1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSome people actually believe there it is literally 7 days, and some believe in a literally talking snake. I am also well aware that both can be metaphors but considering the variation in interpretation is so vast, I doubt its credibility. If they are metaphors, what do they really represent?
weak, very weak. It doesn't make sense because you do not understand it, because you have not studied it, is it not the case.
There is no indication that a day is a literal twenty four hour period, if that were the case, when you speak in terms of, 'in your fathers day', you are speaking of an unspecified duration of time, not a literal twenty eing, termed Satan. Snakes dont talk, they have no vocal chords with which to form sounds.
It is also quite circular (the bible proving God, and God proving the bible).
Originally posted by lauseyyes they do, but there is no basis for their assertions. Bible states that one day is as a thousand years with God, how they can designate the value of a literal twenty four hour period is untenable. Well consider you have just seen two examples, firstly the Bible tells us that the 'original serpent', was a rebellious angelic agency, so not much interpretation needed and you have seen an instance where one day with God is as a thousand years, clearly demonstrating that a literal interpretation is unwarranted.
Some people actually believe there it is literally 7 days, and some believe in a literally talking snake. I am also well aware that both can be metaphors but considering the variation in interpretation is so vast, I doubt its credibility. If they are metaphors, what do they really represent?
It is also quite circular (the bible proving God, and God proving the bible).
Yes it may be a circular argument, all one can state with any certainty, is what appears to be plausible to us. It is i think impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God, all one can do is provide plausible arguments which infer the existence of God.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieif you don't take it literally, you cannot continue to claim that the bible is 100% accurate and true.
yes they do, but there is no basis for their assertions. Bible states that one day is as a thousand years with God, how they can designate the value of a literal twenty four hour period is untenable. Well consider you have just seen two examples, firstly the Bible tells us that the 'original serpent', was a rebellious angelic agency, so not much in ...[text shortened]... stence of God, all one can do is provide plausible arguments which infer the existence of God.
Originally posted by lauseyLiterary sophistication is needed to make metaphors work. I think another way to look at it is as a scary-fun story told around the prehistoric fire, with lots of dramatic flourishes added by the storyteller. It also taught the children the importance of obedience.
Some people actually believe there it is literally 7 days, and some believe in a literally talking snake. I am also well aware that both can be metaphors but considering the variation in interpretation is so vast, I doubt its credibility. If they are metaphors, what do they really represent?
It is also quite circular (the bible proving God, and God proving the bible).
"Then what happened, Grampa?"
Then... then... a... SNAKE slithered up to her. A talking snake!!"
The kids all go "Ssssssssss".
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhat are you talking about??? I have just demonstrated two instances where a literal interpretation is not warranted and the Bible still remains 100% true and accurate.
if you don't take it literally, you cannot continue to claim that the bible is 100% accurate and true.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“....Sooo if you went to a lawyer with a legal case and he offered you his opinion you would dismiss it out of hand merely because it was an interpretation? ...”
Is that an admittance, it sure sounds like one. Sooo if you went to a lawyer with a legal case and he offered you his opinion you would dismiss it out of hand merely because it was an interpretation? Nooo, but that is the very basis with which you object to RJHinds statement. Bible is a huge volume, it takes years to study its intricacies, just li ...[text shortened]... ecome well versed in the law. Citing that its an interpretation is a very weak argument indeed.
the legal law generally has only one interpretation while words in the Bible apparently can have more than one.
Generally all the lawyers would be in general agreement on what the statement of the law actually means. But this does not appear to be the case for words in the Bible so your analogy in responce to lausey's post doesn't work here.
Originally posted by RJHinds“....Read the Holy Bible and see for yourself what is said. ...”
To Andrew Hamilton:
Read the Holy Bible and see for yourself what is said.
Seek wisdom. You need it.
say about what? I ask you specific questions which you have not answered.
Does the Bible say it is “foolish” to deduce?
Does the Bible say you can have both p and not p?
If “no” to both the above, then exactly what is “foolish” with my logical deduction that “before time” is a logical self-contradiction and so you cannot have it?
And it would be a total waste of time for me reading the Bible because none of its grammar makes much sense to me so me reading it might as well be me reading a book in Chinese. So why don't YOU tell me how it answers my above questions?
“...Seek wisdom. You need it. ...”
I seek wisdom through logic, observation and reading about scientific discoveries.
Reading some vague religious scriptures that is just gobbledygook to me doesn't really help here and would be incompatible with me “seeking wisdom”.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonMr Hamilton you are talking bumf! Why are you talking bumf? because people go to a solicitor because he is able to interpret the law, because he is an expert in his field, this was the point of the interpretation, never the less, people do go to court all the time to test the interpretation of the law, if it were as cut and dry as you would have us believe, there would of course be no need for this. The illustrations stands and is sound.
“....Sooo if you went to a lawyer with a legal case and he offered you his opinion you would dismiss it out of hand merely because it was an interpretation? ...”
the legal law generally has only one interpretation while words in the Bible apparently can have more than one.
