|
|
|
|
|
|
by skeezyjefferson
237 days ago
|
|
|
> Unless the author wanted to demonstrate that by playing with words one can prove anything. not to be facetious but what hes doing is what most of the popular religions do - come up with your own "interpretation" or "reading" of the text. how popular would any major religion be if it was stuck with its original BCE values, ethics and beliefs? They would be dead. They must change with the times. Why is any "reading" of the bible more valid than the next? This guy is a pastor |
|
|
If you're asking earnestly, I'd imagine the "validity" of a reading of the bible to be judged the same way we judge interpretations of other books or documents with levels of ambiguity.
There have been innumerable pastors over millennia who've preached their own perspective on the book; your intuition's correct that the more popular readings survive and the less popular ones do not. If Scott wanted to say his unique interpretation makes him a pastor, that seems reasonable to me. He wouldn't be the first, nor the last.