Scriptural literacy

[joobz]

Radrook,

 

[Radrook]

Also pitiful is the invitations-to-discuss-matterr- logically ploy designed to draw one in in order to provide a background for the godless to propound their inanities. Now, please don't get me wrong, I do enjoy a logical on-subject discussion where facts are respectfully considered on both sides and both sides stay on theme. But these supposed invitations to umm-discuss are merely lures enthusiastically cast out in order to get a bight and begin reeling in the dunce who mistakens them for genuine. A case in point is the recent one where questions were respectfully asked and answered only to have the individual rip off the hypocritical mask and declare all my explanations drivel. No refutation mind you-just a bold-faced pre-planned deployment of scheming godless rudeness. Do I really have the time for this. Unfortunately, as much as I would enjoy humoring the hopefuls I don't. So in view of this I guess the original issue of biblical context as necessary for textual evaluation will just have to be discarded and forgotten due to the godless penchant to change the subject, feign incomprehension, take things out of context-misrepresent data, and otherwise buffoon the intended theme into godless oblivion. Well, have fun!

 

[Toke]

According to you Radrook "inherent moral values" are unchanging over time and society.

The bible endorses slavery, stoning and so on, that is illegal nowadays.

Is the bible wrong, or have we simply left the true path of god?

Is stoning moral or not??

Try give a clear answer for once.

 

[Moochie]

Radrook, what exactly do you mean by "godless"? To me this is a meaningless, archaic term, so I am wondering why someone would use such seemingly archaic language.


M.

 

[Mark Felt]

So in view of this I guess the original issue of biblical context as necessary for textual evaluation will just have to be discarded and forgotten due to the godless penchant to change the subject, feign incomprehension, take things out of context-misrepresent data, and otherwise buffoon the intended theme into godless oblivion.

 

[joobz]

Also pitiful is the invitations-to-discuss-matterr- logically ploy designed to draw one in in order to provide a background for the godless to propound their inanities. Now, please don't get me wrong, I do enjoy a logical on-subject discussion where facts are respectfully considered on both sides and both sides stay on theme. But these supposed invitations to umm-discuss are merely lures enthusiastically cast out in order to get a bight and begin reeling in the dunce who mistakens them for genuine. A case in point is the recent one where questions were respectfully asked and answered only to have the individual rip off the hypocritical mask and declare all my explanations drivel. No refutation mind you-just a bold-faced pre-planned deployment of scheming godless rudeness. Do I really have the time for this. Unfortunately, as much as I would enjoy humoring the hopefuls I don't. So in view of this I guess the original issue of biblical context as necessary for textual evaluation will just have to be discarded and forgotten due to the godless penchant to change the subject, feign incomprehension, take things out of context-misrepresent data, and otherwise buffoon the intended theme into godless oblivion. Well, have fun!

Yes, Radrook, you are completely right. I fully see it now.

You have demonstrated, by your actions, that the godless on this forum are truly wrong and bad people. By example, you have shown what it means to be good, humble, patient and kind. You have been a leader in civility and truth. Not once have you resorted to insults and derision to make arguments. Not once have you arrogantly assumed superiority of your position and knowledge. You have admirably and humbly allowed your arguments to speak for themselves, thereby demonstrating by example your superior knowledge, logic and intellect.

All of us, the godless, have been shamed by your behavior. We have failed to live up to your pure and true means of skeptical debate. I believe we all must bow and admit defeat, lest we be further shamed by perpetuating our intellectually dishonest and vindictive ways.

You win, Radrook. you have proven the truth of Christ by your example.

 

[Greediguts]

No, I don't know of any evidence (or claims) of later editing.

And actually, it falls right in line with certain strains of prophetic tradition.

Just look at the screeds from Jeremiah!

There is a long tradition in ancient Hebrew texts of the true prophet of God rebuking Israel, who has fallen away and is whoring after false doctrine.

It's likely that Matthew is placing himself -- and Jesus -- in this tradition, positing the Jesus cult as the true Israel, and warning of the fate that will befall those who fail to recognize the true messiah, the true prophet of God.

Of course, he would want to show Jesus' career foreshadowed in the Scriptures. Makes sense.

This brings up for me another question though. Matthew's telling of the Triumphal Entry. If you look at Mark's telling we see this:

And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. ...And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.(Mark 11:2,7)

Now Matthew describes this a bit differently:

Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

...All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.(Matthew 21:2,4-7).

