Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

[AV1611VET]

... (when I think of the masses I was forced to endure, sat there like parrots answering the priest)...

Now you're forced to sit and parrot:

• E=MC[sup]2[/sup]
• Gravity = Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup]
• Entropy = ∆S[sub]universe[/sub] = >0
• Momentum = mv[sup]2[/sup]
• Work = Fd
• Kinetic Energy = mv[sup]2[/sup]/2

Aren't you?

Let's see anyone rebel against those guys.

Maybe though, they'll show mercy if anyone does?

Maybe gravity, for example, will show mercy on someone who has fallen off a cliff --- if he repents on the way down?

Nature is hostile to God.

 

[uke2se]

The big question, Dad, is WHY should we believe things were different in the past? Logically - and I know you don't particularly enjoy logic, but bear with me - we should assume that natural laws applied in the past, all the way back to the big bang. If we assume that, our current scientific models - models which work and are used for practical purpouses - all make sense. If things were different in the way you claim, none of our current science would make any sense at all, all of our models would be wrong, and logically, nothing would work. So, there's a big flaw in your "different state past" "hypothesis".

Now, let's look at it from the other side. You keep trying to shift the burden of evidence on everyone else, but it comes down to logic again. Great claims demand great evidence. Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. Your claim would fall in the latter cathegory, but I have seen absolutely zero evidence presented by you supporting your "hypothesis". You must understand that your interpretation of the bible - an interpretation shared by a very small minority of Christians, let alone humanity as a whole - cannot be evidence. If you feel it should be, look up the word "empirical", and I think you'll better understand why we disregard the bible as evidence.

For the rest of us trying to debate David (dad), we really ought to stop. He's not going to listen, and every post directed at him further swells his already enormous ego (yes, I know the irony of saying this in a post mainly directed to David). His ideas aren't worth debunking as only the insane would see anything of value in them. We should focus on protecting science from the kind of creationism that is being spread by main-stream liars, like Hovind, Ham and Comfort. Not this fringe nonesense.

Basically, if everyone ignores dad he'll go away.

 

[Norbert L]

Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

...

In the end, creationists have no true divine legitimacy for their claims, even if one assumes that The Bible was divinely inspired.

In the end, non-creationists claim to have no divine legitimacy. However they want the people to assume their inspired interpretation of the scriptures as the legitimate and correct one too.

It could be said there is some irony when a non-creationist makes the statement, Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

 

[AV1611VET]

In the end, non-creationists claim to have no divine legitimacy. However they want the people to assume their inspired interpretation of the scriptures as the legitimate and correct one too.

That's so true.

That's why I tell these guys that if they ran the world like they interpret the Bible, we'd all be in trouble.

 

[Naraoia]

"Man was meant to live forever." sounds more like your own fear of death, rather than rational thought.

That, and the mention of TLotR earlier, made me think of Ilúvatar's gift

 

[Nathan Poe]

Now your forced to sit and parrot:

• E=MC[sup]2[/sup]
• Gravity = Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup]
• Entropy = ∆S[sub]universe[/sub] = >0
• Momentum = mv[sup]2[/sup]
• Work = Fd
• Kinetic Energy = mv[sup]2[/sup]/2

Aren't you?

Let's see anyone rebel against those guys.

those guys were right.

Maybe though, they'll show mercy if anyone does?

Maybe gravity, for example, will show mercy on someone who has fallen off a cliff --- if he repents on the way down?

Nature is hostile to God.

Sounds more like you're complaining that nature is hostile to you.

The rain falls on the just and unjust alike --- and so when the just or the unjust start falling, they both become street pizza.

That's called being fair, AV -- but I've never met a fundie who wants fairness; they all want miracles-on-demand to tip the scales in their favor.

How many times does God have to tell you, "ain't gonna happen"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now your forced to sit and parrot:

• E=MC[sup]2[/sup]
• Gravity = Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup]
• Entropy = ∆S[sub]universe[/sub] = >0
• Momentum = mv[sup]2[/sup]
• Work = Fd
• Kinetic Energy = mv[sup]2[/sup]/2

Aren't you?

Let's see anyone rebel against those guys.

Maybe though, they'll show mercy if anyone does?

Maybe gravity, for example, will show mercy on someone who has fallen off a cliff --- if he repents on the way down?

Nature is hostile to God.

those guys were right.

Maybe though, they'll show mercy if anyone does?



Sounds more like you're complaining that nature is hostile to you.

The rain falls on the just and unjust alike --- and so when the just or the unjust start falling, they both become street pizza.

That's called being fair, AV -- but I've never met a fundie who wants fairness; they all want miracles-on-demand to tip the scales in their favor.

How many times does God have to tell you, "ain't gonna happen"?

Thank you, Nathan.

My mistake --- I'll correct my post immediately ---

 

[Split Rock]

That depends on what point. And whether interpretation is actually involved. Specifics, man. God and the devil are in the details.

All of the Bible requires at least some interpretation. "Thy shall not kill" seems straightfoward enough... until you do as you suggest and look at the details. Does that mean do not commit murder, or not kill even in self-defense? A Quaker and an Amish would have a different answer than a Catholic or an Evangelical Christian. So I ask again... is your interpretation of scripture, concerning any point, inerrant? Yes or No?

From science, of course not. It is a creature of the box of the present. How would it be expected to know? Therefore it may not make a claim. Therefore the foundational premise of all science claims about creation or the future are invalidated. Thanks for that. Elementary.

The past leaves its imprint on the present. So you are wrong.

Or, what's to say it was in a state of decay in the past? How long you been observing it? 70 years? Whoopee doo. That doesn't cover creation. Elementary.

