-->
@zedvictor4
Accepted theologians.Which was exactly my point.You presume to have a special club.So Stephen asks direct questions of the Bible and you and your clubmates interpret or misinterpret biblical scripture to suit.Stephen clearly studies biblical scripture as you do..... So you are both theologians but in different clubs.Respect, not kudos....To you both.
Stephen asks questions because he has an agenda not because he wants the truth The questions he asks of the bible have been answered on many occasions. He just does not like the answers - so he tries to pose the same questions in different ways. If he simply put his position across it would be one thing. But he does not - he just says that is not correct or he calls people liars. Or he says that the questions are not answered.
As for misinterpreting the scriptures - my point is the exact opposite.
I do read and translate and interpret the Scriptures. My point is that the conclusions I draw are found within the same range as other people who are doing it as well. This is a safeguard against novel interpretations and ensures that a reasonably objective standard is being adhered too. the methodology is sound. We start with the original texts and translate. We look at the contexts. We identify the particular difficulties in the language and the cultural idioms of the time. And in doing so we are asking questions of the text. Asking questions is a good thing. But everyone asks questions depending upon where they are coming from and this is understandable. Yet the same answers will fall within a particular range.
Stephen asks questions - no problem with that. But he refuses to accept answers when they don't fit with his agenda. It is a bit like Trump. He has his own agenda. When a media person asks a question - another person with an agenda - the way Trump answers and the way the media listens - are quite different. What is required is other people who are objective in their views.
If I answer a question because I have reached a certain conclusion. And then go and find it fits within the range of conclusions that others have done in asking the same question - it can bring some satisfaction. If my conclusion is not within the same range - then I need to examine my methodology again. If It is correct and I am still not within range - then I will need to examine others who have come to different conclusions to see why the difference. If at the end of those studies I still am at odds - then either my conclusion is wrong or right and the others are right or wrong. I would submit my work for them to peruse and seek clarification as to whether they or I had moved away from a proper methodology and why I had arrived at a particular conclusion.
The problem with Stephen's interpretational method is he does it all by himself without any checks and balances. And that is not a problem per se - except when he attempts to pass it off as the correct interpretation of the text while dismissing what others have spent years working on. The other thing which is significant is this - even if what Stephen ends up concluding is correct - it will in the end be for his own benefit without the satisfaction of assisting anyone else. It will be posted on this site and then within a couple of months will be lost in the ether of the internet.
But it is not a club. Anyone who wants to do the work and the studies are welcome.
