Is the Bible the Word of God?

[rasmack 0]

Quote

I’d say Prove it.
Jesus did.
Talk is cheap.

If I recall my christianity lessons correctly (yep, we don't teach children religion but "christianity") then Jesus himself chastised a disciple for needing to see the holes in his hands in order to believe. And you now talk about proof...

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

but if your belief helps you sleep comfortably in the assurance that your faith is 'right' and all others are 'wrong' well....

I sleep very well...
Well, most nights....
Thank you.

good sleep is certainly a blessing...

my point was you used a rather long qoute to state "because I Believe it" in a manner that implies there is actual evidence to support said belief..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Quote

And I claim I am speaking the word of God. Therefore I am.

See how easy that is?

I’d say Prove it.
Jesus did.
Talk is cheap.

Minore permutation:

Jesus did nothing but cheap talk - prove the opposite

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Nightingale 0]

Well.... Even if the only true translation of the Bible must have been published in the "center of the world" which must be London because it's at 0 longitude...

How do we know which translation published in London is the right one???

These were all published or translated in London:

1496 - Colet translation
1537 - Matthew Bible
1537 - Cloverdale second edition
1539 - "The Great Bible" published by Grafton and AKA "Crammer's Bible"
1539 - "Taverner's Bible" printed by Bydell
1592 - Governon Bradford's Bible, published by Christopher Barker
1611 - King James version
1822 - Gibson Bible
1825 - Troy Bible
1829 - Gibson Bible, Third Edition
1845 - Haydock's Bible
1847 - Wiseman's Bible, printed by Richardson
1872 - Rotherham Version, translated from Greek
1878 - revised Rotherham, published by Bagster
1897 - revised Rotherham, published by Allenson
1903 - Ferrar Fenton version "Holy Bible in Modern English"
1903 - Weymouth version "The New Testament in Modern Speech"
1913 - Moffatt version "The New Testament: A New Translation in Modern Speech"
1914 - E.E. Cunnington translation ""The New Covenant"
1917 - revised Moffett version, published by Hodder and Stoughton
1919 - revised Cunnington version, published by T. Foster Unwin
1926 - revised Cunnington version "The Western New Testament"
1935 - The Westminster Version, published by Longmans and Green
1948 - revised Westminster, published by Longmans and Green
1952 - Williams translation "The New Testament, a New Translation in Plain English"
1955 - Knox translation "The Holy Bible; a Translation from the Latin Vulgate" published by Burns and Oates
1958 - Phillips version "The New Testament in Modern English" published by SCM
1969 - Barclay translation published by Collins
1972 - revised Phillips version published
1995 - "Holy Bible: New International Version" (NIV) published by Hodder and Stoughton

And those are just the ones I could find in fifteen minutes on Google.

And... why London? Sure, it's on 0 longitude, but so is Bordeaux, France. Should we also look at Bibles published there?

[smiles 0]

Is 100% of the Bible inspired by God ????????

(2 Timothy 3:15-16)
from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching..

Who wrote it?
Paul wrote that passage in a letter to his student Timothy?

What did Paul mean by `all scripture'? Did he mean `the whole Bible'?
Paul did not say that. He did not say, "the entire Bible is inspired." He said "All scripture is inspired."

What did Paul mean by "all scripture"?
“all scripture' means `all scripture”
The Hindu Scripture, the Buddhist Scripture, the Muslim Scripture, the Christian Scripture and all other scripture is inspired by God?

"What exactly did Paul mean?"
"The whole Bible?” Paul never said, "The whole Bible." Was Paul speaking to his student Timothy about the scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy?

It was definitely not the whole Bible. The whole Bible was not yet complete. Many books of the New Testament section were written after Paul's death.

Was Paul telling Timothy that Timothy knew from infancy about books which are not yet written?

Table of Books of the Bible---displays a list of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The approximate dates when these books were written are shown. The approximate date given for the writing of 2 Timothy is the year 65 C.E. (i.e. A.D. but contemporary users prefer C.E. instead of A.D.). Revelation 96 C.E. (A.D.) John 98 C.E. (A.D.) 1 John 98 C.E. (A.D.) 2 John 98 C.E. (A.D.) 3 John 98 C.E. (A.D.)

Was Paul telling Timothy to hold on to the above books which did not exist at the time?
Many other books were written too close to the year 65 C.E. for Timothy to have been familiar with them since his infancy.

Was the scripture Paul was telling Timothy about the Old Testament??...the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures?

Timothy was familiar with that book not in its original languages, but in its Greek language translation (the Septuagint Version). That Greek translation was prepared about three hundred years before Christ to enable those who could not read Hebrew to still benefit from the scriptures. This is the version which the early Christians like Timothy were reading. Was Paul telling him to hold on to that book?

