Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

AV1611VET · Jul 23, 2009

MoonLancer said:
LOL your way off the mark...

No, I'm not 'way off the mark'.

Three years of seeing God accused of genocide, murder, and sanctioning incest has convinced me that you guys don't understand Martial Law, Dispensation Theology, and how the gene pool and jurisprudence interrelate --- respectively.

Thus you haven't a clue as to why such things as the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, slavery, marrying your sister today, or a host of other things is non-Biblical and condemned by Christians.

Hespera · Jul 23, 2009

AV1611VET said:
No, I'm not 'way off the mark'.

Three years of seeing God accused of genocide, murder, and sanctioning incest has convinced me that you guys don't understand Martial Law, Dispensation Theology, and how the gene pool and jurisprudence interrelate --- respectively.

Thus you haven't a clue as to why such things as the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, slavery, marrying your sister today, or a host of other things is non-Biblical and condemned by Christians.

WE do have a clue that you can change the definition but you cant change the act. Kill a baby? Nah. that was aborting a fetus, freedom of choice.

Murder all the first born sons? Nah, that was dispensated or something, anyway a angel did it.

We also heard that not a jot or tittle will ever change and here it is getting dispensated, martial lawed, jurisprudiated, and a host of other things.

Sounds to ME like rationalizing.

MoonLancer · Jul 23, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Thus you haven't a clue as to why such things as the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, slavery, marrying your sister today, or a host of other things is non-Biblical and condemned by Christians.

ah yes, please explain how the crusades were non-biblical and condemned by Christians? I will admit, they are condemned by Christians TODAY but only because its unpopular. And someday i will bet that Christians of today that try and take away civil liberties of gays will be the ones condemned by Christians of tomorrow.

the war crusades were waged by the church of god, how could it have been condemned by Christians?

Split Rock · Jul 23, 2009

AV1611VET said:
No, I'm not 'way off the mark'.

Three years of seeing God accused of genocide, murder, and sanctioning incest has convinced me that you guys don't understand Martial Law, Dispensation Theology, and how the gene pool and jurisprudence interrelate --- respectively.

Thus you haven't a clue as to why such things as the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, slavery, marrying your sister today, or a host of other things is non-Biblical and condemned by Christians.

Hespera said:
WE do have a clue that you can change the definition but you cant change the act. Kill a baby? Nah. that was aborting a fetus, freedom of choice.

Murder all the first born sons? Nah, that was dispensated or something, anyway a angel did it.

We also heard that not a jot or tittle will ever change and here it is getting dispensated, martial lawed, jurisprudiated, and a host of other things.

Sounds to ME like rationalizing.

Seconded.

Nathan Poe · Jul 23, 2009

AV1611VET said:
No, I'm not 'way off the mark'.

Three years of seeing God accused of genocide, murder, and sanctioning incest has convinced me that you guys don't understand Martial Law, Dispensation Theology, and how the gene pool and jurisprudence interrelate --- respectively.

We understand it completely -- manmade doctrines inserted between man and God to justify man's disobedience.

What's not to understand?

AV1611VET · Jul 23, 2009

MoonLancer said:
ah yes, please explain how the crusades were non-biblical and condemned by Christians?

For about the 5th time:

Jesus said:

21:24b said:
Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The 'times of the Gentiles' ends at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and He will put an end to the 'times of the Gentiles', Himself.

Yet, in history, we have a bunch of guys get together, in spite of what the Bible says, and marches off to liberate Jerusalem of the Gentiles.

Now --- let's see denial, laughter, whatever --- so I (or someone else) will have to explain it a 6th time to you guys later on.

Cabal · Jul 23, 2009

AV1611VET said:
For about the 5th time:

Jesus said:The 'times of the Gentiles' ends at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and He will put an end to the 'times of the Gentiles', Himself.

Yet, in history, we have a bunch of guys get together, in spite of what the Bible says, and marches off to liberate Jerusalem of the Gentiles.

Now --- let's see denial, laughter, whatever --- so I (or someone else) will have to explain it a 6th time to you guys later on.

Got any evidence that this interpretation was about in the 11th century? Just cause otherwise it seems kinda unlikely that it took 2000 years for the "right" interpretation to be found.

Hindsight being 20/20 and all that.

AV1611VET · Jul 23, 2009

Cabal said:
Got any evidence that this interpretation was about in the 11th century? Just cause otherwise it seems kinda unlikely that it took 2000 years for the "right" interpretation to be found.

Hindsight being 20/20 and all that.

I don't understand your question.

It's not a matter of 'interpretation' --- Jesus clearly said Jerusalem will be occupied.

The Crusaders said, "We will liberate Jerusalem."

God won.

So you have God saying one thing, some people thinking He meant something else, and those people losing.

And anyone trying to march on Jerusalem today to liberate it will get a lesson in history as well.

Liberating Jerusalem from the Gentiles is a right that Jesus, Himself holds.

Eeplord · Jul 23, 2009

I am sorely confused by what the argument is. Are we saying that the Bible tells people to burn witches and commit Crusades or something else? I believe that the witch-burnings and Crusades were caused by human error, where the Bible was interpreted incorrectly. If this isn't what we were talking about, can somebody explain it please?

AV1611VET · Jul 23, 2009

Hi, Eeplord --- nice to meet you ---

Eeplord said:
I am sorely confused by what the argument is. Are we saying that the Bible tells people to burn witches and commit Crusades or something else? I believe that the witch-burnings and Crusades were caused by human error, where the Bible was interpreted incorrectly. If this isn't what we were talking about, can somebody explain it please?

What I'm addressing with this, is those who say we Christians today, if we are going to be true to the Bible, should be out there executing witches or marching off to liberate Jerusalem.

After all, if we are going to be true to the Bible, and take It literally, then why aren't we true to all of It --- not just picking and choosing what we're going to follow, and what we're not?

To counter this, I'm first showing at these acts were not done in respect to the Bible, but rather, in spite of the Bible.

Then second of all, I'm noticing that those who disagree with me on this don't want to admit that if they were given sole rule of this earth, and told to run it the way they tell us we should --- would not do it, themselves.

Hespera · Jul 23, 2009

The original concept was whether anyone can really know what it says... is the book inerrant, is the interpretation inerrant, are the definitions inerrant.

A person can talk around and around, point at others and say "the way YOU guys interpret", avoid hard questions, give strange answers, put special names to rationalizing and at the end, they still didnt say yes / no... is their interpretation inerrant?

Its easy enough to show the bible cant be inerrant.. as in accurate...with the 30 cubit rope trick.

So take a book of questionable accuracy, apply your special definitions and interpretation method, using a urim or thummim perhaps, and what do you get?
A phone book of one true churches!

I understand people used to debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Hespera · Jul 23, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Then second of all, I'm noticing that those who disagree with me on this don't want to admit that if they were given sole rule of this earth, and told to run it the way they tell us we should --- would not do it, themselves.

Oh? and how do we say you should run the world?

Eeplord · Jul 23, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Hi, Eeplord --- nice to meet you ---

Nice to meet you too. I have been lurking a while so I have seen many of your posts.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Well assuming they can shrink down to the smallest size it would be: Surface area of head of pin in square planck lengths / 1 square planck length. *Edited to simplify equation* Surface area of head of pin in square planck lengths.

I don't know if the Bible is inerrant. You could probably find plenty of minute details like your rope trick, but the overall themes/messages of the Bible are, such as loving thy neighbor, which I believe to be the most important message especially when generalized to include everybody. The Bible can only cause harm when people interpret it incorrectly and then claim that they are following God's will.

AV1611VET · Jul 23, 2009

Hespera said:
The original concept was whether anyone can really know what it says... is the book inerrant, is the interpretation inerrant, are the definitions inerrant.

The Bible is inerrant --- our interpretations are errant --- and it's our fault if we err.

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse --- as they say.

One of the biggest ways to err --- if not the biggest way --- is to interpret It the way you guys say It should be interpreted --- allegorically.

If we interpreted the Law like you guys say we should interpret the Bible, we would be getting tickets right and left --- and it would be our fault.

AV1611VET · Jul 23, 2009

Thanks for responding, and thank you for lurking in my posts!

Eeplord said:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

... like your rope trick ...

The 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' and the 'rope trick' are Hespera's concoctions, not mine.

Eeplord · Jul 23, 2009

When you say "allegorically", to what extent are we speaking? On one extreme would be, I don't know if anybody believes this (just made it up), the creation story is a metaphor for the big bang. On the other would be the story of Jonah, while it may or may not have happened, is not important for historical accuracies, but is meant to be lesson not to disagree with God. So, were you talking about the former or the latter?

Eeplord · Jul 23, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Thanks for responding, and thank you for lurking in my posts!The 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' and the 'rope trick' are Hespera's concoctions, not mine.

I know I was just trying to be witty.

AV1611VET · Jul 23, 2009

Eeplord said:
When you say "allegorically", to what extent are we speaking? On one extreme would be, I don't know if anybody believes this (just made it up), the creation story is a metaphor for the big bang. On the other would be the story of Jonah, while it may or may not have happened, is not important for historical accuracies, but is meant to be lesson not to disagree with God. So, were you talking about the former or the latter?

The former --- the Creation Story.

And, by implication, the whole Bible.

There are two major ways to interpret the Bible (four actually, but the other two are minor):

allegorically
literally

It was meant to be interpreted literally.

Interpreting the Bible allegorically makes the reader the sole authority for what It says, whereas interpreting It literally makes even those hostile to the Bible admit that It says what It says.

The Bible contains allegory --- but this does not mean the Bible is allegory.

AV1611VET · Jul 23, 2009

Eeplord said:
I know I was just trying to be witty.

Sounds good --- you and trt seem to be two of the friendlier atheists here.

Eeplord · Jul 23, 2009

I think I understand. Saying "the Bible is allegory" is like comparing to Aesop's Fables, and saying "the Bible contains allegory" would be comparing stories in the Bible, such as Jesus' parables, to Aesop's Fables. Little confused on the second part.

I am just wondering, do you believe that the creation happened in a literal 7 days, or that a few of those days could by many years long?

Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Conflation of Blathers

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

Junior Member

Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Member

Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency