(September 10, 2012 at 2:09 am)Godschild Wrote:It's not that I don't know what the scriptures are... it's that I had serious doubts that my concept was the same as yours.(September 8, 2012 at 4:39 am)pocaracas Wrote: Yeah, right... define "scripture".
King James is not good enough for you?
I find it curious how you seem to be getting into a corner.
The scriptures are all of God's word no matter what translation it is, if you do not know what scriptures are then how is it you believe you can understand them. Personally I use the NASB and the ESB.
I see the problem you have with the scriptures above, why don't you try and reason them out, a little history would help you on this one, all in all it's simple. By the way I see no corner, I live with the Truth and in the Truth one is set free, not put into a corner.
Apparently, we're in sync on that one.
But I fail to see that I have any problem with any piece of scripture. It looks plain enough... no history or anything required.
Or are you implying that all scripture must be interpreted according to the time it was written? Shouldn't your god have been a little more precise in his inspiration and provided a time-proof document?
Oh wait, I forgot.... it was written by a patriarchal people who imagined this god thing by putting in him a few characteristics of other previous gods that they had heard about.
Whatever is in that book, is just the ramblings of these people and should account for nothing in our society which is very very different from theirs, don't you agree?
Why then are so many people from this society so hung up on this book?
I can't imagine how strange this book will look to people who will live 500 years from now! Perhaps as strange as the Egyptian book of the dead... and as non-representative of reality.
