the modern version of the world.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by markings

It may be taken as such in a metaphorical sense. To take it in a literal sense is just absurd.

John 1:1.

[Busby]

Originally Posted by markings

It may be taken as such in a metaphorical sense. To take it in a literal sense is just absurd.

Tell us then which parts are true and which parts can be taken with a pinch of salt. Should be interesting and will almost certainly add to the confusion.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by markings

It may be taken as such in a metaphorical sense. To take it in a literal sense is just absurd.

2014 report: Twenty-eight percent of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally. Half of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God, not to be taken literally, meaning a combined 75% believe the Bible is in some way connected to God.

That 50% of people are half-asleep plus another 30% completely unconscious, confirms my own observations.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Busby

Tell us then which parts are true and which parts can be taken with a pinch of salt. Should be interesting and will almost certainly add to the confusion.

While I appreciate your general perspective, you are not being very honest in this particular reply. markings spoke of interpreting the Bible metaphorically. This is correct. Metaphorical interpretations have absolutely nothing to do with sifting through to uncover the parts that are true, versus those that should be taken with a pinch of salt. Your "This should be interesting" reply was cute and was obviously intended as such, but it added nothing to the dialogue. Being a cynic, simply for the sake of ceaseless and perpetual cynicism, accomplishes nothing.

[Busby]

Originally Posted by Baile

While I appreciate your general perspective, you are not being very honest in this particular reply. markings spoke of interpreting the Bible metaphorically. This is correct. Metaphorical interpretations have absolutely nothing to do with sifting through to uncover the parts that are true, versus those that should be taken with a pinch of salt. Your "This should be interesting" reply was cute and was obviously intended as such, but it added nothing to the dialogue. Being a cynic, simply for the sake of ceaseless and perpetual cynicism, accomplishes nothing.

Interpreting the Bible metaphorically is exactly the reason for the overwhelming confusion when the Bible is the centre of discussions. So let's get down to the nitty-gritty and hear what is really valid. It is also my intention of continuing to harp on the (what I call) misleading contents of this book.

Unfortunately these stories have entered our human bloodstreams causing intellectual blindspots and dead-ends.

The Bible has nothing to do with God.

[OmniRedVT]

Busby
Your response I respect though I wasn't presuming you had expressed a modern Bible would supercede that which preceded and yes I presume you were stating that the Biblical law stands yet the expression of God's or Man's is what I was responding to with that being moot since if accepting Mosches' Pentateuch being God's Christ does make exacting reference expressing the Law will not change.I just checked the original post and it was Necromancer who asked if a new Bible was printed would it be God's or Man's.It seems he was professing the opinion that the Original Bible's precepts are of course unchanging even with a fickle so called evolved Modernistic world.And you were agreeing with him yet your response to my response was suggesting that Popes and other clergy were caving in and being compliant.If with that you meant Pope Francis I ask you to cautiously go back and read his exact words when some said he was condoning the new Pink male .Before the states did the unfathomable and umbrellaed the same gender males with Marriage the Pope expressed an invitation to the supposed "them" to become Priests.If his words are read carefully do you think he was sponsoring a Biblical sin without deeming it a nudge for the abysmal?I've seen people have their interpretive way with his words actually inverting his agenda's intent.If you remember the Catholic Church during the 80's expressed that the same gender male lifestyle was a sickness and that they would be treated and cured if they so chose to be.Amongst the Pope's supposed invitation was he expressing who was he to judge as long as "They" were sorry for their sins and confessed.Acknowledging the Levitican expressed sin yet expressing they could be Priests.Do you realize that they becoming Priests would definitively forfit their inverted Lifestyles commissions since Catholic Priests vow asexual activity as do the Sisters.There is no such Pope Francis rhetoric that expresses the desire to conduct a Pink Party and they are invited to it and to thumb their noses at Mosches' Leviticus.There are bizarre stories that Priests after having become celibate Priests got in touch with their inner selves and during that vowed celibacy inverted their lifestyles than leaving the Priestly orders or should I express the word Priest "Hood" for a life with their whichever you call it "mates".It's beyond bizarre yet only Pope Francis has mapped out a litmus for those with pre definitions of the unfathomable lifestyle to confess and manifest that lifestyle commissively muted.Seems Brilliant God inspired logic yet my response defending the Sanctity of Pope Francis' intended words exposes much and some of it ires the abysmals having been revealed and those who purposefully sought the misconstrueing of what he expressed.God bless the fellow Biblical witnesses who are unflinching yet don't misattributionalize Pope Francis' intentions.Take care and God bless the blessed!Absolutely no twisted parallels!Absolutely straight forward!Gary V. Giardina!This sent before 9:21 P.M. May 20 th. 2017.

[markings]

Originally Posted by Busby

Interpreting the Bible metaphorically is exactly the reason for the overwhelming confusion when the Bible is the centre of discussions. So let's get down to the nitty-gritty and hear what is really valid. It is also my intention of continuing to harp on the (what I call) misleading contents of this book.

