Give it a try, Tony1 ... don't be afraid of what other Christians believe
Sign" mean "sign," not exact duplicate in every detail.
And if you read some of the links, you'll see what that point has achieved. For instance, the Gilchrist/Deedat debate. Gilchrist, in making his point about Hebrew colloquialisms, notes of Deedat:
Unfortunately Deedat here overlooks the fact that there was a big difference between Hebrew speech in the first century and English speech in the twentieth century.
Yet only two paragraphs later, he reinforces his point by noting that,
We never, speaking English in the twentieth century, speak in terms of days and nights. If any one decides to go away for, let us say, about two weeks, he will say he is going for a fortnight, or for two weeks, or for fourteen days. I have never yet met anyone speaking the English language say he will be away fourteen days and fourteen nights.
Gilchrist seems to undermine his own point about the differences between Hebrew and English by implying that modern English speech patterns have any significance in relation to ancient Hebrew.
Furthermore, the guy needs to get out more. Gilchrist, obviously, has never booked a hotel, where one speaks of days and nights, nor rented at Blockbuster Video where, at least the last time I bothered with them (1994) "3 days" equals forty-eight hours and one minute, and "1 day" equals forty-seven hours, fifty-nine minutes. Somebody who is prepared to make such generalizations about the English language.
So it's an interesting debate to watch. Like I noted to
Markx: Gilchrist can have his point about colloquialisms in ancient Hebrew, but it means the Bible is colloquial and not literal, and it indicates that Gilchrist bases his argumentation in generalizations. It works, but much like a proper syllogism, it does not have to represent reality. What does a more literal-minded Christian think of the idea that the Bible doesn't say quite what it says? What does it say of the dedicated Christians who translate the Bible so poorly as to leave such issues to question and debate? What does it say of the propriety of faith to have such points of faith unresolved?
It really will be an interesting one; a vital point of faith, various interpretations that undermine the larger faith paradigm as well as each other. It's kind of like the docetism argument in that one: I'll buy either side, so to speak, but the faithful still can't come together on a most central point of faith. These kinds of issues
need resolution among Christians: it's part of why so many infidels think the flock is nuts--One God, one book, one Truth, and yet as we go from one to the next (even when we were part of that faith) it seems that none of you agree on that one anything, and while it's annoying enough to have people constantly correcting you toward their presuppositions, it's even more annoying when the credibility of those presuppositions--invested in the flock itself--is unestablished.
thanx,
Tiassa