IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
As a Christian who takes a more liberal view of most of the Bible (excepting Jesus's words themselves), I don't consider this harmful and think a discussion over PM about this would be fun.
Climate change stupidity.
- Thread starter classical_hero
- Start date
As a Christian who takes a more liberal view of most of the Bible (excepting Jesus's words themselves), I don't consider this harmful and think a discussion over PM about this would be fun.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,811
That's a liberal argument, usually
Well no, its we should tolerate everything, except alternative viewpoints.
I like how you dismissed a argument on issue of debates as "liberal." Of course liberals would not respect the views of say a deniar of a war crime... save for fanatics.
The Archbishop of Oxford be among those who do not take things literally. Many says that the creation story is a notion of the development of the planet. The Big Bang is from this believe.
Stating that taking not everything in the Bible on face value as harmful is... ungood. There are verses in the Bible saying slavery is A-OK and a person of goodness would seek goodness not because a symbolic book says its good but because goodness.
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
Yep, sorry, I meant to say 'a few thousand' actually (because I didn't want to choose exactly 6 or 10 or anything inbetween).
The explanation why it is the age of the Earth which is an illusion according to YEC believers and not the holy book makes sense, thanks. However, as God created the universe according to you, didn't he write physics laws (and indeed any law describing any kind of behaviour in our universe) too? If he didn't, either someone else must have created them or they existed before God did ( or are just as old as him). Both of the possibilities don't seem to really fit with Christianity or the Bible (you've probably more knowledge about that than me, though).
So if God created the laws describing the universe, he could perfectly have made an universe in which young planets too could harbour life, in a way we cannot possibly understand (as followers of an Abrahamic religion believe that God is supernatural).
So either God wants the universe seem older than it is or the laws of the universe weren't written by God.
Yes, all Christians I know do not believe the Bible literally.
Is there any specific part of the Bible you think they should take literally? I suppose some parts of it are less important than others (if it says Methuselah lived to be 969, I think few people believe he was exactly 969 at the age he died, and not a day older). Everyone interprets the Bible in his own way, I think, and will thus decide what parts of it he will believe literally and what others he sees as metaphors.
I do not oppose liberal views of the Bible (as you probably guessed already), but I think you have a reason in mind why it's harmful to have one. Could you give it?
GhostWriter16
Deity
First of all, thanks for not participating in the veiled insults and actually asking questions. I appreciate it.
That's good, since nobody really knows. If I recall corrrectly, James Usher got approximately 4004 BC (Give or take a few years) using the Masoretic text and assuming that there were no gaps in the geneaology, even though gaps would fit how such things were often written. If I recall, the Septuagint translation (Which the Early Christians thought was authoritative mainly because they themselves spoke Greek, but that doesn't really make sense to me since the books were originally written in Hebrew) gives a slightly older Earth than this, placing the Fall of Rome at around the 6,000 year mark, due to some differences in the numbers (One I know is that Adam was 130 years old when he begat Seth in the Masoretic text, but was 230 years old at that point in the Septuagint, which would make the earth 100 years older right there.) That said, I really don't think it matters because such geneaologies commonly skipped people who were considered irrelevant.
This is a metaphysical topic that I probably can't do justice. As far as I see it, scientists assume that the earth slowly came into the form it is in now, and was not simply spoken into existance by God. So that assumption would naturally require billions of years. But if God simply spoke the world into existance then I don't see why billions of years would be required. In that case, the laws of science wouldn't ACTUALLY require an Old Earth, but our assumptions about how the world naturally came into being would. To give an example, there are stars that are supposedly millions of light years away. How would we see them? Maybe we shouldn't be able too, but God wanted us to be able to for some reason so presumably he created the light already visible from Earth. I just don't see any good reason this has to mean an Old Earth. If he made the speed of light faster, there would probably be other implications. But either way the simple reality is I just don't know why God did it the way he did it.
Presumably yes. Again, why he didn't I don't know.
The latter is certainly not accurate. The former might be, but if it were, it would be for a purpose other than deception.
Sadly.
