Originally posted by shavixmirNo. Ja. Ja.
This is basically a starter question for a debate I'm going to start in a week or so's time. I just need some information, especially from religious branch of RHP.
Do you literally believe man was made from mud?
Do you literally believe Eve was made from one of his ribs?
Do you literally believe the biblical garden of Eden existed, apple and all?
Originally posted by josephwLEVITICUS 15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
[ A literal interpretation is the safest way to understand the Bible.
The best way to even begin to understand the Bible is to at least pretend to assume that the author is God and simply take Him at His word.[/b]
So, when your wife is having her period i assume you don't touch her following the strict guidelines in the Bible?
Originally posted by PawnChopWhat does that have to do with the topic of this thread?
LEVITICUS 15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
So, when your wife is having her period i assume you don't touch her following the strict guidelines in the Bible?
Go back and reread this thread, and try to pay attention to what is being said so that you can reply to it coherently.
Originally posted by josephwQuite clear really, one pontificates from on high about literal readings of the bible, the other points to a section no sane person would pay attention to to ensure that the person proposing a literal interpretation is at least practicing what they're preaching.
What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?
Go back and reread this thread, and try to pay attention to what is being said so that you can reply to it coherently.
Just because you don't like the point doesn't mean you can make it go away by calling it irrelevant.
Originally posted by MexicoIt is quite clear, to me at least, that you don't know what you're talking about. Whether you chose to believe that the Word of God, the Bible, was written by men inspired by God to write what He, God, wanted said, is entirely up to you. No amount of tampering with the Word of God by man is going to change anything God wills to be done. Whether you want to believe that or not is your business.
It is documented quite clearly that the bible has been written by men and furthermore The OT is a translation from an obscure language, and the English (if English is your primary language?) version you studied is a translation of an interpretation of a book which has been edited, changed and generally fiddled with by various churches along the way.
So my question for you is this? which version of gods exact words do you take literally?
But to answer your question. I believe the KJV is without error and can be relied upon without exception. And I could care less what anyone thinks about it.
irrOriginally posted by agrysonGo away, you're irrelevant! 😀
Quite clear really, one pontificates from on high about literal readings of the bible, the other points to a section no sane person would pay attention to to ensure that the person proposing a literal interpretation is at least practicing what they're preaching.
Just because you don't like the point doesn't mean you can make it go away by calling it irrelevant.
Originally posted by josephwWhat about the KJV including justifications for the use of slaves, whereas later revisionist copies replace this word with servant? Would you be in agreement with the KJV implicitly condoning slavery? Or would you go with the revisionist version which implicitly sees servants as property. (a fine line, and still implicitly slavery).
...I believe the KJV is without error and can be relied upon without exception...
Originally posted by agrysonThe Bible does not condone slavery. This is just another example of misinterpretation.
What about the KJV including justifications for the use of slaves, whereas later revisionist copies replace this word with servant? Would you be in agreement with the KJV implicitly condoning slavery? Or would you go with the revisionist version which implicitly sees servants as property. (a fine line, and still implicitly slavery).
Originally posted by josephwAlways with the aggressive responses.....
It is quite clear, to me at least, that you don't know what you're talking about. Whether you chose to believe that the Word of God, the Bible, was written by men inspired by God to write what He, God, wanted said, is entirely up to you. No amount of tampering with the Word of God by man is going to change anything God wills to be done. Whether you want to b ...[text shortened]... r and can be relied upon without exception. And I could care less what anyone thinks about it.
Is it not true that the bible was written by men?
Is it not true that the OT of the bible Is a translation form an obscure language, which is easy to misinterpret?
Is it not true that the KJV and all other versions of the bible, as well as different interpretations of the same version are condoned by different churches, who have since it was written made subtle edits and changes?
So how exactly is it that I don't know what Im talking about?
Originally posted by Mexico"Always with the aggressive responses....." and yours aren't?
Always with the aggressive responses.....
Is it not true that the bible was written by men?
Is it not true that the OT of the bible Is a translation form an obscure language, which is easy to misinterpret?
Is it not true that the KJV and all other versions of the bible, as well as different interpretations of the same version are condoned by differen ...[text shortened]... made subtle edits and changes?
So how exactly is it that I don't know what Im talking about?
"Is it not true that the bible was written by men?" Men inspired by God.
"Is it not true that the OT of the bible Is a translation form an obscure language, which is easy to misinterpret?" Hebrew is obscure? Everything is easy to misinterpret!
