[quote=@Legend] Baseless claim. Evidence, please. OT is split into three parts. One still applies, two don't. This is so incorrect, I'm legitimately stunned and unsure of where to even start. Since we have the ability to interpret passages with some flexibility— Wrong; the Bible is used to interpret itself. Just because you may doesn't mean everyone else does. I'm also using the most accurate translation. If you want the Greek (not Aramaic) word (since we [i]do[/i] have the originals), it's Τίμα, pronounced "Tima." The word means "honour, regard, reverence, set a price on, acknowledge the status of, give financial aid to." Because we're not dealing with money, we are left with "honour, regard, reverence," and loosely, "acknowledge the status of." That would be more likely to fit with an elected official, but the definition of the word and its interpretation is clear. It's also used the same way in all instances of its use I've found in the Bible. There isn't wiggle room; this one is cut and dry. [/quote] If the bible is used to interpret itself then it nulls itself through all its contradictions. That's the whole reason apologists exist. What you define as the "most accurate" may not be the most accurate. You do realize that greek was the second language that the first portion of the NT was written in, right? Even the NT began, up until a certain point, in aramaic and hebrew. So you claiming to have the originals and then saying that they're greek doesn't really give you much credit to work off. Also, of course the GREEK word would be consistent, greek words have a lot of meanings and so do aramaic and hebrew. If even one of them matches one of them then it would use that word, even if the original intent wasn't for that. The Lucifer = Satan error came about when translating into greek, after all.