In that particular case, just think of the way people talk today. I'm 17 years old. Perhaps you could argue that's not really true by looking at my birthdate in my profile (1/21/95) and say I'm actually 17 and a half years, thinking that's more accurate. But its still not 100% precise. Its true, yes, I'm over the age of 17 and a half, but under 18, so rounded to the nearest half year it would be correct. If you want to be ultra-precise, you'd have to figure out how many days I've been 17 (And that's not something I'm taking the trouble to do, I just told you my birthday if you care
) If you round to the nearest month, I'm 17 and seven months old.
Since Methusaleh was "Nine hundred and sixty-nine years old" I think its fairly obvious that they were rounding by years. They could have rounded by modern rounding rules (Half a year rounds up) or they could have been rounding the same way we round years today (If I'm 17 and seven months, I'm still 17, even though in other cases 17 and 7/12ths would be rounded up to 18). The latter seems more likely to me, so he lived 969 years, but we don't really know how many extra days it was. I just don't see any reason to be THAT literal with the text when there isn't a single mention of months or days in the geneaology. And even if it were, it wouldn't matter anyways. If it actually did tell them the days, we'd be discussing whether it could have been an hour more, and so on. I just don't see any good reason why the Bible writers aren't allowed to estimate. Paul clearly does this when he references an event in numbers in which the text in numbers says twenty four thousand died (It might be 23,000 in the Septuagint, I don't know, but its 24,000 in the translation I have, which is ESV and so almost completely word for word from the Hebrew) but Paul calls it 23,000. At first glance this might seem like a contradiction, but I really don't think it is. That 23,000 died doesn't necessarily mean that not a single number more and 24,000 doesn't necessarily mean not a single number less. The more probable conclusion is that Paul (And possibly the translator from Hebrew to Greek as well, since the NT writers quoted the Greek Septuagint since that's what they had, which is also why when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament it usually looks slightly different than the quote from the Old Testament) decided to round down, and the writer of Numbers (Traditionally Moses) rounded up. Thus more than twenty-three thousand died, but not quite twenty four thousand. I don't see this as problamatic. The point of the Bible isn't to give us a bunch of precise numbers. It is, primarily, to show us how to attain Salvation from our sins. The reason all of the Bible is true is first of all because it claims itself to be (2 Timothy 3:16) and the fact that it is so proves to us that its trustworthy. While not all parts of the Bible have been absolutely proven by historians and scientists, large portions of it have been, and the clear corrolation between Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah and Jesus Christ's fulfilment of them (Isaiah 53 and Jesus' death on a cross being the easiest one to think of) is also inescapable, at least for me.
To answer your general question, it is apparent not all parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, Revelation 13 is a pretty good example of a text that is not taken literally be pretty much anyway, and Revelation 11 is another good example of a text that is probably not meant to be taken literally ("Fire" there seems to be a metaphor for speaking the words of God, which is actually a simile used somewhere in the Old Testament.) I don't think anyone takes the "Sword in his mouth" In Revelation 19 literally either, its probably another metaphor to the words of God (Which is also compared to a double-edged sword in Hebrews.) The Bible is able to use poetic imagery. However, that requires the intent of the writer (Keep in mind the Bible has multiple writers) to do so. John seems pretty much like he's speaking in allegory for large parts of Revelation, although I do think the judgments are literally going to happen at the end, but Genesis is clearly written as a historical text. If you read the thing from beginning to end, there's little reason to assume its being written as an allegory, and every reason to think the writer seems to be trying to convey historical fact. The New Testament writers also address the book as history. The writer of Hebrews (Who is annonymous) says "By faith Abel..." which suggests that Abel actually existed and that he actually did the things that Genesis 4 describes. This assumes a literal interpretation being the intent to me.
Sure. First of all, its because "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16.) Now, you could simply argue that 2 Timothy 3:16 isn't really supposed to be there, but I see no good reason to. If God wanted us to have a fallible book that is mostly true but meant to be taken liberally and certain parts rejected, why would he allow the book to claim its infallibility? I think my God is bigger than to allow us to be deceived in this way. Plus the Bible has numerous references to God's soveregnty over his creation (Start in Genesis and read to Revelation, you'll find them throughout)
Deuteronomy 32:5 says "The rock (Referring to God), his work is perfect!" If God's work is perfect, surely his Word given to us is also perfectly as he intended it, or else we yet again contradict what the Bible plainly says.
