I think that many bibles that white people cannonised have been corrupted,thats all.I beleive that most of them are based on getting away from the roman church and,maybe I'm wrong,but I think that the roman church did as good a job as they could making sure that the only version of the bible around was theirs.Seems like all these other white churches came after RC.To me,then I sight that they are all still basing their cannonisation (which is an edition)on the RC version,thats their template.
I realy appreciate that you are suggesting that I be my own person within this but I think you may be misinterpreting where I am coming from.Iam not asking ones because I dont allready know to a degree what I think on the subject, but am more interested in what others think and what they think specifically for themselves.
Its the same for the bible,I dont re-read it x amount of times because I am coming from a,'I'm not sure of what I beleive',standpoint.Its not polarised as much as that.I dont NEED the bible because that would entail that I cant think for myself without it so need to run read it to figure out what direction or attittude I should take in life.I dont go read from a place of lack,a place that says I am lost without the next answer.I see it as a book which has equal wisdom to what I allready posses inside myself whether conscious or unconscious.Same way for indigenous cultures who dont use bible.
It is not the ultimate source of schooling me,I AM.Its just a reference.I dont worship it.I read it because I might find different insights to what I allready know, or think I know(ie.Beleive).Otherwise,I would be making it- MY teacher, and me- ITS(its a dead object really)student.There would be no real honest relationship between me and bible because I would think 'it' is doing something,but in reality,'it' does nothing.Basically,I'm saying that I create what I want from this place in me that has information allready and read the information through in the book and interprt through what I allready beleive and take on what I want.EVERYTHING that goes on when reading a book,is going on with you,NOTHING is going on when reading a book.Bible doesnt interact with me like a human can.SO,when communicating with another human being there is an interaction,theres 'a bouncing off' of ideas.If I come with the attitude that 'I come to teach' then I have immediately suggested that I have all the information on the subject I wish to teach.If someone says I am interested to learn something about your self,they are not neccessarily coming to say- 'please teach me'.
'I will teach' attittude normally comes from an attittude of 'I know best'.Really,people are just sharing ideas or their experience when coming from an equal footing.
Not everything boils down to a 'bottom line' for me.Questions are not in a- problem...solution reality as such.
That sort of reasoning seems to come from a western academic/schoolastic perception of heirachy.I notice you say 'case and point' a bit.I may,of course,be wrong in your context,but often that sort of denotes an attittude of- 'my support material(case) and the statement I have made(point) are correct so thats it, Iam right.'
Can you see from this perspective that it sounds really westernised and 'euro' cultured academic understanding of interaction.Like youre- 'right' in a debate,like you 'win'?

Anyway,if I have mis-interpreted you then its not that hard considering we are typing words on a screen a long way away,so bless up General.
More life...