The translation disagrees with the original in many points. Which should we take as the inspired book — the original or the translation? If the Hebrew original is inspired then the Greek translation is wrong. If the Greek is wrong then Paul is wrong to call it inspired —unless Paul thinks that a book is still inspired even if it contains mistakes. The Septuagint Greek version contains seven more books than the Hebrew version. These seven books are included in the Catholic Bible. They were included in the Scriptures that Timothy knew from childhood. Paul said all of it is inspired.

If you believe Paul, then you have to understand that Paul was saying only that the Greek Septuagint Old Testament is inspired. Paul did not say more than this.

The Bible says only that its Old Testament is inspired. The Bible does not say that its entire New Testament section is inspired. Nor does the Bible teach that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is inspired.

Verses in the Bible that claim to be not inspired:

Paul's letter to the Corinthians: "To the married people I give instructions, yet not I but the Lord . . ." (1 Corinthians 7:10). "But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord . . ." (1 Corinthians 7:12). Notice that in the first statement Paul claims that the Lord is speaking, in the second statement Paul is saying that the statement is his very own, and that the Lord does not say it.

Some books of the Old Testament claim only to be the words of a man, while others claim to contain words of God also. Many New Testament passages claim to be the opinion of men. Luke said: "I resolved also . . . to write . . ." (The Gospel According to Luke 1:1-4). Paul said: "Now concerning virgins I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion . . ." (Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 7:25). Paul said: "Therefore I think . . ." (1 Corinthians 7:26). Paul said: ". . . according to my opinion" (1 Corinthians 7:40). Paul said: "I certainly think . . ." (1 Corinthians 7:40). Paul said: "See! I, Paul, am telling you . . ." (Paul's Letter to the Galatians 5:2).

Did Paul know that his letters are part of the Word of God?

The letters of Paul were collected and later made part of the Bible without consulting Paul (Paul was, of course long dead by this time). But Paul himself was quite conscious that he often wrote his own opinions. In one case, Paul was even aware that he made an error in one of his letters and it is now part of the Bible.

I am thankful I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. As for the rest, I do not know whether I baptized anybody else (1 Corinthians 1:14:16).

Paul made a mistake and then a correction. But the mistake and the correction both remain in the Bible. Is the mistake Word of God too? Paul made the following three statements: (a) I baptized no one else but Crispus and Gaius. (b) Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. (c) I do not know whether I baptized anybody else. The mistake Paul made is his first statement that he baptized no one else except two persons named Crispus and Gaius.

Then he recalled that he had also baptized the household of Stephanas, so he made this slight correction in his next statement. But the mistaken statement is still there. Is this inspired?

Paul's third statement shows that he is not sure of the facts: I do not know whether I baptized anyone else (1 Corinthians 1:16). You see, Paul is not sure who else he baptized. He cannot remember. He knows he needs to correct his statement further by adding more names, but he cannot remember who to mention. So the first statement was a mistake. The second statement is a slight correction to the first. The third statement is an admission that the correction is not complete. All three remain in the Bible.

Are these Words of God?

Quote

YES.....The King James version of God's WORD IS the definitive WORD of God from the first word in Genesis to the last word in Revelation.

What happened to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians?
Paul reminds the Corinthians that he had already written to them a letter before this one. chapter 5: 9. In my letter I wrote you to quit mixing in company with fornicators . . . . 11. But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator . . . . In verse 9 above it is possible that Paul is referring to what he had written in a previous letter. In verse 11, Paul is making a change to his previous instruction.

So, where is that previous letter? The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the Word of our God, it will last to time indefinite (Isaiah 40:8). How does this reconcile with the fact that one letter of Paul is possibly missing? Once revealed, it will always be preserved? It is possible the recipients of Paul's letter did not take it as the Word of God. Perhaps people thought the letters of Paul contain important things. Others may have kept such letters with a view to refute the teachings they contain. Just because someone kept some letters of Paul does not mean they took the letters as coming from God. They knew the letters were from Paul.

SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[Mockingbird 0]

Hi, Alex. Another evening of interesting converstation!

Quote

How arrogant would you have to be to assume that an entire society would just happen to miss all the bits about 'the lamb' and therefor misunderstood Jesus.

Don't forget that thousands of Jews at the time DID understand the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus and followed him... especially after his resurrection!

(Nicodemus was one of those who became a follower of Christ even before the resurrection. He was a Pharisee and a renowned teacher of Judaism--- a very prominent respected academic. Another well known Jewish leader who recognized Jesus as the promised Messiah was Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin (rulers of the nation of Israel). In fact, it was Nicodemus and Joseph who went to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body so that they could provide a tomb suitable for him. They were both wealthy men. Even the fact that two rich men provided the tomb for his burial was prophecied by Isaiah. These are just two examples, yet there were thousands who believed and followed Christ.)

