No, I saw that the NLT went to the original source quoted in Romans, and that they used it. It’s a foreign language nearly 2000 years old, and, accordingly, it’s rare that there is only one way to correctly translate passages into English.
Every thing you’ve posted here about how you handle the contents of the Bible can be boiled down to two simple words: spin doctor.
Oh? Let me see, I read a passage in its context rather than as a separate entity, in a number of different translations; where there are disparate translations I examine the original languages and see why the translations vary; I then check my references for the history of the interpretations of the translations; I apply form criticism depending on whether the passage is poetry, history, prophecy, apocalyptic writing, etc.; I look at other works that discuss problems of interpretation; I read Protestant, Catholic and Jewish commentaries; when applicable, I compare it with writings from other religions: in short, I do my homework. Once that is accomplished, I often find there is more than one answer. Tell me what’s wrong with my methodology, please?
As you’ve pointed out:
(bolding mine) What you are doing is looking through as many references as possible until you find one that tells you what you want to hear. You’re not looking at what the words say-you’re looking until you eventually find what you want to see.
Uh, no. If that was the case I’d still be very conservative in my faith. The more I read from the scriptures and related materials, the more I’ve changed my views.
More conservative in your faith? I thought you converted from non-belief because you interpreted something you think you heard as the unintelligible singing of angels delivering a message from the New Testament god? Did that turn you into a conservative Christian?
Originally, yes.
This makes even less sense than it did before. How did such a vague and new-agey “revelation” turn you into a conservative Christian? No logical at all-what’s missing here?
- Revelation that there is indeed a God.
- Seeking out insights on God, enter my wife’s Baptist church.
- A few years exploring the scriptures from a conservative viewpoint.
- Realizing the Baptist’s evangelical position is not intellectually or spiritually satisfying to me, and searching for others.
- Finding the Presbyterian church.
- Continuous research since.
Now, what is wrong with my methodology as stated in post 483?
I answered that in post #484. It’s not how many sources you reference-it’s how you ultimately decide to finally pick one to go with-“…with your mind already set as to what you will, and then finding it.”
That reply is not consonant with my reply that I have considerably changed my opinions over time through studying from the scriptures. If I had set up my mind to only accept A, I would not have changed it to B.
Or it could be that your interpretations changed as the outside world changed you. Something influences you to think differently, which makes you see the verses differently. All the interpretation still comes from you.
Yes, arguably so. But, knowing my fallibility, I use a wide spectrum of sources to prevent too narrow a range of interpretation. Coming to a decision resulting from all of the provided information is different from starting with the decision already made before accesing that information.
Just so you don’t think I’ve run off, I’ll be away from this thread until Monday, so I can take the time to read up on determinism and Sam Harris’s POV, and analyze them.
A wide enough spectrum of sources doesn’t prevent a too narrow range of interpretation-it facilitates it. With a wide enough range of sources you can find a translation that eventually matches your expectation, which is something a very narrow selection would probably disallow.
I don’t know if he needs pschological help or not. I recommended he read some psych books so he could learn more about things like confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, etc. Maybe read “How we know what isn’t so” by Thomas Gilovich.
I think being foolish is bad.
I don’t know about all religious beliefs but Christianity is foolishness personified, with liberal Christianity having a hypocritical cherry on top.
I imagine you believe in the resurrection, so what are 5 other miracles you believe in? Why them and not others?
So what, Esau was just doing as God foretold that he would. What fault was that of his?
Why would a loving god favor one tribe over others in the first place? Why not do miracles and soften hearts for all?
Esau was starving, Jacob demanded Esau’s birthright to save him. Jacob was a bad brother, kind of a bad person if you ask me.
[quote[There are over a hundred English translations. They fascinate me, and I’ve got a very good working knowledge of most of them. So, when I went to examine the passage in Romans, I found great uniformity, but with a few versions that departed from the average. Out of curiosity, I checked out why they would have departed. In the NLT’s case (the one I quoted), the translators decided instead of going straight from the Greek as everyone else did, they considered the fact that Romans quotes Malachi, and examined the word used there, which they rendered “rejected”. Since, as I said above, the cause of God’s displeasure is Esau’s rejection of his birthright, and, by extension, God and his covenant, God has rejected him in return.[/quote]
Rationalize your cherry picking however you want. Maybe you can keep fooling yourself.
So you studied both a whole lot less than those who did all those translations I cited that disagree with you. Right?
I don’t disagree with my idea of Christianity, there is probably some value in studying various myths, yes, and no.
Yes, you’ve made it clear numerous times what you think about liberal Christians, but that wasn’t what I asked, was it? I’m wondering why railing against this particular variety of foolishness is so important to you that you are inspired to carry on like an overexcited teenager for page after page.
What harm are liberal Christians in particular doing to you or anyone else?
I think you need to read a broader scope of subjects. You sound like an astrologer who knows every nuance, but not enough to know it’s all bullshit.
Yup.