Generally all the lawyers would be in general agreement on what the statem ...[text shortened]... e case for words in the Bible so your analogy in responce to lausey's post doesn't work here.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI state it again, it is gobbledygook to you because you have not read it, nor studied it and can therefore not understand it. It is clear that this is the case. Shame on your dogmatic approach Mr Hamilton for it may even be construed as prejudicial.
“....Read the Holy Bible and see for yourself what is said. ...”
say about what? I ask you specific questions which you have not answered.
Does the Bible say it is “foolish” to deduce?
Does the Bible say you can have both p and not p?
If “no” to both the above, then exactly what is “foolish” with my logical deduction that “before time” is a lo obbledygook to me doesn't really help here and would be incompatible with me “seeking wisdom”.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...never the less, people do go to court all the time to test the INTERPRETATION of the law, ...” (my emphasis)
Mr Hamilton you are talking bumf! Why are you talking bumf? because people go to a solicitor because he is able to interpret the law, because he is an expert in his field, this was the point of the interpretation, never the less, people do go to court all the time to test the interpretation of the law, if it were as cut and dry as you would have us believe, there would of course be no need for this. The illustrations stands and is sound.
Sometimes they do -but only rarely. Usually people go to court when they are suspected of BREAKING the law!
It is not usually the “INTERPRETATION” of the law that is tested in the vast majority of court cases.
But I often see people arguing about the correct interpretation of the Bible so my point still stands -your analogy is flawed.
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonnope, for example, you fall down the stairs after a cleaner has left some soapy water on it by accident and break your arm. You state your case and a judgement shall be rendered according to an interpretation, that being how much you have suffered, the only constant factor is that reparation shall be made through a monetary amount. How will it be determined how much a broken arm is worth? well it depends upon the circumstances and the interpretation of the law. Cases like this happen all the time, infact, entire businesses have been built around litigation. Therefore i have the sorrowful duty to tell you Meester Hameelton, my analogy is amazing, it is sound in every respect, its logic unassailable, its application sublime. The Bible is awesome.
“...never the less, people do go to court all the time to test the INTERPRETATION of the law, ...” (my emphasis)
Sometimes they do -but only rarely. Usually people go to court when they are suspected of BREAKING the law!
It is not usually the “INTERPRETATION” of the law that is tested in the vast majority of court cases.
But I often see people ...[text shortened]... about the correct interpretation of the Bible so my point still stands -your analogy is flawed.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...I state it again, it is gobbledygook to you because you have not read it, ...”
I state it again, it is gobbledygook to you because you have not read it, nor studied it and can therefore not understand it. It is clear that this is the case. Shame on your dogmatic approach Mr Hamilton for it may even be construed as prejudicial.
you did not state that to me previously.
Also, I have read parts of it including the beginning and it is still gobbledygook to me so you are wrong in your claim that it is gobbledygook to me because I have “not read it”. Reading the rest of it would not help -from my perspective, I would just be reading yet more gobbledygook.
This does not answer any of the specific questions I put to you:
1, Does the Bible say it is “foolish” to deduce?
2, Does the Bible say you can have both p and not p?
3, If “no” to both the above, then exactly what is “foolish” with my logical deduction that “before time” is a logical self-contradiction and so you cannot have it?
And don't tell me yet again to “read the Bible” -YOU claim to understand what the Bible says -right? so you tell me the answers.
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonnot to you directly, never the less, if you read through the post you shall see i stated it to lausey. Yes i make the claim, for I read the beginning of Darwins book, does that mean that i am fully versed in the intricacies of the evolutionary hypothesis? No? Well then enough of the pretence!
“...I state it again, it is gobbledygook to you because you have not read it, ...”
you did not state that to me previously.
Also, I have read parts of it including the beginning and it is still gobbledygook to me so you are wrong in your claim that it is gobbledygook to me because I have “not read it”. Reading the rest of it would not help -from ead the Bible” -YOU claim to understand what the Bible says -right? so you tell me the answers.
You never stated anything about p or y or any other variables that you wish to employ to me, my comment was made with regard to your prejudicial point of view, not to whether the Bible can answer you're equations. If you wish to cite a passage, then be my guest, then we can make a start, otherwise, your talking more bumf!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...judgement shall be rendered according to an interpretation, that being how much you have suffered, ...”
nope, for example, you fall down the stairs after a cleaner has left some soapy water on it by accident and break your arm. You state your case and a judgement shall be rendered according to an interpretation, that being how much you have suffered, the only constant factor is that reparation shall be made through a monetary amount. How will it be d ...[text shortened]... sound in every respect, its logic unassailable, its application sublime. The Bible is awesome.
what? There is a law that is meant to specifically state “ how much you have suffered” that is open to interpretation?
I am strangely unaware of such a law. What is its name? (is it called something like “the how much has the accident victim has suffered law”? ) What does it say? and how is it open to more than one interpretation?
I assume most law people agree with the same interpretation of the laws on who is to blame for avoidable accidents -my point still stands.