For the record, the ideological objection is not to how liberals "twist" this passage, but how the passage itself is written in such a liberal way that it renders its authenticity doubtful. It would be akin to discovering a passage that said something like this: "Jesus then said that government should take from the rich and give to the poor." Historical analysis can prove that to be non-authentic; political analysis can reach the same conclusion more efficiently and with a high degree of certitude.The cherry-picking is even more blatant than the common practice of arbitrarily dividing OT laws into moral, ceremonial, and civil laws. What Andy is saying in effect is that the Bible is God's Word, insofar as it agrees with his personal opinion of what God meant to say. While many Christians tacitly operate from that principle, few are so open about it.
Jesus did not forgive without repentance, yet the Adulteress Story claims He did. Jesus did not comment on capital punishment, yet the Adulteress Story claims He did. Jesus was not permissive about adultery, yet the Adulteress Story He was. Older people are not always wiser than younger ones, yet the Adulteress Story claims they are. And so on.
Friday, June 4, 2010
How to read the Bible (2)
Andy Schlafly explains here how to tell which Bible passages are authentic: