nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 154:
Line 154: +
Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant? (view source)
Revision as of 15:56, April 5, 2007
, 15:56, April 5, 2007→What's this article trying to achieve?: literally vs. intended
And no, my purpose wasn't 'to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God' - merely to provoke people actually to look at the words (in some cases, apparently for the first time!) and decide for themselves whether that proposition is really tenable in the light of the facts. Thus, 'to discredit ''the dogma'' that the Bible is the infallible Word of God', possibly. But about the Bible I'm perfectly neutral. It's indubitably there, and it indubitably says what it says. I merely urge that people read it through clear glass, not stained glass. It's better for the eyes, you know!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
And no, my purpose wasn't 'to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God' - merely to provoke people actually to look at the words (in some cases, apparently for the first time!) and decide for themselves whether that proposition is really tenable in the light of the facts. Thus, 'to discredit ''the dogma'' that the Bible is the infallible Word of God', possibly. But about the Bible I'm perfectly neutral. It's indubitably there, and it indubitably says what it says. I merely urge that people read it through clear glass, not stained glass. It's better for the eyes, you know!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yet you appear to be reading it through the eyes of a hyper-literalist, rather than as it was meant to be understood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)