Chris,

>Doug,
>
>You seem to apply a very literal interpretation of the OT:

Well, if by 'literal' you mean I take the words on their face value - absolutely I take the OT literally. 100%

Now that in no way precludes examining the Hebrew or Greek in the case of the Septuigent nor does it mean I stop thinking. King James 1611 English surely has a few archaic or no-longer-used definitions for example. A few of the newer translations are actually pretty good and I've found it helpful to compare them between themselves. There are two major sources for modern scripture. The Textus Receptus and Westcott & Hort. There are some differences between the Textus Receptus and the work done by Westcott & Hort. I suppose I'd be in the Textus Receptus camp more than the W&H camp. Many of the so-called modern tranlations rely more on W&H than the Received Text (Textus Receptus).

The texts have stood solidly against over 2000 years of assaults so if you have a problem with any odf it I'd be more than happy to answer any question you have.

>
>
>Secondly, if you are Jewish and you do wish to place yourself under those laws the second question I'm going to ask is this: The Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and no sacrifices have been done there since. How do you cover your sins without sacrifices? You cannot according to the Mosaic Law.
>
>
>Are your standards the same for the NT?
>

Yup.. I take the words on their face value, using the same examination standards as above. There is an absolutel wealth of information available actually.

The problem Chris that many seem to have is that they confuse what others say about the Bible as opposed to what the Bible says just straight out.


>snip< (I removed my lengthy message for clarity's sake - if you want it go back a couple messages)