Then what you're arguing against is Creationists and literal interpretations and I think we agree on those topics. Apologists however seek to incorporate a realistic view of theology by not denying empirical evidence. You're assuming the intent of the apologist is to skew the text to their perspective. From being a believer you know full well that the Bible teaches for us to test the word subjectively at least. Apologists seek to take the words in their original context and see if it still applies today. I'd love to see a literalistic approach on the lolcatz Bible. Words change meaning over time. If I called you nice you'd think I'd be complimenting you. If I wrote it down in a book a few hundred years ago it's mean foolish or stupid. Original as possible context using modern language I think is key to a good interpretation, the 14 and 1500 vernacular really doesn't really cut it
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
