Yesterday I blogged about apologetics. With this in mind, I find that (popular) Biblical criticism in Africa tends to differ from that of Europe and North America. African Biblical criticism tends to assume that accounts of supernatural events in the Bible are true, but not supernatural. European and North American Biblical criticism tends to assume that accounts of supernatural events in the Bible are simply not true (alternatively, not literal). Here is an example: where Africans may say that the account of Jesus walking on water is true but He was riding a plank, Europeans and North Americans may say that it simply didn't happen. OBSERVATION: The more traditional view would assume, of course, that accounts of supernatural events in the Bible are both true and supernatural.
No comments:
Post a Comment