/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>9922

Now carnivorous animals didn't kill each other before the fall

There was no rain until the flood

There were seemingly larger, monstrous creatures running around

The giant nephilim were a race of angel-man mongrels

>>9922

Why are you not a YEC or a proponent of the historical-grammatical method of Hermeneutics?

>>9925

It's not that I'm not, I was raised Catholic in the post John Paul II era so I had no real exposure to this area of theology

I'm still in the undecided camp, I'm not certain if young earth and the flood was an example of hyperbole and symbolism.

I'm leaning towards YEC as I realize how unsettled and scant the science is in this era but I'm not certain if the bible meant itself to be taken completely literally in this area

>>9926

>*era should be area

>>9926

The question is entirely answered by your hermeneutical method. Do you have a stance?

>>9931

Yes I think we should try and learn and follow the original intent of the authors of the bible - as I said I'm not entirely certain they intended the flood and 6 days creation to be taken literally

It's possible that they did, but it's also possible that they didn't based on what I know so far

>biblical literalists

You could have just put "Christians" because these are the only real Christians.

>>9932

>I'm not entirely certain they intended the flood and 6 days creation to be taken literally

What cause do you have to think they didn't?

>>9934

1. Because there are two accounts of creation that are slightly different from one another

2 The bible does contain a lot of symbolic imagery when describing great and significant things, for example revelations has lots of symbolism, as does the prophecies of the first coming

This isn't conclusive, it's possible that the writers meant themselve to be taken literally, I'm just not certain

>>9936

>1

Different but non contradictory

>2

The later Biblical authors treat the flood and creation narratives as history, and all rules of grammar point to them being as historical prose, same as the Exodus or as the Crucifixion

You should make yourself certain that it really was literal, non-symbolic. The only non-arbitrary means of interpretation is the historical-grammatical method.

>>9936

>it's possible

Satan’s whispering into your ear that it might be POSSIBLE that the writers had some intent when there is no proof that they did. Don’t let heresies block your way to heaven

>>9922

What makes you think we know?

>>9922

Great ice sheets covered large parts of the continents. Sea levels were much lower than nowadays. There was less carbon dioxide in the air and less plant cover.

An advanced civilization had spread mainly on the sea coasts. There were also various tribes of hunter gatherers inland.

It was the last ice age. The people knew about the dangers of the glaciers melting because of the ongoing global warming. They didn't expect a comet impact on top of that.

>>9925

Because YEC is retarded nonsense with no scriptural basis. Scripture matters, idiocy made up by dipshits does not.

>>9959

hmm yes when you call everyone who disagrees with you retarded and assert that their position is made up and idiocy, you make a cogent argument

Neither of those but anyways:

There were much more powerful civilisations, mankind lived far longer, reaching several centuries of lifespan, and also, if you believe in that kind of interpretation, there were some human-angel rapebabies, apparently by demons who wanted to render mankind extinct and world to be inhabited by race of subhumans.

Overall, I think that such questions are fun to discuss but also pointless, causing senseless tensions between the opponent's.

>>9971

>Written in holy scripture

>pointless

>>9960

I answered a question. YEC is made up, thousands of years after the bible was written, by some random dumbass. If you think it is scriptural, all you have to do is provide scripture to support it. Duh?

>>9978

>made up thousands of years after the bible was written, by some random dumbass

When exactly are you alleging the position began, and where and who started it?

A literal approach to Genesis does not require YEC and in fact can be entirely consistent with known modern science. However this approach is not consistent with KJV-Onlyism and requires interpreting the text in ways that some might not consider as literalist enough. For example, "yom" can indeed often mean a 24-hour day, but we shouldn't assume that the most common English meaning is always in context the most appropriate translation.

>>9984

What approach is not consistent with KJV onlyism?

>>9983

Ibn Ezra. Why are you asking pointless questions? If the scripture supports your idiocy, then quote it. I don't need to prove the bible doesn't say something, you need to prove it does say it.

>>9988

>you need to prove it does say it.

Okay.

I am arguing that Genesis 1-11 are to be read as historical prose. I'm not sure your position because you aren't giving any arguments, just scoffing, so I'll argue for creation and for young Earth.

