth, or something else told in this manner that was understandable at the time?

I honestly don't think haggling over these as items of "inerrancy" is worth the breath we would breathe during the process. Some will disagree. But that is my take.