| Osc89 said:
I very much understand. You are arguing over a technicality, a 2000 year old fencepost error. And anyone can twist the phrasing to make the Bible wrong or right. The issue here is the religious approach, the same thing that makes all creationist theory pseudoscience. If you go into the argument with an agenda, you will ignore everything that disagrees with your point of view. |
No, you still don't understand. People study contexts and interpretation for a living, it's they job, it is their science. They analysis are not arbitrary, and they do comparative studies and linguistics analysis, as well as doctrinal analyses. Their results are not arbitrary and I can tell you that you still have no knowledge of the value of science behind religious studies.
That's because you're biased. I've seen it before, and when I read "The issue here is the religious approach, the same thing that makes all creationist theory pseudoscience.", I know I'm talking with someone who has no knowledge or contact with theology whatsoever.
My sister studied theology for more than 3 years she is now doing a masters, and she is a very smart girl, barely christian but she is smart. I can tell you that she puts in a LOT of work in what she does. That you bag it all up into one big lump with troll terms such as "creationist theory pseudoscience" goes to show that you truly know nothing about the topic at hand.