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Jesus did nothing but cheap talk - prove the opposite

First, give us an example of some "cheap talk" from Jesus, Crwtom.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Urm. Of course, but I think anyone reading this forum could point to specific examples of those who adhere to the 'bible is the exact word of god' school who do exactly the same thing.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" pretty bloody basic concept.

Explain those christians who bomb abortion clinics? I'm sure *they* can justify it by calling it a war, saving the unborn. I dont recall ever seeing a direct passage saying 'thou shalt not kill, except abortionists'.

I'm sure you realize that anyone can claim to be a Christian. But Christ said, "You will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who calls me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you.'" Christ appears to be talking about those who make a show of their Christianity but are, in fact, not genuine article.

But even those who love and follow Christ are not perfect. That doesn't make them fakes and hypocrites, just human. Look at Peter who bragged that he would *never* be unfaithful to Christ...but during Jesus' trial, Peter publicly denied being a follower of Jesus three times! He subsequently repented with much remorse, and Christ forgave him.

Quote

Ok, but if you read the book cold and logically it is filled with contradictions and errors.

How's about an example?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

For anyone who is interested in seeing a brief overview of the Bible's storyline, go here and look at the chart. http://www.cresourcei.org/storyline.html

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

YES.....The King James version of God's WORD IS the definitive WORD of God from the first word in Genesis to the last word in Revelation. ALL others versions are perversions....

The King James was first published in London England, (the center of the world) in 1611.

It was actually written by 41 authors over a 1500 years period, and God directed iot to come together and to be published in London.

Proof if ever it was needed that God is a Englishman.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Well.... Even if the only true translation of the Bible must have been published in the "center of the world" which must be London because it's at 0 longitude...

How do we know which translation published in London is the right one???


And... why London? Sure, it's on 0 longitude, but so is Bordeaux, France. Should we also look at Bibles published there?

Don't be silly, God a Frenchman?????

(France is Catholic, the King James version is a Anglican Engish speaking translation, God speaking French??? Heracy!!!!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

I'm sure you realize that anyone can claim to be a Christian. But Christ said, "You will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who calls me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you.'" Christ appears to be talking about those who make a show of their Christianity but are, in fact, not genuine article.

Um. you're claiming to be a Christian.

David Koresh claimed to be a Christian, spent his life ministering the bible as he understood it. The seige of Waco was because he thought God had told him to decipher the 7 seals - a role he took up. The fires started on the day those essays were to be complete. Koresh died for his beliefs.

You may sit and claim that Koresh perverted the word of the Bible, but to Koresh he was doing what the Lord asked of him, and eventually gave up his life for that belief.

We're back to man's imperfect interpretation of a book - whether or not it's exactly the word of God is unimportant, man will undoubtadly f*** it up by saying 'Ah, but what God meant to say'. Historically and sociologically we will attach different meanings to words.

Now, on the subject of contradictions: 1. I was quoting another article - sorry if that wasn't clear. But yes, it doesnt take a genius to find contradictions if you use the following statement: The Bible is the Exact Word Of God and Perfect In All Ways, as some have stated.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX

This is a list of 140something famous Bible contradictions. Please note that I do not care there are contradictions in your Bible, but the apologetic Christian who answers all these jumps through some interesting hoops to reconcile the answers. Some are basic, some not so much.

I will tell you that in my reading and study I disagree with the use of the word Faith in certain parts of the New Testament because of the words used in the original greek do not map to what I think most people consider Faith to be (which is that faith is believing in something for which there is no proof, where believe is 'to accept that something as true'. There are several times Jesus is translated as saying Faith where another word would have been more accurate and might just have changed the way the world approaches religion.

I'll be standing on top of this pile of wood if anyone needs me......does anyone smell gas?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

For anyone who is interested in seeing a brief overview of the Bible's storyline, go here and look at the chart. http://www.cresourcei.org/storyline.html

Uhh, thanks, but I don't know what this has to do with anything.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Good post. Some of the Bible is INSPIRED by God I can buy. That all of it IS the WORD of God, I do not.

Especially things like Paul's Letters. He was trying to gain worshippers. He was a pitchman who was honing and refining his ideals. He was trying to spread a message

How could we say that LETTERS written by a MAN (with changes in message) to followers are the direct word of God?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[beowulf 1]

I think you meant to direct your post to Chuteless. I would like to hear more of what he has to say. I am interested to see how he came to his conclusions.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Good post. Some of the Bible is INSPIRED by God I can buy. That all of it IS the WORD of God, I do not.