Now, you can simply say all of these things are incorrect, but then why believe the Bible at all? People who accept some of what the Bible says but reject other parts are basically creating a God in their own image, based on how they think he should be like (Breaking the first two of the ten commandments.) They put themselves over God, thinking they can decide how the Supreme Being will act, when the Book he gave us gives us every indication to think that we are supposed to accept the Revelation he did give. It leads to moral relativism, which also has no Biblical support but is often rejected by the Scriptures. It does not lead to a stronger faith in God, but a stronger faith in man.
Some more scriptures just to show you there's NO WAY this book can lead to a liberal interpretation.
Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.
Proverbs 14:12- There is a way that seems rightto man but in the end brings death.
I've just quoted from a variety of Bible writers (At least four, and the number would be even higher if you reject what the Bible says about who wrote it, as some do) that explain pretty clearly that taking a relativistic view of the Bible (Taking what we like and throwing away the rest) is wrong. I challenge you to find even one affirming the idea. You can't because its simply not there. Like with the constitution as I explained in another thread, there's every reason to take the Bible literally, but some people will interpret it however they want simply because they really don't believe what it says is correct in the first place.
That's good, since nobody really knows. If I recall corrrectly, James Usher got approximately 4004 BC (Give or take a few years) using the Masoretic text and assuming that there were no gaps in the geneaology, even though gaps would fit how such things were often written. If I recall, the Septuagint translation (Which the Early Christians thought was authoritative mainly because they themselves spoke Greek, but that doesn't really make sense to me since the books were originally written in Hebrew) gives a slightly older Earth than this, placing the Fall of Rome at around the 6,000 year mark, due to some differences in the numbers (One I know is that Adam was 130 years old when he begat Seth in the Masoretic text, but was 230 years old at that point in the Septuagint, which would make the earth 100 years older right there.) That said, I really don't think it matters because such geneaologies commonly skipped people who were considered irrelevant.
This is a metaphysical topic that I probably can't do justice. As far as I see it, scientists assume that the earth slowly came into the form it is in now, and was not simply spoken into existance by God. So that assumption would naturally require billions of years. But if God simply spoke the world into existance then I don't see why billions of years would be required. In that case, the laws of science wouldn't ACTUALLY require an Old Earth, but our assumptions about how the world naturally came into being would. To give an example, there are stars that are supposedly millions of light years away. How would we see them? Maybe we shouldn't be able too, but God wanted us to be able to for some reason so presumably he created the light already visible from Earth. I just don't see any good reason this has to mean an Old Earth. If he made the speed of light faster, there would probably be other implications. But either way the simple reality is I just don't know why God did it the way he did it.
Presumably yes. Again, why he didn't I don't know.
The latter is certainly not accurate. The former might be, but if it were, it would be for a purpose other than deception.
Sadly.
