[cobri]

>>"The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this."

This is provably false.

"It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."[1]

As an example, the New Testament is 25x more accurately copied across manuscripts than the Iliad [2].

"The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice."[3]

[1] Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts", p. 23

[2] Bruce M. Metzger, "Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism", cited by Geisler and Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", pp. 366f

[3] F.F. Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" p. 15

[causality0]

I believe he meant that the collective interpretation of mainstream religious leaders changes over time and is radically different from one century to the next.

[pharmakom]

Exactly. Just look at how the attitude to homosexuality has shifted in the church (which I think is a great thing). They didn’t change the text, but they changed the emphasis and the oral sermons.

[Terretta]

That doesn’t hold water either, or Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t still be considered by so many as “the highest expression of both natural reason and speculative theology” and the basis for modern clergical study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

[throwawaygal7]

Love how you uses sources the HN audience is extremely sympathetic with, in order to argue against the groupthink. a great comment.