Bible truth?

[mr blur]

"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!&quot

[JoePhilly]

1. God writes in mysterious ways.

[Phillip McCleod]

15. god writes? does god even have fingers?

[intaglio]

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

[trotsky]

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.

[Angry Dragon]

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 ........

[Act_of_Reparation]

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.

[cbayer]

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

Better update your scorecard.

[rug]

6. Yoou have a peculiar definition of insanity.

[mr blur]

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

[rug]

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

[mr blur]

10. Do you agree completely with everything you post,

or isn't some of it posted to provoke?

[rug]

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

[hrmjustin]

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

I never cared for that translation at all.

[dimbear]

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.

[grantcart]

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.