Genesis 2:2-4 NASB — By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created fnand made. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

It says God created the world, and that He did it in six days. The end of each day is punctuated "and there was evening, and there was morning", emphasizing the literal (non-allegorical) nature of the days.

The NT authors uniformly treat the accounts of Genesis 1-11 as historical fact.

As just one undeniable example, 1 Peter 3:20 states that eight people were saved in the great flood in the days of Noah.

The genealogy from Shem to Abraham is given in Genesis 11, including number of years. I presume you accept that Abraham is a real historical figure according to the Bible.

What cause do we have to think that this genealogy is anything other than history? What is the point of it if allegorical? Or do you hold that it's errant?

>Ibn Ezra

So already you're conceding that the doctrine isn't "thousands" of years after the closing of the Canon, but only one thousand. I was expecting to hear 20th century fundamentalism is the root.

I am not an expert on what the ante Nicene fathers through medievals taught on creation, but my understanding is that if anything they tended to view the six days as allegorical for an instantaneous creation. This is not contradictory with a young Earth, and it is definitively creationist.

I agree that scripture is the final say. Scripture is sufficient, and will indicate which of the available views is correct.

>>9992

>I am arguing that Genesis 1-11 are to be read as historical prose

Uh huh?

>It says God created the world, and that He did it in six days

Your (((translation))) says that. The bible does not. The bible says yom, not day. Yom can mean day, season, age, era, etc. Why do you assume it means day in this context?

>The NT authors uniformly treat the accounts of Genesis 1-11 as historical fact.

They are. They do not support young earth idiocy though.

>What cause do we have to think that this genealogy is anything other than history?

It is history. It does not support young earth idiocy. The genealogy only lists important figures, we have no idea how many generations fall between those mentioned. It does not include ages when people are born, and we have no idea how long Adam was in Eden where he did not age. And even if you could fix all of that, it would only get us back to the point of the creation of man, not the creation of the earth.

>I am not an expert on what the ante Nicene fathers through medievals taught on creation

That the word yom could not be referring to days as the earth was not created on "day" one, ergo it must be the first era of creation, not the first day.

>This is not contradictory with a young Earth

But it is something you just made up, so it doesn't matter. What was actually taught, going back at least 1500 years, was that yom in the context of genesis must mean era or age. When you read genesis with this in mind, you will notice that the eras described line up precisely with the scientific understanding of the creation of the universe, our sun, the earth, and life on it.

>>10006

>>The NT authors uniformly treat the accounts of Genesis 1-11 as historical fact.

>They are. They do not support young earth idiocy though.

?? Viewing the creation account as historical prose is definitively young Earth creationism

>The genealogy only lists important figures, we have no idea how many generations fall between those mentioned.

Reaching hard. Give me reason to think a single generation was skipped

>Yom can mean day, season, age, era, etc. Why do you assume it means day in this context?

Because, like I said, "and there was evening, and there was morning, the ___ day".

You're also being disingenuous. Yom normatively means a literal 24 hour period, but is occasionally used allegorically. If you study hermeneutics, you learn that you find a contextual reason for treating a statement as allegorical before doing so.

>What was actually taught, going back at least 1500 years, was that yom in the context of genesis must mean era or age

Prove it

>When you read genesis with this in mind, you will notice that the eras described line up precisely with the scientific understanding of the creation of the universe, our sun, the earth, and life on it.

That's called eisegesis, but it doesn't anyway.

You still haven't shared your alternative position. Old Earth creationism?

When does Genesis start to be historical prose, chapter 3?

>>10006

>Why do you assume it means day

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

>It is history. It does not support young earth idiocy.

Are you referring to flood geology when you say idiocy? Man, how subverted into this false dichotomy hegelian dialectic can you get?

>The genealogy only lists important figures, we have no idea how many generations fall between those mentioned.

Yes we do because the specific part of the geneology we're looking at tells us how old each patriarch was when their child was born.

>It does not include ages when people are born,

Yes it does.

Genesis 5:3-5

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

It's the same for all the others that follow down to Terah, the father of Abraham.