I believe the original manuscripts were complete, inspired, and infallible. It is inevitable that errors have crept into the translation and copy of these. They consist of an extremely small percentage. The New Testament is ~99.5% pure. Only ½ of 1% of all copies do not agree with each other perfectly. However, I’d challenge you to find one which alters Basic Christian Doctrine.

Quote

Especially things like Paul's Letters. He was trying to gain worshippers. He was a pitchman who was honing and refining his ideals. He was trying to spread a message

How could we say that LETTERS written by a MAN (with changes in message) to followers are the direct word of God?

Not “direct” word of God. “Inspired word of God.” Following the torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, Paul was one of the biggest persecutors and murderers of Christians. He was in fact a “pitchman”, “hit-man”, and “attack dog” for the Roman Empire. He was probably one of the most unlikely persons to ever become a Christian. Jesus spoke directly to him on the road to Damascus (he was on the way to hunt down and kill more Christians there by the way); struck him blind for his disbelief (he later regained his sight). Paul had a very sincere conversion. He was personally chosen by God himself to take his message to the gentiles. His writings were most definitely “inspired” by God and can be trusted.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Yes, but the question of this thread is not INSPIRED by...but is the Bible THE WORD OF GOD.

An artist can gain inspiration from his Christian faith and make a beautiful mural of hope and peace. Was he inspired by God? Perhaps. Is that mural God's direct work? probably not.

But it appears we agree on that point at least. moving on...

Just because someone became the best follower of God does not make him perfect. He is still a man.

And you still have not given reason to the line of David, virgin birth question.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Uhh, thanks, but I don't know what this has to do with anything.

Not everyone is familiar with what the Bible contains, and with the fact that the Old Testament is basically a history of God's special relationship with the nation of Israel. The first five books of the New Testament are a history, too, of the life of Christ and his followers.

This is the book under consideration in this thread.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Uhh, thanks, but I don't know what this has to do with anything.

Not everyone is familiar with what the Bible contains, and with the fact that the Old Testament is basically a history of God's special relationship with the nation of Israel. The first five books of the New Testament are a history, too, of the life of Christ and his followers.

This is the book under consideration in this thread.

Yes it is. I just did not understand why you replied to me personally is all. I have read a little of the bible here and there. Being raised Catholic will do that to ya.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Mockingbird 0]

I think it's basically a conspiracy theory type thing by the King James Version advocates... it's been going on for years.

Heck, we can't even all agree that the Bible is the "Word of God" (a term even I don't really feel comfortable with!), much less that the "King James Version" and ONLY the "King James Version" is the "Word of God."

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Yes it is. I just did not understand why you replied to me personally is all.

Oh, I see. Sorry; no it wasn't directed to you. (As I compose this reply, I notice that if I want to, I can change the name of the person to whom I'm replying...

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Jesus was prophecized to be of the line of David. Joseph was of the line of David. Mary was not. If Jesus's birth was virgin, how could Jesus be of the line of David?

If it was not a virgin birth, one prophecy goes down. If it was, another falls.

Sorry for the delay.
Had to catch up a bit.

Why are there two genealogies of Jesus?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Jesus was prophecized to be of the line of David. Joseph was of the line of David. Mary was not. If Jesus's birth was virgin, how could Jesus be of the line of David?

If it was not a virgin birth, one prophecy goes down. If it was, another falls.

Sorry for the delay.
Had to catch up a bit.

Why are there two genealogies of Jesus?

Unfortunately, Jewish law states that a person's lineage is traced through the father. Since Joseph and Mary were Jews, there would be no reason to not follow such a law:

Numbers 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of [their] names, every male by their polls; (KJV)

Numbers 1:18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first [day] of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls. (KJV)

Since Jesus did not have Joseph as his actual blood, he can not be considered descended from David. Genealogical rights do not pass by adoption.

Even if you WERE to consider adoption to make him of David's blood, Jpspeh is a decendent of Jeconiah who's line God cursed from ever holding the throne.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Unfortunately, Jewish law states that a person's lineage is traced through the father:

Numbers 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of [their] names, every male by their polls; (KJV)

Numbers 1:18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first [day] of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls. (KJV)

Since Jesus did not have Joseph as his actual blood, he can not be considered descended from David. Genealogical rights do not pass by adoption.

Even if you WERE to consider adoption to make him of David's blood, Jpspeh is a decendent of Jeconiah who's line God cursed from ever holding the throne.

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.

Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were un aware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.

[wmw999 2,439]

I just read that. Who is it that gets to decide when

Quote

the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history

?

It seems that it's OK to do in order to deal with different lineages and all kinds of stuff, but not to deal with women's role in church, or whether homosexuality is a perversion?

It's all in whom you accept doing the interpretation.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)