|
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
See, it is the literal interpretation of the bible that I can't get behind. Reason for it is that the science disproves the story. Additionally, if you take everything in the bible as literal there are far too many paradoxes. Most importantly, being as the bible was writen by men and not God it is very likely that there are errors and inconsistancies between what God said to the prophets and what was eventually writen. Plus, let us not forget that there are more books that have been excluded from the bible then are contained in it.... Hell, there are over 30 gospels but somehow only the four that are included are valid (by the way, they often contradict each other as well). I just can't buy that everything God meant to reveal was revealed exactly as it happened and was recorded exactly as it was revealed and those recordings did not get altered through the generations in which they were passed down in verbal form and that there was no change from the verbal stories to the writen stories and that there has been no errors made in the interpretations from language to language to language. It's just too improbable... God may be perfect but we are not. |
ANd I thought I was done. This is a misnomer. The men that wrote the bible were inspired by god, hence he was writing through them. And there aren't paradoxes, when you consider context. On the surface things could appear to contradict each other, but you have to look at the place and time to fully understand the meaning of the writing. As far as the other gospels that haven't been accepted in the bible. These have not past the cannonization process, which is a very in depth process to differentiate writings, inspired by God, and men deciding to describe their thoughts on Christ. This only further validates my point. And with the languages. They still have the original Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible, which have been translated. Theologians have spent and continue to spend hours upon hours to make sure the translations are correct. That's why I brought up the original Hebrew, earlier. My brother has studied these languages, and their implication to the translation of the Bible. I haven't had him impart too much of that knowledge to me, but he did impart the portion about the word translated to day. I understand your point of view, but it doesn't weaken my beliefs a bit. And it's not as if I just buy it, without knowing background either.
___________________
Old Norsk Sessions every 4th Monday from 4-6pm EST on Digitally Imported Radio (Progressive Station), and 7pm CET on Trance.fm every 1st Saturday
|