How was it different in the past? "Specifics, man. God and the devil are in the details"

I have evidence. The bible and history! It IS up to you if you want to build up major claims on that premise! Elementary.

No not history at all, and as far as the Bible is concerned, once again, we are dealing with your interpretation of scripture (one which as far as I can tell no one else agrees with) not "The Bible."

Why would I care? I would only look at your God opposing claims, should you have any about it. Otherwise, we would say 'I don't know'. That is what science must do. Elementary.

Not "God opposing" claims, but reality that disagrees with your interpretation of scripture.

 

[Split Rock]

In the end, non-creationists claim to have no divine legitimacy. However they want the people to assume their inspired interpretation of the scriptures as the legitimate and correct one too.

It could be said there is some irony when a non-creationist makes the statement, Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

No where in the OP did I claim to have an inspired interpretation of scripture. In fact, I did not mention any interpetation of mine at all. I made two points. First, that not even the Bible claims that the Bible is inerrant. Second, Nobody's interpretation of scripture is inerrant (mine included). Do you agree or disagree with these two points?

 

[atomweaver]

From science, of course not. It is a creature of the box of the present. How would it be expected to know? Therefore it may not make a claim. Therefore the foundational premise of all science claims about creation or the future are invalidated. Thanks for that. Elementary.

Or, what's to say it was in a state of decay in the past? How long you been observing it? 70 years? Whoopee doo. That doesn't cover creation. Elementary.

No, not 70 years; we have observations going back at least 169,000 years.

The rate of decay has been constant for at least 169,000 years, verified by simple observation of Supernova 1987A; the UV, x-rays and radio emissions it emitted upon going supernova passed through a dense cloud of dust and gas that encircled the former star. When a star goes supernova, it creates a tremendous amount of radioisotopes. When those isotopes decay, they emit gamma rays, which we can measure here on Earth, 169,000 years later. The rate of decay as measured by gamma ray frequency and fade rate 169,000 years ago is exactly the same as it is today.

Its data sufficient to put to bed your Biblically-presumed timetable for a "different state past" having been anytime in the last 168,000 years. Goodnight, dad.

(And here's another neat thing; if our favorite different state past advocate, or a garden-variety YEC were to try to different-state-tinker with the speed of light constant by raising it to make this supernova an event that occurred more recently, the supernova would actually recede further back in time, due to the simple triangulation method used to calculate its distance from us. There are other supernova which confirm rates of decay that are basedon observations of gamma radiation millions of years old, but TTBOMK, they don't have the dust/gas cloud feature that adds this particular 'perk' to the discussion.)

 

[Split Rock]

That's why I tell these guys that if they ran the world like they interpret the Bible, we'd all be in trouble.

It is not the way we interpret scripture, it is the way you claim scripture should be interpreted (ie literally). We interpret scripture quit differently. Do you understand now? Or will you continue to propagate a non-truth because you like the way it sounds?

 

[Hespera]

It is not the way we interpret scripture, it is the way you claim scripture should be interpreted (ie literally). We interpret scripture quit differently. Do you understand now? Or will you continue to propagate a non-truth because you like the way it sounds?

Some are under the impression that by putting others down they can elevate themselves.

I dont think the golden rule reccommends that, but some dont think the rules apply to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of the Bible requires at least some interpretation. "Thy shall not kill" seems straightfoward enough... until you do as you suggest and look at the details. Does that mean do not commit murder, or not kill even in self-defense? A Quaker and an Amish would have a different answer than a Catholic or an Evangelical Christian.

How about looking at Jesus' interpretation?

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How about looking at Jesus' interpretation?

Ok, so don't murder -- except that murder is defined by the government, isn't it?

 

[Hespera]

How about looking at Jesus' interpretation?

And His definition of murder would be what?

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not the way we interpret scripture, it is the way you claim scripture should be interpreted (ie literally).

You mean to tell me that 30 years ago, before I even read the Bible, atheists never asked Christians why they weren't 'out executing witches like a good Christian should'?

 

[Split Rock]

How about looking at Jesus' interpretation?

This then becomes dependent on your definition of "murder."

You mean to tell me that 30 years ago, before I even read the Bible, atheists never asked Christians why they weren't 'out executing witches like a good Christian should'?

I meant "you" as in "evangelical/creationist/fundamentalist Christians" in general.

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean to tell me that 30 years ago, before I even read the Bible, atheists never asked Christians why they weren't 'out executing witches like a good Christian should'?

I meant "you" as in "evangelical/creationist/fundamentalist Christians" in general.

Same question then --- you mean to tell me that 30 year ago, before I even read the Bible, atheists never asked Christians why they weren't 'out executing witches like a good Christian should'?

When you guys ask stuff like that, I get the impression that you're saying you would be doing it if you were an obedient Christian.

 

[MoonLancer]

When you guys ask stuff like that, I get the impression that you're saying you would be doing it if you were an obedient Christian.

LOL your way off the mark... considering Christians have already gone through a witch burning phase because of what the bible says. yay secular reasoning.

If the word of god is immutable and unchangeable one should assume that those closest to Jesus death had a better idea of what was going on.

So the question is, What changed from the witch trials to today? was it the bible?

 

[Hespera]

LOL your way off the mark... considering Christians have already gone through a witch burning phase because of what the bible says. yay secular reasoning.

If the word of god is immutable and unchangeable one should assume that those closest to Jesus death had a better idea of what was going on.

So the question is, What changed from the witch trials to today? was it the bible?

There was also a question about how to define murder but we suspects we wont get one