No, actually, it's not. You said they interpret it and the fact is that the vast, vast majority do not.
I'll restate the problem with your claim. You have taken an argument and attempted to use switch-referencing to answer it. This is a logical fallacy.
Perhaps it'd be best to define "interpret", because equivocation is clearly playing a role here. I think you're defining the word as "to translate"; that is not what I mean. In the argument, I would define my use of the word "interpret" as "to understand or construe a particular meaning". Perhaps I should have phrased it that way in the first place. But, I actually used "interpret", because the word implies two things at once--the speaker has taken in knowledge and the speaker may divulge that knowledge. As many Christians not only gain some understanding of the Bible, but also speak openly about that understanding, I felt the term was well suited to my argument. But I do come very close to using the word figuratively, and I can understand the confusion.
As it is against the rules for you to "challenge" anyone in this forum (ie. "no debating") and as I stopped taking such challenges around the time I was ten years old, and as I've answered the question in your OP (both politely and respectfully, I might add), I think I'm done here.
I feel like a dictionary is wrestling with me. Everything seems to be about semantics. The "challenge" was merely rhetorical. All Christians interpret (understand) the Bible in some way, otherwise they would not be Christians (first hand witnesses to Christ are exempt from this statement). I was driving home a point. If you had taken the challenge as a literal one and gone out in search of such a Christian, you would never return.
Now, I picked this forum primarily because it has a lot of restrictions on how a question is addressed, and I believe I have a good grasp on what those are. If you weren't aware, Christians are also restricted from debating with one another in this forum, which is what I noticed when I first commented on my own thread. Your debate with another user seemed curious to me, so I expanded on my initial question, which is allowed.
Furthermore, and I'm saying this to avoid another potential semantic disagreement, clarification can imply a type of debate, whether over terminology, meaning, or validity. I sincerely doubt the moderators of this forum expect every Christian's response to be completely accurate and coherent, which is why clarification is allowed. You could say, for instance, that there are no children in the Bible, and I could respond by saying that I didn't know what you meant, or that I disagreed. It's a form of debate, but it's inevitable in some discussions, which are not necessarily debates.
Now, the type of debate which I expect
isn't allowed in these forums is exactly what we've dropped into. I could be wrong, of course. We could merely be talking semantics. But your parenthetical "both politely and respectfully, I might add" makes me think that this has turned into either a debate or a trading of zingers.
Feel free to continue addressing the argument on Christian interpretations, if you'd like to, but I'd really prefer it if my thread didn't get shut down, so don't continue this particular debate, if that's what it has become.
