Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Exaggerating is Lying!

Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 6:10:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I felt this could be topic of it's own, and I'm getting pretty frustrated with people trying to pretty up exaggerations.

I understand not many people have the same problem with 'exaggerating' as the do with lying, as the exageration tends to have some truth in it. However, if we really cut the semantics, I believe any honest person will have to admit, that exaggerating is a form of lying.

For example:

If Kim ask Bill how many people came to his party, and Bill says "There was a thousand people there!!", when there was actualy like 100, Bill is lying.

If Kim asks Bill how much he makes, and Bill says "ehh maybe a hundred thousand per year", but Bill actually makes $60,000, Bill is lying.

Both are exaggerations, and both are untrue, thus they are lies.

While they can be used for grand effect, and I have no particular problem people who chose to exaggerate, there are what they are: Lies.

Does everyone agree?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 6:12:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 6:10:02 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I felt this could be topic of it's own, and I'm getting pretty frustrated with people trying to pretty up exaggerations.

I understand not many people have the same problem with 'exaggerating' as the do with lying, as the exageration tends to have some truth in it. However, if we really cut the semantics, I believe any honest person will have to admit, that exaggerating is a form of lying.

For example:

If Kim ask Bill how many people came to his party, and Bill says "There was a thousand people there!!", when there was actualy like 100, Bill is lying.

If Kim asks Bill how much he makes, and Bill says "ehh maybe a hundred thousand per year", but Bill actually makes $60,000, Bill is lying.

Both are exaggerations, and both are untrue, thus they are lies.

While they can be used for grand effect, and I have no particular problem people who chose to exaggerate, there are what they are: Lies.

Does everyone agree?

I agree.
I agree we all do it an that is no exaggeration.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 6:43:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 6:10:02 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I felt this could be topic of it's own, and I'm getting pretty frustrated with people trying to pretty up exaggerations.

I understand not many people have the same problem with 'exaggerating' as the do with lying, as the exageration tends to have some truth in it. However, if we really cut the semantics, I believe any honest person will have to admit, that exaggerating is a form of lying.

For example:

If Kim ask Bill how many people came to his party, and Bill says "There was a thousand people there!!", when there was actualy like 100, Bill is lying.

If Kim asks Bill how much he makes, and Bill says "ehh maybe a hundred thousand per year", but Bill actually makes $60,000, Bill is lying.

Both are exaggerations, and both are untrue, thus they are lies.

While they can be used for grand effect, and I have no particular problem people who chose to exaggerate, there are what they are: Lies.

Does everyone agree?

Nope.

A mother said, "My daughter shed a barrelful of tears." Is the mother a liar?

From The Standard Bearer, self-described as "a semi-monthly, 24-page print magazine devoted to explaining and defending Reformed doctrine, promoting the Reformed life of the Church and believer ..." come this:

"Hyperboles are even more common in the Word of God. David employs this mode of exaggeration when he complains in Psalm 6:6, "I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears." Did he? That's a hyperbole." and

"Most expositors of Scripture speak here of "hyperbole," although the majority do so in such a way, that actually the verse becomes simple fact quite as much as poetic exaggeration. Thus Calvin speaks of John 21:25 as a hyperbole, "whereby John stresses that he passed over more than he wrote." (V 31, I 11)

Concerning the latter verses of John, the Standard Bearer says:

"The very able and eminent Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, says about this verse, "This is, of course, natural hyperbole, but graphically pictures for us the vastness of the works and words of Jesus from which the author has made a small selection." Barnes too makes it pure hyperbole "a mode of speech where the words express more than is literally true." He sees the verse as alluding only o the countless number of Christ's works. "No one supposes that John means this literally. John means a great many books; of that it would be extremely difficult to record all Jesus said and did."

"I'm so hungry that I could eat a horse." Lie?

"You could have knocked me over with a feather." Lie?

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21: 25) Reckon that's literally true, or did John employ hyperbole - an exaggeration for effect?

You give the example:

"If Kim asks Bill how much he makes, and Bill says "ehh maybe a hundred thousand per year", but Bill actually makes $60,000, Bill is lying."

Yeah, but that's not an hyperbole. That's just a lie.

"What if Bill said, "I make a ton of money." ????

THAT is an hyperbole, and it's not a lie.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 7:10:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 6:43:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
Nope.

A mother said, "My daughter shed a barrelful of tears." Is the mother a liar?

Yes
From The Standard Bearer, self-described as "a semi-monthly, 24-page print magazine devoted to explaining and defending Reformed doctrine, promoting the Reformed life of the Church and believer ..." come this:

"Hyperboles are even more common in the Word of God. David employs this mode of exaggeration when he complains in Psalm 6:6, "I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears." Did he? That's a hyperbole." and

Yes, its a lie.

"I'm so hungry that I could eat a horse." Lie?

Lie
"You could have knocked me over with a feather." Lie?

Lie

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21: 25) Reckon that's literally true, or did John employ hyperbole - an exaggeration for effect?

A lie, for effect.

You give the example:

"If Kim asks Bill how much he makes, and Bill says "ehh maybe a hundred thousand per year", but Bill actually makes $60,000, Bill is lying."

Yeah, but that's not an hyperbole. That's just a lie.

"What if Bill said, "I make a ton of money." ????

THAT is an hyperbole, and it's not a lie.


He does make money, he just exaggerated on how much he makes.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 7:21:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The statements in the OP are NOT exaggerations. Those are just simply lies labeled as exaggerations.

Alex Jones tends to exaggerate, but it's not a lie. For example, "The international bankers are destroying the dollar and sinking the economy!" Well, the dollar has slowly been devalued especially over the last for years. The economy is bad, but it's sinking at a gradual rate. (Of course, the inevitable will happen and the bubble will burst.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 8:27:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 6:10:02 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
While they can be used for grand effect, and I have no particular problem people who chose to exaggerate, there are what they are: Lies.

Does everyone agree?

Of course not. Lies are false statements made to deceive. Not all exaggerations are deceitful.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 8:29:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 6:10:02 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I felt this could be topic of it's own, and I'm getting pretty frustrated with people trying to pretty up exaggerations.

I understand not many people have the same problem with 'exaggerating' as the do with lying, as the exageration tends to have some truth in it. However, if we really cut the semantics, I believe any honest person will have to admit, that exaggerating is a form of lying.

For example:

If Kim ask Bill how many people came to his party, and Bill says "There was a thousand people there!!", when there was actualy like 100, Bill is lying.

If Kim asks Bill how much he makes, and Bill says "ehh maybe a hundred thousand per year", but Bill actually makes $60,000, Bill is lying.

Both are exaggerations, and both are untrue, thus they are lies.

While they can be used for grand effect, and I have no particular problem people who chose to exaggerate, there are what they are: Lies.

Does everyone agree?

I'm not sure that it's exactly relevant to your original post, but I'm curious nonetheless: is making use of hyperbole technically lying? What about figures of speech?
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 8:51:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 8:29:23 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/18/2012 6:10:02 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I felt this could be topic of it's own, and I'm getting pretty frustrated with people trying to pretty up exaggerations.

I understand not many people have the same problem with 'exaggerating' as the do with lying, as the exageration tends to have some truth in it. However, if we really cut the semantics, I believe any honest person will have to admit, that exaggerating is a form of lying.

For example:

If Kim ask Bill how many people came to his party, and Bill says "There was a thousand people there!!", when there was actualy like 100, Bill is lying.

If Kim asks Bill how much he makes, and Bill says "ehh maybe a hundred thousand per year", but Bill actually makes $60,000, Bill is lying.

Both are exaggerations, and both are untrue, thus they are lies.

While they can be used for grand effect, and I have no particular problem people who chose to exaggerate, there are what they are: Lies.

Does everyone agree?

I'm not sure that it's exactly relevant to your original post, but I'm curious nonetheless: is making use of hyperbole technically lying? What about figures of speech?

It must be.

If I tell a person they are louder then a fog horn, it's a lie.

There is no way a person can be louder then a fog horn.

I wouldn't view it in the same light as a lie, of course, because i understand what the person is saying. However, this doesn't change the fact that its a lie because I don't mind it's usage.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 8:53:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 8:34:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
Calling an exaggeration a lie is an exaggeration.


Type 'Lie' in google.

The first thing that pops up, is wikipedia.

Scroll through, and you will find "exaggeration" under - Classification.

It reads: An exaggeration (or hyperbole) occurs when the most fundamental aspects of a statement are true, but only to a certain degree. It is also seen as "stretching the truth" or making something appear more powerful, meaningful, or real than it actually is.

