The Bible is open to interpretation, thus cannot be used as factual evidence

Originally posted by mytym
I'd just like to point at that the thread topic applies equally to those wishing to support or oppose religious arguments alike. Due to the subjectivity involved in interpreting the meaning of th written word, using a passage from the Bible to play the role of factual evidence is rarely an acceptable exchange.

The reason people don't understand the Bible is they are running trying to interpret everything. Try reading exactly what it says.

There is the "The Church is Israel" bull that has been spread around. That started because people didn't realize that God is fully able to do exactly what he said and restore Isreal as a nation even after 2000 years.

There is the "The USA is Babylon" bull. People don't understand how "Babylon is the Hammer of the whole earth", so they try to make scripture fit what they don't understand. Bablyon must be the USA, they say. No, Babylon is Babylon, modern day Iraq.

Just like the Noah and the 120 year life question that you asked. I just read exactly what it said and BINGO the question is answered, crutch is gone.

Just read exactly what it says, because God is fully able to do exactly what his word says. We don't need to make things fit with our interpretations.

Sun Matrix:
Just because you read exactly what the Bible says doesn't mean no interpretation is required. This is a concept you clearly don't understand. If it were the case why do you think so many people would be unable to read something literally? Wouldn't you expect people to take these passages literally to begin with? The need for interpretation only became necessary when the contradictions raised by a literal understanding became to numerous to rationalise.

Despite reading exactly what the Bible says, there is more than one meaning that applies, thus you are interpreting this literal scripture to mean one thing and others are interpreting it to mean another. I have already demonstarted this, for I read the Noah and the 120 year life passage exactly as it said and BINGO the contradiction is evident.

Urgh....

Honestly, it really doesn't matter what people say about the Bible. At least in America and Europe (from what I know) you have the right to believe anything you want to believe. The Bible is meant to help guide you through this little game called "life," as it is a collection of stories. There are parts in the Bible where people live for hundreds of years... Which we all know cannot be true, unless there were some bad ass superhumans in the "Beginning."

Take the Bible for what it's worth: A historical collection of stories to give faith to those who need it.

yes shane, there were color photos in that issue! but there was a very well written article along with it. and it was very hard to read war and peace by tolstoy when i was 13 with no pictures. shakespeare too! one does not get the full effect of julius ceasare without all those shiny pictures! please do not be rude to others who disagree with you or to call them names. especially when no offense was meant to no one in particular. this was debate. implying that some one does not read with out even having knowledge of that person is prejudicial and very un christ like. it is great that you have a very strong religious faith and it is admirable. please do put down those who do not share that. i, in know way was tryin to impugne your faith.

stating that there are unpleasant truths inside that book does not make it ignorance. please consider how i have been writing. it should be clear that i do have a pretty good knowledge of the good book. i may not be able to quote the EXACT scripture or verse like others.

as evidenced by the many different opinions so far, one honestly can not say that one is more valid than the other. one may believe it to be so and may their lord bless them. but sadly, this is how wars and oppression often come into being.

peace and good will to all

Originally posted by Shane

I was unaware that the Catholic Church took such a stance and that it would teach it's children as you have explained clearly and directly.

This is not necessarily true for all Catholics-- I was brought up Catholic and my take on the bible is significantly different from yours, but that's partially because my translation of the bible came from a completely different time. Not all Catholics use this translation, though-- many now use the King James version.

Just because one person feels this way... doesn't mean that everyone does.

Originally posted by mytym
If it were the case why do you think so many people would be unable to read something literally?

I think this would be a Topic of it's own Mytym.

I believe, much of the problem here, with some people anyways, is they have not been taught to learn, which is a nessessity overlooked within the Education Systems in North Amercia. I do believe, this maybe changing to some respects, since 'Old School' Principles are returning, but there is a bunch of people, that have been raised and 'educated' (for lack of a better word) by being TOLD WHAT THEY SHOULD KNOW. Not how to use the cells between their ears to figure it out for themselves.

Despite reading exactly what the Bible says, there is more than one meaning that applies, thus you are interpreting this literal scripture to mean one thing and others are interpreting it to mean another.

And in this, I couldn't agree with a poster thus far, more.

The Bible, despite the discussion here, is threefold.

It is a Historcial Text, that seems to be the main discussions here.
It is a Spiritual Text, that some have noted, but is not really part of the discussion.
It is a Prophetic Text, that was mentioned once, but either ignored, or overlooked.

From front to back.

