4 ms·
Without trying to start a flame war, the author is not accurate in what is in (or not in) the Bible.
by RickJWagner 6y ago
Without trying to start a flame war, the author is not accurate in what is in (or not in) the Bible.
- jdshaffer 6y agoHmm... accurate point. There are several items in his "not in the Bible" list that are most definitely mentioned, several times!
- bryanrasmussen 6y agoI think they're looking for the exact term, so in that way it's not in the bible even if what the exact term refers to actually is.
- quietbritishjim 6y agoAs I said in my other comment, it's clear from the context that by "parts of the Bible" they mean named contiguous sections, and by "not parts of the Bible" they mean topics that are raised intermittently thoughout. So there's no homosexuality "part of the Bible" just in the sense that there's no Book of Homosexuality. It wouldn't make sense to demand an exact term when you're looking at something that was originally written in a different language (like the Bible, which was mostly written in Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek) because whether or not that word is exactly matched depends on how it's translated rather than something inherent in the original work.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- quietbritishjim 6y agoI think that the list "Not parts of the bible" is meant to represent index entries that are general topics that are spread over the whole text, as opposed to the "Parts of the Bible" list which are index entries representing contiguous named chunks (Old Testament, Genesis). I agree it is confusingly phrased.