This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Biblical interpretation cannot be an 'exact' science. As there are any number of translations it would appear that there are any number of 'exact' science - which seems contradictory.
Further - who will dare to claim 'exactness' with respect to human language?
Indeed they do, but such...
Does that include you?
Simplistic answers are another smokescreen. Belief is not a matter of either/or.
First you have define what you mean by 'God's word'.
Now you are compounding your problems. You are talking about 'God's word' and you introduce Jesus into your thesis. We don't know...
Hmmmm ... seems you are are looking for certainty.
I must have missed something - to what 'deeper level' do you wish to descend?
As I asked previously - if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it fall, has it fallen?
What is the extent of knowledge - and how does knowledge justify...
Such being the case then one might view Genesis as a story rather than factual.
I have a sense that you are seeking some sort of certainty for your views and that 'thinking outside the box' is a euphemism for looking to explain the inexplicable.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears...
You have provided us with your opinion that Muhammad was some sort of bloodthirsty warlord. All, the historical accounts indicate otherwise - as I have pointed out.
The point is, had you also read up a bit on Muhammad life you would not have rushed into your conclusions.
The fact that I study...
Well, actually Mark finishes at 16: 8. Anything after that is redaction.
This is rather obvious as most Bibles indicate various ending for Mark forgetting that all 'ending's are redactions.
Anything after Matthew 28: 10 is also a redaction - that is, a somewhat convenient addition.
There is...
But in suggesting that 'he led and army' you convey, and support previous posts that suggest that ...
This is a pejorative statement that cannot be supported by what we know. Yes, Muhammad, did launch attacks and did kill and maim, but it seems these were extreme events.
Well, no. And the...
Welln No - you have not done either. You have given me your opinion which in both cases is wrong.
Muhammad was not a warlord as you suppose and he did NOT write anything.
Matthew 10: 34.
But I note that apart from crying 'waffle' you have not made any comment that might be deemed a logical response.
I can only assume you have no intention of doing anything other than listening to the sound of your own voice ...
Goodbye.
Don't kid yourself - you are not 'open' at all. If you were 'open' you would see the folly of your posts.
Here is an example of how 'closed' and tied up in your agenda you really are - so much so that you don't read posts. Read #51.
You mean it's a metaphor - ? I wonder if you could apply the same thinking to the Qur'an? And if you can't apply the same consistency to the Qur'an as you apply to the Bible then you are not dealing with scripture at all - you are dealing with your own ideology.
Well, you seem to think...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.