The Historical Covers Adam, and his decendants through to Christ.
The Spiritual Covers the parables, and stories of failure and redemption that can be learn by us through our forefathers, in an attempt to show the fraility of man, and that it is a job, to take the stand of trying to be, 'as Christ', and live the life pleasing to God.
And it is Prophetic, which needs no discription, (At least I think it doesn't)

And, If you are the 'Praying Type' and wish to get going and see what the Bible does offer to YOU, the reader, Pray to God, to give you the Understanding.

But you do need to read it as three different things. That means you should read it completely as a Historical Text. Reread it as a Spiritual Text, and the third time is the charm, in a Prophetic sense.

I have already demonstarted this, for I read the Noah and the 120 year life passage exactly as it said and BINGO the contradiction is evident.

Bingo is not Factually, in the Bible.

Noah lived many years, since he was from the pre-Flood era. He was 500, when Uriel (The Book of Enoch) came and gave him the Message from God, to Build the Ark, and 600 when the Flood Occured. He may well have aged to 900 like all of his forefathers. Shem, Japteth, and Ham, I would expect also to have lived, as there Forefathers, but there is 'NO ACCOUNT" of this in Specific, within the Bible. (I have not finished Enoch's works, so I just can't tell you anything on this right now)

I will look for you and followup on that 120 Year soon though.

Ciao

Shane

[edit on 30-5-2006 by Shane]

Originally posted by blackthorne

who did cain and abel marry? no where does it say that god created others. did they mate with eve, their mom?

stating that there are unpleasant truths inside that book does not make it ignorance.

peace and good will to all

Blackthorne

I appreciate you explaination, but need to remind you, that "stating that there are unpleasant truths inside that book does not make it ignorance". No, and for this "UNPLEASANT TRUTH" it's a LIE. Not Ignorance.

I certainly agree, many failures are noted with God's Word, and we are to learn from these examples inorder to be able to walk the path of Christ's example.

The point is, there are enough of these already in the Bible, that YOU, don't need falsify or mislead others, with such thoughts. You presented a LIE. And now pass it off as an unpleasant truth.

You see what I am getting at here Blackthorne. Do you understand why it seems as if you have'nt read the First Chapter. The second one, you have a great grasp on, and this makes it all the worst.

You offer an explaination, citing in your own words, an accurate discription of the Events surrounding Adam and Eve, and then present a Lie, a Fabrication, a Statement of Unpleasant Things, that are not in the Bible, as if they were.

And you have yet to indicate that misleading information you presented or pondered, claiming it is not in the Bible, is actually noted, and you had maybe overlooked this, and wish to note this oversight, so others do not consider your misleading information as Truth.

But I trust you will.

Until then

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Draconica
I was brought up Catholic and my take on the bible is significantly different from yours, but that's partially because my translation of the bible came from a completely different time. Not all Catholics use this translation, though-- many now use the King James version.

You see, Live and Learn. I just thought the difference between the KJV and Your's was the Apocyrpha along with some other O.T. works.

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version? And then you had the Apocrypha and some additionals books of Moses, (I forget what they where exactly) added in the late 50's?

But I do believe, those texts actually came from the work done in 1611 by King Jame's Translators (The English Translation). I know the are dated the same, but I never did get a satisfactory answer from the Preist who married me to number 1.

I did ask though, but getting info, was like pulling teeth.

I think there was some reworking also done in the late 1800's as well, but I was certain we had this one thing in common.

As for what they done with it since then ???

Maybe you could clarify that a bit. Thanks!

Just because one person feels this way... doesn't mean that everyone does.

I know several Catholics, who would respond as you have as well. They also have a firm grip on reality, and can express knowledgeable responses, that do reflect Biblical teachings, as you have been doing.

I was just shocked, that this was suggested to be what the students within Catholic Schools are being told. Maybe it was just a Bad School.

Have a nice evening Draconica

Ciao

Shane

Shane:
Couldn't agree more with the education method subjected to many people these days. It is the primary reason why forums such as ATS exist. Too often, we (myself included) fail to question the validity of the information being used to educate us.

P.S. Are you sure BINGO isn't mentioned six or seven times, in the back somewhere?

Well the school I graduated from was and is the highest ranked co-ed Catholic in the state. Also you took it wrong, I was not making an anti-semetic comment nor endorsing the action. The attacks on the first children were by a radical group, this group we were taught to view in a negative light. And for my fellow Christians if you truly beleive that out religions have no blood on our hands then you should read up on your history, Christians have had thier sinners just as others have. O and the Catholics view wars to only be acceptable when they save more lives than they cost, that is a Papal doctrine, so the murder of the first borns can be seen as an acceptable act of war.

