That is what someone would say who did NOT even read the comment. If they had, they would have noticed that Scriptures WERE given - they were not mere arguments! I'll take relevant, authentic Holy Spirit inspired SCRIPTURE over experiences any day. How could anyone really even know their "experience" is authentically from the Holy Spirit unless it DID have authenticity from Holy Scripture? Because they feel it? Oh, please!
It is totally absurd
to assert that
EXPERIENCE (A) IS ARBITRARILY HOLY, RIGHTEOUS AND RELIABLE
WHILE
EXPERIENCE (B) IS ARBITRARILY EVIL, CORRUPT, USELESS.
That's not even remotely reasonable.
It's certainly NOT Biblical.
NO ONE
has a clue that there even
apart from one's EXPERIENCE of the wood pulp and ink.
Sheesh!
THINKING before typing is usually wiser than not doing so.
Sigh.
Which leads to the question of why he didn't pick one translation and stay consistent to the Book? As I said before, I prefer King James translation, I like the format, the language and the fact the they let you know when they've added words to add clarity but they have them in italics so you know they've been added.
To get back to Warren and I'm not just picking on him, his name is what first came to mind. From what I've heard and read, his Church is Christianity lite. Yes, there are passages in the Bible that are gruesome or indecipherable but you can't take them away or re-write them and lose the intent of the original author (that would be God who had the Holy Spirit tell or show the author of a book although there are many passages where it is God himself talking to the author). I forget where it is in the Bible but God makes it clear that man is not to add or take anything out of the Book.
Now, if the newer translations allow people to get more out of the Bible, I'm all for it. My problem is when they try to modernize passages, or make them gender neutral OR they leave out the blood as it is referenced.
Jesus went through an incredible amount of pain and bloodshed; I think that even the gore in The Passion was probably less than he really had to endure. Think about it, he is taking man's sin debt and making it his own and it's not just for believers, he takes on the whole debt for everyone who has or will live. You can't sugarcoat it, or as I've actually heard a supposedly Christian Pastors say, that Jesus was only a Prophet.
How they can diminish the role and teachings of Jesus in the NT? Then they are obviously teaching false doctrine. Also, when a Bible leaves out the blood, how do they reconcile the Holy Communion? Do they leave out why they're drinking wine (or grape juice) in remembrance of Him, do they leave out the part about his body being broken for them or, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."
If people have a weak Pastor or one who wants to be something to everyone, then folks are much better reading Scripture until they can find a Pastor who teaches from the Book and doesn't try to minimize the passages they have trouble with. Paul's mention of woman's role in the Church is one of those passages weaker Pastors would like to glide over.