Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do not be fooled by Atheist Bible knowledge.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Error 1: Atheist tend to quote things out of context. When given a verse I suggest finding a translation you understand and read the entire chapter or book cited. Always try to find out 1# who is saying the verse. 2# who they are saying it to 3# what the words meant in that time period.

Those 3 things are basic to understanding ANY ancient manuscript not just the Bible. In addition to that keep in mind that languages are not translated word for word. They are translated context to context. So a translation is NEVER as accurate as the original language.

Take for instance some Atheist will claim that Christians thought of Jesus as a heavenly body and not a real mortal person. They will use verses that describe Jesus in a heavenly state. Some verses maybe Hebrews 14:4 or Hebrews 8:4. Ignoring that a chapter long before these was Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death". Clearly stating by the same author, Jesus was on Earth.

Many times you can completely show this Atheist tactic for false by reading ahead or behind their quoted verse.

Error 2# Some Atheist will claim the Bible is from the 4th century. Makes some think the Bible is 400 years after Christ. But the 4th century is the years AD 301 to 400. Jesus' Death is estimated to be AD 30-36.

What is being referred to is the First Council of Nicaea. It was the first time the writings that the Churches had been using were collated and bound to be an official Bible of the kingdom. The kingdom of Roman Emperor Constantine 1. There are many "BIBLES". They are compilations of letters and gospels. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The material contained in these different bibles are the manuscripts titled "Mathew", "Mark" etc... Some Bibles have a different collection of manuscripts. The important FACT to remember is that this Atheist phrase is not to be misunderstood as being the writing of "Mathew" or "Mark" or any biblical manuscript AT ALL.

Error 3# We have no original manuscripts from the time of Jesus. This is not an error. But we should keep in mind some context. Out of all of the writings, from all of the world from Rome to Judea, of any Jew, Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, etc... All the original manuscripts we have put side by side would fill a bookshelf no bigger than a common desk.

There have been fires and riots and wars, that have destroyed a lot of ancient works. The study of historical documents is not like digging up fossils, or conducting experiments in a lab. It is quite literally mostly on hearsay. The same contentions about the Gospels being 1st century can be applied to many other ancient writers, of and before, Jesus' time.

The reliability of each manuscript is different. The accuracy to the dating and the study of each one is different.

Error 4# Atheist enjoy to grab a verse and then tell others how that verse is to be interpreted. This is accomplished by a mixture of the previous "Errors". They will take a verse out of context, most times from an already hard to understand source such as the KIng James Version. They then apply a Modern Present Day understanding of the word to the verse. Such as the verses where the KJV has been translated as "unicorn". The KJV is an Old English translation of a Vulgate Latin translation of a Greek Translation of a Hebrew Torah. The "telephone" effect some Atheist ascribe to the Bible is of their own doing. If they went back to the source, Hebrew Torah, they would find good evidence that the animal described (Re'em) is probably more accurately describing An Ox, or a Rhinoceros. The "unicorn" translation coming from the Latin words that, to this day is used in the Species Name of the Indian Rhinoceros.

Error 5# Bible interpretation, like everything else, is disputed among different people. And it is okay to have a position about a bible verse, if you can support it with scripture. The errors I have shown so far are for informational purposes. And generally speaking if person A says, "Bible verse X means Y" and then 2 verse later the bible in another verse says "Y is not what X means" then maybe Person A should stop using the same verses. But too often you see Atheist spew the same stuff in different threads and not answer or reply to the others about the disconnect. The Atheist is happy to say the same thing even when it is shown to be wrong. And yet they claim they know the bible better then Theist.

Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 5:58:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.
So pick your preferred bible and then prove that a literal Supernatural being was involved in providing it or inspiring it?

I shan't put the kettle on waiting, for idiots like you always fall flat on their faces!

BTW: You can have 30 mins not 5, which should be ample for you to make a fool of yourself like your entire predecessors!

IF your Cult has a Statement of Faith unique to them, then you may also provide that!

Next!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 6:08:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 5:58:58 AM, Composer wrote:
At 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.
So pick your preferred bible and then prove that a literal Supernatural being was involved in providing it or inspiring it?

I shan't put the kettle on waiting, for idiots like you always fall flat on their faces!

BTW: You can have 30 mins not 5, which should be ample for you to make a fool of yourself like your entire predecessors!

IF your Cult has a Statement of Faith unique to them, then you may also provide that!

Next!


Error 6#

This is a common Atheist tactic. Known as the informal logical fallacy "Shifting the Burden". Now you won't get this Atheist or any other admitting it. But it has the same pattern.

I post. The Atheist has no real rebuttal to my post.

The Atheist implies or out right claims, that as an Atheist they are making no claim. In fact, notice how where I state an Atheist says this or that in my original post goes uncontested.

The Atheist then attempts to tell me what argument I should be posting: "So pick your preferred bible and then prove that a literal Supernatural being was involved in providing it or inspiring it?"

Now most times the Atheist follows this with the boundaries, "only objective scientific recently discovered peer reviewed by other atheist evidence allowed". In this case the words are different but not the pattern: "...IF your Cult has a Statement of Faith unique to them, then you may also provide that!..."

How is this an Error? Well, beside being fallacious, it is a deceitful attempt to steer the attention away from what I, as the OP, is trying to bring attention to.

And I will not fall for it.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 6:16:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Error 1: Atheist tend to quote things out of context. When given a verse I suggest finding a translation you understand and read the entire chapter or book cited. Always try to find out 1# who is saying the verse. 2# who they are saying it to 3# what the words meant in that time period.

Those 3 things are basic to understanding ANY ancient manuscript not just the Bible. In addition to that keep in mind that languages are not translated word for word. They are translated context to context. So a translation is NEVER as accurate as the original language.

Take for instance some Atheist will claim that Christians thought of Jesus as a heavenly body and not a real mortal person. They will use verses that describe Jesus in a heavenly state. Some verses maybe Hebrews 14:4 or Hebrews 8:4. Ignoring that a chapter long before these was Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death". Clearly stating by the same author, Jesus was on Earth.

Many times you can completely show this Atheist tactic for false by reading ahead or behind their quoted verse.

Error 2# Some Atheist will claim the Bible is from the 4th century. Makes some think the Bible is 400 years after Christ. But the 4th century is the years AD 301 to 400. Jesus' Death is estimated to be AD 30-36.

What is being referred to is the First Council of Nicaea. It was the first time the writings that the Churches had been using were collated and bound to be an official Bible of the kingdom. The kingdom of Roman Emperor Constantine 1. There are many "BIBLES". They are compilations of letters and gospels. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The material contained in these different bibles are the manuscripts titled "Mathew", "Mark" etc... Some Bibles have a different collection of manuscripts. The important FACT to remember is that this Atheist phrase is not to be misunderstood as being the writing of "Mathew" or "Mark" or any biblical manuscript AT ALL.

Error 3# We have no original manuscripts from the time of Jesus. This is not an error. But we should keep in mind some context. Out of all of the writings, from all of the world from Rome to Judea, of any Jew, Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, etc... All the original manuscripts we have put side by side would fill a bookshelf no bigger than a common desk.

There have been fires and riots and wars, that have destroyed a lot of ancient works. The study of historical documents is not like digging up fossils, or conducting experiments in a lab. It is quite literally mostly on hearsay. The same contentions about the Gospels being 1st century can be applied to many other ancient writers, of and before, Jesus' time.

The reliability of each manuscript is different. The accuracy to the dating and the study of each one is different.

Error 4# Atheist enjoy to grab a verse and then tell others how that verse is to be interpreted. This is accomplished by a mixture of the previous "Errors". They will take a verse out of context, most times from an already hard to understand source such as the KIng James Version. They then apply a Modern Present Day understanding of the word to the verse. Such as the verses where the KJV has been translated as "unicorn". The KJV is an Old English translation of a Vulgate Latin translation of a Greek Translation of a Hebrew Torah. The "telephone" effect some Atheist ascribe to the Bible is of their own doing. If they went back to the source, Hebrew Torah, they would find good evidence that the animal described (Re'em) is probably more accurately describing An Ox, or a Rhinoceros. The "unicorn" translation coming from the Latin words that, to this day is used in the Species Name of the Indian Rhinoceros.

Error 5# Bible interpretation, like everything else, is disputed among different people. And it is okay to have a position about a bible verse, if you can support it with scripture. The errors I have shown so far are for informational purposes. And generally speaking if person A says, "Bible verse X means Y" and then 2 verse later the bible in another verse says "Y is not what X means" then maybe Person A should stop using the same verses. But too often you see Atheist spew the same stuff in different threads and not answer or reply to the others about the disconnect. The Atheist is happy to say the same thing even when it is shown to be wrong. And yet they claim they know the bible better then Theist.

Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.

Wow Says a person who can't interpret his own Bible. Seeing your previous reply still makes me laugh .

Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 "to separate"
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Like that. When you can tell me the meaning of separate. We can be one baby jerky step forward to understanding anything.

Your reply on genesis 1
http://www.debate.org...
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 6:21:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 6:16:47 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Error 1: Atheist tend to quote things out of context. When given a verse I suggest finding a translation you understand and read the entire chapter or book cited. Always try to find out 1# who is saying the verse. 2# who they are saying it to 3# what the words meant in that time period.

Those 3 things are basic to understanding ANY ancient manuscript not just the Bible. In addition to that keep in mind that languages are not translated word for word. They are translated context to context. So a translation is NEVER as accurate as the original language.

Take for instance some Atheist will claim that Christians thought of Jesus as a heavenly body and not a real mortal person. They will use verses that describe Jesus in a heavenly state. Some verses maybe Hebrews 14:4 or Hebrews 8:4. Ignoring that a chapter long before these was Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death". Clearly stating by the same author, Jesus was on Earth.

Many times you can completely show this Atheist tactic for false by reading ahead or behind their quoted verse.

Error 2# Some Atheist will claim the Bible is from the 4th century. Makes some think the Bible is 400 years after Christ. But the 4th century is the years AD 301 to 400. Jesus' Death is estimated to be AD 30-36.

What is being referred to is the First Council of Nicaea. It was the first time the writings that the Churches had been using were collated and bound to be an official Bible of the kingdom. The kingdom of Roman Emperor Constantine 1. There are many "BIBLES". They are compilations of letters and gospels. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The material contained in these different bibles are the manuscripts titled "Mathew", "Mark" etc... Some Bibles have a different collection of manuscripts. The important FACT to remember is that this Atheist phrase is not to be misunderstood as being the writing of "Mathew" or "Mark" or any biblical manuscript AT ALL.