Originally posted by ProjectChaos
Well the school I graduated from was and is the highest ranked co-ed Catholic in the state.

Even a secular school, wouldn't say something like you had noted Chaos.

Also you took it wrong, I was not making an anti-semetic comment nor endorsing the action.

I did not mean to suggest you had. You where letting us know, you where taught this. To subject a student to an inaccuracy, that picks out my Jewish brother from the rest of my family, seems to note something is afoot. The Peoples are the Israelites, and if the Highest Ranked Co-Ed Catholic School in your state, can teach you in this manner, then I suggest that is an incorrect claim, and your parents should ask for a refund.

The attacks on the first children were by a radical group, this group we were taught to view in a negative light.

The Word of God, tells YOU, He did it. You are told by your teachers the Jew's did it. Hmmmmm. This rings of antisemitism

And for my fellow Christians if you truly beleive that out (our?) religions have no blood on our hands then you should read up on your history, Christians have had thier sinners just as others have. O and the Catholics view wars to only be acceptable when they save more lives than they cost, that is a Papal doctrine, so the murder of the first borns can be seen as an acceptable act of war.

As can the Six Million, I suppose. This is distressing Chaos.

These are your words. I am not putting them into your fingers to express. You are demonstrating what you have been taught.

I agree completely, Organized Religions have likely slaughter more of mankind, under the premise of Religious Protection or Expansion, than petty squabbles between warring parties.
(This is solely a speculative comment, and in no manner could I ever support the with figures. It's just an observation, and remember, there are many beliefs that fall under Religion, that do not endorse Jehovah, Allah or God. The God of the Israel, Arabs, and Christians, Whatever we wish to call Him.)

And Chaos

I have hope this wasn't taken personally. I know many Catholic's who would suggest this thought is not Catholic teaching, and our friend, has even indicated that as well.

Mytym has a good post. I don't agree with his premise, but with an example like you have put forth, it does tend to support his opinion quite well, and maybe, just maybe, he has a point.

The Ten Plagues of Egypt, are not something that is mysterious. God, thru Moses, told Pharoh to obey, and due solely to his (Pharoh's) Ego and Vanity, decided, he ruled Egypt, not God. He was given ample opportunities to set the Israelites Free, but he would not, and set himself against God. This was the lesson, both Pharoh and US, (as the reader) was/is to learn.

Have a good evening Chaos

Ciao

Shane

I'd just like to re-iterate at this point, that I am in no way questioning the validity of the Bible as that would be another thread in itself and there are already many threads covering this topic. To make it simplier to grasp, I am requesting that you all assume the validity of the Bible to be beyond question. Furthermore, I would like to concentrate on the merit (or lack thereof) in using scripture as a substitute for factual evidence.

Hey, all those laws in those big books lined up in the library are all open to interpretation, also. Even if they were carved in stone, we'd endlessly debate the meaning and context of each word, and how it relates to "today's world" compared to what it meant when it was originally written.

A big chunk of the law is case law, law that is based on real things that happened to real people. At some time or another, a judge or a jury reaches a decision about what was fair and what wasn't in a particular case. Sometimes the existing decision fits a new case perfectly, and can be directly applied, but more often than not, the facts or the circumstances don't exactly match, and a new judge or jury, using the other case as a guide, has to come up with a compromise that works as good as it can.

I don't have a problem with using incidents in the Bible as if they were accurate case law. But it shouldn't be applied unless it accurately matches the fact pattern in question. In other words, the case needs to be "on point."

So if there's a question, for example, about what to do if someone casts a demon out of somebody and the demon goes into somebody else, maybe the Bible would have the best answer as to who is liable (the previous victim or Jesus, or whoever) for any damages caused when the demon is moved. The new victim may have losses from property damage, lost wages from missed work, loss of consortium, and so on, as a direct result of the demon casting. Somebody should be liable for those damages. And maybe the Bible would have some insight into the tortious liability in that case.

But if two people get in a fender bender because of a faulty streetlight, I'm probably not going to use the Bible as guidance to settle the various claims.



[edit on 1-6-2006 by Enkidu]

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Enkidu]

no No offense taken what so ever Shane, acctually I appreciate it. This is the reason im on this forum. People have disagreements but if everyone is respectful and civil this truly is the greatest way to learn. If someone cant look at anothers perspective than they shouldent have a say. So I take no offense, Im here to learn! Good Night to u as well.

Originally posted by Shane

Maybe you could clarify that a bit. Thanks!

Unfortunately friend, I cannot, for I don't remember what 'type' of bible I used as a child (I haven't been active in Catholicism since I was twelve). All I remember was the differences between "mine" and the King James Version.

