Once again, I strongly disagree. Especially during the time I had to show how the serpent who beguiled Eve in the Garden started out as a dragon.
But this brings up another good point. It's okay for you guys to use the Bible when you make [your false] claims against It?
Like:
- The Bible teaches flat earth.
- The Bible teaches geocentrism.
- The Bible teaches genocide.
- The Bible teaches two creation accounts.
- The Bible has contradictions in It.
- Mary was just a "young woman."
- The visitors were "Magi."
- yada - ad nauseum - yada
Do you want to know why I don't
like or trust you, and think you are a poor witness for your faith, AV?
This post is a prime example. Indeed it boils down to the meat of it all.
In my discussions with you, I have always endeavored to
grant that some of your "interpretations" of the BIble may be
technically accurate. You claim the bible isn't pro-slavery, so I find the original hebrew words and point out that the
common usage was as "slave" not servent
but I grant that indeed the word could have meant servant, but that I was rather under the impression that the
bulk of the concepts around these "servants" indicate "slavery". Other posters see that as well, and historically many Christians felt that to be the case. EVEN IF YOU AND I FIND SLAVERY REPELLENT.
Even when discussing the
order of creation in Genesis 1 I granted that there were some "outs" based on "technicalities". I GAVE you a point! Ironic that when debating a "man" who claims to be a "Christian" you can't seem to do the same kind of "good turn" to the people you debate against! Are your points so weak that you fear any questioning will destroy them? Is your house built on sand?
Look at your list up there. It is
common knowledge that indeed, read literally, the Bible
can be read to teach geocentrism. In point of fact it is actually so open that one can
interpret it a number of ways, but you will
note that history says MOST PEOPLE IN PRE-COPERNICAN EUROPEAN CHURCHES READ IT AS MEANING GEOCENTRISM.
The point NOT being that it does or doesn't but rather
you appear to never grant that the bible could have ever been interpretted to read this way.
You treat us in a way we don't treat you.
Why? Do you want us to treat you with the gross and alarming disrespect you exhibit REPEATEDLY????
Surely you must. You love your bible so much I'm sure you've read Luke 6:31. I'm just sure of it.
Another example from your list: you say it is "FALSE" to claim the Isaiahan prophecy around Mary as merely a "young woman" and not a virgin. Well, whether it is or isn't
YOU CANNOT SAY because the original hebrew word,
almah,
CAN MEAN "YOUNG WOMAN".
THAT MEANS THAT WHEN YOU SAY IT IS FALSE YOU ARE DEMONSTRABLY WRONG. IT IS "QUESTIONABLE AT BEST".
False is a strong term. You need to get away from that kind of "reasoning" since
you don't know.
No matter what you
BELIEVE, it
COULD MEAN a "girl of marriagable age" (
SOURCE). And while
most young women probably "waited until marriage", it was not
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN UNMARRIED YOUNG WOMAN TO GET PREGNANT BY THE USUAL MEANS (ie she didn't have to be impregnated by God...there were other means available to young women back then.)
Do you UNDERSTAND?
You CANNOT CLAIM that it is FALSE for people to find these "interpretations" in the Bible. Whether they are true or false
YOU DO NOT "KNOW".
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!!
If there's some compelling
other reason why you claim these interpretations are "FALSE" you need to provide those. In point of fact, again, the best you will be able to do is get a "maybe".
You treat others as if they are scum and you are privy to God's Thoughts. That is not in keeping with the
spirit of your faith. Even if you can find some "letter" in the law that allows you to be thus, it violates the spirit of the law.
And that is why ultra-literal fundamentalism is morally, intellectually and theologically
bankrupt.
Is that your witness?