HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Bible truth?

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:52 AM

Bible truth?



"But...but...it's the word of God!"
(The Progressive alternative: "But you're not supposed to take it literally! Well, not all of it!")

15 replies, 1053 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to mr blur (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:02 AM

1. God writes in mysterious ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:27 PM

15. god writes? does god even have fingers?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:21 AM

2. Hey, at least Jimmy's boys used the Aramaic and Syriac sources

and actually referred to several Hebraic sources.

And they used purty words

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:22 AM

3. Liberal and moderate Christians who dismiss the KJV are missing the point.

In a revealed religion such as Christianity a god could, at any time, divinely guide a person or group of people to alter its message to the world. When the theology allows the god to do a "reboot" at any time (and particularly Christianity, which is build upon such a reboot), there is no mechanism by which one can truthfully say that another believer's beliefs are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:52 AM

4. 'there is no mechanism by which one can truthfully say that another believer's beliefs are wrong.'

Beliefs are always true
The problem comes in when they try to force others to believe as they do ........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:00 PM

7. All "one true faiths" are based on the same premise...

..."everyone before us got it wrong, here's what God really said."

They all allege previous incarnations of the faith were corrupted at some point, or that they lacked divine inspiration. Protestants make this argument against Catholics, Mormons make this argument against other Protestants, and Muslims make this argument about the other two Abrahamic religions.

You're absolutely right. Bringing up the issue of translations to a person who holds the KJV to be the absolute word of God is pointless, as he no doubt believes Jimmy's translators were guided by divine inspiration, and that every prior and previous translation was corrupted somehow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:04 AM

5. OMG, you got shots in at both literalists and progressive religionists! That's a twofer.

Better update your scorecard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:31 AM

6. Yoou have a peculiar definition of insanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:11 PM

8. This is not *my* definition of insanity, as I'm sure you can see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:54 PM

9. So you disagree with the conclusion of the graphic you posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:55 PM

10. Do you agree completely with everything you post,

or isn't some of it posted to provoke?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:05 PM

11. Whatever I post I find interesting whether I agree with it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:45 PM

12. I don't get my Christian faith from the King James version.

I never cared for that translation at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:54 PM

13. It's my fave for two reasons. First it has unicorns. Second it is the most important

as a literary influence. They knew how to write back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:10 PM

14. That's a rather pedestrian criticism of scriptural authority.



The basic premise is that it cannot be 'true' because it can't be taken literally which ironically accepts the fairly recent fundamentalist view of scripture which has no scholarly support even at reputable conservative seminaries.

A much greater problem for the Church is not that we don't have a good idea what the original texts likely said, but

a) a deep schism between what scholarship has resolved and the clergy taught and what is rolled out to a rather uneducated laity

and

b) a few critical passages that because they undermine the revised theology of the young church, were significantly added or altered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread