Using Preponderance of the Evidence to Interpret the Bible

In my experience Christians use preponderance of the evidence to interpret the Bible quite often. Probably the clearest and most famous example of this is Luke 14:26.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

I've debated this verse extensively with Christians many times. The Greek word translated as "hate" in that verses absolutely means hate:

KJV Translation Count — Total: 42x
The KJV translates Strongs G3404 in the following manner: hate (41x), hateful (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage
to hate, pursue with hatred, detest
to be hated, detested
Strong’s Definitions
μισέω miséō, mis-eh'-o; from a primary μῖσος mîsos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less:—hate(-ful).
www.blueletterbible.org...

Here's an article that goes into this issue in detail:

Hate Your Family?
Based on the definitions of miseo that we saw earlier, and on the way it is used repeatedly in other passages, I conclude that miseo in Luke 14:26 ("If any man ... hate not his father [etc] ...") means hate, not love less. It is not accurate to say that "love less" is a better translation. That does not seem to be a translation, but an interpretation, which is an entirely different thing. Once we start to interpret, we can make scriptures mean all sorts of things.

So here we have more evidence that the Bible is not a perfect book.

Some say that "hate" is the correct translation, but that it was merely hyperbole, that is to say, an exaggeration used to make a point. But if the Bible is a perfect book, why would it use hyperbole? If we believe that the Bible contains hyperbole then we open the door to dismissing all sorts of teachings as mere hyperbole. Turn the other cheek? Hyperbole. Love your enemies? Get real--mere hyperbole. Christ was actually resurrected? Hyperbole. Where does it end? People could use the "hyperbole" excuse to get out of anything they wanted to.

I do not accept that if God wanted to send a message to mankind, upon which our salvation depends, that he would use hyperbole.
www.church-of-god.info...

In my experience, most Christians take several other verses that contradict Luke 14:26 and they use a preponderance of the evidence to 'prove' that Luke 14:26 is an outlier so therefore the word "hate" doesn't mean literal hate.

I understand the logic except that it contradicts a main tenet of their religion:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

The word "hate" in the 'wrong' context is excluded from that apparently. Or maybe it's the right context as Christians that use preponderance of the evidence to interpret the Bible seem to look at the entire Bible as the context for every verse. That's how they justify using preponderance of the evidence to interpret the Bible after all. My head's already spinning at this point but it gets worse.

Christians that use preponderance of the evidence to interpret the Bible aren't fair about it. Take the topic of salvation as an example.

What must you do to be saved?
skepticsannotatedbible.com...

The webpage above has a list of 189 different ways to be saved according to the Bible. Clearly the preponderance of the evidence would disprove most Christians' favorite belief on this issue, #3, #36, and #37 from the list above:

Believe the right things.

A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. -- Romans 3:28
Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. -- Romans 5:1
A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. -- Galatians 2:16
For by grace are ye saved through faith. -- Ephesians 2:8

Believe in Jesus.

Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -- John 3:16
I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. -- John 11:25-26

Believe on Jesus.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. -- John 3:36
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. -- John 6:47
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. -- Acts 16:31
skepticsannotatedbible.com...

That's only nine verses out of over 200 verses listed on that page regarding what's required to be saved. Shouldn't we all be allowed to use preponderance of the evidence to 'prove' what's correct?

In my experience, the answer is a huge NO. No, Christians I've debated on the Bible almost always claim to hold the ultimate trump card. You have to be a believer to fully understand the truth of the Bible, they claim.

Why don't they just say that to begin with rather than going through the 'proof' through preponderance of the evidence charade?

a reply to: Profusion

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

In other words, only those that tire of the usual notions of what everyone thinks or pretends is love are ready to be taught anew.

My take.

a reply to: Profusion

Those who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyments of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples.

"Love Less" (Genesis 29:31), as to say that when our nearest and dearest relationships prove to be positive obstacles in coming to Christ, then all natural affections must be flung aside. No physical love, no earthly affection, must ever come into competition with the love of God.

a reply to: Profusion

The term hate in this context means simply to love less.
You must love me more than your wife, your children, your
father etc. etc.

And IMO the created should love the creator more than
anyone.

Malachi 1: 2 Jacob I loved but Esau I hated

God didn't hate Esau. But he did love Jacob more.

The whole point is to want another life, not this one.

That is the raw naked truth that is hard to accept.

Some want the next life to be filled with virgins and unending debauchery, some want a greater love that is unattainable now but the concept is understandable in an abstract way. There is a right way and a wrong way to satisfy this longing.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Profusion

The term hate in this context means simply to love less.
You must love me more than your wife, your children, your
father etc. etc.

And IMO the created should love the creator more than
anyone.

Malachi 1: 2 Jacob I loved but Esau I hated

God didn't hate Esau. But he did love Jacob more.

You do realize that Malachi was written in Hebrew and Luke was written in Greek?

The word translated as "hated" in Malachi 1: 2 is sane'. There is nothing in the definition that would imply anything but hate:

www.blueletterbible.org...

But, now you've got Romans 9:13 to deal with:

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

The word translated as "hated" in that verse is miseō, the exact same word translated as "hate" in Luke 14:26:

www.blueletterbible.org...

You're claiming that "love less" is the correct interpretation of "hate" in Luke 14:26. As this article discusses, that is not valid:

Hate Your Family?
Based on the definitions of miseo that we saw earlier, and on the way it is used repeatedly in other passages, I conclude that miseo in Luke 14:26 ("If any man ... hate not his father [etc] ...") means hate, not love less. It is not accurate to say that "love less" is a better translation. That does not seem to be a translation, but an interpretation, which is an entirely different thing. Once we start to interpret, we can make scriptures mean all sorts of things.

So here we have more evidence that the Bible is not a perfect book.

Some say that "hate" is the correct translation, but that it was merely hyperbole, that is to say, an exaggeration used to make a point. But if the Bible is a perfect book, why would it use hyperbole? If we believe that the Bible contains hyperbole then we open the door to dismissing all sorts of teachings as mere hyperbole. Turn the other cheek? Hyperbole. Love your enemies? Get real--mere hyperbole. Christ was actually resurrected? Hyperbole. Where does it end? People could use the "hyperbole" excuse to get out of anything they wanted to.

I do not accept that if God wanted to send a message to mankind, upon which our salvation depends, that he would use hyperbole.
www.church-of-god.info...

However, you've brought up a very interesting conundrum for you.

If Malachi 1: 2 and Romans 9:13 are discussing the same thing, then the Hebrew word sane' must have an equivalent meaning as the Greek word miseō.

That proves in my mind that your belief that miseō means "love less" is debunked completely.

a reply to: Profusion

I watched a great tv programme by the archaeologist Bethany Hughes and she covered something like this in the teaching of the Budha. It was about life's distractions where one big one considered by Gautama was the family as it prevented you basically getting to nirvana. Several other points also reminded me of Christ's teachings especially the compassion that runs throughout Budhism.

I can't help wondering if there isn't a very strong underlying linkage between what Christ taught and that of Budhism. I haven't yet seen the work she has done with Socrates and Confucius but I am assuming these were also men with similar ideas where one's actions could not be considered to have been pref-ordaned by some God but purely down to us, which was absolutely revolutionary thinking when these men were living.

www.bbc.co.uk...

What is so objectionable to you about using preponderance of the evidence?

The translation is wrong ....

misei μισεῖ means TURN DOWN / CONTEST in the sense of "Lack reception to what is given/offered". This is where the essence of DETEST / HATE is incorrectly translated from. You are offered TEST and you reject it ... DE-TEST.

Bad translation (as is most of the Bible).

And mathētēs μαθητής is closer translated to PROPAGATION, in the sense of 'Continuance of tasting a fruit'. One sequences ability to create a recursive sequence.

