Rear runner, try this (simplified) thought experiment:

The easiest to understand verses in the Bible should be those that are most explicit. Of the explicit verses the ones quoting God directly should be the most privileged; especially if they have supporting evidence, such as an inscription written by God in stone… though for this thought experiment we will overlook the inconvenience of the disappearance of any divinely inscribed rocks.

Exodus 20 verse 13 (KJV) will serve as the example. "Thou shall not kill." Those four words, runner, are simple and clear. Unfortunately, it is impossible to follow God's commandment and be a living human since second by second your immune system kills microbes and in eating food you have killed animal, plant or other organisms. Your response might be that God obviously didn't mean microbes and in any event the proscription should only apply to conscious action.

My reply is that God said, "Thou shall not kill." He did not say, "Thou shalt not kill… (insert here all the exceptions, such as microbes, as well as conditional clauses)". Because if God had meant it any other way She would have said so.

You reply that I am being silly and and it is obvious what the verse means and I respond that no, it is obvious what it says but its meanings need to be interpreted and will always be conditional.

It logically follows that if the simplest example of an explicit biblical verse has to be conditional and interpreted according to circumstances then all of them have to be.

Finally, if you'll permit, you seem to have a problem in that despite the scientific, biologic, historic and social evidence for homosexuality you assert that you find it unnatural. The solution is simple… If you find homosexuality unnatural, then please stop doing it or learn to do it properly.

Alan thankyou for what appears to be genuine concerns. You do raise a number of topics.

You write
' Unfortunately Bible-believing Christians on the wrong side of science-scripture arguments have often done great damage before realising their errors.'

There is no doubt that biblical interpretation has led to atrocities and mis understandings. Fortunatley not nearly as many deaths as those who deny God. Marxism (the denial of God) is up with the worst. That is why today often it is those with Marxist ideology that are the most violent. In one year the murder of the unborn makes huge dints in those killed by bible misinterpretation of scripture. This is not an excuse just a fact. This is also justified by pseudo science. No honest scientist or doctor could deny what they are doing when they tear apart a baby. This is just one example of how wicked the heart of man is and how willing they are to use 'science'to justify every perverse act under the sun. So yes many have also been on the wrong side of science. Much racism has come from the pseudo science of evolution that taught that some races are more evolved than others. This led to our own aborigials being considered the missing link by scientist.

You ask or raise questions about a number of sexual issues. It is the issue homosexuality that you wrote on. I have stated many times that this sin is no worse than adultery or fornication. In many ways by allowing the recoginition of defacto relationships as being equal with marriage the law has opened the door to every evil. This sanctioning of same sex partners is just one more sanctioning of what the Scriptures call wicked. While I am convinced that oral sex is perverse no one is calling for it to be legalised and demanding it sanctioned. I heard recently on the news the increase in throat cancer being linked to oral sex. Why am I surprised

con'd

So you ask

'So would you agree, Runner, it can be tricky to determine what is actually meant by some passages that refer to sexual immorality? And that this is where we need scholarly exegesis, the insights of science, profound pastoral sensitivity and internet forums?

Yes I would agree with that statement. Again though we don't need 'scholarly exegesis'on what the Scriptures plainly show.

Don't you agree that if a person is heading to eternity in hell due to ignorance of Scripture and mis representation by liberal theoligians that it would be grossly wrong for believer not to warn them?

Dear runner,

You wrote: “Much racism has come from the pseudo science of evolution that taught that some races are more evolved than others.”

Evolution teaches no such thing. Humans are not more evolved than bacteria. They just fill different ecological niches. You make statements for which you cite no evidence. If you can find an evolutionary scientist who made such a statement cite your reference. No doubt Creationist websites distort evolutionary theory, but no reputable scientist has maintained what you cite. At least learn what evolution is.

Dear Alan,

You wrote, "stood between the Australian Aborigines and murdering settlers." That is largely true. Before Darwin published many scientifically literate people thought of the Aborigines as a separate species which were not entitled to protection as humans. Missionaries accepting the Biblical fables of Adam and Eve thought of the Aborigines as human and sharing a common ancestry with Europeans. Robert Kenny's "The Lamb Enters the Dreaming" tells about that period in his narrative about the first Aborigine converted to Christianity.

Dear Wm. Trevor,

The interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill." should consider the original. A direct translation from the Hebrew is “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder is a crime defined by the state. Killing of non-humans, killing in war, killing in self-defence and other justifiable homicides along with other killing not defined as murder by the state are not violations of the commandment.

There are many other mistranslations from the original along with mistranslations from mistranslations. One example is the virgin birth.

The King James version of Isaiah 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In the original Hebrew an almah shall conceive. Almah means young woman with no implication of virginity. Young women frequently conceive. The Greek translation of Isaiah replaced almah as parthenos which does mean virgin in Greek.

The Bible in the original version in Hebrew and Aramaic is a collection of contemporary legends. Translations often add more misinformation.

Dear Alan and Rhian,

Thank You for your comments and inputs. I'm learning a great deal from this discussion and the various posts. Alan, you may be right about the Lenny Bruce quote that I cited earlier. However, the theology and punishment-theory behind it, I have a problem comprehending. I refer to the central doctrine of Christianity: that of "atonement" for "original sin." What kind of ethical philosophy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor? I question the Christian focus on sin, sin, sin, sin. God incarnated himself as a man, Jesus, in order that he should be tortured and executed in "atonement" for the hereditary sin of Adam. And Jesus has been worshipped as the "redeemer" of all our sins. Not just for the past sin of Adam: future sins as well, whether future people decided to commit them or not. My question is - if God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment? (thereby, incidentally, condemning remote future generations of Jews to pogroms and persecution as "Christ-killers.")
It doesn't make sense, at least to me.

If we are talking about intricate, intimate HUMAN relationships then what the hell are we bringing religion,Church and Jesus Christ into it. Jesus loved women but he never got married. He spent 90% of his time with MEN. You really must pay more attention about what you read in the Bible, and how you read it.
I suppose you can't if you've been brainwashed.

socratease