Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
It is a difference -- but one that does not matter from my point of view. Why I should let your view become "absolute truth" when there are other learned disagreeing views out there is beyond me. Both are educated opinions.
I didn't say I had an educated opinion. I stated a bit of what I'd learned. Yes, I had two semesters of religion a decade ago, but I'm not representing I know the book like you do. Nevertheless, why don't you just admit that there are other views, other views with good backing and arguments, and that yours is not a verifiable absolute truth regarding the text. It's like the Balrog wings in Tolkein -- there is no 100% answer, as both camps have good points.
As for my "King James" quote, it was a quip, an off-the-cuff comment. I could give a s**t less what version you're quoting -- I just know I've had enough of it and that I can't see you making any points you haven't already.
|
They are truths about a defined subject, not some metaphysical mystery. You can quite easily go to the source and see for yourself, but you have not and will not. Instead you rely on incorrect opinions from others, that though PROVED incorrect, do nothing to change your "opinion", despite "opinion" having nothing to do with FACTS.
What we are talking about is independently verifiable. As such there is truth or untruth. Absolute truth, or speculation has nothing to do with it.
As for the King James comment, off-the-cuff or not, it proves you have little knowledge of the work you are suggesting is contradictory. If you are mistaken about a biblical issue so small, how can you profess to know about the larger biblical elements discussed here?