Seriously, how many words are you going to argue the definition of? Now you're arguing the semantics of the word "could." Maybe you should just put your pride aside and admit that you "could" be wrong.Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Satchel
Do you not know what the word "could" mean?
It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.
Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?
Sleep now, I mean it.
No Christian accepts your definition of death, so why would you call it well-established? It's only well established as meaning that among people who don't believe in a resurrection. Seeing as we're discussing a Christian topic, your definition is irrelevant. If you wish to make an argument about a Christian topic, you'll have to stick to Christian vocabulary. Can't have it both ways.
As has been plainly stated several times, it is the separation from God, who is the creator of our spirits.
Only in your belief system, not in Christians. You can't use your beliefs to disprove mine. Doesn't work. If you wish to continue the argument, you're going to have to accept that what I said is true. Otherwise, you have absolutely not argument whatsoever.
Again, only to you.
It was an attempt to further help you understand what death really is. I see you completely ignored it, which is to be expected. The passage talked about death. You didn't understand how someone could be dead and still be alive. I gave you a perfect example, and yet you ignored it completely. Who'd have thought?
The sentence that declares that Adam will die is in Genesis 3:19. Prior to that time, he was immortal.
As for the spiritual death, that is just flat evident. Up until the end of Genesis chapter 3, Adam was able to converse with the Lord at any time. However, after being cast out of the garden, this was no longer the case. He had isolated himself from the Lord due to his sin, for no unclean thing can see God. Thus, we are separated from God due to our sin, thus experiencing, wait for it,.... spiritual death.
To all the Christians who believe in evolution or think it could possibly co-exist with the theory of evolution:
Don't compare the Bible to evolution to see how evolution fits in with the Bible , but rather compare evolution to the Bible and see if what evolution claims has any truth as compared to the absolute truth of the Bible. Always compare what man says to what God says, and not the other way around. The knowledge of man is fallible and incomplete, whereas the knowledge of God is not.
Evolution and the Bible are not compatible. Evolution says that man evolved over millions of years. The Bible, however, gives the entire lineage of man from Adam to Jesus, and even with the length of life being several hundred years for early man after the fall, the entire history of man is not more than several thousand years (~ 6,000 years) according to scripture. What God says in Genesis is that He created the entire world in 6 days, and on the 7th day He rested (by resting, He gave the nation of Israel the Sabbath day principle of 6 days of work, 7th day to rest- He did not want man to work for 6 million years, and rest on the 7th million). The Hebrew word there for day ("yowm") can mean period of time, but from the context and from the way it is used in other passages of scripture, it is clear that when the Bible says "day" it is referring to a single day-night period of time.
And like others have pointed out, it does not make sense for there to be such a gap between days, especially because of the interdependence of life (which most likely, even before the fall and death, was there). There is no reason to interpret either from Genesis 1, nor from other passages of scripture, that the earth was created in anything other than 6 days; don't try to accommodate evolution by adding to scripture or subjecting it to private interpretation.
Don't compare the Bible to evolution to see how evolution fits in with the Bible , but rather compare evolution to the Bible and see if what evolution claims has any truth as compared to the absolute truth of the Bible. Always compare what man says to what God says, and not the other way around. The knowledge of man is fallible and incomplete, whereas the knowledge of God is not.
Evolution and the Bible are not compatible. Evolution says that man evolved over millions of years. The Bible, however, gives the entire lineage of man from Adam to Jesus, and even with the length of life being several hundred years for early man after the fall, the entire history of man is not more than several thousand years (~ 6,000 years) according to scripture. What God says in Genesis is that He created the entire world in 6 days, and on the 7th day He rested (by resting, He gave the nation of Israel the Sabbath day principle of 6 days of work, 7th day to rest- He did not want man to work for 6 million years, and rest on the 7th million). The Hebrew word there for day ("yowm") can mean period of time, but from the context and from the way it is used in other passages of scripture, it is clear that when the Bible says "day" it is referring to a single day-night period of time.
And like others have pointed out, it does not make sense for there to be such a gap between days, especially because of the interdependence of life (which most likely, even before the fall and death, was there). There is no reason to interpret either from Genesis 1, nor from other passages of scripture, that the earth was created in anything other than 6 days; don't try to accommodate evolution by adding to scripture or subjecting it to private interpretation.
Just as a matter of clarification, the Bible does not make any claims that the age of the Earth is 4,500-6,000 years old. The 'days' in the first chapter of Genesis are better translated as 'periods'. Plus, no one knows how long Adam was in the garden before he was expelled. The Bible only records the time from when Adam was expelled till shortly after the life of Christ. Therefore, you can not say with any certainty that the Bible says this or that about how long the Earth has been in existence, because it's flat out not true.