It would seem the author of Matthew grasps that this would be in reference to Zechariah 9:9 and wants to fulfill the prophecy.

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."(Zechariah 9:9)

But it seems the author of Matthew takes a very literal interpretation and wants to have Jesus riding both an ass and colt, which would not be practical unless Jesus was a cowboy...

After spending a good deal of today beginning to read about Jewish tradition and Hebrew writings, I was introduced to Hebrew "parallelism", the rhetorical pattern where the statement is first made and then its idea repeated in different words. It would appear to me that this is being used in Zechariah 9:9.

So what I don't understand is why would the author of Matthew, who would appear to be Jewish, not recognize the use of parallelism, and make an absurd picture with Jesus trying to straddle 2 animals?? What am I missing?

**I don't know if your aware of this site. I've been using it to view the different translations/versions of the Bible and seeing the differences and comparisions.

 

[Moochie]

Yes, Radrook, you are completely right. I fully see it now.

You have demonstrated, by your actions, that the godless on this forum are truly wrong and bad people. By example, you have shown what it means to be good, humble, patient and kind. You have been a leader in civility and truth. Not once have you resorted to insults and derision to make arguments. Not once have you arrogantly assumed superiority of your position and knowledge. You have admirably and humbly allowed your arguments to speak for themselves, thereby demonstrating by example your superior knowledge, logic and intellect.

All of us, the godless, have been shamed by your behavior. We have failed to live up to your pure and true means of skeptical debate. I believe we all must bow and admit defeat, lest we be further shamed by perpetuating our intellectually dishonest and vindictive ways.

You win, Radrook. you have proven the truth of Christ by your example.

You're sooo naughty! Ten Hail Marys and 20 Our Fathers for you, sinner!


M.

 

[Piggy]

So what I don't understand is why would the author of Matthew, who would appear to be Jewish, not recognize the use of parallelism, and make an absurd picture with Jesus trying to straddle 2 animals?? What am I missing?

My new Oxford Annotated NRSV is due to arrive today or Monday... it will be interesting to see how that verse is rendered there.

I don't know of any translation (online I use Bible Gateway to compare versions, but I like your site better b/c it puts it all on one page) that actually has him sitting on both animals.

He either sits on the clothes or just sits "thereon".

Since the Hebrew Bible is shot thru and thru with parallelism, I'm sure Matthew recognized the trope. But Matthew is also very concerned with aligning Jesus with prophecy, so it's not surprising that he has Jesus call for an ass and a colt.

If I'm not mistaken, my childhood Bible had an illustration of Jesus riding on a donkey which was tethered to a colt by its side with a piece of rope.

And hey, would Jesus separate a colt from its mother? I think not!

Also, keep in mind that scriptural literalism was common among certain sects in the 1st century CE. If Matthew had not put Jesus on an ass with a colt, there could have been accusations that the prophecy was not fulfilled.

 

[Greediguts]

What really saddens me about scriptural illiteracy is that it leads to the conclusion that anything which the person doesn't know and therefore might find unfamiliar is a personal interpretation. It seems to me that there are mindless individuals who surf the net, see all the doubts expressed about the scriptures and assume that everything the Bible says is self contradictory. In short, they don't have to think, just accuse the person who is stating a basic universally agreed-upon biblical fact of personal interpretation and Voila! He's a respected skeptic. A true pity since skepticism is the diametrically opposed opposite of that type of simplistic,lethargic, uncritical mentality.

I don't claim to be any type of biblical scholar. I also realize the more I study the Bible, the more I realize I know little about how it came to be. This thread is helping me to gain more knowledge on a subject that has played a crucial part in human history. I am "exposing" my personal interpretations to the group in the hopes I will be corrected with substantial facts or at the very least, different viewpoints that cause me to gather more information to reinforce my interpretation. Sadly Radrook, you have not helped my quest for knowledge. I do actually thank you as your somewhat vitriolic responses had made me more determined to learn as much on the subject matter as possible. You have actually helped me to question the Bible more. I do appreciate that.

BTW -"basic universally agreed-upon biblical fact "....I'm skeptical of that statment. It sounds...what are the words....oh, yes.....it sounds "simplistic,lethargic," and shows an "uncritical mentality". You took the words right out of my mouth. Good day to you sir.

 

[Greediguts]

My new Oxford Annotated NRSV is due to arrive today or Monday... it will be interesting to see how that verse is rendered there.

