378
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 160:
Line 160: + +
Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant? (view source)
Revision as of 10:53, April 6, 2007
, 10:53, April 6, 2007→What's this article trying to achieve?
How do you know how it is "meant" to be understood? How do you know, for instance, that Genesis 1 was meant to be understood literally? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
How do you know how it is "meant" to be understood? How do you know, for instance, that Genesis 1 was meant to be understood literally? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
...other than by reading it through stained glass? Why can't the text simply be allowed to say what it says, warts and all, without imposing your own dogmas and preconceptions on it - such as the man-made myth of God-given infallibility? Isn't this perilously close to ''biblolatry'', in direct infringement of the spirit of the second commandment? Do you honestly think the Bible needs ''your'' protection from the light of reality, let alone that of all the commentators whom Conservative seems intent on importing into the argument? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
== Protected debate page? ==
== Protected debate page? ==