So tell me how you thought that you could speak such a bold faced lie and thought it would go unnoticed?

>and we have no idea how long Adam was in Eden where he did not age.

Genesis 5:3 states this. It's really weird that I keep encountering the same old bold faced liars over and over again as time goes by. You just keep lying about what it says in the hope that nobody will even doubt or check you on your facts thats how you got this far.

>>10007

>You still haven't shared your alternative position. Old Earth creationism?

There is none. This is all just one guy telling people not to believe scripture, that's all.

>>10007

>Viewing the creation account as historical prose is definitively young Earth creationism

No it isn't. Repeating nonsense is not an argument.

>Give me reason to think a single generation was skipped

Give me a reason to think nobody was skipped. Just because it says "Bob descended from Joe" does not mean Bob is Joe's son, he could be his grandson, great grandson, etc.

>Because, like I said, "and there was evening, and there was morning, the ___ day".

Again, we're talking about the bible, not a particular translation you heretically cling to.

>Yom normatively means a literal 24 hour period

No it does not.

>but is occasionally used allegorically

We're not talking allegorically, we're talking literally. There's plenty of ancient Hebrew text that uses yom literally, to mean a season, and literally to mean an age or era.

>If you study hermeneutics, you learn that you find a contextual reason for treating a statement as allegorical before doing so.

There is no allegory involved, that's just you trying to invent a reason to dismiss facts you find inconvenient.

>That's called eisegesis

No it is not. Understanding the meaning of words is not eisegesis. Why is it so popular on this board for heretics who put the word of man over the word of God to cry "eisegesis!111" every time someone points out the literal meaning of a word?

>When does Genesis start to be historical prose, chapter 3?

The first word.

>>10015

>Exodus 20:11

That is not an answer to the question.

>Are you referring to flood geology when you say idiocy?

I am referring to young earth when I say idiocy, like I clearly said.

>And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years

Again, we have no idea how long he was in Eden before that.

>It's the same for all the others that follow down to Terah, the father of Abraham.

And then it stops.

>Genesis 5:3 states this.

No it does not. It says how long he lived after being kicked out of Eden until he had Seth.

>There is none. This is all just one guy telling people not to believe scripture, that's all.

Says the retard telling people to believe the word of Man and not the word of God.

>>10007

Oh sorry I missed one of your tard points.

>Prove it

What year did Saint Augustine write De Genesi ad Litteram?

>>10041

What do you think the words "prose", "historical" and "literal" mean?

I'll rephrase: when does the text begin to be literal?

What is your position?

What is the translation of the Bible you find trustworthy?

>>10043

Oh me oh my

If only there was some kind of organized entity that could decide such things.

>>10044

>being intellectually lazy

>>10043

>I'll rephrase: when does the text begin to be literal?

The first word, like I told you. What part of this is confusing you? The word bark has multiple meanings. If I say "I don't like the bark of this tree", and you insist I must mean the tree is making an annoying noise I do not like, then you are a fucking retard. If I explain to you that bark can also mean the stuff on the outside of a tree, not just a noise a dog makes, and you say "that's called eisegesis you have to be literal not allegorical!1111" then you are such a fucking retard that you must be black. A word having multiple meanings does not in any way make some of those meanings non-literal.

>What is your position?

That the bible is the word of God. And that you are a fucking idiot who insists on clinging to a stupid interpretation that makes no sense and which is only ever put forth as a straw man by fedoras.

>What is the translation of the Bible you find trustworthy?

No. Use an interlinear.

>>10067

Please quote the scripture where Christ told us not to say fuck.

>>10041

>That is not an answer to the question.

Yes it is because the sabbath day is a normative day. But I guess you probably didn't even finish reading.

>I am referring to young earth when I say idiocy, like I clearly said.

Yes but are you referring to flood geologists interpretation is the question. Everyone knows that is not Biblical. People who redefine words to their liking are no different, whether they're flood geologists or day-age theory. It's all the same exact fallacy of redefining words and usually based on some talmudic jewish definition.

>Again, we have no idea how long he was in Eden before that.