Also, there is no proof the flood didn't happen. Between the water in the Earth and the water on the Earth, there was more than enough water. Is it scientifically plausible? Probably not, but definitely not impossible and definitely not proven to not have happened.
Agreed, off topic, but yes, I think a better interpretation and one used often in the Greek culture, specifically by Plato, was "intelligences". That sound agreeable?
Originally posted by: Satchel
Seriously, how many words are you going to argue the definition of? Now you're arguing the semantics of the word "could." Maybe you should just put your pride aside and admit that you "could" be wrong.Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Satchel
Do you not know what the word "could" mean?
It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.
Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?
Sleep now, I mean it.
I already said I could. An opinion is not a fact.
They aren't semantics. You don't seem to know what an opinion is. ELementary school should have explained it to you.
We can try it again...
Bush went to war with Iraq. With the same set of information you could have an opinion that:
he went with good intentions
he went with bad intentions
we are successful there.
we are unsuccessful there.
These cannot be proven nor disproven. They are opinion.
You CANNOT say
my opinion is that bush never went to Iraq.
Get it? It is a very very simple concept.
You can say the Bible was a con or that it is the absolute truth. Both are opinion of a stated view based on the same evidence, neither could be proven nor disproven. You cannot say there is no such thing as the bible.
Mo0o
Lifer
- Jul 31, 2001
- 24,227
- 3
- 76
well if someone could proven the validity of the stories in the Bible one could likely say it wasn't a conOriginally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Satchel
Seriously, how many words are you going to argue the definition of? Now you're arguing the semantics of the word "could." Maybe you should just put your pride aside and admit that you "could" be wrong.Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Satchel
Do you not know what the word "could" mean?
It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.
Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?
Sleep now, I mean it.
I already said I could. An opinion is not a fact.
They aren't semantics. You don't seem to know what an opinion is. ELementary school should have explained it to you.
We can try it again...
Bush went to war with Iraq. With the same set of information you could have an opinion that:
he went with good intentions
he went with bad intentions
we are successful there.
we are unsuccessful there.
These cannot be proven nor disproven. They are opinion.
You CANNOT say
my opinion is that bush never went to Iraq.
Get it? It is a very very simple concept.
You can say the Bible was a con or that it is the absolute truth. Both are opinion of a stated view based on the same evidence, neither could be proven nor disproven. You cannot say there is no such thing as the bible.
Originally posted by: Mo0o
well if someone could proven the validity of the stories in the Bible one could likely say it wasn't a conOriginally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Satchel
Seriously, how many words are you going to argue the definition of? Now you're arguing the semantics of the word "could." Maybe you should just put your pride aside and admit that you "could" be wrong.Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Satchel
Do you not know what the word "could" mean?
It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.
Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?
Sleep now, I mean it.
I already said I could. An opinion is not a fact.
They aren't semantics. You don't seem to know what an opinion is. ELementary school should have explained it to you.
We can try it again...
Bush went to war with Iraq. With the same set of information you could have an opinion that:
he went with good intentions
he went with bad intentions
we are successful there.
we are unsuccessful there.
These cannot be proven nor disproven. They are opinion.
You CANNOT say
my opinion is that bush never went to Iraq.
Get it? It is a very very simple concept.
You can say the Bible was a con or that it is the absolute truth. Both are opinion of a stated view based on the same evidence, neither could be proven nor disproven. You cannot say there is no such thing as the bible.
If someone could prove all of the stories, and that their word is somehow the word of a "god", then yes. This cannot possibly be proven though.
If I write a book saying that my word is the word of god and I tell 100 stories, and a few have some truth in it, does it make the book the word of god? Does it make it less of a con?
purplehippo
Elite Member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 45,626
- 12
- 81
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: zinfamous
I actually agree with Rapid Snail's argument about Adam's spiritual death. It's the kind of thing that you need to understand when explicating Renassaince literature, as well as Old/Middle English lit (Beowulf, Canterbury tales, etc). I place value in the bible as an allegorical fable and a wonderful literary text. It is not rational to me to say that God spoke, and vomited out the bible in pure, literal splendor.
The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles
Is it just me or is it circular to prove the truth of the bible with even more exerpts from the bible.
Well, it depends on your idea of truth. And this is exactly why the debate between science and religion is ridiculous. Truth in science depends on testability, observation, fallibility. Truth in religion relies on the inherent truth that is the word. It is based on faith.