In that particular case, just think of the way people talk today. I'm 17 years old. Perhaps you could argue that's not really true by looking at my birthdate in my profile (1/21/95) and say I'm actually 17 and a half years, thinking that's more accurate. But its still not 100% precise. Its true, yes, I'm over the age of 17 and a half, but under 18, so rounded to the nearest half year it would be correct. If you want to be ultra-precise, you'd have to figure out how many days I've been 17 (And that's not something I'm taking the trouble to do, I just told you my birthday if you care
) If you round to the nearest month, I'm 17 and seven months old.Since Methusaleh was "Nine hundred and sixty-nine years old" I think its fairly obvious that they were rounding by years. They could have rounded by modern rounding rules (Half a year rounds up) or they could have been rounding the same way we round years today (If I'm 17 and seven months, I'm still 17, even though in other cases 17 and 7/12ths would be rounded up to 18). The latter seems more likely to me, so he lived 969 years, but we don't really know how many extra days it was. I just don't see any reason to be THAT literal with the text when there isn't a single mention of months or days in the geneaology. And even if it were, it wouldn't matter anyways. If it actually did tell them the days, we'd be discussing whether it could have been an hour more, and so on. I just don't see any good reason why the Bible writers aren't allowed to estimate. Paul clearly does this when he references an event in numbers in which the text in numbers says twenty four thousand died (It might be 23,000 in the Septuagint, I don't know, but its 24,000 in the translation I have, which is ESV and so almost completely word for word from the Hebrew) but Paul calls it 23,000. At first glance this might seem like a contradiction, but I really don't think it is. That 23,000 died doesn't necessarily mean that not a single number more and 24,000 doesn't necessarily mean not a single number less. The more probable conclusion is that Paul (And possibly the translator from Hebrew to Greek as well, since the NT writers quoted the Greek Septuagint since that's what they had, which is also why when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament it usually looks slightly different than the quote from the Old Testament) decided to round down, and the writer of Numbers (Traditionally Moses) rounded up. Thus more than twenty-three thousand died, but not quite twenty four thousand. I don't see this as problamatic. The point of the Bible isn't to give us a bunch of precise numbers. It is, primarily, to show us how to attain Salvation from our sins. The reason all of the Bible is true is first of all because it claims itself to be (2 Timothy 3:16) and the fact that it is so proves to us that its trustworthy. While not all parts of the Bible have been absolutely proven by historians and scientists, large portions of it have been, and the clear corrolation between Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah and Jesus Christ's fulfilment of them (Isaiah 53 and Jesus' death on a cross being the easiest one to think of) is also inescapable, at least for me.
To answer your general question, it is apparent not all parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, Revelation 13 is a pretty good example of a text that is not taken literally be pretty much anyway, and Revelation 11 is another good example of a text that is probably not meant to be taken literally ("Fire" there seems to be a metaphor for speaking the words of God, which is actually a simile used somewhere in the Old Testament.) I don't think anyone takes the "Sword in his mouth" In Revelation 19 literally either, its probably another metaphor to the words of God (Which is also compared to a double-edged sword in Hebrews.) The Bible is able to use poetic imagery. However, that requires the intent of the writer (Keep in mind the Bible has multiple writers) to do so. John seems pretty much like he's speaking in allegory for large parts of Revelation, although I do think the judgments are literally going to happen at the end, but Genesis is clearly written as a historical text. If you read the thing from beginning to end, there's little reason to assume its being written as an allegory, and every reason to think the writer seems to be trying to convey historical fact. The New Testament writers also address the book as history. The writer of Hebrews (Who is annonymous) says "By faith Abel..." which suggests that Abel actually existed and that he actually did the things that Genesis 4 describes. This assumes a literal interpretation being the intent to me.
Sure. First of all, its because "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16.) Now, you could simply argue that 2 Timothy 3:16 isn't really supposed to be there, but I see no good reason to. If God wanted us to have a fallible book that is mostly true but meant to be taken liberally and certain parts rejected, why would he allow the book to claim its infallibility? I think my God is bigger than to allow us to be deceived in this way. Plus the Bible has numerous references to God's soveregnty over his creation (Start in Genesis and read to Revelation, you'll find them throughout
)Deuteronomy 32:5 says "The rock (Referring to God), his work is perfect!" If God's work is perfect, surely his Word given to us is also perfectly as he intended it, or else we yet again contradict what the Bible plainly says.
Now, you can simply say all of these things are incorrect, but then why believe the Bible at all? People who accept some of what the Bible says but reject other parts are basically creating a God in their own image, based on how they think he should be like (Breaking the first two of the ten commandments.) They put themselves over God, thinking they can decide how the Supreme Being will act, when the Book he gave us gives us every indication to think that we are supposed to accept the Revelation he did give. It leads to moral relativism, which also has no Biblical support but is often rejected by the Scriptures. It does not lead to a stronger faith in God, but a stronger faith in man.
Some more scriptures just to show you there's NO WAY this book can lead to a liberal interpretation.
Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.
Proverbs 14:12- There is a way that seems rightto man but in the end brings death.
I've just quoted from a variety of Bible writers (At least four, and the number would be even higher if you reject what the Bible says about who wrote it, as some do) that explain pretty clearly that taking a relativistic view of the Bible (Taking what we like and throwing away the rest) is wrong. I challenge you to find even one affirming the idea. You can't because its simply not there. Like with the constitution as I explained in another thread, there's every reason to take the Bible literally, but some people will interpret it however they want simply because they really don't believe what it says is correct in the first place.