Genesis 5:5 says that all the days of Adam's life were nine hundred and thirty years. That counts his whole life. You literally can't read. But at least you got told the quote and now you're simply choosing not to believe it.

>And then it stops.

The Bible stops? No. Because it is possible to know how long it was before Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were born due to Genesis 11:32, 12:4, 21:25, and 25:26. It doesn't stop after that due to Jacob's age recorded in Genesis 47:9. It doesn't stop after that because Exodus 12:41 and Galatians 3:17 tells us how long they were in Egypt. It doesn't stop after that because 1 Kings 6:1 tells us how long it was from that point to then. And after that you can go down the kings list (1 Kings 11:42, 14:21, 15:2, etc.) to Jehoiachin whose reign ended 70 years before Cyrus whose first year was in c.539 BC.

>No it does not. It says how long he lived after being kicked out of Eden until he had Seth.

Genesis 5:3 states how long it was between his creation and Seth's first day. Yes it does. And because of Genesis 5:5 we know the total years Adam lived, which is the sum of the 130 years before Seth in 5:3 and the 800 after his birth in Genesis 5:4.

There is no way to get out of this without removing Genesis 5:3-5, and it's really odd that you're even trying to. He lived 930 years, not a single year more or less. I suspect you must be some kind of new age revisionist.

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

– Exodus 20:11

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

– Genesis 5:3-5

>>10080

Not a quotation from Christ, but Ephesians 5:4 is scripture

>>10043

You need to remember that Ancient Hebrew had no terms for concepts such as "plate tectonics" and "oxygen crisis" and that the people back then would have experienced explanations for such as mystical and unverifiable. The story was told in very simple terms. It is a great proof of the Bible that we are now able to look at cutting-edge science and notice that that our version of Earth's history is so similar to what was written down thousands of years ago.

Then you need to remember that Genesis was Moses writing down what had been oral history. Excessively long lists are hard to memorize, and it's unfair to expect for successive generations to keep track of an ever-growing list of ancestors that did nothing of note just so that a long time in the future someone can get a gap-free account. It would also have been unfair to the generations to require them to pass down lessons in subjects such as "what is oxygen".

>>10090

>Yes it is because the sabbath day is a normative day

So? That doesn't mean the ages of creation are days.

>Everyone knows that is not Biblical

"Everyone knows" is meaningless nonsense. Fedoras say that "everyone knows" the bible is nonsense.

>It's all the same exact fallacy of redefining words

See, here we get a completely clear and unambiguous example of you being dishonest. This is no longer your ignorance or stupidity, this is dishonesty. The word is translated as many other things other than day just within any translation of the bible itself. Suggesting that knowing the meaning of words is redefining them is simply a lie.

>Genesis 5:5 says that all the days of Adam's life were nine hundred and thirty years

No, it says the years he ages were nine hundred and thirty. Again, look at the actual bible, not just a modern translation of it. You are clearly not concerned about the truth of the bible, you are only concerned about the interpretation one translator gave of it.

>The Bible stops?

It stops giving ages when people are born.

>Genesis 5:3 states how long it was between his creation and Seth's first day.

No it doesn't. It says how many years he had aged. Read the bible.

>I suspect you must be some kind of new age revisionist.

Yeah, Saint Augustine was a "new age revisionist" alright.

>>10094

Again, quoting a specific translation does not mean the actual bible says that. The bible was not written in English. It does not say day anywhere. It says yom. And the very same translation you are insisting has to be correct translates yom as half a dozen different words elsewhere. So you are insisting, that given a word could mean something which makes sense and is possible, or could mean something that makes no sense and is impossible, the word of God is actually the impossible nonsense, not the obvious and factually correct option.

>>10095

It is scripture. And it says no shameful or foolish talk. What is shameful about fuck? It is simply an expletive that indicates an extreme reaction or statement.

>>10096

I'm pretty sure he's a larping fedora trying to spout idiocy to make it seem like Christians must be stupid and the bible must be nonsense. There's no way a genuine believer would reject the idea that the bible and science very clearly and directly describe the exact same sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the sun, the earth, life, and finally man and instead insist the bible must be interpreted to mean something that is obviously wrong.