Rationally speaking, it is circular to use the one source to prove the validity of that source. For a pious individual, however, that source is the truth. You and I may find that idiotic, but I don't begrudge them their faith.
I will, however, take offense when they try to rationalize other aspects of life, versions of truth using that same irrational approach to truth. I know that I can distinguish these concepts; I also know that the truly pious can not.
The simplicity of the gospel eludes the wisest of men. The profoundness of the scripture was this; if by looking at what is made around you, you can still come to the conclusion that things evloved then you will be without excuse in the end. Why is it so difficult to accept creation? Life had to start somewhere, even the most minute particle. Is there an example of anything in this world that creates life from an inannimate object? How did that object come into existence? Is it easier to believe that 2 particles crashed together to form some sort of life? Or that is is possible that we evolved from monkey's? Science itself is based on theory, an assumption that some thing is true. Faith is the substance of believing in things that are unseen or unknown. What is the difference? I can see by the things around me, nature, people and the heavens, that something or someone had control of that design. It is far easier for me to believe this than an assertion something collided with somnething else that ended up evolving into the tiny hands that curled round mine, perfectly formed, newborn son or daughter. In essence, both sides must in the end take some step of faith. My step is a belief in God and yours is a belief in a theory.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,558
- 146
It's not worth it. His "evidence" is: "I don't believe it." He has no support for his argument. He took an elective in genetics in middle school. He felt that it disagreed with his Sunday school class, so he rejects it at the surface without understanding the facts behind the terminology.
You can prove that it was your mom who put money under the pillow and not the Tooth Fairy. You cannot prove that the Tooth fairy doesn't exist in the same way that you cannot prove a purple stripped zebra doesn't exist because you have nothing to test.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,558
- 146
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Satchel
Do you not know what the word "could" mean?
It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.
Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?
Sleep now, I mean it.
well, it depends on your definition of the word "is"
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: zinfamous
The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles
Zin, when I said that, I was referring to the passage in Corinthians.
Clearly those are not my words, neither my interpretation.
it's not an interpretation? define "natural man," and define "discern." you can't without interpreting what the meaning of these words would have been 2000+ years ago. esp "discern" being a modern translation of some word...I can only imagine it's a stretch from the Hebrew.
Honestly, I really don't have time to play philosopher and lexiconographer. I'll just tell you that my final authority is the KJV, not the Hebrew or Greek. The KJV is the perfect [pure], preserved word of God, as I believe. It is a perfect translation. If you wish to usurp your authority over the brilliant translators of the 1600's, be my guest; but do not think that I will strongly value your interpretation over their genius. And the words you wish definitions for can be found in a dictionary, and they will correspond with what I have said. Thank you.
Psalm 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,558
- 146
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: zinfamous
The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles
Zin, when I said that, I was referring to the passage in Corinthians.
Clearly those are not my words, neither my interpretation.
it's not an interpretation? define "natural man," and define "discern." you can't without interpreting what the meaning of these words would have been 2000+ years ago. esp "discern" being a modern translation of some word...I can only imagine it's a stretch from the Hebrew.
Honestly, I really don't have time to play philosopher and lexiconographer. I'll just tell you that my final authority is the KJV, not the Hebrew or Greek. The KJV is the perfect [pure], preserved word of God, as I believe. It is a perfect translation. If you wish to usurp your authority over the brilliant translators of the 1600's, be my guest; but do not think that I will strongly value your interpretation over their genius. And the words you wish definitions for can be found in a dictionary, and they will correspond with what I have said. Thank you.
Psalm 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
What makes the KJV the perfect, pure preserved word of God? The closest to pure that we can ever get is the original hebrew, and the scrolls written in aramaic. The KJV is a translation. therefore, it will always be a secondary source of the text. your logic can't be so perverted that you would deny even this?
What makes it pure and perfect? The council that "adopted" this to be accepted as pure?
(off topic, I know, and this isn't an attack of any sort, but...>) I hope you don't have a problem with homosexuality, as Mr James himself was a latent queen. I only mention this because fundamental tendancies towards literal "truth" are often equated with homophobia and general bigotry. Again, I am not accusing you of such, just trying to burst your bubble a bit if that is the case
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,558
- 146
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: zinfamous
The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles
Zin, when I said that, I was referring to the passage in Corinthians.
Clearly those are not my words, neither my interpretation.
it's not an interpretation? define "natural man," and define "discern." you can't without interpreting what the meaning of these words would have been 2000+ years ago. esp "discern" being a modern translation of some word...I can only imagine it's a stretch from the Hebrew.
