Originally posted by KingOnPoint
Why can't we have a [b]starting point of thinking that the bible literally means what it says in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?[/b]
Well, firstly, I don't read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. (Quite why God didn't make the Bible text instantly readable in all languages simultaneously is beyond me, but that question is for another day.)
And even if I could, languages are constantly evolving, and what words literally meant then could change in important ways in only a few decades, let alone centuries.
And even if we could pinpoint the literal meaning precisely, I couldn't be sure that I wasn't missing the nuances that make up such an important part of language.
And even if I could, the Bible is simply too ambiguous to understand in many places.
I mean, let us suppose the translation 'abstain from blood' is the very best English translation of Acts 15:29.
What the hell does that mean? It could mean:
1 Don't eat meat
2 Don't kill people with a knife
3 Avoid your wife when she is on her period.
If there was a law in this country which made it a criminal offence not to 'abstain from blood', no-one would or could ever be prosecuted for it, as ambiguity in legislation is a defence.
Of course, one might expect an omnipotent being would do a better job than a junior parliamentary draftsman, especially given the consequences of getting it wrong.
But apparently not.