This is why it is inaccurately interpreted to mean DISCIPLE, as 'ONE LEARNING FROM ANOTHER'.

gynaika γυναῖκα isn't exactly WIFE either. It is closer to PROGENY, in the sense of 'BASTION ASCEND OF COURSES'. The continuance of the fire, within your set. A bloodline continuance, not within the blood.

The translation, and interpretation of the original text is very incorrect.

Hope this helped.

a reply to: Profusion

He is talking about His disciples. If you are ready to be a true follower, then everything else is secondary and you are willing to leave it.

How do you think such a move is often viewed by those you would leave?

God comes first.

a reply to: ketsuko

or is it simply a means of abnegating your responsibility when the going gets tough?

Most humans have a sense of responsibility its the way many are brought up. If that's in during the formative years its very hard to up sticks for God. Kids aren't taught leaving family for God they are taught dogma and Noah's Ark, 10 commandments etc etc, so this issue is a step further for people.

a reply to: ketsuko

That is called blind devotion, and it begets enslavement.

Trust me.

You don't ever want to do that ...

And that is NOT AT ALL WHAT IT SAYS!!!

*Sighs*

All the sheep are so happy following each other in line, one after the other, after the other, into the slaughterhouse. Unaware of where their happy little procession leads them.

Fools.

a reply to: Profusion

Guess I'll just have to wait til I know 100% from the very lips that
spoke the words that were actually written. Time and the trickery
of translations you and I both know, provide no comfortable seat
for faith. The FACT that many interpalations are provided for the
word justifies no judgement to begin with. Not from us who only
think we can out smart God. At the most it's a wait and see. I
have no problem with that. Thanks for the knowledge but it's
just no game changer to be suire from the get go. I'll concede
your point and hopefully example what faith really is.
( points right index to right eye and then at Pro )

originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
a reply to: ketsuko

That is called blind devotion, and it begets enslavement.

Trust me.

You don't ever want to do that ...

And that is NOT AT ALL WHAT IT SAYS!!!

*Sighs*

All the sheep are so happy following each other in line, one after the other, after the other, into the slaughterhouse. Unaware of where their happy little procession leads them.

Fools.

I see no interpretation from heaven to slaughter house.
Men lead men to the slaughter. At least there's hope
with God. If your comfortable with that?

Then you're the fool.

a reply to: SONOFTHEMORNING

Maybe if you were talking about giving your faith to a man, but I'm not.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Profusion

Guess I'll just have to wait til I know 100% from the very lips that
spoke the words that were actually written. Time and the trickery
of translations you and I both know, provide no comfortable seat
for faith. The FACT that many interpalations are provided for the
word justifies no judgement to begin with. Not from us who only
think we can out smart God. At the most it's a wait and see. I
have no problem with that. Thanks for the knowledge but it's
just no game changer to be suire from the get go. I'll concede
your point and hopefully example what faith really is.
( points right index to right eye and then at Pro )

No worries, this is just another bash thread, look at his/her others:

Does Christianity command believers to follow Satan?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The verse that destroys the Bible
www.abovetopsecret.com...


There are quite a few of them on this board. I actually had one admit that they will lie, misdirect, and do whatever it takes to shake someone's faith and attempt to undermine faith in Christ.

I don't think it will matter what or how many links I post as you will continue to purposely mislead people without even investigating what the reference words mean or really want to unless you can find some new accusation to shake people's faith by misrepresenting definitions. You will continue to chip away in an attempt to sway those who are not strong in their beliefs or are new to it all in order to undermine their confidence in what they read and what it means. Am I correct in this assumption?


--------------------------------------------- Flammadraco a reply to: Me

At the start of Christianity the world put up with the crusades, then we had the Spanish Inquisition, then the church put woman to death for being witches. Then we have only recently had clergy who are meant to be ambassadors of God abusing children. Your bible sanctioned slavery, your church was against interracial marriage just as now Christians are against gay marriage. Yes, you are correct in your assumptions, but folk don't need me to sway them away from religion, just watching and reading the news is enough to sway any sane person away from such a cult!

a reply to: infolurker

Ineffectual and pusilaminous at best.