Believing

The King James Bible is clearly the least accurate translation of the Bible we have today. All of the ones done since were created by using earlier texts and with much more scholarly research, so I put the least faith in that translation.

 

So at least one edition of the Bible can be said to be, at least in one specific, inaccurate.

 

Yes, there is at least one mistake in at least one translation of the Bible. I'll admit that.
However, that seems to be a pretty minor detail that doesn't change any theology. Also of major significance to me is that it's in the Old Testament.

 

Well, that's not quite how it goes.

Think of it like this:

Most males are not prisoners.

But most prisoners are males.

Likewise, most Christians aren't knuckledraggers.

But most knuckledraggers . . . are Christians (or profess to be).

 

I'm not strictly sure that the difference between "murder" and "kill" is a minor one, especially since we're talking about the Ten Commandments. The Decalogue being after all canonical as the root of Western Law, and a major issue in the current argument about the American separation of church and state.

And if the Bible is the illuminated and inspired word of God, a simple transcription of His Word, how can you choose to privilege the New Testament over the Old? I understand that certain denominations do, certainly, but it seems to me that to embrace the one without accepting the other is to deny the authenticity of the document itself.

Was the Old Testament God a different God? Did God change after the death of Christ?

And if we're going to stipulate that the Bible is a dynamic document - subject to superior/inferior translations and advances in human research - how can it simultaneously be said that it is the immutable and everlasting Word of God?

 

Old Testament God -- flooded the earth, smited cities, help folks like David and others slay thousands, etc.

New Testament -- Jesus says turn the other cheek, Love thy neighbor.

Quite a change.

But explainable if you believe that Jesus is the Messiah and is standing in for Dad on our behalf.

 

But that implies God was previously imperfect - which doesn't really dovetail with the job description.

 

No. He just knew he would be fed up.

Personally, I don't think God is perfect. All the attributes we have -- love, anger, jealousy, etc., He has as well.

Perfect beings are no fun, anyway. That's why Superman is boring.

 

But how does that work with the concept of a Supreme Being? I mean, that's sort of the root definition isn't it? That God is all-knowing and all-powerful, the Creator of Worlds, perfect, and not subject to the frailty and failure of appetite or fear or loneliness?

Descartes, bless his heart, would tell you that your idea of God is no God at all - because it's possible to imagine a greater, more perfect God.

 

Well, I've got a pretty high standard for books that were supposedly inspired by, you know, God.

 

He was French, right? Sorry, not buying.