I don't know of any translation (online I use Bible Gateway to compare versions, but I like your site better b/c it puts it all on one page) that actually has him sitting on both animals.

He either sits on the clothes or just sits "thereon".

Since the Hebrew Bible is shot thru and thru with parallelism, I'm sure Matthew recognized the trope. But Matthew is also very concerned with aligning Jesus with prophecy, so it's not surprising that he has Jesus call for an ass and a colt.

If I'm not mistaken, my childhood Bible had an illustration of Jesus riding on a donkey which was tethered to a colt by its side with a piece of rope.

And hey, would Jesus separate a colt from its mother? I think not!

Also, keep in mind that scriptural literalism was common among certain sects in the 1st century CE. If Matthew had not put Jesus on an ass with a colt, there could have been accusations that the prophecy was not fulfilled.

The International Standard Version says he sits upon "them" as does the World English Bible. And from what I've come across by various authors on various sites, the original Greek uses the word "them" (auton). I'm not fluent in reading/speaking/writing Greek so I have to take their word for it.

And again, as I am now just starting to become familiar with Jewish history, can you please be a little more specific about the different sects? Are you referring to the the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or the Essenes? Or am I getting timelines confused? We are talking about what would be considered the Second Temple Period, yes?

Or are you referring to just smaller rural groups set far away from the larger cities?

 

[Piggy]

The International Standard Version says he sits upon "them" as does the World English Bible. And from what I've come across by various authors on various sites, the original Greek uses the word "them" (auton). I'm not fluent in reading/speaking/writing Greek so I have to take their word for it.

Yes, but look at the phrase before it. The people laid their garments on the animals and he sat on them (the garments).

And again, as I am now just starting to become familiar with Jewish history, can you please be a little more specific about the different sects? Are you referring to the the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or the Essenes? Or am I getting timelines confused? We are talking about what would be considered the Second Temple Period, yes?

Or are you referring to just smaller rural groups set far away from the larger cities?

The Saducees, IIRC, were a priestly group associated with the Temple, and they were in control of the Sanhedrin at the time. I believe Paul started out a Pharisee, but changed his association.

The Pharisees were a rabbinical group, but they tended to be strict about the scripture, and you'll see the Pharisees continually trying to put gotcha questions to Jesus in an attempt to trip him up. As in Matthew 22 when a Pharisee asks Jesus which is the greatest commandment. And in Mark's rendering of the tax question (12:13-17) it's a Pharisee who asks it.

The Essenes were rather strict themselves, although they had some pretty wild writings of their own. For instance, they were one of the groups that had very specific laws about how far from your door you could go to bring back an animal on the Sabbath. It's this kind of strict legalism that Jesus is rebuking when he says that if your ox is in a ditch on the Sabbath, you go get it out (although he was not actually addressing that question when he said it).

So the gospel writers, to varying degrees, had to align Jesus with the prophets, laws, and writings he could be aligned with, while also dismissing the views of competing groups which were at odds with the practices of the Jesus cult.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I would say that there is a fundamental problem with both Radrook's approach and your approach to this issue.

The concept of Satan as an embodiment of evil (or of being evil at all) is not found throughout the Bible. The Satan of Job, for instance, is simply not recognizable in contemporary Christianity's post-monastic, post-Miltonian conception of the rebellious angel out to steal souls. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I know, that's what I was pointing out. Where's the disagreement between my argument and yours?

However, the Satan of Matthew 4, Luke 13, and Acts 26 is more in line with that concept.

True, but I'm a little skeptical of the Satan of Matthew 4 playing the role of an evil entity. If it was Jesus's destiny to be tested, then it was God's idea to test him, and the fact that Satan showed up to do this would strongly imply that he was again acting on God's orders. Also, if you take that story to be a demonstration that Jesus had no inclination towards the temptations in the first place, then Satan's role was actually passive. Besides, if you look at the mentions of Satan in Luke and Acts, they could also be interpreted as consistent with the Satan of Job, i.e. you don't want to end up on the path that lands you on trial before God's divine prosecutor.

Though I confess I'm not entirely sure the name "Satan" wasn't being used in some cases to be synonomous with "adversary" or "accuser." Remember when Jesus told Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!" I'm pretty sure he wasn't implying that the biblical Satan had possessed Peter.

And equating the serpent in the garden with Satan is an entirely modern notion.

I know. Even if the serpent was Satan, he was still serving his role in God's creation. According to the Jewish interpretation IIRC, didn't Yahweh intend for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit? If so, Satan was acting as more of a messenger than a saboteur.

In trying to find in the Christian Bible a single, unified idea of Satan, one which portrays him as inherently evil and in opposition to God and which casts him as the serpent of Genesis, modern readers of the Bible take the text on their terms, not on its own terms.

Thank you. That's kind of what I was getting at myself, so I'm not sure where the disagreement is.

Yes, Radrook, you are completely right. I fully see it now.

You have demonstrated, by your actions, that the godless on this forum are truly wrong and bad people. By example, you have shown what it means to be good, humble, patient and kind. You have been a leader in civility and truth. Not once have you resorted to insults and derision to make arguments. Not once have you arrogantly assumed superiority of your position and knowledge. You have admirably and humbly allowed your arguments to speak for themselves, thereby demonstrating by example your superior knowledge, logic and intellect.

All of us, the godless, have been shamed by your behavior. We have failed to live up to your pure and true means of skeptical debate. I believe we all must bow and admit defeat, lest we be further shamed by perpetuating our intellectually dishonest and vindictive ways.

You win, Radrook. you have proven the truth of Christ by your example.

Let's not forget that rainforest he has growing in his eye, all the while he's going around trying to remove specks from other people's eyes. Or maybe the idea is to save the rainforests. I'm confused.

ETA: The above was a mockery of his beliefs, not him personally.

 

[Piggy]

I know, that's what I was pointing out. Where's the disagreement between my argument and yours?

Sorry, it seemed to me that you were countering Radrook with an argument that also used a unitary approach to Biblical interpretation.

Perhaps I was reading your post carelessly. If so, I apologize.

True, but I'm a little skeptical of the Satan of Matthew 4 playing the role of an evil entity. If it was Jesus's destiny to be tested, then it was God's idea to test him, and the fact that Satan showed up to do this would strongly imply that he was again acting on God's orders. Also, if you take that story to be a demonstration that Jesus had no inclination towards the temptations in the first place, then Satan's role was actually passive. Besides, if you look at the mentions of Satan in Luke and Acts, they could also be interpreted as consistent with the Satan of Job, i.e. you don't want to end up on the path that lands you on trial before God's divine prosecutor.

No, they're not compatible. When you look at the theology of the gospels as a whole, and the role of Satan within it, and within the context of the broader contemporary theology, and you compare that to the Satan of Job, the differences are significant.

The Satan of Job was a member of the Heavenly Council (a notion which had ceased to be orthodox by Jesus' time) who is not in any way antagonistic to Yahweh. Job's iconography harkens back to more ancient traditions, where we see the sea gods as Yahweh's primary antagonists.

The Satan of the 1st century CE is influenced by Zoroastrian, Babylonian, and Hellenistic philosophies, as well as the rabbinic tradition subsequent to Job.

The Satan of that period is a demonic figure who is opposed to the true light of God and his prophets and is able to inflict people with demonic possession.

Though I confess I'm not entirely sure the name "Satan" wasn't being used in some cases to be synonomous with "adversary" or "accuser." Remember when Jesus told Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!" I'm pretty sure he wasn't implying that the biblical Satan had possessed Peter.

That's true. In that passage, such an interpretation would be unwarranted, so the standard interpretation is that the term is being used in a metaphorical sense -- for that time -- to mean a tempter or accuser.

I know. Even if the serpent was Satan, he was still serving his role in God's creation. According to the Jewish interpretation IIRC, didn't Yahweh intend for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit? If so, Satan was acting as more of a messenger than a saboteur.

Again, we have to take each text on its own terms.

And when we're talking about Genesis, we're talking about several traditions which were redacted into a single scroll.

Genesis 3 is most likely a free-standing oral tale, which is not necessarily related in any direct way to the surrounding tales.

In any case, the God of Genesis 2 forms Heaven and Earth, but it is not at all clear that this God is in full control of what happens on Earth, and perhaps not even in Heaven!

The notion of a monotheistic and omnipotent God came much later.

 

[Piggy]

Silentknight, it occurs to me that the difference here is that maybe you're using a Buddhist approach and responding to unitary arguments with more unitary arguments to show how such arguments, if taken to their logical ends, self-destruct.

It's very difficult for me to do that on this thread because of the ostensible topic.

So maybe that's where our miscommunication is coming in.