GW, I don't think you're really addressing the core of the issue. Even if we do accept that the bible is God-breathed and perfect (I could raise objection against concluding the infallibility of any document from the document itself now, since it's circular logic), that doesn't mean that the bible is always to be interpreted literally.
Genesis could be a metaphor because God intended it to be a metaphor, and not a literal description of actual events. I'm sure as a Christian you agree one shouldn't presume on God's intentions.
Genesis could be a metaphor because God intended it to be a metaphor, and not a literal description of actual events. I'm sure as a Christian you agree one shouldn't presume on God's intentions.
Thankfully.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Alright, PM coming...
I have yet to see a verse in the Bible saying slavery, as we know it today, is OK. What passed for "Slavery" back then was really indentured servitude, which I don't theoretically see a problem with. In fact, slaves were supposed to be treated like hired workers.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Slavery is slavery, no matter how you slice it. The fact you are okay with one person selling another person into slavery to pay for someone elses debts is rather chilling.
(Nevermind the passages stating that if an umarried man rapes a virgin, he is supposed to marry her. That ought to make for an awkward wedding reception. "I remember the first time I met my husband, Bob, he had just finished ravishing my mother and then proceeded to ravish me.")
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
GhostWriter, one thing. If you want your interpretation to be respected, please don't state motivations to those who disagree with your interpretation.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
That's a liberal argument, usually
Well no, its we should tolerate everything, except alternative viewpoints.
Who said anything about liberals?
GhostWriter16 said:
God, I love libertarians. They're so inconsistent that it's a walking case study in cognitive dissonance.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I do, sort of.
If you really carefully go through the Bible and do your math properly, you'll get a number that's closer to 657 years old.
But how can that be? We have records of people being alive 2,000 years ago! Don't we? We do, but that's just the Lord screwing with us.
Prove me wrong.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
ITT, we see learn one part of the Bible is clearly a metaphor, since it obviously isn't true. Other parts however are clearly not metaphors, despite obviously not being true.
You must not look very hard. I googled 'slavery bible passage' and was brought to this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/02/02/feedback-bible-slavery
GhostWriter16 said:
1. No, scientists don't "assume' the earth slowly came into being. In fact, for hundreds of years scientists assumed that the earth had formed fairly quickly - since they were working under the biblical assumptions. But those views became increasingly difficult to reconcile with observations. They tried over and over to fit observations to the framework of a literal bible - and failed. Either the observations were wrong or the biblical interpretation was wrong. As further observations bolstered the case for a VERY old earth, the biblical interpretation had to be left behind. Scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries bent over backwards to fit their observations to a YEC worldview, but there was no way. That's why they rejected biblical literalism: Geology simply shows that it's wrong. Nowadays we also have planetary disk observations, and that stuff explains our local planetary composition very well. No need for gods here.
2. Of course, if any of the myriad gods simply spake the world into existence then billions of years may not be required to explain geological evidence, solar evolutionary evidence, cosmological evidence. But we have those evidences, actually. So there's really no logical reason to invoke any gods... the billions of years of time perfectly explain how all we see can possibly have formed. No gods required.
