Does God No Longer Condemn Sin?


#41

You’re kidding right. That has only taken hold in the last 70 years or so and there are still lots of Evangelical that take the bible as literal. There are still a lot of believers in geocentrisms.

http://geocentrism.com/

A lot of young earth believers(some here)

Here’s a good one: The Creation Museum(incl. Garden of Eden)

Or Noah’s Ark:

These are people that still believe in literal belief in the bible.

Note: a lot of these people were Trump voters.


#42

The OP of this thread is a literal belier in the bible.


#43

In fact, the majority of people back in the 70s did not take the Bible literally, so some people tried to convince everyone the Bible should be taken literally (Evangelical movement). Catholics, Jews, Orthodox, and others pretty much ignored them. In other words, the majority does not take everything in the Bible literally and never has.

It does little good to argue against everything in the Bible being taken literally with people who never have taken everything in the Bible literally.


#44

I would suggest going back centuries, even thousands of years, and studying various interpretations, particularly rabbinical ones. The idea of taking everything in the Bible literally came with people believing they could interpret scripture on their own–no help or study needed.


#45

The church pushed literal reading of the bible pretty much right into the 1800’s.


#46

Got a source to back up that claim?


#47

Ironically, the things you choose to take literally are always the things that validate your NT beliefs. While, all the contradictions require “interpretation”


#48

Again, dig deeper, check some Rabbinical interpretations. The problem with translating Hebrew into English is that the Hebrew language uses pictures, thus a more object-oriented approach. English is a subjective language, and often the translations can be tricky.

Isn’t it better to discuss how scholars view the Bible today, given the knowledge we have gained over the years?


#49

Here, have a good long read.

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ea0_trad.htm


#50

Sure, that source isn’t biased at all. :roll_eyes:
/sarcasm


#51

Didn’t read it did you. :roll_eyes:


#52

Saw the URL and didn’t bother.


#53

:slight_smile: Nor is it all the information available.


#54

I would rank its credibility equal to answers in genesis.


#55

Scared as usual


#56

How do you know, you didn’t read it.


#57

Nah. I can just recognize a bull ■■■■ site that is a waste of time reading.


#59

Provide a credible, unbiased source and u will read it.


#61

:wink:

Gracias


#62