Kevin's Watch

Holsety wrote:

Perceptions vary, especially when we speak of the metaphysical, and of history. I do not think people who have different interpretations of history to be inherently dishonest. There are people who care more about other things than an honest telling of history obviously, but when you speak of religious history, as reported by the faithful of that religion, alterations are attempted for accuracy rather than for deception.

If this is true, it underscores a deeper "problem." If the scholars were "fixing" divinely inspired works, then the definition of divinely inspired works cannot describe something perfect. And that the scholars then felt this way too, and did not see the NT as written by matthew, mark, and everyone else as the absolute word of god.

Xar, while I think your views on the bible make sense, I feel like the same can be said for other books. That is, if the bible is a work which is primarily anagogic (I learned that word from bakker thank you very much, so sorry if it's applied poorly)...what makes it unique among the already unique? It's one of many amazing works with deep stuff going on, but unless one starts with faith in it for a particular reason, you can only accept the bible as THE way if you can objectively judge it as "better" than anything else.

Holsety wrote:I I think they do consider both to be holy in some way.