"Thou Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me"

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is why all that fundamentalism, particularly in the US, is really scary. Wouldn't you agree?

It's not the fundamentalists who are changing words to mean what they want it to mean. Inclusive language is terrible and the purview of the progressives. I will say in many cases they change words to accommodate modern audiences, the interesting part is it often makes the text tamer. The originals are very harsh.

I really don't see the benefit in 'looking at it from a democratic point of view'. That should be absolutely irrelevant.

And about the other gospels: some of them definately got rejected because they didn't reflect the orthodoxy back in the days.

Again, they are the weekly world news of the ancient world.

Still doesn't mean they have no value at all.

I find it fascinating that the moderns would rather sift through the trash and the rubbish rather then read and accept the Gospels as true. It makes not a lick of sense. By any objective standard of textualism, you cannot accept these others as authoritative, as they were written centuries after the gospels.

[Traianvs]

That's just plain nonsense. Some of them were written around the time the others were written. And I'm not talking about being authoritative anyway, because it's not like the other gospels are that authoritative about Jesus' life anyway. They're gospels for a reason, after all.

And either you don't understand what I mean or you just don't want to: again I reiterate that every ancient text has its value, whatever it may be, if subjected to severe textual criticism. That includes texts in the bible, and no I will not accept the four gospels in our bible as 'true'.

You're looking for different things that I would be looking for, I'll grant you that. It doesn't mean that historians and other researchers can't try and understand the actual meaning of the commandment that applied to the people at the time, to take the topic back to its OP.

You can believe whatever you like, as long as you don't pretend that taking the bible at face value represents the meaning of the texts to the people back then.

[chequita guevara]

The biggest problem is interpolation, people reading into the bible what they want to be there, rather then what it actually says.

Cast out the log in your own eye.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's just plain nonsense. Some of them were written around the time the others were written.

Which ones?

And I'm not talking about being authoritative anyway, because it's not like the other gospels are that authoritative about Jesus' life anyway. They're gospels for a reason, after all.

Well of course not. Forget the fact that they happen to be the best-attested ancient document. It's the bible, therefore it's trash.

Why are you even bothering to argue in favour of textualism? You clearly don't believe in it. What you do believe is that we ought to interpret ancient documents according to the theories of today. I find it rather humourous that you lambaste archaelogists for doing the same thing.

And either you don't understand what I mean or you just don't want to: again I reiterate that every ancient text has its value, whatever it may be, if subjected to severe textual criticism. That includes texts in the bible, and no I will not accept the four gospels in our bible as 'true'.

Of course not. Now, I ask you do you regard anything as 'true'?

You're looking for different things that I would be looking for, I'll grant you that. It doesn't mean that historians and other researchers can't try and understand the actual meaning of the commandment that applied to the people at the time, to take the topic back to its OP.

That's what they should do. What they shouldn't do is 'try to interpret it in the light of democracy and equality'. Rubbish.