"Is it not true that the KJV and all other versions of the bible, as well as different interpretations of the same version are condoned by different churches, who have since it was written made subtle edits and changes?" This is partly true, but unless you really know for sure where it all comes from it is impossible to know for sure if you are reading the Word of God or not.
"So how exactly is it that I don't know what I'm talking about?" Ask yourself this question. Would I know God's Word if I heard it or not? If so, why? If not, why?
Originally posted by josephwI said implicitly, also there's a few hundred years of people who were seen as justly interpreting the bible to say just that, and that was the KJV. What has changed in the interpretation?
The Bible does not condone slavery. This is just another example of misinterpretation.
Furthermore, if the bible requires so much revisionist interpretation, how can we be sure we know the mind of Jesus as in your other quote? Basicly, "this is just another example" of arbitrary revisionism to suit the purposes of the day in adapting to the moral zeitgeist, making the bible as a moral work utterly useless.
This is the first and last quote from the bible I will ever post (I try to avoid using fariy tales to back up an argument)
Exodus 21:20-21
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be severely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Now if the servant was an employee, please give the correct interpretation of "he is his money" in this case please.
Bear in mind, that a work that requires so much interpretation and contextual analysis cannot be justly claimed to be a flawless transcript of gods word. The uncertainty inherent in interpreting it leads to sources of error, which should be a grave cause of concern for anyone basing their morality on it.
Originally posted by josephwThere's no aggression in my responses... Simply questions, I only really get aggressive in response.... I honestly wanted to know which version of the bible you take literally and to know what you logic for choosing that version was given the circumstances of its writing and the amount of ears the story has been passed through....
"Always with the aggressive responses....." and yours aren't?
"Is it not true that the bible was written by men?" Men inspired by God.
"Is it not true that the OT of the bible Is a translation form an obscure language, which is easy to misinterpret?" Hebrew is obscure? Everything is easy to misinterpret!
"Is it not true that the KJV and all othe ...[text shortened]... s question. Would I know God's Word if I heard it or not? If so, why? If not, why?
"Men inspired by God". So its said, if I wrote a book today that was inspirational and a wonderful tale. Then said it was inspired by god, would you believe me?
No Hebrew isn't obscure, but its damn hard to translate, most words have multiple meanings depending on context...
"Everything is easy to misinterpret"... You make my point for me, your taking a book which is an interpretation literally.....
"Ask yourself this question. Would I know God's Word if I heard it or not? If so, why? If not, why?"
You see this is where logic and reasonable argument hit a wall. Just because you think its god's word and it makes sense to you. Doesn't make it gods word. A lot of Muslims believe the Quoran (spelling??) is the word of god. They contradict your word of god in places. Thus you can't both be right, but neither will admit they're wrong so logic fails to apply.
Personally I don't believe in a God, it doesn't make any sense to me. To me your god doesn't exist, therefore how could you know or not know his word... I've read the bible (KJV I believe), and various other religious texts, studying religions in general was part of my schooling until I was 17. Although it was thought by a Christian Chaplin it was still reasonably unbiased. None of them seemed like particularly divine words. So as you can see what seems like god's words to you, aren't god's words to everyone. And surely if these we're divine words we'd all clearly see them as such? No?, if God is selective about who he wants to see his words, and bases his judgment of those people on whether or not they see these words doesn't that make him/her slightly sadistic?
Originally posted by josephwWe can therefore conclude that without a doubt the Bible can not possibly be a communication from God. The Bible is provably both corrupted and corruptible. Different translations differ in both meaning and content - and I can quite easily produce a translation that is provably corrupted.
This is virtually pointless. If there is a God, then it is only logical that if He communicated His will to us He would also keep that information uncorrupted.
A literal interpretation is the safest way to understand the Bible. Except where it is obvious that the Bible is allegorical or metaphorical, a literal interpretation of the plain meaning is the only way to avoid complication and confusion.
It is always in the best interest of the naysayers to promote the idea that God doesn't really mean what He says for the purpose of controlling what and how one believes.
The best way to even begin to understand the Bible is to at least pretend to assume that the author is God and simply take Him at His word.
Yet if I do exactly that, you will immediately claim that I do not understand it, or am interpreting it wrongly and that I require assistance from the Holy Spirit in order to read it. Also, you surely don't believe that only sheep and goats will get to Judgment day? How do you know what is parable and what is not?