>>10102

>So? That doesn't mean the ages of creation are days.

Those are the kind of days Exodus 20:11 is talking about.

>"Everyone knows" is meaningless nonsense.

I'm saying everyone knows in the sense that everyone agrees it's wrong. I could have said everyone here knows. And so to say or pretend that's my position (which I ask everyone in this thread not to do) is a strawman. That is the point of me saying this. But it seems like you missed that.

>Suggesting that knowing the meaning of words is redefining them is simply a lie.

You have an incorrect teaching of what these words in question mean and are using it to spread false doctrines about. This is one of the main methods used to create new false doctrine. See it all the time.

>No, it says the years he ages were nine hundred and thirty.

The Bible says in Genesis that all the days of his life were nine hundred and thirty years.

>You are clearly not concerned about the truth of the bible, you are only concerned about the interpretation one translator gave of it.

It's funny because Genesis 5:5 literally says all the DAYS of his life, and that has to include starting from the first day he lived. Meanwhile you haven't presented a single reason to think why this isn't so, all you've done is try to redefine words.

>It stops giving ages when people are born.

You're just disagreeing for the sake of it at this point. My explanation already shows exactly how you can get from the geneologies of Genesis 5 and 11 through to Cyrus in 539 BC with no gaps.

If you'd like to actually get into that, I always can, and I am glad to get into specifics with you on this Biblical timetable. But you aren't bringing any specifics, but are just disagreeing with me for the sake of appearance. Just to say that the Bible is somehow wrong and to posture on every point as if you had a reason when you don't.

So the answer is yes the Bible does continue the timetable due to the explanation I already gave here. >>10090

This means that there is never a stopping point or gap, so that whole thesis is wrong.

>No it doesn't. It says how many years he had aged.

It says the DAYS of his life were so many years. His life started when he was given life. I don't know how simpler it can get. This is what talking to mystical word-changing gnostics is like folks.

>And the very same translation you are insisting has to be correct translates yom as half a dozen different words elsewhere.

Not a single, solitary example.

>So you are insisting, that given a word could mean something which makes sense and is possible, or could mean something that makes no sense and is impossible, the word of God is actually the impossible nonsense, not the obvious and factually correct option.

You have yet to even begin to explain this, the reasoning behind this or any of the given facts or reasons. Because if you even did, it would be easy to prove how you're relying in some way on talmudic ideas that have subverted you somewhere along the way. I assure you of this. The whole concept of repurposing words in a mystical (kabbalistic) way originates with the talmudic school of thought.

I should also note that it is highly amateurish to assume that context, specifically grammatical context in translation doesn't matter and that somehow the grammar around a word can just be ignored as you translate one word at a time. That's highly reductionist and amateurish.

That's why these geniuses who want to just open a modern concordance written by some judaizer in the last ten years are wrong and are participating in the act of redefining words from what they are.

>>10122

>Those are the kind of days Exodus 20:11 is talking about.

That's your premise, not evidence to support it.

>You have an incorrect teaching of what these words in question mean

Then explain why your beloved and perfect translation agrees with me? The word yom is translated as several different words in every single english translation. You do not have a logically consistent position. If the word yom must mean day, then your translation is wrong by your own standard. And Paul clearly states that God's "day" of rest is still happening in his time in Hebrews 4. We're still in the Lord's "day" 7 right now.

>My explanation already shows exactly how you can get from the geneologies of Genesis 5 and 11 through to Cyrus in 539 BC with no gaps.

But your explanation ignores the fact that you don't have any such genealogy. The same word is used for both son and descendant. Most of the lineage given it is unclear as to which meaning is intended.

>Not a single, solitary example.

