Quote:
Originally posted by jluetjen
If I understand you correctly, you're asking if I believe in the "Literal interpretation" of the Bible (as the term is generally used by "Fundimentalists" as that term is generally used), or in a more liberal interpretation?
I guess I'd put myself in the middle of those two extremes since I try to consider both when I'm reading the Bible. I also have issues with both extreme views. Each in turn...
[.
|
John, again I apppreciate the lengnts you will go to for the good fight....
We can agree that in the scholarly transaltions, there are all sorts of variations. We can agree that people who literally intereret the bible are generally nutters.
But- you and I could go to any church this sunday, paruclauly the more, er, colourful ones, or tune into any bible thumping broadcast and hear the message that the Bible is God's word to us, his children. READ YOUR BIBLE, IT IS GOD'S WORD we will be exhorted.
So we have Mathew 21.22 and the promise that if we beleive and if ask, our prayers will be answered. A promise made not once, but repeated many times in the Bible, particlarly in the New Testaments. And regulary repeated form the pulpits of all denominations. A major plank of the Christian faith.
So the atheist says -here is a very clear commitment by JC to His people. Prove it it me. And so far, pages have been written in this thread alone expalining why this isnt so. Musnt test god, shouldnt be taken literally, not up to us, god knows best, god has a plan. But clearly, there is the commitment. Its says so, in multiple places, in God's Word.
We come back to the deceptively silly but very signicifcnat question. Why wont wont god heal amputees?
I'll take you up on that offer, BTW. Very fond of Sam Adams. We can talk about old 911s.