 

[Greediguts]

The Saducees, IIRC, were a priestly group associated with the Temple, and they were in control of the Sanhedrin at the time. I believe Paul started out a Pharisee, but changed his association.

The Pharisees were a rabbinical group, but they tended to be strict about the scripture, and you'll see the Pharisees continually trying to put gotcha questions to Jesus in an attempt to trip him up. As in Matthew 22 when a Pharisee asks Jesus which is the greatest commandment. And in Mark's rendering of the tax question (12:13-17) it's a Pharisee who asks it.

The Essenes were rather strict themselves, although they had some pretty wild writings of their own. For instance, they were one of the groups that had very specific laws about how far from your door you could go to bring back an animal on the Sabbath. It's this kind of strict legalism that Jesus is rebuking when he says that if your ox is in a ditch on the Sabbath, you go get it out (although he was not actually addressing that question when he said it).

So the gospel writers, to varying degrees, had to align Jesus with the prophets, laws, and writings he could be aligned with, while also dismissing the views of competing groups which were at odds with the practices of the Jesus cult.

Your answers have sent me scurrying through books and webpages, trying to dig up more information. Thank you. I've been home with a sinus infection and this has helped educate me and pass the time.

Quick matter of clarification in regards to the ox and the ditch: Are you actually meaning to refer to the Pharisees there as Luke 14:1-6 states?

"And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? And they could not answer him again to these things."

I bring up this passge for another reason as well. In Mark 3:1-7, Jesus has to flee the Pharisees for healing on the Sabbath.

"And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea,"

It would appear that Jesus is rather friendly with the Pharisees in Luke, as he goes to the man's house to eat. But Mark has him fleeing for his life.

The many Jewish sites and articles I've been through today have talked about that in the 1st century AD, Jesus' variations from the current Jewish practices of the day would not be so abnormal to warrant his arrest. If he was arrested his trial would have followed the Talmudic account of the manner of executing a person guilty of leading the people astray. I'm quoting their text now," The proceeding against one who incites others to deny the religion of their fathers consists in convicting him of his guilt by means of concealed witnesses, as follows: The accused is placed in an inner room with a light, so that witnesses unknown to him and watching him from an outer room can see and hear him clearly. Then a companion says to him: "Tell me again what you told me in confidence [in regard to renouncing our religion]." If he does so, the other replies: "How could we leave our God in heaven and serve idols?" If he recants now, it is well; but if he says, "It is our duty and we must do it," then the witnesses outside take him into court and he is stoned." They give example where this law was carried out against other messanic individuals during Jesus' time. So again this is the writers of the Gospels trying to fulfill prophecy by having a rift between him and the ruling sect? And wouldn't the Jews of the Pharesiee and the Sadducce sect been fairly educated at a young age in the teachings of the Jewish Talmud and traditions, so wouldn't any changes, exclusions, or obvious attempts to meet the prophetic requirements be met with disbelief? To use the Gospels to help to convert those Jewsish sects would appear to be difficult to say the least. Also, if the Romans had arrested Jesus on their own and decided to kill him, would that not still (somewhat)fit the OT's prophetic requirements?

Lastly, the Jewish scholars state that John the Baptist is regarded as an Essenes saint and that Jesus' sayings mirror rabbinical teachings of that sect. They also feel that since the Bible tends to remain fairly quiet regarding the Essenes sect, that this is where the majority of early "christians" came from. Maybe this was the sect the writers of the Gospels were trying hardest to convert.....any thoughts on this?

 

[Piggy]

Your answers have sent me scurrying through books and webpages, trying to dig up more information. Thank you. I've been home with a sinus infection and this has helped educate me and pass the time.

Quick matter of clarification in regards to the ox and the ditch: Are you actually meaning to refer to the Pharisees there as Luke 14:1-6 states?

Yes, Jesus' reference to the ox in the ditch was a response to a challenge regarding the issue of healing on the Sabbath.

It's 1:30 in the morning here, so a more complete response will have to wait til tomorrow, I'm afraid.

Regarding the Essenes it is extremely unlikely that the majority of early Xians would have come from their ranks, as I understand it.

The Essenes were a hermetic end-times cult. They lived apart, outside of Jerusalem, and had their own cult scriptures in addition to Biblical scrolls.

Xianity, by all accounts, was primarily a religion of urban Jews and of converted gentiles.

I've seen some attempts to equate early Xians with Essenes on the basis of certain similarities in doctrine and terminology, but these are much more easily explained by the fact that both were apocalyptic Judaic cults in the same time and place. Of course they shared many common terms and practices.