Words used for yom in NASB:

afternoon* (1), age (8), age* (1), all (1), always* (14), amount* (2), battle (1), birthday* (1), Chronicles* (38), completely* (1), continually* (14), course* (1), daily (22), daily the days (1), day (1115), day of the days (1), day that the period (1), day's (6), day's every day (1), daylight* (1), days (635), days on the day (1), days to day (1), days you shall daily (1), days ago (1), days' (11), each (1), each day (4), entire (2), eternity (1), evening* (1), ever in your life* (1), every day (2), fate (1), first (5), forever* (11), forevermore* (1), full (5), full year (1), future* (1), holiday* (3), later* (2), length (1), life (12), life* (1), lifetime (2), lifetime* (1), live (1), long (2), long as i live (1), long* (11), midday* (1), now (5), older* (1), once (2), period (3), perpetually* (2), present (1), recently (1), reigns (1), ripe* (1), short-lived* (1), so long* (1), some time (1), survived* (2), time (45), time* (1), times* (2), today (172), today* (1), usual (1), very old* (1), when (10), when the days (1), whenever (1), while (3), whole (2), year (10), yearly (5), years (13), yesterday* (1).

>The whole concept of repurposing words in a mystical (kabbalistic) way originates with the talmudic school of thought.

The fact that you continue to resort to this pathetic kikey bullshit makes it very clear that you know you are wrong. There is nothing mystical or repurposed about words having multiple meanings. Again, bark being stuff on a tree and a sound a dog makes is not allegorical, it is not mystical, it is not repurposing. It is just a word with multiple meanings.

>That's why these geniuses who want to just open a modern concordance written by some judaizer in the last ten years are wrong and are participating in the act of redefining words from what they are.

Name a single english translation of the bible that always translates yom as day. Protip: THERE ISN'T ONE YOU DUMB FUCKING HEATHEN.

>>10138

>Words used for yom in NASB:

>afternoon* (1), age (8), age* (1), all (1), always* (14), amount* (2), battle (1), birthday* (1), Chronicles* (38), completely* (1), continually* (14), course* (1), daily (22), daily the days (1), day (1115), day of the days (1)

Spot the outlier

>>10139

If the word only means day, then the list should read "day". Every single english translation renders it as multiple other words based on context. Every hebrew dictionary and scholar that has ever existed also says it means multiple things. So the premise that it must always mean day and nothing else is obviously false.

>>10138

>That's your premise, not evidence to support it.

You already admitted that the sabbath day is a day. I'm supposed to assume you take that admission back now?

>The word yom is translated as several different words in every single english translation.

You still haven't given me a single example, and it shouldn't be hard for you to get one. Until then, what's the point in going back and forth when you should be able to bring an example.

>And Paul clearly states that God's "day" of rest is still happening in his time in Hebrews 4.

What verse? Hebrews 4:8 says it's talking about "another day." That again is a specific day, not an aeon-length mystical "seventh day" that continues until now.

>But your explanation ignores the fact that you don't have any such genealogy. The same word is used for both son and descendant.

Genesis 5 and 11 state exactly how old each of the men when the child was born and exactly how many years beyond that they lived. It goes on like that in a closed chain from Adam to Terah. There is no gap here, your point isn't even relevant in the face of this level of information in the first place.

>Most of the lineage given it is unclear as to which meaning is intended.

Doesn't even matter because it says how old each one was when the next one was born.

>Words used for yom in NASB:

The NASB removes the words "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22. It also removes the words "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24. It is a bad translation, I'd never use it.

The NASB also changes Isaiah 63:16 where it says "thy name is from everlasting." In the NASB the words are changed to "from of old is Your name."

"Of old" and everlasting are not the same thing. I don't accept their supposed translation that was likely influenced by the exact same guys. They don't want the Redeemer's name to be "of everlasting."

They also change Micah 5:2 the same way.

>There is nothing mystical or repurposed about words having multiple meanings.

It is when you have no actual examples to bring up.

>Again, bark being stuff on a tree and a sound a dog makes is not allegorical, it is not mystical, it is not repurposing. It is just a word with multiple meanings.

Yes and the context of the sentence tells you which word is meant. You can't just switch them out like replaceable car parts.

But you haven't even gotten there yet; because you can't even find a single real example of this supposed definition being used. You can't even seem to find a single one, to show for us here. How am I supposed to know what you're talking about with no example which should be so easy to find if you're right? You've just kept relying on the same subversive witnesses like the modern "imitation" versions of Scripture. That's part of the problem. Indeed, it's part of the very problem. You can't use it except to show how subversive it is.