There is no problem with a multitude of interpretations as long as one does not claim the superiority of one over all the others.
One would never do that with a fairy tale, and that is exactly the level one should apply to the Bible.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Busby

Interpreting the Bible metaphorically is exactly the reason for the overwhelming confusion when the Bible is the centre of discussions.

Quite the opposite, 1600 years of the church interpreting the Bible LITERALLY is exactly the reason for the overwhelming confusion.

Originally Posted by Busby

So let's get down to the nitty-gritty and hear what is really valid. It is also my intention of continuing to harp on the (what I call) misleading contents of this book. .

You're still approaching this with a religious mind. The religious mind looks for one truth only, one truth for all. The occult mind seeks truth that is relative to the seeker. Reading the Bible metaphorically has much to do with reading the Bible from a relative truth perspective. Relative truth is the new consciousness form for this new age.

[Busby]

Originally Posted by OmniRedVT

Busby
Your response I respect though I wasn't presuming you had expressed a modern Bible would supercede that which preceded and yes I presume you were stating that the Biblical law stands yet the expression of God's or Man's is what I was responding to with that being moot since if accepting Mosches' Pentateuch being God's Christ does make exacting reference expressing the Law will not change.I just checked the original post and it was Necromancer who asked if a new Bible was printed would it be God's or Man's.It seems he was professing the opinion that the Original Bible's precepts are of course unchanging even with a fickle so called evolved Modernistic world.And you were agreeing with him yet your response to my response was suggesting that Popes and other clergy were caving in and being compliant.If with that you meant Pope Francis I ask you to cautiously go back and read his exact words when some said he was condoning the new Pink male .Before the states did the unfathomable and umbrellaed the same gender males with Marriage the Pope expressed an invitation to the supposed "them" to become Priests.If his words are read carefully do you think he was sponsoring a Biblical sin without deeming it a nudge for the abysmal?I've seen people have their interpretive way with his words actually inverting his agenda's intent.If you remember the Catholic Church during the 80's expressed that the same gender male lifestyle was a sickness and that they would be treated and cured if they so chose to be.Amongst the Pope's supposed invitation was he expressing who was he to judge as long as "They" were sorry for their sins and confessed.Acknowledging the Levitican expressed sin yet expressing they could be Priests.Do you realize that they becoming Priests would definitively forfit their inverted Lifestyles commissions since Catholic Priests vow asexual activity as do the Sisters.There is no such Pope Francis rhetoric that expresses the desire to conduct a Pink Party and they are invited to it and to thumb their noses at Mosches' Leviticus.There are bizarre stories that Priests after having become celibate Priests got in touch with their inner selves and during that vowed celibacy inverted their lifestyles than leaving the Priestly orders or should I express the word Priest "Hood" for a life with their whichever you call it "mates".It's beyond bizarre yet only Pope Francis has mapped out a litmus for those with pre definitions of the unfathomable lifestyle to confess and manifest that lifestyle commissively muted.Seems Brilliant God inspired logic yet my response defending the Sanctity of Pope Francis' intended words exposes much and some of it ires the abysmals having been revealed and those who purposefully sought the misconstrueing of what he expressed.God bless the fellow Biblical witnesses who are unflinching yet don't misattributionalize Pope Francis' intentions.Take care and God bless the blessed!Absolutely no twisted parallels!Absolutely straight forward!Gary V. Giardina!This sent before 9:21 P.M. May 20 th. 2017.

Phew... I read through this before I went for my Sunday walk and thought, as it turned out so to be, 'I can't reply to that'. For me, and I appreciate your pov, this is all beside the point simply because in my opinion the Bible is the work of man. Now, to be fair I wasn't always of this opinion and spent many hours reading the St.James's version which without a doubt is the most beautiful - as far as the prose is concerned. I had to laugh recently when I saw that one American sect or whatever doesn't now say the B. is the WoG but says it is 'God inspired'. Saves a lot of problems.
I'll have a little recap here. In my opinion people such as the pope (and I'm sure he's a very nice fellow) and his ilk from all over the world should don sackcloth and ashes. The institutions in which they and theirs reside should be sold and offered to the poor and homeless whilst those of faith could be kept busy by anointing the heads of the poor with oil.
Now of course you may think I exaggerating here, which I am, but only in the words I've quickly used.
I no longer think (avoiding using the wrod 'believe' here) that the Bible has anything to do with the god who has a place in my life.
And yes, I was saying (not suggesting) that the Pope and other 'dignitaries' were beginning to cave in under these new pressures from today's society. Fortunately we can let them get on with it because it doesn't (in my opinion) make a blind bit of difference - apart from maybe taking a bit more time.
We'll get there one day, to that place/condition/state/ to which we aspire, knowingly or unknowingly. Holding a Bible in the hand won't help.

[Honza]

Originally Posted by Baile

Relative truth is the new consciousness form for this new age.

But I AM is not supposed to be 'relative truth' - it is supposed to be absolute truth.