This, is still a lie.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 9:09:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
John: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21: 25) Reckon that's literally true, or did John employ hyperbole - an exaggeration for effect?

Paradox: A lie, for effect.

LOL @ calling the apostle John a liar and, by implication, the Holy Spirit who inspired him .... all to try to salvage a silly position. So David lied, Luke lied, Jesus lied, and John lied (so far), all because Paradox has determined that poetic devices such as hyperboles are lies.

Well, I'll say this: you've maintained consistency. You still get to say "None is righteous, no not one, and none seek after God" is literal. But my, oh, my ... maintaining that position certainly came at a stiff price.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 10:40:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 6:10:02 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I felt this could be topic of it's own, and I'm getting pretty frustrated with people trying to pretty up exaggerations.

I understand not many people have the same problem with 'exaggerating' as the do with lying, as the exageration tends to have some truth in it. However, if we really cut the semantics, I believe any honest person will have to admit, that exaggerating is a form of lying.

For example:

If Kim ask Bill how many people came to his party, and Bill says "There was a thousand people there!!", when there was actualy like 100, Bill is lying.

If Kim asks Bill how much he makes, and Bill says "ehh maybe a hundred thousand per year", but Bill actually makes $60,000, Bill is lying.

Both are exaggerations, and both are untrue, thus they are lies.

While they can be used for grand effect, and I have no particular problem people who chose to exaggerate, there are what they are: Lies.

Does everyone agree?

is someone lying when they tell there parents "thanks for this spaghetti, it taste awesome!" when to be precise awesome implies aw struck wonder at something, usually only appropriate when talking about God in some respect?

no cause the word truly changes intended meaning so theirs no intention to deceive. At worst you could say the use was inaccurate of term awesome but not that lying was involved. lying and being wrong are two different things. and to start calling an exaggeration a lie would be to blur the 2 distinctions.

in your example I guess saying "there was 1,000 people there" would be a lie when said like that but in a situation like the one described, its far more likely the term "like" would have been thrown in there just making it an exaggeration
"there's like a thousand people". you pick an outrageous number like a thousand or a million and its clear you didn't count the people at your party or intend to covey some real surveyed number, just your rough guess. and even if ment as a serious guess and not just to mean "a lot" you could just have made a horrible guess, but its not a lie.

anyway hyperbole's have there place in honest conversation, and I think that's to show the speakers wish to emphasize
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 10:44:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 8:51:12 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/18/2012 8:29:23 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/18/2012 6:10:02 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I felt this could be topic of it's own, and I'm getting pretty frustrated with people trying to pretty up exaggerations.

I understand not many people have the same problem with 'exaggerating' as the do with lying, as the exageration tends to have some truth in it. However, if we really cut the semantics, I believe any honest person will have to admit, that exaggerating is a form of lying.

For example:

If Kim ask Bill how many people came to his party, and Bill says "There was a thousand people there!!", when there was actualy like 100, Bill is lying.

If Kim asks Bill how much he makes, and Bill says "ehh maybe a hundred thousand per year", but Bill actually makes $60,000, Bill is lying.

Both are exaggerations, and both are untrue, thus they are lies.

While they can be used for grand effect, and I have no particular problem people who chose to exaggerate, there are what they are: Lies.

Does everyone agree?

I'm not sure that it's exactly relevant to your original post, but I'm curious nonetheless: is making use of hyperbole technically lying? What about figures of speech?

It must be.

If I tell a person they are louder then a fog horn, it's a lie.

There is no way a person can be louder then a fog horn.

I wouldn't view it in the same light as a lie, of course, because i understand what the person is saying. However, this doesn't change the fact that its a lie because I don't mind it's usage.

Interesting, you say you view it in a different light. Could you elaborate on that a bit? For instance, what kind of moral assessments can be made from a situation where someone says that it's raining cats and dogs outside?
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 10:49:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Or, another example: If I know someone who happens to be rather, uh, promiscuous, and I say, "You dog!" what does that fall under or how would you view that?
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 11:24:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Exaggerating is a lie. The reason is because of knowingly not committing to truth.
A lie is knowing the truth but refusing it or altering it.

Now, a hyperbole is not the same as a exaggeration. A hyperbole is more like a metaphor. Metaphors are not lies. Metaphors or hyperboles are ways of explaining the truth in a sense of poetic language.

Exaggerating again is knowing the truth and purposefully changing it or adding or deleting from it. That is lying or not being truthful in which I consider the same.

Though hyperboles and metaphors though similiar in instances are not the same nor lies.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 1:06:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Look:

If I exaggerate with the intent to deceive, I would classify it as lying. If I was trying to convince you to donate money to children in Africa and I said "$50 can save a whole village!" when it really take $200 to save a whole village, I'm exaggerating to distort the truth and deceive you. If I said "Ten million children die every hour from preventable diseases", I'm again lying to try to deceive you.

However, if I went to a party and later decide to tell you about it and I say "It was the best party ever!", is that a lie? I would say no, even though the party clearly wasn't the greatest party in the history of parties, I'm not trying to deceive you, I'm trying to let you know how awesome it was. If I say "Everyone was there!", is that a lie? I would say no to that as well, do I literally mean that every single person in the entire world came to attend the party, or do I mean that a large majority of our mutual friends attended? Again, I'm not trying to deceive you, I'm trying to emphasize the point.

Since you ignored Mark 1:5 in the last thread, here you go again.

"(5) People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins."

Was Mark lying when he said every last person in Jerusalem went to John the Baptist to be baptized?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:02:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: Here's another one -

I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.69 (John 14:12) NET Story book

In the co-equal trinity formulation NONE is regarded as superior/greater than the other two persons, so obviously jebus must be lying by dishonestly exaggerating!
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:03:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 1:06:10 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Look:

If I exaggerate with the intent to deceive, I would classify it as lying. If I was trying to convince you to donate money to children in Africa and I said "$50 can save a whole village!" when it really take $200 to save a whole village, I'm exaggerating to distort the truth and deceive you. If I said "Ten million children die every hour from preventable diseases", I'm again lying to try to deceive you.

However, if I went to a party and later decide to tell you about it and I say "It was the best party ever!", is that a lie? I would say no, even though the party clearly wasn't the greatest party in the history of parties, I'm not trying to deceive you, I'm trying to let you know how awesome it was. If I say "Everyone was there!", is that a lie? I would say no to that as well, do I literally mean that every single person in the entire world came to attend the party, or do I mean that a large majority of our mutual friends attended? Again, I'm not trying to deceive you, I'm trying to emphasize the point.

Since you ignored Mark 1:5 in the last thread, here you go again.

"(5) People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins."

Was Mark lying when he said every last person in Jerusalem went to John the Baptist to be baptized?:
Mark 1:5 And there went out to him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

I will side with Mark here, all the land of Judea went to him and they(not specified) of Jerusalem. Those that came were baptized and confessed their sins.

This is a bad example because very well all these things happened just as it say's.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:04:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 3:03:25 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/19/2012 1:06:10 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Look:

If I exaggerate with the intent to deceive, I would classify it as lying. If I was trying to convince you to donate money to children in Africa and I said "$50 can save a whole village!" when it really take $200 to save a whole village, I'm exaggerating to distort the truth and deceive you. If I said "Ten million children die every hour from preventable diseases", I'm again lying to try to deceive you.

However, if I went to a party and later decide to tell you about it and I say "It was the best party ever!", is that a lie? I would say no, even though the party clearly wasn't the greatest party in the history of parties, I'm not trying to deceive you, I'm trying to let you know how awesome it was. If I say "Everyone was there!", is that a lie? I would say no to that as well, do I literally mean that every single person in the entire world came to attend the party, or do I mean that a large majority of our mutual friends attended? Again, I'm not trying to deceive you, I'm trying to emphasize the point.

Since you ignored Mark 1:5 in the last thread, here you go again.

"(5) People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins."

Was Mark lying when he said every last person in Jerusalem went to John the Baptist to be baptized?:
Mark 1:5 And there went out to him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

I will side with Mark here, all the land of Judea went to him and they(not specified) of Jerusalem. Those that came were baptized and confessed their sins.

This is a bad example because very well all these things happened just as it say's.

So you say the entire land of Judea went to him? Not a single person was left out?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:11:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 3:04:54 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:

This is a bad example because very well all these things happened just as it say's.

So you say the entire land of Judea went to him? Not a single person was left out?:

I tend to believe the Bible, every last word. So, YES, not a single person was left out in Judea. Can you show there was?
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:13:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 3:11:14 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
I tend to believe the Bible, every last word. So, YES, not a single person was left out in Judea. Can you show there was?

For starters, I think that it is highly improbable that every single last person in Judea went to John to be baptized.

Luke 7:29:30

"(29) All the people who listened, including the tax collectors, and who were baptized with the baptism of John, acknowledged the righteousness of God; (30) but the Pharisees and scholars of the law, who were not baptized by him, rejected the plan of God for themselves."

So the Pharisees and scholars of the law didn't live in Judea?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:13:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 3:11:14 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
I tend to believe the Bible, every last word.

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: Let's put that to the Test shall we?

Which Story book version do you prefer to use for this demonstration OR will ANY suffice?
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:23:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 3:13:57 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/19/2012 3:11:14 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
I tend to believe the Bible, every last word. So, YES, not a single person was left out in Judea. Can you show there was?

For starters, I think that it is highly improbable that every single last person in Judea went to John to be baptized.

Luke 7:29:30

"(29) All the people who listened, including the tax collectors, and who were baptized with the baptism of John, acknowledged the righteousness of God; (30) but the Pharisees and scholars of the law, who were not baptized by him, rejected the plan of God for themselves."

So the Pharisees and scholars of the law didn't live in Judea?

No. They lived in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not in Judea. Remember the lands of the twelve tribes? Well, Jerusalem is in Benjamin not Judea.
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:26:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 3:13:58 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/19/2012 3:11:14 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
I tend to believe the Bible, every last word.

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: Let's put that to the Test shall we?

Which Story book version do you prefer to use for this demonstration OR will ANY suffice?

You are going to show me I do not believe the Bible? KJV.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:29:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 3:23:34 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/19/2012 3:13:57 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/19/2012 3:11:14 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
I tend to believe the Bible, every last word. So, YES, not a single person was left out in Judea. Can you show there was?

For starters, I think that it is highly improbable that every single last person in Judea went to John to be baptized.

Luke 7:29:30

"(29) All the people who listened, including the tax collectors, and who were baptized with the baptism of John, acknowledged the righteousness of God; (30) but the Pharisees and scholars of the law, who were not baptized by him, rejected the plan of God for themselves."

So the Pharisees and scholars of the law didn't live in Judea?

No. They lived in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not in Judea. Remember the lands of the twelve tribes? Well, Jerusalem is in Benjamin not Judea.

Source plz? The only maps I can find put Jerusalem in Judea.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:35:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 3:29:26 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:

No. They lived in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not in Judea. Remember the lands of the twelve tribes? Well, Jerusalem is in Benjamin not Judea.

Source plz? The only maps I can find put Jerusalem in Judea.:

The maps you find were from Roman maps and not important in Israelites determinations. The name Israel was not used then as a nation but Judea was. The only map that is to be used is the land God promised them and the cities within them. My source: easy, http://en.wikipedia.org... and before you say hey that is not they way it was then. Think! Why was Judea and Jerusalem separate in the very passage you posted?
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:47:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 3:35:20 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
The maps you find were from Roman maps and not important in Israelites determinations. The name Israel was not used then as a nation but Judea was. The only map that is to be used is the land God promised them and the cities within them. My source: easy, http://en.wikipedia.org... and before you say hey that is not they way it was then. Think! Why was Judea and Jerusalem separate in the very passage you posted?

Convincing. And makes sense. I suppose Jerusalem wasn't in Judea.

However, I've been looking at various translations, and they almost universally translate it as "all the people of Jerusalem".

"And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." - American Standard Version

"And there kept going out to him [continuously] all the country of Judea and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, as they were confessing their sins." - Amplified Bible

"Everyone in Judea and all the people of Jerusalem went out to the Jordan River and were being baptized by John as they confessed their sins." - Common English Bible

"People went out to him from all over Y"hudah, as did all the inhabitants of Yerushalayim. Confessing their sins, they were immersed by him in the Yarden River." - Complete Jewish Bible

"From all Judea and Jerusalem crowds of people went to John. They told how sorry they were for their sins, and he baptized them in the Jordan River." - Contemporary English Version

"And there went out to him all the district of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptised by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." - Darby Translation

"And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." - Douay-Rheims

"All the people from Judea, including everyone from Jerusalem, came out to John. They confessed the bad things they had done, and he baptized them in the Jordan River." - Easy-to-Read Version