3. The laws of science, as you call them, don't require an old earth. You have it a little confused - the observations of empirically repeatable scientific observations indicate - via multiple lines of disparate evidence - that the earth is around 4,500,000,000 years old; the universe around 13,700,000,000 years old. These aren't assumptions - these are the results of repeatable observations. Yes, there are assumptions involved in deriving those ages. But you know what those assumptions are? Simple: Forces (which mediate the interaction of matter and energy in the universe) that we observe are universal. If we see that a particular interaction between neutrons and protons happens in a certain way now, we propose that it happens the same way in every direction. The result? A surprisingly predictive model of viewing the world around us. The reason that science is so powerful is because, in a word, it works. As opposed to gods, which appear to not exist. At least, observationally
4. The closest star to us is around 4 light years distant. Every other star is farther away than that. Accurately determining the distance to stars is an arcane (but not incomprehensible!) area of astronomy / astrophysics. If you are interested in learning more about the various techniques, I recommend Ethan Seigel's blog StartsWithABang. He's a great writer, knows his stuff inside and out, and actually replies to readers' questions. If you don't understand something - ask him! He'll go into as much or as little detail as you like. But in a nutshell, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the age and distance of other stars relates directly to the age of the earth. It's just like when you hear an ambulance screeching up the road, then past you - the characteristic rising then falling tone has no bearing on when your house was built. But the same physics that governs your garage door opener determines the rise and fall in pitch of that ambulance's siren. Ok, not the best analogy, I admit
But a far more useful, predictive, and accurate model than 'gods made it so'. If gods were involved here, then we wouldn't have been able to land Curiosity on Mars. That was pure science: calculus, relativity, physics, chemistry, fluid dynamics, robotics - NONE of it involved gods. In fact, if you try to get to Mars on prayers alone, you'll fail. I'd bet my life on that. Would you?5. When you look at everything empirically - that is, from the stance of "what do we know, and how do we know it?" - then the issue of gods' intentions falls away into irrelevancy. The universe is observed to be of a certain size, observed to be of a certain age, observed to be of a certain nature, that the idea of a god-as-engineer-so-humans-can-accept-Him-and-reject-their-inborn-sin is simply.... well, words fail me. As do godly explanations for what we see.
Sorry for the long post, but this is one of those cases where you offered me a lot of hand-holds and I had the time to free-climb the face.
GhostWriter16
Deity
First of all, the mother would have been married so he would have been executed for that. Secondly, marriage was completely different back then. It wasn't about love. And if a woman were raped, she wouldn't be able to get married. So it was basically forcing the rapist to marry her so she wouldn't live alone. Its disgusting to modern thought, but was actually designed to protect the woman back then.
Since Adam lived 930 years, that's impossible to derive Biblically.
@PeterGrimes- I need some time to get to the other stuff, but the answersingenesis post you link to actually explains a lot of those details.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,811
O realy?
There is a reason that many Christain do not take in all the stuff in the Bible...
GhostWriter16
Deity
OK, you are correct. One possible interpretation is that, like divorce, God allowed it "Because of hard hearts" and to ensure that they didn't sell their own brothers (Fellow Israelites) into slavery. Secondly, keep in mind that foreigners who DID worship the Lord (Such as Ruth) did actually become Israelites, so it was dealing with idolatrers and not merely those of a different race. Thirdly, this was specifically part of the Levitical Law anyways, so even if none of the above were true, it wouldn't be applicible under the New Covenant. There's just no good reason to assume that slavery is actually OK based on that Levitical text. If you parse Philemon carefully, it seems like Paul is asking, although not necessarily explicitly commanding, Philemon to free his slave.
As for the one about daughters I'm not reallly sure about the context of that one either. Either way, there's certainly a cultural context to it and its not applicable to our modern law today.
So you agree that "X was completely different back then" is a sufficient argument to depart from the literal content of the bible? Especially concerning marriage?
And out of curiosity, would you agree that we've changed the definition of marriage since biblical times?
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Fun fact, due to my ancestry and LucyDuke's ancestry, my forefathers inherited hers. Technically, according to Levitical law, I own her.
GhostWriter16
Deity
So you agree that "X was completely different back then" is a sufficient argument to depart from the literal content of the bible? Especially concerning marriage?
And out of curiosity, would you agree that we've changed the definition of marriage since biblical times?
At the first part, that depends on what the commandment was for and whether it was intended to apply to all people at all times. If you can't find it anywhere other than Leviticus, its honestly probably not supposed to be applied today.
Second part, the definition no, but the purpose yes. But my opposition to gay marriage has to do with the fact that I do not want the government to support (Which is different than simply allowing) sin. Not because of "Tradition" so much.
How do you find out whether it was intended to apply to all people at all times? Can't every biblical commandment be put to the question of whether it is intended to apply to all people at all times?
Without explicit, literal statements in the bible that certain commandments are only intended to apply to certain people at certain times, how can you employ this rationalization without departing from the very notion that the bible is supposed to be interpreted literally?
Shouldn't the purpose be part of the definition?