I remember that the bible I was reading was a lot less "fire and brimstone" than the KJV, and was easier to understand, not because of the language, but because of the wording-- the verses where beautifully fluid and poetic. I searched around on the internet, to see if I could find wording similar to this, and even asked my mother if she knew... but sadly my search has turned up nil, and I've come to wonder if the wording really was a beautiful as I remember, or if it is just my memories elluding me. Everything just seemed more simple and magical to me-- but now I've come to second-guess myself.

I do know that the RSV you speak of had more revisions in the 80's and 90's... though I haven't had the opportunity to read any of them.



And everyone, please do remember that there are other interpretations of the bible out there-- you may see them as incorrect, or ignorant-- but all interpretations should be taken as personal truths, and not definate ones. Others may preceive the bible, and any piece of literature for that matter, in contrast to your beliefs, simply because of cultural, personal, and linguistic differences. Though as questionable and illogical as they may seem, to that person, they are TRUTH, and should be respected as such... perhaps adding one's own opinion ("educating" if you will), but still leaving them to interpret as they will. Pronouncing their interpretation as "wrong" will cause unneeded tension, and will only hinder further discussion and friendly debate.





[edit on 6/2/2006 by Draconica]

Originally posted by Draconica
All I remember was the differences between "mine" and the King James Version.

I remember that the bible I was reading was a lot less "fire and brimstone" than the KJV......

If I may offer this for your considertion, I believe there is a Lot Less "Fire and Brimstone" in the KJV, than our 'Clergy' (regardless of sect) wish us to believe.

I've come to wonder if the wording really was a beautiful as I remember, or if it is just my memories elluding me.

Everything just seemed more simple and magical to me-- but now I've come to second-guess myself.

No, your not 'Second Guessing'. The message is a beautiful tale, and the one's who get it the best, are the Children. They haven't been afforded the chance of corruption from the snares and traps that invade their lives as one becomes older, and some suggest 'wiser', although that would be misleading.

But thanks Draconica

Have a nice evening

Ciao

Shane

I would just like everyone who has read through this thread to consider one thing.

The fact that the most of the New Testament writers were all under intense persecution and most died for thier written testimony and faith is important.

Think about it, would you die for something if it was a lie?

Would John get exiled to Patmos if he truly never did experience all the things he wrote in Revelation and in his gospel account?

Amos 8:11 (Whole Chapter)
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

Its truly sad, that during the dark ages countless numbers died just for reading the bible, or having it in thier home. With the advent of the printing press and the Great Reformation men and women rejoiced that they could read the WORD OF GOD for themselves. A great void that had enveloped thier spiritual lives was filled all by reading this book. Centuries ago, men could only dream of getting to read this book. Before the printing press, people who made copies of the bible were so careful, that if they made even made a minute mistake, they would rewrite the whole page over.

But now, we live in a time where the bible is so freely accessible. Where before, you could only read the bible at the cover of night in fear that the inquisition might find you. That your neighbor might find out that you had a copy and get "ratted" on. Is it a surprise that Jesus Christ will come at a time that WE ALL HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SEEK HIM, because we have the bible without any hindrance or fear of persecution? Can any of us plead ignorance before God that we didn't know?

Originally posted by Shortness
I would just like everyone who has read through this thread to consider one thing.

The fact that the most of the New Testament writers were all under intense persecution and most died for thier written testimony and faith is important.

Think about it, would you die for something if it was a lie?

This thread really isn't about whether or not the bible is a lie, but whether it should be used as factual evidence based on the fact that it is open to interpretation. There are instances that are proven to be absolute based on world events and archaeology, but there are others which are more obscure, harder to understand, and may be misconstrued (sp) countless ways and therefore their validity as proof is constantly taken under consideration.

Please refer to the first post of this thread:

Originally posted by mytym

For the purpose of this thread, lets assume that there is no debate over the
validity of the Bible as a truthful historical account.

Those of us who are familiar with these pretenses have already taken the premise of your post into account.

Why can't we use the bible as fact? People can interpret the bible any way they want, but it does not make them right, HOWEVER, there are absolutes in the bible.

Revelation 7:10 (Whole Chapter)
And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

A person can interpret the Lamb anyway they want, whether its really a literal lamb or not, but the BIBLE tells us what the Lamb represents.

John 1:29 (Whole Chapter)
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

IF someone else were to interpret that the Lamb represents something other than Jesus, that is thier own interpretation, but that doesnt make them right.

Isn't it a fact that Jesus is the Lamb of God?