Error 3# We have no original manuscripts from the time of Jesus. This is not an error. But we should keep in mind some context. Out of all of the writings, from all of the world from Rome to Judea, of any Jew, Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, etc... All the original manuscripts we have put side by side would fill a bookshelf no bigger than a common desk.

There have been fires and riots and wars, that have destroyed a lot of ancient works. The study of historical documents is not like digging up fossils, or conducting experiments in a lab. It is quite literally mostly on hearsay. The same contentions about the Gospels being 1st century can be applied to many other ancient writers, of and before, Jesus' time.

The reliability of each manuscript is different. The accuracy to the dating and the study of each one is different.

Error 4# Atheist enjoy to grab a verse and then tell others how that verse is to be interpreted. This is accomplished by a mixture of the previous "Errors". They will take a verse out of context, most times from an already hard to understand source such as the KIng James Version. They then apply a Modern Present Day understanding of the word to the verse. Such as the verses where the KJV has been translated as "unicorn". The KJV is an Old English translation of a Vulgate Latin translation of a Greek Translation of a Hebrew Torah. The "telephone" effect some Atheist ascribe to the Bible is of their own doing. If they went back to the source, Hebrew Torah, they would find good evidence that the animal described (Re'em) is probably more accurately describing An Ox, or a Rhinoceros. The "unicorn" translation coming from the Latin words that, to this day is used in the Species Name of the Indian Rhinoceros.

Error 5# Bible interpretation, like everything else, is disputed among different people. And it is okay to have a position about a bible verse, if you can support it with scripture. The errors I have shown so far are for informational purposes. And generally speaking if person A says, "Bible verse X means Y" and then 2 verse later the bible in another verse says "Y is not what X means" then maybe Person A should stop using the same verses. But too often you see Atheist spew the same stuff in different threads and not answer or reply to the others about the disconnect. The Atheist is happy to say the same thing even when it is shown to be wrong. And yet they claim they know the bible better then Theist.

Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.

Wow Says a person who can't interpret his own Bible. Seeing your previous reply still makes me laugh .

Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 "to separate"
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Like that. When you can tell me the meaning of separate. We can be one baby jerky step forward to understanding anything.

Your reply on genesis 1
http://www.debate.org...

Any interpretation of genuine effort will be too advanced for you. I was putting that verse into very simple language. if you don't know what "separating" means you will not understand anything in the Bible. I strongly suggest you not make any comments about any verses ever.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 6:34:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 6:21:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:16:47 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Error 1: Atheist tend to quote things out of context. When given a verse I suggest finding a translation you understand and read the entire chapter or book cited. Always try to find out 1# who is saying the verse. 2# who they are saying it to 3# what the words meant in that time period.

Those 3 things are basic to understanding ANY ancient manuscript not just the Bible. In addition to that keep in mind that languages are not translated word for word. They are translated context to context. So a translation is NEVER as accurate as the original language.

Take for instance some Atheist will claim that Christians thought of Jesus as a heavenly body and not a real mortal person. They will use verses that describe Jesus in a heavenly state. Some verses maybe Hebrews 14:4 or Hebrews 8:4. Ignoring that a chapter long before these was Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death". Clearly stating by the same author, Jesus was on Earth.

Many times you can completely show this Atheist tactic for false by reading ahead or behind their quoted verse.

Error 2# Some Atheist will claim the Bible is from the 4th century. Makes some think the Bible is 400 years after Christ. But the 4th century is the years AD 301 to 400. Jesus' Death is estimated to be AD 30-36.

What is being referred to is the First Council of Nicaea. It was the first time the writings that the Churches had been using were collated and bound to be an official Bible of the kingdom. The kingdom of Roman Emperor Constantine 1. There are many "BIBLES". They are compilations of letters and gospels. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The material contained in these different bibles are the manuscripts titled "Mathew", "Mark" etc... Some Bibles have a different collection of manuscripts. The important FACT to remember is that this Atheist phrase is not to be misunderstood as being the writing of "Mathew" or "Mark" or any biblical manuscript AT ALL.

Error 3# We have no original manuscripts from the time of Jesus. This is not an error. But we should keep in mind some context. Out of all of the writings, from all of the world from Rome to Judea, of any Jew, Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, etc... All the original manuscripts we have put side by side would fill a bookshelf no bigger than a common desk.

There have been fires and riots and wars, that have destroyed a lot of ancient works. The study of historical documents is not like digging up fossils, or conducting experiments in a lab. It is quite literally mostly on hearsay. The same contentions about the Gospels being 1st century can be applied to many other ancient writers, of and before, Jesus' time.

The reliability of each manuscript is different. The accuracy to the dating and the study of each one is different.

Error 4# Atheist enjoy to grab a verse and then tell others how that verse is to be interpreted. This is accomplished by a mixture of the previous "Errors". They will take a verse out of context, most times from an already hard to understand source such as the KIng James Version. They then apply a Modern Present Day understanding of the word to the verse. Such as the verses where the KJV has been translated as "unicorn". The KJV is an Old English translation of a Vulgate Latin translation of a Greek Translation of a Hebrew Torah. The "telephone" effect some Atheist ascribe to the Bible is of their own doing. If they went back to the source, Hebrew Torah, they would find good evidence that the animal described (Re'em) is probably more accurately describing An Ox, or a Rhinoceros. The "unicorn" translation coming from the Latin words that, to this day is used in the Species Name of the Indian Rhinoceros.

Error 5# Bible interpretation, like everything else, is disputed among different people. And it is okay to have a position about a bible verse, if you can support it with scripture. The errors I have shown so far are for informational purposes. And generally speaking if person A says, "Bible verse X means Y" and then 2 verse later the bible in another verse says "Y is not what X means" then maybe Person A should stop using the same verses. But too often you see Atheist spew the same stuff in different threads and not answer or reply to the others about the disconnect. The Atheist is happy to say the same thing even when it is shown to be wrong. And yet they claim they know the bible better then Theist.

Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.

Wow Says a person who can't interpret his own Bible. Seeing your previous reply still makes me laugh .

Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 "to separate"
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Like that. When you can tell me the meaning of separate. We can be one baby jerky step forward to understanding anything.

Your reply on genesis 1
http://www.debate.org...

Any interpretation of genuine effort will be too advanced for you. I was putting that verse into very simple language. if you don't know what "separating" means you will not understand anything in the Bible. I strongly suggest you not make any comments about any verses ever.

I strongly suggest you stick with your traditional interpretation and don't corrupt the bible when you are exposed. Your interpretation shows superficial knowledge and a desperate effort to sound intelligent.

The original verse is

1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Now anybody who has a brain will understand that according to these verses God first divided the Light from the darkness and then in the next verse 'called the light day and darkness he called night'

According to this verse God did not know that light was good or bad before. Bye bye all powerful concept.
If light was created doesn't it automatically mean separate from darkness. What is the need to separate it in the first place. The Bible is rubbish.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 6:44:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 6:34:26 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:21:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:16:47 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Error 1: Atheist tend to quote things out of context. When given a verse I suggest finding a translation you understand and read the entire chapter or book cited. Always try to find out 1# who is saying the verse. 2# who they are saying it to 3# what the words meant in that time period.

Those 3 things are basic to understanding ANY ancient manuscript not just the Bible. In addition to that keep in mind that languages are not translated word for word. They are translated context to context. So a translation is NEVER as accurate as the original language.

Take for instance some Atheist will claim that Christians thought of Jesus as a heavenly body and not a real mortal person. They will use verses that describe Jesus in a heavenly state. Some verses maybe Hebrews 14:4 or Hebrews 8:4. Ignoring that a chapter long before these was Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death". Clearly stating by the same author, Jesus was on Earth.

Many times you can completely show this Atheist tactic for false by reading ahead or behind their quoted verse.

Error 2# Some Atheist will claim the Bible is from the 4th century. Makes some think the Bible is 400 years after Christ. But the 4th century is the years AD 301 to 400. Jesus' Death is estimated to be AD 30-36.

What is being referred to is the First Council of Nicaea. It was the first time the writings that the Churches had been using were collated and bound to be an official Bible of the kingdom. The kingdom of Roman Emperor Constantine 1. There are many "BIBLES". They are compilations of letters and gospels. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The material contained in these different bibles are the manuscripts titled "Mathew", "Mark" etc... Some Bibles have a different collection of manuscripts. The important FACT to remember is that this Atheist phrase is not to be misunderstood as being the writing of "Mathew" or "Mark" or any biblical manuscript AT ALL.

Error 3# We have no original manuscripts from the time of Jesus. This is not an error. But we should keep in mind some context. Out of all of the writings, from all of the world from Rome to Judea, of any Jew, Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, etc... All the original manuscripts we have put side by side would fill a bookshelf no bigger than a common desk.

There have been fires and riots and wars, that have destroyed a lot of ancient works. The study of historical documents is not like digging up fossils, or conducting experiments in a lab. It is quite literally mostly on hearsay. The same contentions about the Gospels being 1st century can be applied to many other ancient writers, of and before, Jesus' time.

The reliability of each manuscript is different. The accuracy to the dating and the study of each one is different.

Error 4# Atheist enjoy to grab a verse and then tell others how that verse is to be interpreted. This is accomplished by a mixture of the previous "Errors". They will take a verse out of context, most times from an already hard to understand source such as the KIng James Version. They then apply a Modern Present Day understanding of the word to the verse. Such as the verses where the KJV has been translated as "unicorn". The KJV is an Old English translation of a Vulgate Latin translation of a Greek Translation of a Hebrew Torah. The "telephone" effect some Atheist ascribe to the Bible is of their own doing. If they went back to the source, Hebrew Torah, they would find good evidence that the animal described (Re'em) is probably more accurately describing An Ox, or a Rhinoceros. The "unicorn" translation coming from the Latin words that, to this day is used in the Species Name of the Indian Rhinoceros.

Error 5# Bible interpretation, like everything else, is disputed among different people. And it is okay to have a position about a bible verse, if you can support it with scripture. The errors I have shown so far are for informational purposes. And generally speaking if person A says, "Bible verse X means Y" and then 2 verse later the bible in another verse says "Y is not what X means" then maybe Person A should stop using the same verses. But too often you see Atheist spew the same stuff in different threads and not answer or reply to the others about the disconnect. The Atheist is happy to say the same thing even when it is shown to be wrong. And yet they claim they know the bible better then Theist.

Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.

Wow Says a person who can't interpret his own Bible. Seeing your previous reply still makes me laugh .

Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 "to separate"
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Like that. When you can tell me the meaning of separate. We can be one baby jerky step forward to understanding anything.

Your reply on genesis 1
http://www.debate.org...

Any interpretation of genuine effort will be too advanced for you. I was putting that verse into very simple language. if you don't know what "separating" means you will not understand anything in the Bible. I strongly suggest you not make any comments about any verses ever.

I strongly suggest you stick with your traditional interpretation and don't corrupt the bible when you are exposed. Your interpretation shows superficial knowledge and a desperate effort to sound intelligent.

The original verse is

1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Now anybody who has a brain will understand that according to these verses God first divided the Light from the darkness and then in the next verse 'called the light day and darkness he called night'

According to this verse God did not know that light was good or bad before. Bye bye all powerful concept.
If light was created doesn't it automatically mean separate from darkness. What is the need to separate it in the first place. The Bible is rubbish.

As I said the reading of scripture is too advance for you. Please do not reply and keep with reading your Atheist propaganda pages. For Atheists supposedly being bright they write those pages for a 5th grade reading level.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 6:47:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 6:08:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 5:58:58 AM, Composer wrote:
At 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.
So pick your preferred bible and then prove that a literal Supernatural being was involved in providing it or inspiring it?

I shan't put the kettle on waiting, for idiots like you always fall flat on their faces!

BTW: You can have 30 mins not 5, which should be ample for you to make a fool of yourself like your entire predecessors!

IF your Cult has a Statement of Faith unique to them, then you may also provide that!

Next!


Error 6#

This is a common Atheist tactic. Known as the informal logical fallacy "Shifting the Burden". Now you won't get this Atheist or any other admitting it. But it has the same pattern.

I post. The Atheist has no real rebuttal to my post.

The Atheist implies or out right claims, that as an Atheist they are making no claim. In fact, notice how where I state an Atheist says this or that in my original post goes uncontested.

The Atheist then attempts to tell me what argument I should be posting: "So pick your preferred bible and then prove that a literal Supernatural being was involved in providing it or inspiring it?"

Now most times the Atheist follows this with the boundaries, "only objective scientific recently discovered peer reviewed by other atheist evidence allowed". In this case the words are different but not the pattern: "...IF your Cult has a Statement of Faith unique to them, then you may also provide that!..."

How is this an Error? Well, beside being fallacious, it is a deceitful attempt to steer the attention away from what I, as the OP, is trying to bring attention to.

And I will not fall for it.

ROFL ... and still they come ... and ask you to fall for it. Love the derision that goes with the easily recognized fallacy though. Good post.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 6:51:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is absurd and stereotype.

Just look at your first error. It is an error everyone makes including Christians. It is impossible to not have to interpret the bible. People have justified their interpretations since the writings were found.

Ask 100 Christians what a passage means and you will get 20 different answers of different meaning. It is a fact that it is not a book which lends itself to a truthful interpretation proven by number of different incompatible interpretations that exist.

Jews use the New Testament to justify why Jesus did not fit the prophesy and was not the messiah for goodness sake.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 7:00:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 6:51:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
This is absurd and stereotype.

I said some Atheist. I simple review of some forum posts can make each Error easily exemplified.

It is not absurd. It is to make other posters aware of these faults and how to best investigate the Atheist claims.. oops do Atheist make claims of how a bible verse should be interpreted? I thought they didn't make any claim. Anyways If they do about bible verses they should be able to rebut any contrary evidence from the same source.


Just look at your first error. It is an error everyone makes including Christians. It is impossible to not have to interpret the bible. People have justified their interpretations since the writings were found.


Yes and with dispute comes discernment and greater understanding. Do you understand a legal document straight away or do some legal documents require an education in legal terminology?

The same is true for ancient manuscripts. And you should learn this lesson.

Ask 100 Christians what a passage means and you will get 20 different answers of different meaning. It is a fact that it is not a book which lends itself to a truthful interpretation proven by number of different incompatible interpretations that exist.

Jews use the New Testament to justify why Jesus did not fit the prophesy and was not the messiah for goodness sake.

For goodness sake, Do you have a specific objection or maybe you can present evidence to support that what I posted was absurd?
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 7:19:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 6:44:40 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:34:26 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:21:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:16:47 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Error 1: Atheist tend to quote things out of context. When given a verse I suggest finding a translation you understand and read the entire chapter or book cited. Always try to find out 1# who is saying the verse. 2# who they are saying it to 3# what the words meant in that time period.

Those 3 things are basic to understanding ANY ancient manuscript not just the Bible. In addition to that keep in mind that languages are not translated word for word. They are translated context to context. So a translation is NEVER as accurate as the original language.

Take for instance some Atheist will claim that Christians thought of Jesus as a heavenly body and not a real mortal person. They will use verses that describe Jesus in a heavenly state. Some verses maybe Hebrews 14:4 or Hebrews 8:4. Ignoring that a chapter long before these was Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death". Clearly stating by the same author, Jesus was on Earth.

Many times you can completely show this Atheist tactic for false by reading ahead or behind their quoted verse.

Error 2# Some Atheist will claim the Bible is from the 4th century. Makes some think the Bible is 400 years after Christ. But the 4th century is the years AD 301 to 400. Jesus' Death is estimated to be AD 30-36.

What is being referred to is the First Council of Nicaea. It was the first time the writings that the Churches had been using were collated and bound to be an official Bible of the kingdom. The kingdom of Roman Emperor Constantine 1. There are many "BIBLES". They are compilations of letters and gospels. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The material contained in these different bibles are the manuscripts titled "Mathew", "Mark" etc... Some Bibles have a different collection of manuscripts. The important FACT to remember is that this Atheist phrase is not to be misunderstood as being the writing of "Mathew" or "Mark" or any biblical manuscript AT ALL.

Error 3# We have no original manuscripts from the time of Jesus. This is not an error. But we should keep in mind some context. Out of all of the writings, from all of the world from Rome to Judea, of any Jew, Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, etc... All the original manuscripts we have put side by side would fill a bookshelf no bigger than a common desk.

There have been fires and riots and wars, that have destroyed a lot of ancient works. The study of historical documents is not like digging up fossils, or conducting experiments in a lab. It is quite literally mostly on hearsay. The same contentions about the Gospels being 1st century can be applied to many other ancient writers, of and before, Jesus' time.

The reliability of each manuscript is different. The accuracy to the dating and the study of each one is different.

Error 4# Atheist enjoy to grab a verse and then tell others how that verse is to be interpreted. This is accomplished by a mixture of the previous "Errors". They will take a verse out of context, most times from an already hard to understand source such as the KIng James Version. They then apply a Modern Present Day understanding of the word to the verse. Such as the verses where the KJV has been translated as "unicorn". The KJV is an Old English translation of a Vulgate Latin translation of a Greek Translation of a Hebrew Torah. The "telephone" effect some Atheist ascribe to the Bible is of their own doing. If they went back to the source, Hebrew Torah, they would find good evidence that the animal described (Re'em) is probably more accurately describing An Ox, or a Rhinoceros. The "unicorn" translation coming from the Latin words that, to this day is used in the Species Name of the Indian Rhinoceros.

Error 5# Bible interpretation, like everything else, is disputed among different people. And it is okay to have a position about a bible verse, if you can support it with scripture. The errors I have shown so far are for informational purposes. And generally speaking if person A says, "Bible verse X means Y" and then 2 verse later the bible in another verse says "Y is not what X means" then maybe Person A should stop using the same verses. But too often you see Atheist spew the same stuff in different threads and not answer or reply to the others about the disconnect. The Atheist is happy to say the same thing even when it is shown to be wrong. And yet they claim they know the bible better then Theist.

Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.

Wow Says a person who can't interpret his own Bible. Seeing your previous reply still makes me laugh .

Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 "to separate"
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Like that. When you can tell me the meaning of separate. We can be one baby jerky step forward to understanding anything.

Your reply on genesis 1
http://www.debate.org...

Any interpretation of genuine effort will be too advanced for you. I was putting that verse into very simple language. if you don't know what "separating" means you will not understand anything in the Bible. I strongly suggest you not make any comments about any verses ever.

I strongly suggest you stick with your traditional interpretation and don't corrupt the bible when you are exposed. Your interpretation shows superficial knowledge and a desperate effort to sound intelligent.

The original verse is

1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Now anybody who has a brain will understand that according to these verses God first divided the Light from the darkness and then in the next verse 'called the light day and darkness he called night'

According to this verse God did not know that light was good or bad before. Bye bye all powerful concept.
If light was created doesn't it automatically mean separate from darkness. What is the need to separate it in the first place. The Bible is rubbish.

As I said the reading of scripture is too advance for you. Please do not reply and keep with reading your Atheist propaganda pages. For Atheists supposedly being bright they write those pages for a 5th grade reading level.

Seeing your knowledge about the subject, even three year olds argue better and definitely less circularly
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 7:20:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 7:00:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:51:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
This is absurd and stereotype.

I said some Atheist. I simple review of some forum posts can make each Error easily exemplified.

It is not absurd. It is to make other posters aware of these faults and how to best investigate the Atheist claims.. oops do Atheist make claims of how a bible verse should be interpreted? I thought they didn't make any claim. Anyways If they do about bible verses they should be able to rebut any contrary evidence from the same source.

Last I heard the books of the bible were begotten from human authors. Any one can make any claim on them as they wish.


Just look at your first error. It is an error everyone makes including Christians. It is impossible to not have to interpret the bible. People have justified their interpretations since the writings were found.


Yes and with dispute comes discernment and greater understanding. Do you understand a legal document straight away or do some legal documents require an education in legal terminology?

I agree and would add the historical context is extremely important as well, thus why the Catholic Church recognizes the historical context of Revelations and interprets it symbolically. Again, the problem with the bible is that it is a collection of books that even trained historians can not agree on who, when, where, historic context, etc.

Why would you think any person who is not trained to read Greek and knowledgeable of history could do anything but founder at interpreting the bible. The only other option is to accept what they have been told by a supposed holy person who may or may not have been properly trained. (Most are trained in a specific interpretation and the support for that interpretation rather than given the tools to form their own interpretation.)

The same is true for ancient manuscripts. And you should learn this lesson.

Ask 100 Christians what a passage means and you will get 20 different answers of different meaning. It is a fact that it is not a book which lends itself to a truthful interpretation proven by number of different incompatible interpretations that exist.

Jews use the New Testament to justify why Jesus did not fit the prophesy and was not the messiah for goodness sake.

For goodness sake, Do you have a specific objection or maybe you can present evidence to support that what I posted was absurd?

Let me make it more clear. It is absurd because you clearly have one standard for Atheists and a completely different more lenient standard for Christians.

If there is a truth in the bible, it requires a specific interpretation to garner. You claim atheists are unable to interpret accurately, yet you leave out a majority of other Christians who also interpret it differently than what you do.

Fundamentally you are against something, atheists, rather than being for something, the proper interpretation of the bible.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 7:29:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 7:20:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:00:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:51:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
This is absurd and stereotype.

I said some Atheist. I simple review of some forum posts can make each Error easily exemplified.

It is not absurd. It is to make other posters aware of these faults and how to best investigate the Atheist claims.. oops do Atheist make claims of how a bible verse should be interpreted? I thought they didn't make any claim. Anyways If they do about bible verses they should be able to rebut any contrary evidence from the same source.

Last I heard the books of the bible were begotten from human authors. Any one can make any claim on them as they wish.


Just look at your first error. It is an error everyone makes including Christians. It is impossible to not have to interpret the bible. People have justified their interpretations since the writings were found.


Yes and with dispute comes discernment and greater understanding. Do you understand a legal document straight away or do some legal documents require an education in legal terminology?

I agree and would add the historical context is extremely important as well, thus why the Catholic Church recognizes the historical context of Revelations and interprets it symbolically. Again, the problem with the bible is that it is a collection of books that even trained historians can not agree on who, when, where, historic context, etc.

Why would you think any person who is not trained to read Greek and knowledgeable of history could do anything but founder at interpreting the bible. The only other option is to accept what they have been told by a supposed holy person who may or may not have been properly trained. (Most are trained in a specific interpretation and the support for that interpretation rather than given the tools to form their own interpretation.)

The same is true for ancient manuscripts. And you should learn this lesson.

Ask 100 Christians what a passage means and you will get 20 different answers of different meaning. It is a fact that it is not a book which lends itself to a truthful interpretation proven by number of different incompatible interpretations that exist.

Jews use the New Testament to justify why Jesus did not fit the prophesy and was not the messiah for goodness sake.

For goodness sake, Do you have a specific objection or maybe you can present evidence to support that what I posted was absurd?

Let me make it more clear. It is absurd because you clearly have one standard for Atheists and a completely different more lenient standard for Christians.

If there is a truth in the bible, it requires a specific interpretation to garner. You claim atheists are unable to interpret accurately, yet you leave out a majority of other Christians who also interpret it differently than what you do.

Fundamentally you are against something, atheists, rather than being for something, the proper interpretation of the bible.

I am advocating the proper methodology to interpret bible verses. I am using common Atheist comments as examples of the Errors.

The title of the Post is "Do not be fooled by Atheist bible Knowledge". Many well spoken Atheist sell themselves as Bible experts and yet do not respond to the rebuttals to their statements. If they hold a valid a position in regards to a bible interpretations it should not just be supported by the verses one provides, but should also answer for the verses to the contrary.

I'm suggesting people take 5 minutes and don't take an Atheist word about the Bible as straight talk. And honestly I didn't espouse any of my own ideas, and I would challenge anyone to do the same to my interpretations.

The Bible has many differing layers of meanings. With out challenge and discussion how can any of us come to a better understanding?
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 7:46:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 7:29:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:20:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:00:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:51:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
This is absurd and stereotype.

I said some Atheist. I simple review of some forum posts can make each Error easily exemplified.

It is not absurd. It is to make other posters aware of these faults and how to best investigate the Atheist claims.. oops do Atheist make claims of how a bible verse should be interpreted? I thought they didn't make any claim. Anyways If they do about bible verses they should be able to rebut any contrary evidence from the same source.

Last I heard the books of the bible were begotten from human authors. Any one can make any claim on them as they wish.


Just look at your first error. It is an error everyone makes including Christians. It is impossible to not have to interpret the bible. People have justified their interpretations since the writings were found.


Yes and with dispute comes discernment and greater understanding. Do you understand a legal document straight away or do some legal documents require an education in legal terminology?

I agree and would add the historical context is extremely important as well, thus why the Catholic Church recognizes the historical context of Revelations and interprets it symbolically. Again, the problem with the bible is that it is a collection of books that even trained historians can not agree on who, when, where, historic context, etc.

Why would you think any person who is not trained to read Greek and knowledgeable of history could do anything but founder at interpreting the bible. The only other option is to accept what they have been told by a supposed holy person who may or may not have been properly trained. (Most are trained in a specific interpretation and the support for that interpretation rather than given the tools to form their own interpretation.)

The same is true for ancient manuscripts. And you should learn this lesson.

Ask 100 Christians what a passage means and you will get 20 different answers of different meaning. It is a fact that it is not a book which lends itself to a truthful interpretation proven by number of different incompatible interpretations that exist.

Jews use the New Testament to justify why Jesus did not fit the prophesy and was not the messiah for goodness sake.

For goodness sake, Do you have a specific objection or maybe you can present evidence to support that what I posted was absurd?

Let me make it more clear. It is absurd because you clearly have one standard for Atheists and a completely different more lenient standard for Christians.

If there is a truth in the bible, it requires a specific interpretation to garner. You claim atheists are unable to interpret accurately, yet you leave out a majority of other Christians who also interpret it differently than what you do.

Fundamentally you are against something, atheists, rather than being for something, the proper interpretation of the bible.

I am advocating the proper methodology to interpret bible verses. I am using common Atheist comments as examples of the Errors.

The title of the Post is "Do not be fooled by Atheist bible Knowledge". Many well spoken Atheist sell themselves as Bible experts and yet do not respond to the rebuttals to their statements. If they hold a valid a position in regards to a bible interpretations it should not just be supported by the verses one provides, but should also answer for the verses to the contrary.

I'm suggesting people take 5 minutes and don't take an Atheist word about the Bible as straight talk. And honestly I didn't espouse any of my own ideas, and I would challenge anyone to do the same to my interpretations.

The Bible has many differing layers of meanings. With out challenge and discussion how can any of us come to a better understanding?

So basically you are claiming what all of you christians claim.
The bible can mean whatever you want it to mean and not what anyone else says it means.
That is an unchanged christian mantra.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 7:47:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 7:29:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:20:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:00:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:51:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
This is absurd and stereotype.

I said some Atheist. I simple review of some forum posts can make each Error easily exemplified.

It is not absurd. It is to make other posters aware of these faults and how to best investigate the Atheist claims.. oops do Atheist make claims of how a bible verse should be interpreted? I thought they didn't make any claim. Anyways If they do about bible verses they should be able to rebut any contrary evidence from the same source.

Last I heard the books of the bible were begotten from human authors. Any one can make any claim on them as they wish.


Just look at your first error. It is an error everyone makes including Christians. It is impossible to not have to interpret the bible. People have justified their interpretations since the writings were found.


Yes and with dispute comes discernment and greater understanding. Do you understand a legal document straight away or do some legal documents require an education in legal terminology?

I agree and would add the historical context is extremely important as well, thus why the Catholic Church recognizes the historical context of Revelations and interprets it symbolically. Again, the problem with the bible is that it is a collection of books that even trained historians can not agree on who, when, where, historic context, etc.

Why would you think any person who is not trained to read Greek and knowledgeable of history could do anything but founder at interpreting the bible. The only other option is to accept what they have been told by a supposed holy person who may or may not have been properly trained. (Most are trained in a specific interpretation and the support for that interpretation rather than given the tools to form their own interpretation.)

The same is true for ancient manuscripts. And you should learn this lesson.

Ask 100 Christians what a passage means and you will get 20 different answers of different meaning. It is a fact that it is not a book which lends itself to a truthful interpretation proven by number of different incompatible interpretations that exist.

Jews use the New Testament to justify why Jesus did not fit the prophesy and was not the messiah for goodness sake.

For goodness sake, Do you have a specific objection or maybe you can present evidence to support that what I posted was absurd?

Let me make it more clear. It is absurd because you clearly have one standard for Atheists and a completely different more lenient standard for Christians.

If there is a truth in the bible, it requires a specific interpretation to garner. You claim atheists are unable to interpret accurately, yet you leave out a majority of other Christians who also interpret it differently than what you do.

Fundamentally you are against something, atheists, rather than being for something, the proper interpretation of the bible.

I am advocating the proper methodology to interpret bible verses. I am using common Atheist comments as examples of the Errors.

The title of the Post is "Do not be fooled by Atheist bible Knowledge". Many well spoken Atheist sell themselves as Bible experts and yet do not respond to the rebuttals to their statements. If they hold a valid a position in regards to a bible interpretations it should not just be supported by the verses one provides, but should also answer for the verses to the contrary.

I'm suggesting people take 5 minutes and don't take an Atheist word about the Bible as straight talk. And honestly I didn't espouse any of my own ideas, and I would challenge anyone to do the same to my interpretations.

The Bible has many differing layers of meanings. With out challenge and discussion how can any of us come to a better understanding?

I am advocating it is just as truthful to substitute the word "Christian" for the word "Atheist" in your warning above. I'll leave it at that.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 7:55:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
@ debateuser wrote
............. Matthew 25:41King James Version (KJV)

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

https://www.biblegateway.com......

@ Mhyk wrote
That verse is from Revelations. Hell has NOT been created yet. It is prophesied to be created.

Yes be very careful who you believe when they quote the bible.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 7:55:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 7:46:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:29:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:20:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:00:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:51:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
This is absurd and stereotype.

I said some Atheist. I simple review of some forum posts can make each Error easily exemplified.

It is not absurd. It is to make other posters aware of these faults and how to best investigate the Atheist claims.. oops do Atheist make claims of how a bible verse should be interpreted? I thought they didn't make any claim. Anyways If they do about bible verses they should be able to rebut any contrary evidence from the same source.

Last I heard the books of the bible were begotten from human authors. Any one can make any claim on them as they wish.


Just look at your first error. It is an error everyone makes including Christians. It is impossible to not have to interpret the bible. People have justified their interpretations since the writings were found.


Yes and with dispute comes discernment and greater understanding. Do you understand a legal document straight away or do some legal documents require an education in legal terminology?

I agree and would add the historical context is extremely important as well, thus why the Catholic Church recognizes the historical context of Revelations and interprets it symbolically. Again, the problem with the bible is that it is a collection of books that even trained historians can not agree on who, when, where, historic context, etc.

Why would you think any person who is not trained to read Greek and knowledgeable of history could do anything but founder at interpreting the bible. The only other option is to accept what they have been told by a supposed holy person who may or may not have been properly trained. (Most are trained in a specific interpretation and the support for that interpretation rather than given the tools to form their own interpretation.)

The same is true for ancient manuscripts. And you should learn this lesson.

Ask 100 Christians what a passage means and you will get 20 different answers of different meaning. It is a fact that it is not a book which lends itself to a truthful interpretation proven by number of different incompatible interpretations that exist.

Jews use the New Testament to justify why Jesus did not fit the prophesy and was not the messiah for goodness sake.

For goodness sake, Do you have a specific objection or maybe you can present evidence to support that what I posted was absurd?

Let me make it more clear. It is absurd because you clearly have one standard for Atheists and a completely different more lenient standard for Christians.

If there is a truth in the bible, it requires a specific interpretation to garner. You claim atheists are unable to interpret accurately, yet you leave out a majority of other Christians who also interpret it differently than what you do.

Fundamentally you are against something, atheists, rather than being for something, the proper interpretation of the bible.

I am advocating the proper methodology to interpret bible verses. I am using common Atheist comments as examples of the Errors.

The title of the Post is "Do not be fooled by Atheist bible Knowledge". Many well spoken Atheist sell themselves as Bible experts and yet do not respond to the rebuttals to their statements. If they hold a valid a position in regards to a bible interpretations it should not just be supported by the verses one provides, but should also answer for the verses to the contrary.

I'm suggesting people take 5 minutes and don't take an Atheist word about the Bible as straight talk. And honestly I didn't espouse any of my own ideas, and I would challenge anyone to do the same to my interpretations.

The Bible has many differing layers of meanings. With out challenge and discussion how can any of us come to a better understanding?

So basically you are claiming what all of you christians claim.
The bible can mean whatever you want it to mean and not what anyone else says it means.
That is an unchanged christian mantra.

Different interpretations is very different than Atheist saying the Bible doesn't say Jesus was a real person and then 2 chapters earlier it specifically says Jesus walked on Earth before he died.

You can try to wrap this under an umbrella emblazoned with "one interpretation and mine is right". but that would be wrong. I am saying investigate and come up with an interpretation that is factual, linguistically sound, coherent, and answers contradictory verses.

I'm advocating following good methodology like considering the audience and time.

Error 7# When a proper refutation of the argument is not possible, the Atheist will then resort to restating the argument in a very derisive over generalization and say that is the christian argument. Notice how this Atheist troll said I was saying "So basically... The bible can mean whatever you want it to mean and not what anyone else says it means."

And yet where in my OP did I say the bible says X. I gave examples so others would know better how to avoid those errors. This is vastly different than the "rephrasing" of all my arguments into 2 sentences.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 8:01:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 7:55:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:46:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:29:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:20:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:00:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:51:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
This is absurd and stereotype.

I said some Atheist. I simple review of some forum posts can make each Error easily exemplified.

It is not absurd. It is to make other posters aware of these faults and how to best investigate the Atheist claims.. oops do Atheist make claims of how a bible verse should be interpreted? I thought they didn't make any claim. Anyways If they do about bible verses they should be able to rebut any contrary evidence from the same source.

Last I heard the books of the bible were begotten from human authors. Any one can make any claim on them as they wish.


Just look at your first error. It is an error everyone makes including Christians. It is impossible to not have to interpret the bible. People have justified their interpretations since the writings were found.


Yes and with dispute comes discernment and greater understanding. Do you understand a legal document straight away or do some legal documents require an education in legal terminology?

I agree and would add the historical context is extremely important as well, thus why the Catholic Church recognizes the historical context of Revelations and interprets it symbolically. Again, the problem with the bible is that it is a collection of books that even trained historians can not agree on who, when, where, historic context, etc.

Why would you think any person who is not trained to read Greek and knowledgeable of history could do anything but founder at interpreting the bible. The only other option is to accept what they have been told by a supposed holy person who may or may not have been properly trained. (Most are trained in a specific interpretation and the support for that interpretation rather than given the tools to form their own interpretation.)

The same is true for ancient manuscripts. And you should learn this lesson.

Ask 100 Christians what a passage means and you will get 20 different answers of different meaning. It is a fact that it is not a book which lends itself to a truthful interpretation proven by number of different incompatible interpretations that exist.

Jews use the New Testament to justify why Jesus did not fit the prophesy and was not the messiah for goodness sake.

For goodness sake, Do you have a specific objection or maybe you can present evidence to support that what I posted was absurd?

Let me make it more clear. It is absurd because you clearly have one standard for Atheists and a completely different more lenient standard for Christians.

If there is a truth in the bible, it requires a specific interpretation to garner. You claim atheists are unable to interpret accurately, yet you leave out a majority of other Christians who also interpret it differently than what you do.

Fundamentally you are against something, atheists, rather than being for something, the proper interpretation of the bible.

I am advocating the proper methodology to interpret bible verses. I am using common Atheist comments as examples of the Errors.

The title of the Post is "Do not be fooled by Atheist bible Knowledge". Many well spoken Atheist sell themselves as Bible experts and yet do not respond to the rebuttals to their statements. If they hold a valid a position in regards to a bible interpretations it should not just be supported by the verses one provides, but should also answer for the verses to the contrary.

I'm suggesting people take 5 minutes and don't take an Atheist word about the Bible as straight talk. And honestly I didn't espouse any of my own ideas, and I would challenge anyone to do the same to my interpretations.

The Bible has many differing layers of meanings. With out challenge and discussion how can any of us come to a better understanding?

So basically you are claiming what all of you christians claim.
The bible can mean whatever you want it to mean and not what anyone else says it means.
That is an unchanged christian mantra.

Different interpretations is very different than Atheist saying the Bible doesn't say Jesus was a real person and then 2 chapters earlier it specifically says Jesus walked on Earth before he died.

You can try to wrap this under an umbrella emblazoned with "one interpretation and mine is right". but that would be wrong. I am saying investigate and come up with an interpretation that is factual, linguistically sound, coherent, and answers contradictory verses.

I'm advocating following good methodology like considering the audience and time.

Error 7# When a proper refutation of the argument is not possible, the Atheist will then resort to restating the argument in a very derisive over generalization and say that is the christian argument. Notice how this Atheist troll said I was saying "So basically... The bible can mean whatever you want it to mean and not what anyone else says it means."

And yet where in my OP did I say the bible says X. I gave examples so others would know better how to avoid those errors. This is vastly different than the "rephrasing" of all my arguments into 2 sentences.

This is what you said.
The Bible has many differing layers of meanings.

Which particular layer is correct? The one that you choose or the one someone else chooses?
So the bible means many things, but only your version is right.

That's about what I said.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 8:03:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 7:55:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:46:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:29:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:20:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:00:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:51:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
This is absurd and stereotype.

I said some Atheist. I simple review of some forum posts can make each Error easily exemplified.

It is not absurd. It is to make other posters aware of these faults and how to best investigate the Atheist claims.. oops do Atheist make claims of how a bible verse should be interpreted? I thought they didn't make any claim. Anyways If they do about bible verses they should be able to rebut any contrary evidence from the same source.

Last I heard the books of the bible were begotten from human authors. Any one can make any claim on them as they wish.


Just look at your first error. It is an error everyone makes including Christians. It is impossible to not have to interpret the bible. People have justified their interpretations since the writings were found.


Yes and with dispute comes discernment and greater understanding. Do you understand a legal document straight away or do some legal documents require an education in legal terminology?

I agree and would add the historical context is extremely important as well, thus why the Catholic Church recognizes the historical context of Revelations and interprets it symbolically. Again, the problem with the bible is that it is a collection of books that even trained historians can not agree on who, when, where, historic context, etc.

Why would you think any person who is not trained to read Greek and knowledgeable of history could do anything but founder at interpreting the bible. The only other option is to accept what they have been told by a supposed holy person who may or may not have been properly trained. (Most are trained in a specific interpretation and the support for that interpretation rather than given the tools to form their own interpretation.)

The same is true for ancient manuscripts. And you should learn this lesson.

Ask 100 Christians what a passage means and you will get 20 different answers of different meaning. It is a fact that it is not a book which lends itself to a truthful interpretation proven by number of different incompatible interpretations that exist.

Jews use the New Testament to justify why Jesus did not fit the prophesy and was not the messiah for goodness sake.

For goodness sake, Do you have a specific objection or maybe you can present evidence to support that what I posted was absurd?

Let me make it more clear. It is absurd because you clearly have one standard for Atheists and a completely different more lenient standard for Christians.

If there is a truth in the bible, it requires a specific interpretation to garner. You claim atheists are unable to interpret accurately, yet you leave out a majority of other Christians who also interpret it differently than what you do.

Fundamentally you are against something, atheists, rather than being for something, the proper interpretation of the bible.

I am advocating the proper methodology to interpret bible verses. I am using common Atheist comments as examples of the Errors.

The title of the Post is "Do not be fooled by Atheist bible Knowledge". Many well spoken Atheist sell themselves as Bible experts and yet do not respond to the rebuttals to their statements. If they hold a valid a position in regards to a bible interpretations it should not just be supported by the verses one provides, but should also answer for the verses to the contrary.

I'm suggesting people take 5 minutes and don't take an Atheist word about the Bible as straight talk. And honestly I didn't espouse any of my own ideas, and I would challenge anyone to do the same to my interpretations.

The Bible has many differing layers of meanings. With out challenge and discussion how can any of us come to a better understanding?

So basically you are claiming what all of you christians claim.
The bible can mean whatever you want it to mean and not what anyone else says it means.
That is an unchanged christian mantra.

Different interpretations is very different than Atheist saying the Bible doesn't say Jesus was a real person and then 2 chapters earlier it specifically says Jesus walked on Earth before he died.

You can try to wrap this under an umbrella emblazoned with "one interpretation and mine is right". but that would be wrong. I am saying investigate and come up with an interpretation that is factual, linguistically sound, coherent, and answers contradictory verses.

I'm advocating following good methodology like considering the audience and time.

Error 7# When a proper refutation of the argument is not possible, the Atheist will then resort to restating the argument in a very derisive over generalization and say that is the christian argument. Notice how this Atheist troll said I was saying "So basically... The bible can mean whatever you want it to mean and not what anyone else says it means."

And yet where in my OP did I say the bible says X. I gave examples so others would know better how to avoid those errors. This is vastly different than the "rephrasing" of all my arguments into 2 sentences.

Are you enjoying your interaction with the troll? Being deliberately misquoted? Being insulted left and right? Having ignorance and swaggering dishonesty devoid of anything other than craven disagreement thrown in your face?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 8:07:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 7:55:12 AM, bulproof wrote:
@ debateuser wrote
............. Matthew 25:41King James Version (KJV)

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

https://www.biblegateway.com......

@ Mhyk wrote
That verse is from Revelations. Hell has NOT been created yet. It is prophesied to be created.

Yes be very careful who you believe when they quote the bible.

Are you and Debate so stupid?

"created" - the -ed suffix means past tense. As in it has already happened.

"Then shall" is a phrase denoting a future event.

I am saying NO where in the bible does it say Hell exists TODAY. Hell meaning a lake of fire.

And I would be correct in that. And anyone who can read English could discern that same statement.

Then shall I make a turkey sandwich. Where is my turkey sandwich right NOW.

Error 8# Clearly Atheist understand English when it comes to making party plans or listening to an Atheist speak. But when a Theist is speaking they lose all mental functioning and babble on like babies. It is at this point that the Atheist will either espouse their own definitions for words despite common usage, dictionary sources, etc.. and demand you use their strict meaning for a word, or not use the word. OR the Atheist will just revert all the way to a child state and attempt a victory through repetition. they will ask the same questions like a child asking the never ending "why", "but why", "why is that". No consideration and no thinking of the answers on their own, just a battle to the infinitely regressive.

It is best to avoid and report these Atheist because they will bury a thread in meaningless off topic 1 liners and obscure any understanding from advancing.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 8:18:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 8:03:49 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:55:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:46:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:29:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:20:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:00:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 6:51:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
This is absurd and stereotype.

I said some Atheist. I simple review of some forum posts can make each Error easily exemplified.

It is not absurd. It is to make other posters aware of these faults and how to best investigate the Atheist claims.. oops do Atheist make claims of how a bible verse should be interpreted? I thought they didn't make any claim. Anyways If they do about bible verses they should be able to rebut any contrary evidence from the same source.

Last I heard the books of the bible were begotten from human authors. Any one can make any claim on them as they wish.


Just look at your first error. It is an error everyone makes including Christians. It is impossible to not have to interpret the bible. People have justified their interpretations since the writings were found.


Yes and with dispute comes discernment and greater understanding. Do you understand a legal document straight away or do some legal documents require an education in legal terminology?

I agree and would add the historical context is extremely important as well, thus why the Catholic Church recognizes the historical context of Revelations and interprets it symbolically. Again, the problem with the bible is that it is a collection of books that even trained historians can not agree on who, when, where, historic context, etc.

Why would you think any person who is not trained to read Greek and knowledgeable of history could do anything but founder at interpreting the bible. The only other option is to accept what they have been told by a supposed holy person who may or may not have been properly trained. (Most are trained in a specific interpretation and the support for that interpretation rather than given the tools to form their own interpretation.)

The same is true for ancient manuscripts. And you should learn this lesson.

Ask 100 Christians what a passage means and you will get 20 different answers of different meaning. It is a fact that it is not a book which lends itself to a truthful interpretation proven by number of different incompatible interpretations that exist.

Jews use the New Testament to justify why Jesus did not fit the prophesy and was not the messiah for goodness sake.

For goodness sake, Do you have a specific objection or maybe you can present evidence to support that what I posted was absurd?

Let me make it more clear. It is absurd because you clearly have one standard for Atheists and a completely different more lenient standard for Christians.

If there is a truth in the bible, it requires a specific interpretation to garner. You claim atheists are unable to interpret accurately, yet you leave out a majority of other Christians who also interpret it differently than what you do.

Fundamentally you are against something, atheists, rather than being for something, the proper interpretation of the bible.

I am advocating the proper methodology to interpret bible verses. I am using common Atheist comments as examples of the Errors.

The title of the Post is "Do not be fooled by Atheist bible Knowledge". Many well spoken Atheist sell themselves as Bible experts and yet do not respond to the rebuttals to their statements. If they hold a valid a position in regards to a bible interpretations it should not just be supported by the verses one provides, but should also answer for the verses to the contrary.

I'm suggesting people take 5 minutes and don't take an Atheist word about the Bible as straight talk. And honestly I didn't espouse any of my own ideas, and I would challenge anyone to do the same to my interpretations.

The Bible has many differing layers of meanings. With out challenge and discussion how can any of us come to a better understanding?

So basically you are claiming what all of you christians claim.
The bible can mean whatever you want it to mean and not what anyone else says it means.
That is an unchanged christian mantra.

Different interpretations is very different than Atheist saying the Bible doesn't say Jesus was a real person and then 2 chapters earlier it specifically says Jesus walked on Earth before he died.

You can try to wrap this under an umbrella emblazoned with "one interpretation and mine is right". but that would be wrong. I am saying investigate and come up with an interpretation that is factual, linguistically sound, coherent, and answers contradictory verses.

I'm advocating following good methodology like considering the audience and time.

Error 7# When a proper refutation of the argument is not possible, the Atheist will then resort to restating the argument in a very derisive over generalization and say that is the christian argument. Notice how this Atheist troll said I was saying "So basically... The bible can mean whatever you want it to mean and not what anyone else says it means."

And yet where in my OP did I say the bible says X. I gave examples so others would know better how to avoid those errors. This is vastly different than the "rephrasing" of all my arguments into 2 sentences.

Are you enjoying your interaction with the troll? Being deliberately misquoted? Being insulted left and right? Having ignorance and swaggering dishonesty devoid of anything other than craven disagreement thrown in your face?

Apparently things can only have one meaning. So these guys haven't learned anything from Aesop or Shakespeare, or Hawthorne, or Emerson?

I'm not change subjects and defend a rather mundane and common practice of imagery and parables, among authors of every age and style?

No, I do not enjoy what appears to me, to be the deliberate derailing and militant Atheist actions to frustrate and obscure the rightful exposure of their lies.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 9:21:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Error 1: Atheist tend to quote things out of context. When given a verse I suggest finding a translation you understand and read the entire chapter or book cited. Always try to find out 1# who is saying the verse. 2# who they are saying it to 3# what the words meant in that time period.

This error is not exclusive to atheists.

Those 3 things are basic to understanding ANY ancient manuscript not just the Bible. In addition to that keep in mind that languages are not translated word for word. They are translated context to context. So a translation is NEVER as accurate as the original language.

Take for instance some Atheist will claim that Christians thought of Jesus as a heavenly body and not a real mortal person. They will use verses that describe Jesus in a heavenly state. Some verses maybe Hebrews 14:4 or Hebrews 8:4. Ignoring that a chapter long before these was Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death". Clearly stating by the same author, Jesus was on Earth.

Many times you can completely show this Atheist tactic for false by reading ahead or behind their quoted verse.

Error 2# Some Atheist will claim the Bible is from the 4th century. Makes some think the Bible is 400 years after Christ. But the 4th century is the years AD 301 to 400. Jesus' Death is estimated to be AD 30-36.

That should not be an error. Ignorance on the part of the listener/reader does not constitue an error in a statement of fact about the council of Nicaea and when it actually met.

What is being referred to is the First Council of Nicaea. It was the first time the writings that the Churches had been using were collated and bound to be an official Bible of the kingdom. The kingdom of Roman Emperor Constantine 1. There are many "BIBLES". They are compilations of letters and gospels. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The material contained in these different bibles are the manuscripts titled "Mathew", "Mark" etc... Some Bibles have a different collection of manuscripts. The important FACT to remember is that this Atheist phrase is not to be misunderstood as being the writing of "Mathew" or "Mark" or any biblical manuscript AT ALL.

Error 3# We have no original manuscripts from the time of Jesus. This is not an error. But we should keep in mind some context. Out of all of the writings, from all of the world from Rome to Judea, of any Jew, Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, etc... All the original manuscripts we have put side by side would fill a bookshelf no bigger than a common desk.

This should not be an error, either. We don't have the original manuscripts.

There have been fires and riots and wars, that have destroyed a lot of ancient works. The study of historical documents is not like digging up fossils, or conducting experiments in a lab. It is quite literally mostly on hearsay. The same contentions about the Gospels being 1st century can be applied to many other ancient writers, of and before, Jesus' time.

The reliability of each manuscript is different. The accuracy to the dating and the study of each one is different.

Error 4# Atheist enjoy to grab a verse and then tell others how that verse is to be interpreted. This is accomplished by a mixture of the previous "Errors". They will take a verse out of context, most times from an already hard to understand source such as the KIng James Version. They then apply a Modern Present Day understanding of the word to the verse. Such as the verses where the KJV has been translated as "unicorn". The KJV is an Old English translation of a Vulgate Latin translation of a Greek Translation of a Hebrew Torah. The "telephone" effect some Atheist ascribe to the Bible is of their own doing. If they went back to the source, Hebrew Torah, they would find good evidence that the animal described (Re'em) is probably more accurately describing An Ox, or a Rhinoceros. The "unicorn" translation coming from the Latin words that, to this day is used in the Species Name of the Indian Rhinoceros.

This is not an error exclusive to atheists.

Error 5# Bible interpretation, like everything else, is disputed among different people. And it is okay to have a position about a bible verse, if you can support it with scripture. The errors I have shown so far are for informational purposes. And generally speaking if person A says, "Bible verse X means Y" and then 2 verse later the bible in another verse says "Y is not what X means" then maybe Person A should stop using the same verses. But too often you see Atheist spew the same stuff in different threads and not answer or reply to the others about the disconnect. The Atheist is happy to say the same thing even when it is shown to be wrong. And yet they claim they know the bible better then Theist.

Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.

It is always a good idea to try to understand the Bible yourself, but when you get stumped you should rely on a good commentary. Biblical scholars are a good source as well, but be aware there can be a great contrast between the intepretation of conservative and liberal scholars.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 10:30:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It seems that there is the system of belief, and then there is the manipulation of people"s perception of that system of belief. Usually for self-serving purposes. Happens all the time in religion, or even nation"s philosophies and or agreements like the Constitution of the US for example.

Back in the day people who were grouping together and claiming and believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Messiah according to Hebrew scripture was called "Christians" . That"s in the neighborhood of 1900 yr"s ago. A lot has happened since then.

So are we in the context of interpretation of scripture saying fulfillment in Christ according to scripture? Or are we saying fulfillment of scripture according to Christ? Because in the true context of the subject of interpretation of scripture, it revolves around Christ. Even in the Christian community there is man"s view of scripture. It"s called theology. Theology is of men, actually no different then an atheist"s attempt to understand or interpret scripture for others. The only difference is one denies, and the other don"t deny, but neither know. If anyone honestly reads the scripture for what the context is, its simply a documentation of the Lord God"s revelations and Word"s and relationship with the writers thereof that are mostly of Abraham. That is not to exclude the work of scribes and the like who witnessed these things and documented them.

But those who think to interpret disregard God"s revelation. The true interpretation of scripture is Jesus Christ and that is because He fulfilled it, and or is the fulfillment thereof. Hence there is no need for the views of men, when the only view that counts in the case of the Bible is the Lord"s view. Especially within the Christian community, but when expressing that view that is of the Lord to those one could say outside of that belief, it seems the only way they can believe or understand is that the Lord God reveal that to them. All we who do believe can do is accommodate the honest questioning thereof.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 10:42:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 8:07:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:55:12 AM, bulproof wrote:
@ debateuser wrote
............. Matthew 25:41King James Version (KJV)

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

https://www.biblegateway.com......

@ Mhyk wrote
That verse is from Revelations. Hell has NOT been created yet. It is prophesied to be created.

Yes be very careful who you believe when they quote the bible.

Are you and Debate so stupid?

"created" - the -ed suffix means past tense. As in it has already happened.
Oh now I see.

"created" - the -ed suffix means past tense. As in it has already happened.
Is past tense.

So I guess this is past tense as well.

And look it says it was prepared FOR good ole devil and his mates.

I guess satan didn't prepare it after all.
prepared for the devil and his angels:

Now let's see you tell us that satan and the devil are different.

That is the most common deistic argument, isn't it?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 12:32:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Error 1: Atheist tend to quote things out of context. When given a verse I suggest finding a translation you understand and read the entire chapter or book cited. Always try to find out 1# who is saying the verse. 2# who they are saying it to 3# what the words meant in that time period.

Sound advice. Where are the original documents (by the author's own hand), so that these three simple steps may be followed?

Those 3 things are basic to understanding ANY ancient manuscript not just the Bible. In addition to that keep in mind that languages are not translated word for word. They are translated context to context. So a translation is NEVER as accurate as the original language.

So, then, the bible is not an accurate account of the original documents...? Again, please show us where we may find gawd's true words, by the original, "inspired" authors.

Take for instance some Atheist will claim that Christians thought of Jesus as a heavenly body and not a real mortal person. They will use verses that describe Jesus in a heavenly state. Some verses maybe Hebrews 14:4 or Hebrews 8:4. Ignoring that a chapter long before these was Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death". Clearly stating by the same author, Jesus was on Earth.

OK, so the jeebus was on earth. Can you produce one single original manuscript that directly quotes the jeebus? Is there a single, eye-witness account of anything the jeebus said or did? One? Just one, please.

Many times you can completely show this Atheist tactic for false by reading ahead or behind their quoted verse.

Nice generalization, there. Aren't you one of the ones that gets angry when the opposition uses the same generalization, and then makes an accusation of not really understanding theism?

Error 2# Some Atheist will claim the Bible is from the 4th century. Makes some think the Bible is 400 years after Christ. But the 4th century is the years AD 301 to 400. Jesus' Death is estimated to be AD 30-36.

And this rebuts what, exactly? That vote was performed by a bunch of stuffy, pompous, hypocritical degenerates that later proved their delight in causing human suffering for the sake of their own power and authority.

What is being referred to is the First Council of Nicaea. It was the first time the writings that the Churches had been using were collated and bound to be an official Bible of the kingdom. The kingdom of Roman Emperor Constantine 1. There are many "BIBLES". They are compilations of letters and gospels. http://en.wikipedia.org...

See previous entry, as intro:
All of the voting that took place was an act of absolute pomposity, believing themselves to be qualified to be final arbiters on that which the western world was to accept and espouse, on their say-so, with respect to their spiritual beliefs. There was no "bible" prior to the council of nicea. There was no rationality, after.

The material contained in these different bibles are the manuscripts titled "Mathew", "Mark" etc... Some Bibles have a different collection of manuscripts. The important FACT to remember is that this Atheist phrase is not to be misunderstood as being the writing of "Mathew" or "Mark" or any biblical manuscript AT ALL.

You're not really being as slick as you think you are. Who wrote it is virtually irrelevant. The only way it would become relevant is if it actually contained some direct quote of the jeebus, from one who actually knew him.

Error 3# We have no original manuscripts from the time of Jesus. This is not an error. But we should keep in mind some context. Out of all of the writings, from all of the world from Rome to Judea, of any Jew, Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, etc... All the original manuscripts we have put side by side would fill a bookshelf no bigger than a common desk.

We have no original manuscripts, of any kind, of a single book of the bible. And in that entire "common desk" to which you refer, not of bit of it is relevant to that to which theists lay claim: sole and exclusive arbiter rights to "objective morality," which does not exist.

There have been fires and riots and wars, that have destroyed a lot of ancient works. The study of historical documents is not like digging up fossils, or conducting experiments in a lab. It is quite literally mostly on hearsay. The same contentions about the Gospels being 1st century can be applied to many other ancient writers, of and before, Jesus' time.

The fires and riots and wars are largely comprised of religious motivations. The "other writings" to which you refer... Do they allude to claims of divinity, as well? Are there foundations for religious movements surrounding the "salvation" of the world?

The reliability of each manuscript is different. The accuracy to the dating and the study of each one is different.

And?

Error 4# Atheist enjoy to grab a verse and then tell others how that verse is to be interpreted. This is accomplished by a mixture of the previous "Errors". They will take a verse out of context, most times from an already hard to understand source such as the KIng James Version. They then apply a Modern Present Day understanding of the word to the verse. Such as the verses where the KJV has been translated as "unicorn". The KJV is an Old English translation of a Vulgate Latin translation of a Greek Translation of a Hebrew Torah. The "telephone" effect some Atheist ascribe to the Bible is of their own doing. If they went back to the source, Hebrew Torah, they would find good evidence that the animal described (Re'em) is probably more accurately describing An Ox, or a Rhinoceros. The "unicorn" translation coming from the Latin words that, to this day is used in the Species Name of the Indian Rhinoceros.

Wow... what a disingenuous attempt at sleight of hand...

Error 5# Bible interpretation, like everything else, is disputed among different people. And it is okay to have a position about a bible verse, if you can support it with scripture. The errors I have shown so far are for informational purposes. And generally speaking if person A says, "Bible verse X means Y" and then 2 verse later the bible in another verse says "Y is not what X means" then maybe Person A should stop using the same verses. But too often you see Atheist spew the same stuff in different threads and not answer or reply to the others about the disconnect. The Atheist is happy to say the same thing even when it is shown to be wrong. And yet they claim they know the bible better then Theist.

You have not shown any "errors," so far. An atheist will continue to state the same thing, long after the theist has "interpreted" something, differently, yes. The fact that a theist would prefer to interpret something in a different way does not automatically make the atheist (or agnostic) wrong. That's something you seem to fail to grasp, pretty regularly.

Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.

Essentially, your entire post could have been summed up with the following:

Don't concern yourself with atheist points, accurate or inaccurate. Interpret in a manner consistent with your desired beliefs, and use "context." Keep the faith.

Everything else was simply anti-atheistic diatribe.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 3:00:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 12:32:43 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


What is being referred to is the First Council of Nicaea. It was the first time the writings that the Churches had been using were collated and bound to be an official Bible of the kingdom. The kingdom of Roman Emperor Constantine 1. There are many "BIBLES". They are compilations of letters and gospels. http://en.wikipedia.org...

See previous entry, as intro:
All of the voting that took place was an act of absolute pomposity, believing themselves to be qualified to be final arbiters on that which the western world was to accept and espouse, on their say-so, with respect to their spiritual beliefs. There was no "bible" prior to the council of nicea. There was no rationality, after.

The material contained in these different bibles are the manuscripts titled "Mathew", "Mark" etc... Some Bibles have a different collection of manuscripts. The important FACT to remember is that this Atheist phrase is not to be misunderstood as being the writing of "Mathew" or "Mark" or any biblical manuscript AT ALL.

You're not really being as slick as you think you are. Who wrote it is virtually irrelevant. The only way it would become relevant is if it actually contained some direct quote of the jeebus, from one who actually knew him.

Error 3# We have no original manuscripts from the time of Jesus. This is not an error. But we should keep in mind some context. Out of all of the writings, from all of the world from Rome to Judea, of any Jew, Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, etc... All the original manuscripts we have put side by side would fill a bookshelf no bigger than a common desk.

We have no original manuscripts, of any kind, of a single book of the bible. And in that entire "common desk" to which you refer, not of bit of it is relevant to that to which theists lay claim: sole and exclusive arbiter rights to "objective morality," which does not exist.

There have been fires and riots and wars, that have destroyed a lot of ancient works. The study of historical documents is not like digging up fossils, or conducting experiments in a lab. It is quite literally mostly on hearsay. The same contentions about the Gospels being 1st century can be applied to many other ancient writers, of and before, Jesus' time.

The fires and riots and wars are largely comprised of religious motivations. The "other writings" to which you refer... Do they allude to claims of divinity, as well? Are there foundations for religious movements surrounding the "salvation" of the world?

The reliability of each manuscript is different. The accuracy to the dating and the study of each one is different.

And?

Error 4# Atheist ..

Wow... what a disingenuous attempt at sleight of hand...

Error 5# Bible interpretation, like everything else, is disputed among different people. And it is okay to have a position about a bible verse, if you can support it with scripture. The errors I have shown so far are for informational purposes. And generally speaking if person A says, "Bible verse X means Y" and then 2 verse later the bible in another verse says "Y is not what X means" then maybe Person A should stop using the same verses. But too often you see Atheist spew the same stuff in different threads and not answer or reply to the others about the disconnect. The Atheist is happy to say the same thing even when it is shown to be wrong. And yet they claim they know the bible better then Theist.

You have not shown any "errors," so far. An atheist will continue to state the same thing, long after the theist has "interpreted" something, differently, yes. The fact that a theist would prefer to interpret something in a different way does not automatically make the atheist (or agnostic) wrong. That's something you seem to fail to grasp, pretty regularly.

Don't fall for these ploys. Too often what an Atheist says about the Bible or the verse in it, are often skin deep and easily refuted in less than 5 minutes worth of reading.

Essentially, your entire post could have been summed up with the following:

Don't concern yourself with atheist points, accurate or inaccurate. Interpret in a manner consistent with your desired beliefs, and use "context." Keep the faith.

Well no I am not saying "don't be concerned about Atheist bible points." I am saying do not be fooled by these Atheist lines and here is why... then I list the Errors. I say do not be fooled because Atheist use the same lines, do not respond to contrary evidence, espouse to be literate in all things biblical, and generally their interpretations are blatantly false and misleading.

I see there is a trend, I probably should have used a different word than "Error".

Some Atheist are misconstruing this to mean I advocate a blanket rejection of Atheist biblical points or that the Atheist interpretations of the Bible are always wrong. I am not advocating that.

Seen this lately on the forums. Hebrews 8:4 verse, "If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law." Is being used as support for the premise that Jesus, according to the writer of Hebrews, was never mortal or on earth.

That can be ones position. But when the verse Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death" comes to light. That is directly refuting the Atheist position, and in one verse states Jesus being mortal and on Earth.

To not answer for Hebrews 5:7 and continue to throw Hebrews 8:4 around is dishonest. There is no way around that. If I say cameras picked up Sally robbing the liquor store, and cameras in the area show Bob did it, I have an explanation to why that is, or not use the cameras as evidence for my case any more.

That is very different than an Atheist reads a verse determines it is talking about X and most Christians agree it is talking about Y. That is a difference that without further investigation is most likely an opinion. But the former situation is Atheist Deception and Dishonesty.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 4:45:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 3:00:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Essentially, your entire post could have been summed up with the following:

Don't concern yourself with atheist points, accurate or inaccurate. Interpret in a manner consistent with your desired beliefs, and use "context." Keep the faith.

Well no I am not saying "don't be concerned about Atheist bible points." I am saying do not be fooled by these Atheist lines and here is why... then I list the Errors. I say do not be fooled because Atheist use the same lines, do not respond to contrary evidence, espouse to be literate in all things biblical, and generally their interpretations are blatantly false and misleading.

No, you listed your perception of what you assume to be errors. You see, atheists/agnostics aren't trying to "fool" anyone. We leave that type of behavior to the clergy. I've seen you regularly criticize atheists/agnostics for using the misnomer that "theists do this" and "theists always say..." as a criticism of blanketing a judgment. You are correct in the criticism. It is no more accurate when "theists" is replaced with "atheists." Further, I don't grant one "interpretation" of the bible as any more valid than any other. That book is useless to humanity.

I see there is a trend, I probably should have used a different word than "Error".

Yes, you probably should have...

Some Atheist are misconstruing this to mean I advocate a blanket rejection of Atheist biblical points or that the Atheist interpretations of the Bible are always wrong. I am not advocating that.

You sure seemed to have done so, in many threads I have read (and participated).

Seen this lately on the forums. Hebrews 8:4 verse, "If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law." Is being used as support for the premise that Jesus, according to the writer of Hebrews, was never mortal or on earth.

Yes, I've read the thread. You see, since so much of the bible is "subjective" with respect to "interpretation," it becomes meaningless. Further, there is an equal trend easily visible of using "context" or "cultural meaning" when dismissing an apparent contradiction or discord with reality. However, when christians want to pass legislation based on their beliefs (like Prop. 8, in California), the matter is not open to interpretation... it must be literal.

What does the word "abomination" mean? What did it mean to ancient Israel? In ancient Israel, the term "abomination" referred to anything that went contrary to tradition or cultural norms. A little while down the historical line, it also went against "tradition" and "cultural norms" to think of the world as anything other than flat. Who do you think pushed Prop 8 through California's legislature? Atheists? Agnostics? No, it was christians. This is the end result of allowing "interpretation" of morality in the hands of the religious: Someone else's life is always restricted. On the other hand, what happens when a motion is made to remove "under gawd" from our pledge and "in gawd we trust" from our currency? All of a sudden we are attacking "religious freedom." Quite frankly, I don't care how anyone interprets any portion of the bible. Just keep that piece of 5h!t manuscript out of our legislation and out of our institutions of learning. There is nothing in that book that has ever improved anyone's life that could not have been learned, had it never existed.

That can be ones position. But when the verse Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death" comes to light. That is directly refuting the Atheist position, and in one verse states Jesus being mortal and on Earth.

I don't really care about the jeebus. I don't care whether that book calls him "gawd," a "priest," or just a really kewl dood with some good insight. The religions that have been based upon it have wrought more harm and atrocity on this planet than any benefit. That book (collection of books) is toxic. Knowing it well is the only way we have a chance of eradicating its influence. This is a moral imperative for any rational creature.

To not answer for Hebrews 5:7 and continue to throw Hebrews 8:4 around is dishonest. There is no way around that. If I say cameras picked up Sally robbing the liquor store, and cameras in the area show Bob did it, I have an explanation to why that is, or not use the cameras as evidence for my case any more.

That is very different than an Atheist reads a verse determines it is talking about X and most Christians agree it is talking about Y. That is a difference that without further investigation is most likely an opinion. But the former situation is Atheist Deception and Dishonesty.

I'm sorry... did you just state "Atheist Deception and Dishonesty?" Take a look at the tap root of the intellectual cancer known as christianity: the catholic church. Take a good, long, hard look. Once you have, I defy you to use the terms "deception" and "dishonesty" with even a semblance of the moral indignation that came through in this post. It's utterly vomitous how hypocritical christianity can be while, at the same time, holding itself as the final and valid arbiter of "morality" and the definition of "goodness."

The stench of disingenuous "wounded puppy" martyrdom that emanates from this post is more aptly attributable to the neutered one. You've truly outdone yourself, this time, Mhykiel.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 6:42:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 4:45:11 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/7/2014 3:00:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Essentially, your entire post could have been summed up with the following:

Don't concern yourself with atheist points, accurate or inaccurate. Interpret in a manner consistent with your desired beliefs, and use "context." Keep the faith.

Well no I am not saying "don't be concerned about Atheist bible points." I am saying do not be fooled by these Atheist lines and here is why... then I list the Errors. I say do not be fooled because Atheist use the same lines, do not respond to contrary evidence, espouse to be literate in all things biblical, and generally their interpretations are blatantly false and misleading.

No, you listed your perception of what you assume to be errors. You see, atheists/agnostics aren't trying to "fool" anyone. We leave that type of behavior to the clergy. I've seen you regularly criticize atheists/agnostics for using the misnomer that "theists do this" and "theists always say..." as a criticism of blanketing a judgment. You are correct in the criticism. It is no more accurate when "theists" is replaced with "atheists." Further, I don't grant one "interpretation" of the bible as any more valid than any other. That book is useless to humanity.

I see there is a trend, I probably should have used a different word than "Error".

Yes, you probably should have...

Some Atheist are misconstruing this to mean I advocate a blanket rejection of Atheist biblical points or that the Atheist interpretations of the Bible are always wrong. I am not advocating that.

You sure seemed to have done so, in many threads I have read (and participated).

Seen this lately on the forums. Hebrews 8:4 verse, "If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law." Is being used as support for the premise that Jesus, according to the writer of Hebrews, was never mortal or on earth.

Yes, I've read the thread. You see, since so much of the bible is "subjective" with respect to "interpretation," it becomes meaningless. Further, there is an equal trend easily visible of using "context" or "cultural meaning" when dismissing an apparent contradiction or discord with reality. However, when christians want to pass legislation based on their beliefs (like Prop. 8, in California), the matter is not open to interpretation... it must be literal.

What does the word "abomination" mean? What did it mean to ancient Israel? In ancient Israel, the term "abomination" referred to anything that went contrary to tradition or cultural norms. A little while down the historical line, it also went against "tradition" and "cultural norms" to think of the world as anything other than flat. Who do you think pushed Prop 8 through California's legislature? Atheists? Agnostics? No, it was christians. This is the end result of allowing "interpretation" of morality in the hands of the religious: Someone else's life is always restricted. On the other hand, what happens when a motion is made to remove "under gawd" from our pledge and "in gawd we trust" from our currency? All of a sudden we are attacking "religious freedom." Quite frankly, I don't care how anyone interprets any portion of the bible. Just keep that piece of 5h!t manuscript out of our legislation and out of our institutions of learning. There is nothing in that book that has ever improved anyone's life that could not have been learned, had it never existed.

That can be ones position. But when the verse Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death" comes to light. That is directly refuting the Atheist position, and in one verse states Jesus being mortal and on Earth.

I don't really care about the jeebus. I don't care whether that book calls him "gawd," a "priest," or just a really kewl dood with some good insight. The religions that have been based upon it have wrought more harm and atrocity on this planet than any benefit. That book (collection of books) is toxic. Knowing it well is the only way we have a chance of eradicating its influence. This is a moral imperative for any rational creature.

To not answer for Hebrews 5:7 and continue to throw Hebrews 8:4 around is dishonest. There is no way around that. If I say cameras picked up Sally robbing the liquor store, and cameras in the area show Bob did it, I have an explanation to why that is, or not use the cameras as evidence for my case any more.

That is very different than an Atheist reads a verse determines it is talking about X and most Christians agree it is talking about Y. That is a difference that without further investigation is most likely an opinion. But the former situation is Atheist Deception and Dishonesty.

I'm sorry... did you just state "Atheist Deception and Dishonesty?" Take a look at the tap root of the intellectual cancer known as christianity: the catholic church. Take a good, long, hard look. Once you have, I defy you to use the terms "deception" and "dishonesty" with even a semblance of the moral indignation that came through in this post. It's utterly vomitous how hypocritical christianity can be while, at the same time, holding itself as the final and valid arbiter of "morality" and the definition of "goodness."

The stench of disingenuous "wounded puppy" martyrdom that emanates from this post is more aptly attributable to the neutered one. You've truly outdone yourself, this time, Mhykiel.

Have you read the thread about me converting to Atheism. I thought that was me outdoing myself.

This really is a thread to educate people on validating Interpretations of manuscripts.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 10:23:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 6:42:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
This really is a thread to educate people on validating Interpretations of manuscripts.
IF you make the claim to be a genuine bible Story book believer then according to 1 John 3:6, 8 you ' claim ' to believe applies to clowns like you, then you are accordingly in fact a fraud and jebus reject!

Hence your comments are those of a jebus' reject, and thus your supposed credibility in tatters at my feet!

Conversely I remain your vindicated Mentor & benevolent Saviour!

QED

Much much better luck next times should you wish to try your luck again!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 10:43:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 10:23:56 PM, Composer wrote:
At 7/8/2014 6:42:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
This really is a thread to educate people on validating Interpretations of manuscripts.
IF you make the claim to be a genuine bible Story book believer then according to 1 John 3:6, 8 you ' claim ' to believe applies to clowns like you, then you are accordingly in fact a fraud and jebus reject!


What does 1 John 3:6 have to do with anything I have said?

Hence your comments are those of a jebus' reject, and thus your supposed credibility in tatters at my feet!


Most of this can be applied to evaluating other ancient works as well. Like the works of Greek philosophers.

Conversely I remain your vindicated Mentor & benevolent Saviour!


You remain what you. Nothing to me.

QED

Much much better luck next times should you wish to try your luck again!