Honestly, I really don't have time to play philosopher and lexiconographer. I'll just tell you that my final authority is the KJV, not the Hebrew or Greek. The KJV is the perfect [pure], preserved word of God, as I believe. It is a perfect translation. If you wish to usurp your authority over the brilliant translators of the 1600's, be my guest; but do not think that I will strongly value your interpretation over their genius. And the words you wish definitions for can be found in a dictionary, and they will correspond with what I have said. Thank you.
Psalm 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
The OED perhaps? are you aware of it, and what kind of "dictionary" it is? I don't currently have access to a full set, but it is the only dictionary that will provide this information (concerning the English translation). Again, I'm not looking for definitions of words that you will find in Webster's or Oxford (definitions that are highly irrelevent to this discussion), but definitions of words as they were used at the time of translation. As for finding the definitions of the words in Hebrew, that were translated into the English language...no, I don't know where to find those. I'm not a linguist. But I assure you, they will not be found in a "dictionary."
Originally posted by: zinfamous
(off topic, I know, and this isn't an attack of any sort, but...>) I hope you don't have a problem with homosexuality, as Mr James himself was a latent queen. I only mention this because fundamental tendancies towards literal "truth" are often equated with homophobia and general bigotry. Again, I am not accusing you of such, just trying to burst your bubble a bit if that is the case
How does King James' sexual orientation have any bearing on the Bible? He simply commissioned the translation. He didn't write it. So I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
Zin, all that matters to me is that God said he would preserve his word forever, and in unadulterated form. I certainly believe that the God who has the capacity to create the universe would also be able to guide the human translators to keep his promise.
What makes it pure and perfect? The council that "adopted" this to be accepted as pure?
(off topic, I know, and this isn't an attack of any sort, but...>) I hope you don't have a problem with homosexuality, as Mr James himself was a latent queen. I only mention this because fundamental tendancies towards literal "truth" are often equated with homophobia and general bigotry. Again, I am not accusing you of such, just trying to burst your bubble a bit if that is the case
No, what makes it perfect is God's promise to man that he would preserve his word. It doesn't matter if the Bible was ratified by the church of Satan, all that matters is that he said he would preserve it and keep his vow. In God's workings, the means do not matter, only the end result.
As for the claim of homosexuality, it seems that you do not realize that the accusations of the King's sexual orientation were made by his most vile haters wishing to undermine him and his legacy. Either way, the sexuality of the King has absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of the translation.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,558
- 146
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: zinfamous
(off topic, I know, and this isn't an attack of any sort, but...>) I hope you don't have a problem with homosexuality, as Mr James himself was a latent queen. I only mention this because fundamental tendancies towards literal "truth" are often equated with homophobia and general bigotry. Again, I am not accusing you of such, just trying to burst your bubble a bit if that is the case
How does King James' sexual orientation have any bearing on the Bible? He simply commissioned the translation. He didn't write it. So I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
I mention it, because many fundamentalists who use the Bible to support their anti-homosexuality stances, point to the King James version as the end-all be-all of the debate. I find it blissfully ironic that the man who commisioned the translation was in fact, homosexual. It's also another way to discredit the infallibility of such translations.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,558
- 146
Originally posted by: So
How did quoting the bible get into this thread? I know Christians are smart enough not to think that they will sway anyone with arguments from the bible, since no scientist is going to take a book as a valid reason to accept an argument.
Again, they aren't capable of accepting other versions of truth. the book tells them truth...case closed.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,558
- 146
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Zin, all that matters to me is that God said he would preserve his word forever, and in unadulterated form. I certainly believe that the God who has the capacity to create the universe would also be able to guide the human translators to keep his promise.
What makes it pure and perfect? The council that "adopted" this to be accepted as pure?
(off topic, I know, and this isn't an attack of any sort, but...>) I hope you don't have a problem with homosexuality, as Mr James himself was a latent queen. I only mention this because fundamental tendancies towards literal "truth" are often equated with homophobia and general bigotry. Again, I am not accusing you of such, just trying to burst your bubble a bit if that is the case
No, what makes it perfect is God's promise to man that he would preserve his word. It doesn't matter if the Bible was ratified by the church of Satan, all that matters is that he said he would preserve it and keep his vow. In God's workings, the means do not matter, only the end result.
As for the claim of homosexuality, it seems that you do not realize that the accusations of the King's sexual orientation were made by his most vile haters wishing to undermine him and his legacy. Either way, the sexuality of the King has absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of the translation.
fair enough (see bolded), but historians disagree. might I hazard a guess towards where you receive your information?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter