Total Posts:132|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Biblical Misinterpretation

matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 7:36:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

Who's saying that God wrote the Bible?
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 7:39:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 7:36:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

Who's saying that God wrote the Bible?

Christianity makes that claim. They call it divine revelation.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 8:02:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 7:39:42 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:36:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

Who's saying that God wrote the Bible?

Christianity makes that claim. They call it divine revelation.

Christianity does not make that claim, nor does the Bible, and that is not what divine revelation means.
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 8:10:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 8:02:06 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:39:42 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:36:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

Who's saying that God wrote the Bible?

Christianity makes that claim. They call it divine revelation.

Christianity does not make that claim, nor does the Bible, and that is not what divine revelation means.

Actually, it does make that claim. https://lifehopeandtruth.com...

If it didn't, then how would they claim that the Bible is superior to Dianetics, The Book of Mormon, etc.

Basically, you are saying that the Bible is equal to anything anyone has ever written about religion, no matter how ridiculous it seems.
Omniverse
Posts: 1,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 8:14:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 8:02:06 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:39:42 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:36:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

Who's saying that God wrote the Bible?

Christianity makes that claim. They call it divine revelation.

Christianity does not make that claim, nor does the Bible, and that is not what divine revelation means.

More obfuscation.

Most of mainstream Christianity certainly claims God is the author of the Bible. Christianity claims God inspired men to write it down and, commonly, a metaphor is used to describe what allegedly happened: a businessman dictating a letter to his secretary.

For all intents and purposes, to those holding to those views, God did write the bible.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 8:22:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 8:10:29 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:02:06 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:39:42 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:36:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

Who's saying that God wrote the Bible?

Christianity makes that claim. They call it divine revelation.

Christianity does not make that claim, nor does the Bible, and that is not what divine revelation means.

Actually, it does make that claim. https://lifehopeandtruth.com...

It only claims to be spiritually useful. It does not claim that God wrote it dictated it to the scribes to write.

If it didn't, then how would they claim that the Bible is superior to Dianetics, The Book of Mormon, etc.

No one is claiming that. What 'believers' claim is that they believe in the theological concepts and propositions that they find within the biblical texts while they do not believe in the theological concepts and propositions made by other religious texts.

It's sad that given the grotesque perversion of honesty and common sense that 'biblioloatry' is, that this is the best complaint you could muster. If you want to attack religious Christianity and it's propensity for making a false idol of the Bible I can fully understand. But at least do it honestly, and with some intellectual dignity. This thread is just pathetic.
Omniverse
Posts: 1,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 8:28:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 8:22:01 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:10:29 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:02:06 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:39:42 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:36:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

Who's saying that God wrote the Bible?

Christianity makes that claim. They call it divine revelation.

Christianity does not make that claim, nor does the Bible, and that is not what divine revelation means.

Actually, it does make that claim. https://lifehopeandtruth.com...

It only claims to be spiritually useful. It does not claim that God wrote it dictated it to the scribes to write.

Thar is is the orthodox Christian view, whether you like it or not.


If it didn't, then how would they claim that the Bible is superior to Dianetics, The Book of Mormon, etc.

No one is claiming that. What 'believers' claim

Believers, Christians included, claim lots of different things. The core of Christianity, however, claims God is the author of the bible.
The fact you don't seem to like it is immaterial.

is that they believe in the theological concepts and propositions that they find within the biblical texts while they do not believe in the theological concepts and propositions made by other religious texts.

I hear Subway is hiring.


It's sad that given the grotesque perversion of honesty and common sense that 'biblioloatry' is,

You've never identified openly as a Christian, not to my knowledge, at least.
Moist Christians tend to disagree with you.

that this is the best complaint you could muster. If you want to attack religious Christianity and it's propensity for making a false idol of the Bible I can fully understand. But at least do it honestly, and with some intellectual dignity. This thread is just pathetic.

No.
What might be perceived as pathetic is the zeal with which you constantly obfuscate and walk around as though you're doing the world a favour.
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 8:38:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 8:22:01 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:10:29 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:02:06 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:39:42 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:36:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

Who's saying that God wrote the Bible?

Christianity makes that claim. They call it divine revelation.

Christianity does not make that claim, nor does the Bible, and that is not what divine revelation means.

Actually, it does make that claim. https://lifehopeandtruth.com...

It only claims to be spiritually useful. It does not claim that God wrote it dictated it to the scribes to write.

If it didn't, then how would they claim that the Bible is superior to Dianetics, The Book of Mormon, etc.

No one is claiming that. What 'believers' claim is that they believe in the theological concepts and propositions that they find within the biblical texts while they do not believe in the theological concepts and propositions made by other religious texts.

It's sad that given the grotesque perversion of honesty and common sense that 'biblioloatry' is, that this is the best complaint you could muster. If you want to attack religious Christianity and it's propensity for making a false idol of the Bible I can fully understand. But at least do it honestly, and with some intellectual dignity. This thread is just pathetic.

Try going into any church and tell people there that God didn't write the bible or that the bible isn't perfect and see what they say.

Since you think that the Bible is just written by men who make mistakes, do you think the Book of Mormon is as reliable as the Bible? Why or why not?
Omniverse
Posts: 1,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 8:40:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

Indeed.
The bible is, at the very least, a spectacular failure of communication. Notice that theological divergences between Christians who regard the Bible as the word of god are not restricted to trifle. Here's an incomplete list of what they wouldn't be able to agree on even if to save their lives:

1. The nature of God. Is God one or triune?
2. The ontology of Jesus. The nature the Holy spirit.
3. The nature of heaven.
4. The nature of hell.
5. God's prescience.
6. The nature of salvation.
7. Predestination.
8. What is the sin against the Holy Spirit, which cannot and won't be forgiven?
9. What parts of the Bible are meant to be read as metaphors and allegories, which are to be taken literally? What history shows is as knowledge progresses, the parts meant to be read figuratively tend to expand.
10. The relationship between OT and NT.
11. The nature of the resurrection.
12. Eschatology.
13. Is there such a thing as the one true Christian church?
14. Apostasy and ecumenism.
15. The biblical cannon itself.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 8:47:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 8:28:48 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:22:01 PM, PureX wrote:


It's sad that given the grotesque perversion of honesty and common sense that 'biblioloatry' is,

You've never identified openly as a Christian, not to my knowledge, at least.
Moist Christians tend to disagree with you.

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools. And Catholics make up the biggest Christian sect on the planet. Yet I was never taught that God wrote the Bible, nor that it was "inerrant" because God dictated the text to the various authors.

If you want to attack biblical idolatry within religious Christianity, I'm right with you. But you need to be honest and informed about it if you want to achieve anything besides stroking your own ignorance and ego.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 8:59:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 8:38:51 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:22:01 PM, PureX wrote:

It's sad that given the grotesque perversion of honesty and common sense that 'biblioloatry' is, that this is the best complaint you could muster. If you want to attack religious Christianity and it's propensity for making a false idol of the Bible I can fully understand. But at least do it honestly, and with some intellectual dignity. This thread is just pathetic.

Try going into any church and tell people there that God didn't write the bible or that the bible isn't perfect and see what they say.

Well, I've been in both Catholic and Lutheran churches, and around their members, and I've seen that some practiced this idolatry and some didn't. I think you're confusing those who accept the text as spiritually authoritative are their assuming that God wrote it, and that it is "inerrant".

Since you think that the Bible is just written by men who make mistakes, do you think the Book of Mormon is as reliable as the Bible? Why or why not?

I really don't care that much about either of them because I'm capable of determining my own god-concepts.
Omniverse
Posts: 1,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 9:02:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 8:47:29 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:28:48 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:22:01 PM, PureX wrote:


It's sad that given the grotesque perversion of honesty and common sense that 'biblioloatry' is,

You've never identified openly as a Christian, not to my knowledge, at least.
Most Christians tend to disagree with you.

I was raised Catholic

You're not unique in that regard.

and went to Catholic schools. And Catholics make up the biggest Christian sect on the planet. Yet I was never taught that God wrote the Bible, nor that it was "inerrant" because God dictated the text to the various authors.

This just tells me you don't really know the denomination in question. "Spanish hostel" comes to mind. Catholicism might be something of an irony, in that it is simultaneously one of the most centralized denominations, bureaucracy-wise, and one of the most plural in terms of views expressed, irrespective of what official doctrine teaches.

It's extremely superficial to merely allude to membership, especially in the case of the Catholic church. Once a catholic, always a catholic, for statistical purposes. You have to take initiative to stop being counted as one.


If you want to attack biblical idolatry within religious Christianity, I'm right with you. But you need to be honest and informed about it if you want to achieve anything besides stroking your own ignorance and ego.

Allow me to be just as candid: stroking your ego seems to be at the core of what you do here.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 9:36:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.


No, a work like the Bible is a very dynamic book which covers a lot of ground, naturally with such a dynamic book there are going to be disagreements. Maybe you don't understand how many people we are dealing with here....a large percentage of the known world has had some contact with the Bible. In other words it's a large audience reading a vastly covered document so it's going to happen. But....these are just disagreements, those are a dime a dozen welcome to humanity.
On the other hand there are those who are equipped to lend help in common sense. Like I keep telling you that Adam and Eve are representative of Mankind, and the "talking" serpent represents temptation or the weakness of the flesh nature that we all experience ect, these are the universal underlying principles and this is what makes it relevant.....yet you KEEP using the most absurd interpretation that a snake really talked literally and refuse to acknowledge what I say and you choose to only see in in that way.
Even if one were to believe the whole account to be literal it wouldn't matter much as long as the principles are understood, it's not the objects within the accounts that are the message is my point, and not al of scripture is figurative I'm just giving you an example.
So even when an interpretation is not being misrepresented you choose to misrepresent it, it's like a never ending cycle!
I believe it's possible for two people to read the Bible and agree on main points using common sense alone.
All the principles are in place, it does take a more spiritually intuitive person to some degree it appears to perceive such spiritual principles though, which is why it's in the hands of religion mainly.
The Bible is also a mixture of culture, opinions, traditions and all kinds of things mixed with it so you have to know what you're reading to some degree.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.


And yet the Bible is the most talked about, argued over, analyzed, scrutinized, read, discussed, debated book ever recorded, oh wait, what procedure did you write again lol?

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

I've understood the Bible since I was a kid, what's the problem? much of it is understood, and some of its misinterpretation is minor and in reality who cares? why is the interpretation of scripture such a hard problem for some atheists?
12_13
Posts: 2,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 9:39:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
...
Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

If I would read it like atheists read the Bible, I am sure I could find lot of contradictions and mistakes. Anything can be misunderstood, if person doesn"t want to understand.
Omniverse
Posts: 1,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 9:50:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 9:39:48 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
...
Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

If I would read it like atheists read the Bible, I am sure I could find lot of contradictions and mistakes. Anything can be misunderstood, if person doesn"t want to understand.

This is hilarious.
It is the countless Christians who earnestly read the bible who can't seem tor each a consensus on anything. *Anything*.

You take on the Dan Barker challenge regarding the synoptic gospels and then come back to me.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 9:05:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 9:36:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
why is the interpretation of scripture such a hard problem for some atheists?
Because I don't nee to pretend that it needs to be interpreted when the words are easily understood and the stories are patently untrue as written.
I don't need to equivocate over which words are true and therefore the word of god and which words are those of ignorant bronze age savages and then still claim that the whole book is the word of god.
Surely an all knowing all powerful god would know beforehand that his chosen essayist would not convey his message accurately and choose an essayist who would deliver his true message?
Omniverse
Posts: 1,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 9:40:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 9:36:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.


No, a work like the Bible is a very dynamic book which covers a lot of ground, naturally with such a dynamic book there are going to be disagreements.

Except that for this particular book, unlike other "dynamic" books, it's being claimed that it was inspired by God. I'm sure you'll acknowledge that should make a difference.

Maybe you don't understand how many people we are dealing with here....a large percentage of the known world has had some contact with the Bible. In other words it's a large audience reading a vastly covered document so it's going to happen.

Except that it is being claimed that its authorship is divine. It is also being claimed that it contains a message of vital importance for the whole of mankind.

None of that squares with how the text allows for such diverse and incompatible interpretations.

But....these are just disagreements, those are a dime a dozen welcome to humanity.

Except that in no other case(s) is the object of dispute a text of alleged divine origin.

On the other hand there are those who are equipped to lend help in common sense.

Infesting.
One of the characteristics of common sense is that no expertise is required to exert it.

Like I keep telling you that Adam and Eve are representative of Mankind,

And yet most of Christianity doesn't hold that view, including professional scholars and theologians. That view is also highly problematic from a theological standpoint. If Adam and Eve were representatives of mankind then that would mean that at some point in primitive (pre-)history the whole of mankind rejected God, as a monolithic block. It seems to me an extremely hard case to ague for. Additionally, let's also keep in mind that without original sin, there would be no need for vicarious redemption through Christ.

and the "talking" serpent represents temptation or the weakness of the flesh nature that we all experience ect, these are the universal underlying principles and this is what makes it relevant.....yet you KEEP using the most absurd interpretation that a snake really talked literally and refuse to acknowledge what I say and you choose to only see in in that way.

That's all fine and dandy. The question you're burdened with is how and why extremely intelligent people who've devoted their lives to trying to figure out the Bible have reached diametrically opposed views.

Even if one were to believe the whole account to be literal it wouldn't matter much as long as the principles are understood, it's not the objects within the accounts that are the message is my point, and not al of scripture is figurative I'm just giving you an example.

On the contrary, it would mean an awful lot. If the account is literal but recorded history shows it to be false, then one should not trust the account, even with regard to the spiritual wisdom it is said to contain.

So even when an interpretation is not being misrepresented you choose to misrepresent it, it's like a never ending cycle!

I don't get what you're trying to say here.

I believe it's possible for two people to read the Bible and agree on main points using common sense alone.

And the prevailing sectarianism among Christian denominations shows otherwise.

All the principles are in place, it does take a more spiritually intuitive person to some degree it appears to perceive such spiritual principles though, which is why it's in the hands of religion mainly.

And yet those who undergo the task can't seem to agree on what those pearls of spiritual wisdom are.

The Bible is also a mixture of culture, opinions, traditions and all kinds of things mixed with it so you have to know what you're reading to some degree.

How world you sort which from which?


I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.


And yet the Bible is the most talked about, argued over, analyzed, scrutinized, read, discussed, debated book ever recorded, oh wait, what procedure did you write again lol?

You're just making my case.


Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

I've understood the Bible since I was a kid,

Good for you.

what's the problem?

No problem. Just the possibility that you're an overachiever.

;much of it is understood, and some of its misinterpretation is minor and in reality who cares?

I do. They certainly do.
You don't. Is that supposed to be more relevant?

why is the interpretation of scripture such a hard problem for some atheists?

Because it strongly suggests the bible is not divinely inspired.
Looncall
Posts: 707
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 10:00:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

What else would you expect of a mishmash of campfire yarns, folk history, and tribal and religious propaganda?

The bible does not provide instructions, it provides excuses for its users to do as they please.

It is thought to be authoritative only because clergy have used it in their con games.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 11:26:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

The Bible is toiletpaper to be but I do wonder how clear your Standard Operating Procedure manuals will seem in about 2000 years after several translations and translations of those translations including the translation back into archaic English after the original works were lost.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 11:52:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 8:22:01 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:10:29 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:02:06 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:39:42 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:36:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

Who's saying that God wrote the Bible?

Christianity makes that claim. They call it divine revelation.

Christianity does not make that claim, nor does the Bible, and that is not what divine revelation means.

Actually, it does make that claim. https://lifehopeandtruth.com...

It only claims to be spiritually useful. It does not claim that God wrote it dictated it to the scribes to write.

If it didn't, then how would they claim that the Bible is superior to Dianetics, The Book of Mormon, etc.

No one is claiming that. What 'believers' claim is that they believe in the theological concepts and propositions that they find within the biblical texts while they do not believe in the theological concepts and propositions made by other religious texts.

It's sad that given the grotesque perversion of honesty and common sense that 'biblioloatry' is, that this is the best complaint you could muster. If you want to attack religious Christianity and it's propensity for making a false idol of the Bible I can fully understand. But at least do it honestly, and with some intellectual dignity. This thread is just pathetic.
Come on now. He was guilding the lily over the sheer hypocrisy of Christians who are forever concocting different ways of explaining away that the Bible is the word of God.

The authors of said book of absurdities were most likely inspired by the substances they consumed and capitalized on the profound superstitious nature of the folk in those days.

Nowadays, most people have an education and nobody but the gullible and naive would believe a single word of such tripe. The manuscript wouldn't even get passed the receptionist's desk of even the most radical publisher of science fiction comics before it meets the shredder.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 11:55:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 9:39:48 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
...
Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

If I would read it like atheists read the Bible, I am sure I could find lot of contradictions and mistakes. Anything can be misunderstood, if person doesn"t want to understand.

Yet the irony is that those who set out to understand the Bible have a thousand and one different ways of interpreting it.
jakabus
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 12:14:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

No, its clear... Satan is a great deceiver... every body is after a being instead of an operation or energy or system... everyone seeks a conscience being... instead of a conscience(?) systematic energy
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 2:18:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 8:47:29 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:28:48 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:22:01 PM, PureX wrote:


It's sad that given the grotesque perversion of honesty and common sense that 'biblioloatry' is,

You've never identified openly as a Christian, not to my knowledge, at least.
Moist Christians tend to disagree with you.

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools. And Catholics make up the biggest Christian sect on the planet. Yet I was never taught that God wrote the Bible, nor that it was "inerrant" because God dictated the text to the various authors.

If you want to attack biblical idolatry within religious Christianity, I'm right with you. But you need to be honest and informed about it if you want to achieve anything besides stroking your own ignorance and ego.

If you know the book is erroneous and unreliable, why is the book so valuable to you?
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 2:20:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 9:39:48 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
...
Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

If I would read it like atheists read the Bible, I am sure I could find lot of contradictions and mistakes. Anything can be misunderstood, if person doesn"t want to understand.

Yes, you probably would come to the same conclusion if you read it and utilized critical thinking at the same time.
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 2:25:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2017 11:26:43 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

The Bible is toiletpaper to be but I do wonder how clear your Standard Operating Procedure manuals will seem in about 2000 years after several translations and translations of those translations including the translation back into archaic English after the original works were lost.

They will be very clear if you use clear language. Nobody will argue whether it was literal or metaphorical because everything I wrote was literal. Why? To avoid misinterpretation. Very simple. There are many books, such as the ones written by Newton and Galileo, that are simple to understand and interpret exactly what they mean.
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 2:28:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2017 12:14:50 PM, jakabus wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

No, its clear... Satan is a great deceiver... every body is after a being instead of an operation or energy or system... everyone seeks a conscience being... instead of a conscience(?) systematic energy

If it was clear, there would be no debate about what the bible means. Surely, you don't deny there is debate.

If you were to read Plato or Aristotle, nobody wonders what they meant. It is clear because they are intelligent communicators.
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 2:35:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2017 8:22:01 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:10:29 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:02:06 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:39:42 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:36:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

Who's saying that God wrote the Bible?

Christianity makes that claim. They call it divine revelation.

Christianity does not make that claim, nor does the Bible, and that is not what divine revelation means.

Actually, it does make that claim. https://lifehopeandtruth.com...

It only claims to be spiritually useful. It does not claim that God wrote it dictated it to the scribes to write.

If it didn't, then how would they claim that the Bible is superior to Dianetics, The Book of Mormon, etc.

No one is claiming that. What 'believers' claim is that they believe in the theological concepts and propositions that they find within the biblical texts while they do not believe in the theological concepts and propositions made by other religious texts.

It's sad that given the grotesque perversion of honesty and common sense that 'biblioloatry' is, that this is the best complaint you could muster. If you want to attack religious Christianity and it's propensity for making a false idol of the Bible I can fully understand. But at least do it honestly, and with some intellectual dignity. This thread is just pathetic.

Sad, grotesque, honesty and common sense. Those are interesting words coming from someone that claims people should base their worldviews on a book that is admittedly full of errors and confusion at best. Furthermore, you admit that it was written by men that wrote whatever they wanted to at the time.

Where do you draw the line between helpful falsehoods and ridiculous lies? Why is the Bible more valuable than Dianetics to you?
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 2:37:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2017 12:14:50 PM, jakabus wrote:
At 5/28/2017 7:21:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what different parts of the Bible actually mean. This proves that God is an incompetent communicator.

I have written corporate Standard Operating Procedure manuals and there was no misinterpretation of the words I wrote. This is because I was careful that there was no room for misinterpretation.

Obviously, I am a far superior communicator than god. If I had been around the time the bible was written, I could have given god some advice on how to be more clear in his communication so that there would be no confusion or debate about what he meant.

No, its clear... Satan is a great deceiver... every body is after a being instead of an operation or energy or system... everyone seeks a conscience being... instead of a conscience(?) systematic energy

What is your evidence that Satan exists?

How is it relevant in determining what is true by evaluating what anyone seeks?
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 2:41:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2017 2:18:45 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:47:29 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:28:48 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 5/28/2017 8:22:01 PM, PureX wrote:


It's sad that given the grotesque perversion of honesty and common sense that 'biblioloatry' is,

You've never identified openly as a Christian, not to my knowledge, at least.
Moist Christians tend to disagree with you.

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools. And Catholics make up the biggest Christian sect on the planet. Yet I was never taught that God wrote the Bible, nor that it was "inerrant" because God dictated the text to the various authors.

If you want to attack biblical idolatry within religious Christianity, I'm right with you. But you need to be honest and informed about it if you want to achieve anything besides stroking your own ignorance and ego.

If you know the book is erroneous and unreliable, why is the book so valuable to you?

It's not, to me. I am not a religious Christian. But there is a difference between legitimate criticism of the text and how people interpret it, and anti-religious bigotry. And I'm seeing a lot of anti-religious bigotry on these threads pretending to be intellectual criticism.

I'm not defending the Bible because I am an enthusiast of biblical religion. I'm not. But neither am I an enthusiast of anti-religious bigotry masquerading as intellectual superiority.

I see religion as being a bit like drugs and alcohol. Most people can use it sparingly, and with some positive effect. But unfortunately, there is a significant number of people who become addicted to it, and in the process lose their sanity, their ability to relate to and function with others, and ultimately their self-will. And ignoring the distinctions between these two groups is just plain stupid and unproductive. And so is this constant attempt to denigrate and humiliate those who have succumbed.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.