"And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." - English Standard Version

"All Judea and all the people of Jerusalem went to him. As they confessed their sins, he baptized them in the Jordan River." - God's Word Translation

"The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were flocking to him, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins." - Holman-Christian Standard Bible

"And all the country of Judaea and all those who dwelt in Jerusalem went out to see him, and he baptized them in the river Jordan, while they confessed their sins." - Knox Bible

"And all the Judean region and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem went out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins" - Lexham English Bible

"And all the Judean countryside and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins." - Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament

"And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." - New American Standard Bible

"All the people from Judea and Jerusalem were going out to him. They confessed their sins and were baptized by him in the Jordan River." - New Century Version

"The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River." - New International Version

"All of Judea, including all the people of Jerusalem, went out to see and hear John. And when they confessed their sins, he baptized them in the Jordan River." - New Living Translation

"And all Yehudah and all Yerushalayim were going out to him, and they were submitted to a tevilah using the Yarden River as a mikveh mayim, making vidduy [to Hashem] of their averos (sins)." - Orthodox Jewish Bible

"People from all the land of Judea and all the city of Jerusalem went out to John. He baptised them in the Jordan River when they told about the wrong things they did." - Worldwide English

"And all the country of Judaea went out to him, and all men of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the flume Jordan [and were baptized of him in the flood of Jordan], acknowledging their sins." - Wycliffe Bible

Most importantly for me:

"People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins." - New American Bible

"Et egrediebatur ad illum omnis Iudaeae regio et Hierosolymitae universi et baptizabantur ab illo in Iordane flumine confitentes peccata sua." - New Latin Vulgate
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 4:33:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 3:47:37 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
"And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." - American Standard Version:
There are troubles in these versions also. Look:
"People went out to him from all over Y"hudah, as did all the inhabitants of Yerushalayim. Confessing their sins, they were immersed by him in the Yarden River." - Complete Jewish Bible:
This one claims all people of Jerusalem and only all OVER Judea not all people.

"From all Judea and Jerusalem crowds of people went to John. They told how sorry they were for their sins, and he baptized them in the Jordan River." - Contemporary English Version:
This version does not proclaim every last person of either.

"The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were flocking to him, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins." - Holman-Christian Standard Bible:
This merely says countryside.

"And all the Judean countryside and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins." - Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament:
Again countryside.

"The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River." - New International Version

Most importantly for me:

"People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins." - New American Bible:
Again only say's contryside which is not a entire nation wording.

"Et egrediebatur ad illum omnis Iudaeae regio et Hierosolymitae universi et baptizabantur ab illo in Iordane flumine confitentes peccata sua." - New Latin Vulgate:

This is interesting indeed. We should look into this. We should ask does the Bible give lies? Does the Bible misrepresent? It is clearly saying all of Judea and maybe of Jerusalem. The point you bring shows that either Bibles that either those Bibles got it right or mine did. What does the Catholic Bible say? I know mine is translated from original Hebrew and Greek texts. I do not trusted new translated Bible's because there are many differences in other older Bibles or texts they are translated from and that concerns me. Imma pull up some other passages about 'all and judea and jerusalem'.

Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,

Luke 6:17 And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;

Acts 10:37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

I am grasp that we maybe looking at it different than the dual meaning it could have. I am seeing that here is not meaning all the people of both Judea and Jerusalem but all the people who came was from these places.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 4:46:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A lie is designed to misinform, often maliciously.

Cop asks the guilty thief:" Did you steal from this family?"
Guilty Thief:" No, I did not."
(LIE)

Cop asks the victims:" What did he steal?"
Victim Family:"An heirloom of infinite worth."
(Not a Lie, yet embellished)

Therefore:
All lies are exaggerated, but not all exaggerations are lies.

Consider the Songs of Solomon when he told his true love:
"Your neck is like Ivory."
We know her neck isn't made from Ivory. Yet the context is not a malicious untruth. Instead, we see a man satisfied and enamored by this woman. A Godly form of desire toward another person. The end result is a deeply poetic exaggeration.
Yet, he isn't lying because the woman knows the context. She understands that he is not trying to inform her of the color and composition of her neck, but rather that he finds her beautiful and enchanting.

Context, context, context.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson