NASB2020. That's a tricky question to answer. It's definitely not all bad. And I'm super skeptical of bias in translation. There is so much interconnectedness to the Bible and much can be learned from the Bible and applied to modern day happenings. Being that I read the work chronologically (down to the verse) I would jump between different books, written by different people across time, writing the same or similar things strengthened my conviction that events likely actually happened as documented. When read through the eyes of someone knowledgeable of pole shift and the growing field of study that has become, I see documented evidence of what I've been learning. It is veiled to some degree, which I'm suspicious of being translation error (intentional or otherwise) or possible limits of language complexity, IDK. Do I have a bias looking for pole shift evidence? Absolutely. But being able to tie modern scientific study to teachings within the most shared, copied, read, and translated work in human history (that we know of) isn't by accident. What I think is happening and what I think is going to happen is more than a passing mention in the most popular faith works of the past millennia. I've always had this mental tug of war between science and faith, but they aren't competing. They're complimentary. Going through this study helped clarify that.

I suspect that what has become the Bible was not necessarily the original intent--at least for some of the books/chapters. For example, names and ancestry tree wouldn't be important (IMO) for what is otherwise a sacred religious text to millions. The nuance that Einstein mentions in actual work is interesting to me. I suspect humans personify the concept of God more than what reality may actually be (for believers) because that's what's comprehensible and comfortable. Flexibility in thought is warranted IMO regarding the definition of God, The Creator of the Universe. I also can't rule out His ability to shape shift--i.e. "when in Rome... When on Earth..."

That's why I tagged you for your opinion out of all of nostrs self professed Christians. I usually unfollow people who start posting religious content regularly and you are permitted by far the most religious posts of anyone I follow. I think you are genuinely looking to be a better person. Most of the religious content I see is virtue signaling in group status, not exploring personal bettering in any way. Jesus took issue with public displays of piety but people are still out here using their social media to blast out "look how much I love Jesus" without a hint of irony.

And now I can't see his responses either.

#💎

Awoke with a thought about original intent and ancestries being in the Bible. Ancestry is in the Bible because Judaism was exclusive based on kinship. So that makes parentage as key to proper participation as not eating shellfish. It is just another set of rules. Don't lie, be related to one of these people, no cheeseburgers, and so on. That all checks out, except that my recollection is that the geneological records from the Bible are patrilineal. The rules are very clear that being Jewish is matrilineal. @55f573b6…be4aa21b any thoughts on that one?

millennial slop