When will D&C 132 be removed or modified?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The prophet is the "sole interpreter of scripture"? Whatever happened to "search, ponder, and pray"?

Someone as skilled at nuance as you should be capable of discerning the answer to this question, no?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It's only a dumb question because you don't want to answer it. You are taking SC to task for not believing in a literal interpretation of the OT accounts of God-sanctioned genocide, and yet you most likely regard other parts of the OT as myth.

I'm "taking SC to task" for having a very sandy foundation on which to build a personal theology. How literally to take Bible passage A or Bible passage B is really cursory to the core discussion here.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Someone as skilled at nuance as you should be capable of discerning the answer to this question, no?



I'm "taking SC to task" for having a very sandy foundation on which to build a personal theology. How literally to take Bible passage A or Bible passage B is really cursory to the core discussion here.

To prove you're not binary as we suspect, identify three scriptures which you do not interpret literally. You appear to be the most rigid poster here, so it would be interesting for you to address Lebowski's challenge.

You take one poster to task, even though you may do the same thing in a lesser degree.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

To prove you're not binary as we suspect, identify three scriptures which you do not interpret literally. You appear to be the most rigid poster here, so it would be interesting for you to address Lebowski's challenge.

You take one poster to task, even though you may do the same thing in a lesser degree.

Well, I'll throw out the world created in 6 days; but as we all know, it's not literal because the translation is flawed.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well, I'll throw out the world created in 6 days; but as we all know, it's not literal because the translation is flawed.

That's one. And although you two act similarly, you're not Tex. Is Tex your older or younger brother, as that would explain many things?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's one. And although you two act similarly, you're not Tex. Is Tex your older or younger brother, as that would explain many things?

We may often find ourselves on the same side of an argument with you guys, but I'd hardly say we're similar. I have no relatives to my knowledge that post on CG or CB. My brother has a CB account, but he's strictly in lurk mode.

That said, the family reunion with Gary Crowton was a lot of fun this year.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Someone as skilled at nuance as you should be capable of discerning the answer to this question, no?

I'm "taking SC to task" for having a very sandy foundation on which to build a personal theology. How literally to take Bible passage A or Bible passage B is really cursory to the core discussion here.

It's not cursory at all, Tex. SC mentioned that he does not believe in a literal interpretation of the accounts of OT genocide. You are accusing him of supplanting or co-opting the prophet, clearly implying that he is out of line and less than faithful. That's just nonsense. His view of OT stories and his approach to scripture study is just as valid as yours.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It's not cursory at all, Tex. SC mentioned that he does not believe in a literal interpretation of the accounts of OT genocide. You are accusing him of supplanting or co-opting the prophet, clearly implying that he is out of line and less than faithful. That's just nonsense. His view of OT stories and his approach to scripture study is just as valid as yours.

Does Jewish tradition hold the story of Saul/Samuel/Amalekites as symbolic or literal? They certainly have no qualms with allegory/symbolism, so let's let them be the guide as to how to treat this story.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well, I'll throw out the world created in 6 days; but as we all know, it's not literal because the translation is flawed.

Translation is flawed? What? It originally said "6 billion days"? That's quite a stretch.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Translation is flawed? What? It originally said "6 billion days"? That's quite a stretch.

What I believe he is saying is that the word translated as "day" can mean an indistinguishable period of time-- era, epoch, et cetera. As in, "The Earth was created in Jeff Lebowski's day."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

To prove you're not binary as we suspect, identify three scriptures which you do not interpret literally. You appear to be the most rigid poster here, so it would be interesting for you to address Lebowski's challenge.

You take one poster to task, even though you may do the same thing in a lesser degree.

Once again: I am not necessarily taking him to task for his literal or figurative reading of the scriptures (although I may disagree on that too). I am protesting the idea that God would issue a personal revelation to someone other than a prophet, invalidating a given scripture. So let's not get distracted.

But just to humor you, here's a few scriptures I don't generally take literally.

Job 1:6-12
Jacob 5
Much of the Book of Revelation

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It's not cursory at all, Tex. SC mentioned that he does not believe in a literal interpretation of the accounts of OT genocide. You are accusing him of supplanting or co-opting the prophet, clearly implying that he is out of line and less than faithful. That's just nonsense. His view of OT stories and his approach to scripture study is just as valid as yours.

This is just plain wrong. SC clearly indicated that God is telling him something above and beyond what the prophets have said.

This has nothing to do with "my" interpretation or "my" approach.