You read everything in context. But I think you know that.Yes. However, as another poster pointed out there are cultural contexts that we, over 2000 years later, are not likely to get.Heck, I can confuse someone today by saying "you dig it?". Unless you were alive and old enough to communicate during the 60s, you will not have a clue what that means. It's a proper English word used in a non-standard way (that everyone at one time understood).Or more recently the British MP who, when some discussion was going on about 'spam', didn't understand what tinned meat had to do with anything.Amplify by 2000 years and I don't think it unreasonable to think there may be a problem.I'm not a fundamentalist, but I do think you can read the words, look at the body of work about Christ, and make strong inferences.That's what people do today. I am simply asserting that many (most?) infer what they wish it to say. I don't know if it's even possible to figure out consistently what the original author(s) meant because of the huge displacement in time (and civilization/culture). Really, the only "body of work about Christ" is four little books...that's not a lot of source material. And that still omits the other 62 books with various stories and rules of questionable relevance (and/or morality).1poorguy
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra