Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
I didnt suggest Liberal Christians rewrote dogma. I suggested they changed it to suit their ideas...which was exactly why I posted the articles I did. The biggest issue with man made tomes is that everyone will have a different idea of what it stands for, or means....in other words, Interpretation. If the omniscient God actually wrote the bible for man, I would think its clarity would be straightforward for all generations...as he could foresee everything in advance of his creation(s), and ensure its clarity for all times.
|
Does that mean they're all wrong? Is the only interpretation a literal one? Because I'm pretty sure when the Book of Revelation was written, a hundred million man army would've been inconceivable...
Unfortunately, what's clear to you and I is not the same as what's clear to others. There are stupid people in this world, Cheese, and I'm sure God knew that. Unfortunately the fundamentalists mostly don't listen to the smart people of the world. Remembering that The Book was written with linguistic limitations and that knowledge is ever changing and expanding, I don't understand why you are so intent on using only the literal interpretation of the Bible as what you rail against. Clearly the Earth is not 7000 years old. You know that and I know that. Actually, I'd suggest that it's pretty clear now. Yet for you, that's the only interpretation allowed for a Christian. Why shouldn't the interpretation change with new information? Scientists thought the earth was flat, but they're allowed to change their thinking on the matter, why should Christian beliefs remain stagnant as more information is available?
It stands for the same thing, in the end it means the same thing. The conclusion is the same, the way we get there is different. Science can be 'fit into' the Bible. To ignore that is to ignore the very real possibility that the Book is the Truth.