It's also been argued that Jesus must have been an Essene because he wasn't a Pharisee or Saducee, but this ignores the fact that the Jesus cult was its own school of thought.

When you read Essene documents -- which is possible to do now -- you do find a lot of the same language, but this was language that was all over the place back then, and there is absolutely no indication that the "son of God" or "son of light" of the Essenes was Jesus.

Instead, these references -- and others outside the Essene scriptures -- inform us that the terms applied to Jesus were common in their day.

And I don't know of any evidence that early Xian writers and preachers were targeting Essenes. You could hardly classify those guys as "low hanging fruit". The Essenes were already walking the walk, big time. They were out there living in the desert, waiting for the end of the world.

Their silence about the Essenes is more likely due to their having no contact with such a remote and insular cult which, while also apocalyptic, already had its own annointed one and its own doctrine.

 

[Radrook]

Example of godless reasoning.


"The Bible teaches that Adam was given work to do."

"Umm that's your interpretation!"

"What do you mean my interpretation?"

"Another fella says that God gave work as punishment"

'But that's not what the Bible says as you can see here"

"My friend can show you where it says that work was given as punishment!"

"The scripture mentioning work given Adam precedes that scripture. So work per see could not have been punishment since work was given Adam before he sinned.

"Umm, that's your interpretation!"

"But there is nothing to interpret! It clearly tells us he was to tend the
Garden and care for the animals."

"Um my friend interprets it differently"

"Plain facts aren't open to interpretation! Is the fact that Adam was a man
open to interpretation?"

"Yep!"

"How so?"

"Some people believe he was part ape."

"But the Bible clearly says he was a man!"

"That' YOUR interpretation!"

Ad infinitum.

The reasoning seems to be that since people can imagine all sorts of things and put them forth as biblical then the Bible itself is never clear on anything. Like getting a bunch of people together to see how many interpretations they can give the Declaration of Independence and then claiming that the document can be interpreted in any which way and is unclear because these people were able to come yup with scatterbrained ideas. If anybody claimed such a thing based on that premise they mighty be considered feebleminded, retarded-insane jokesters or maliciously inclined. Certainly not the kind of individuals one might want to
engage in any type of extended conversation lest their bad habits rub off.

 

[Mark Felt]

strawman

Troll, why don't you quote anything from this thread, or this forum, troll?

 

[Radrook]

I don't claim to be any type of biblical scholar. I also realize the more I study the Bible, the more I realize I know little about how it came to be. This thread is helping me to gain more knowledge on a subject that has played a crucial part in human history. I am "exposing" my personal interpretations to the group in the hopes I will be corrected with substantial facts or at the very least, different viewpoints that cause me to gather more information to reinforce my interpretation.

Your interpretation? LOL the Bible doesn't need any other interpretation other than that which it provides by itself.

Sadly Radrook, you have not helped my quest for knowledge. I do actually thank you as your somewhat vitriolic responses had made me more determined to learn as much on the subject matter as possible. You have actually helped me to question the Bible more. I do appreciate that.

Responses aren't considered vitriolic when they are directed against me. So why should they be considered vitriolic when I use a toned down version? Furthermore, since you aren't really seeking anything other than to foist your own meanings on scripture I haven't helped you at all. But thanx for the thanx anyway.

BTW -"basic universally agreed-upon biblical fact "....I'm skeptical of that statment. It sounds...what are the words....oh, yes.....it sounds "simplistic,lethargic," and shows an "uncritical mentality". You took the words right out of my mouth. Good day to you sir.

Here we go again folks!
It sounds that way because you consider the Bible open to any ridiculous interpretation you just happen to come up with. At least that's the impression you give me by expressing astonishment in relation to the universally agreed upon biblical facts. In short, if you fail to see an agreed upon biblical facts or are hell-bent on denying that there are any agreed upon biblical facts or are hell bent-on believing the Bible has no facts at all-then don't waste your time. You will get nowhere with that mindset. Actually, I really find it hard to imagine you are anything other but funning since to me it's inconceivable that any one of average intelligence would conclude such a thing. On the other hand the Bible does speak about minds being fogged purposely due to not deserving to know because of the cynical motives they have when reading scripture.


Matthew 13:14-16

14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Luke 8:10
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.


2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.



So that might just be the cause of all the density being expressed here by the godless.