It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 01:26 AM
So everyone who interprets any passage differently from another, is extending their will outwards upon it? That sounds like an assumption to me.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by speaker]

posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:33 PM

Originally posted by speaker
So everyone who interprets any passage differently from another, is extending their will outwards upon it? That sounds like an assumption to me.

Perhaps if we could only agree upon what the word "interpretation" means?

The following statement may sound like an assumption, but taking into consideration the meaning of the word "interpretation", the only assumption i made is that the word was being used correctly:

I said:
"The bible is open to interpretation only by people who are extending their will outwards upon it."

Speaker replied:

Originally posted by speaker
So everyone who interprets any passage differently from another, is extending their will outwards upon it? That sounds like an assumption to me.

Wilkapedia supports my "assumption" by stating:
Through the act of interpretation the reader is the one creating meaning; the meaning of the text intended by the writer is potentially overlooked or ignored.

There are three things that allow interpretation to occur, and these are all interlinked and interdependable: the writer, the text and the reader. Through the act of interpretation the reader is the one creating meaning; the meaning of the text intended by the writer is potentially overlooked or ignored. The reader produces meaning by participating in a complex of socially defined and enforced practices. Interpretation is an active process of producing values and meanings, a process that always occurs within specific cultural and political contexts, directly linked to the world in which the reader lives.

The purpose of interpretation would normally be to increase the possibility of understanding, but sometimes, as in propaganda or brainwashing, the purpose may be to evade understanding and increase confusion.

Synonyms: estimation, evaluation, finding, judgment, opinion, outline, reasoning, report, study, summary

I stand by my statement, which is supported, and was not an assumption.


posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 01:43 PM
Nice try. However, you claim that the Bible is NOT open to interpretation (see below), thus based on your own findings presented in your last post, you are contradicting yourself. By your own logic, by reading the Bible, one is automatically interpreting it's message. As you allude to, it is not possible to read without interpreting it.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

this is simply just not true.

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

not true. The bible is open to interpretation only by people who are extending their will outwards upon it. As for factual evidence, if people were paying attention to the words and what they are saying, the factual evidence is without limits.

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 04:08 PM
I dont think we have met and I know this is an old thread so maybe you wont even see this but...

You see Truthseeka, it will become a theology lesson.

I concure with the notations above by Curiousity. but there are things missing, that deal with The Previous Earth Age, This Earth Age, and The Coming Earth Age, that are not being addressed.

The Hebrew text does suggest, Genesis 1;2 begins as, And the earth became a waste and a desolation and then continues quite inline with the balance of the noted text in that verse.

The simple implication is then, Genesis 1;1 In the Begining, God Created what???

The Heavens and the Earth, of course.

What are the Heavens? The Sun, Moon, Stars, Solar System infact. Everything was created in the Begining.

Everything was complete. The First Earth Age.

Look further on in the Storyline, and get to Day Six. Review carefully, what man, both male and female was supposed to do.

Are they to Plenish to earth? No, they are to REPLENISH the Earth. Obviously, it was previously populated.

This part is interesting and definatley supports what you are saying, in the NIV the term replenish isn't used. (havent used KJV in awhile)

We can also examine other sources, but rather than amass a litany of work for nothing, I offer the following for consideration, since they have done most of the Groundwork.

They seem to be saying the same as what you summarized here. Using the verse about re-plenish and a few other oriniginal Hebrew text meanings of words they make some profound statements and leap to conclusions a bit (imho) about the old earth and us being there not in the flesh but in spirit. Then there came the first flood (worldwide) which killed off the dinosaurs and our spirits that were on earth? Seems like we would just be hovering about above the water un-harmed by it...

Also, as the very first paragraph suggests, read about the 'REBELLION OF SATAN'

This is what created the situation we find in Genesis 1:2, And the earth became a waste and a desolation. Hell, even his name is in the Verse. Satan is the Desolator, along with an array of titles.

But that should do for now. And if you have any questions always, feel free to ask, and that goes for anyone, (Even the Doubters). I may not have an answer, but I am sure we can figure it out. Like I said, It's not Brain Surgury.



What really bothered me about this line of thinking I guess was God created the heavens and the earth and then Satan through his rebelion won the first round of the fight totaly? He caused God to have to wipe out every living thing completely (not even sparing a remnant) and start over with creation 2.0 or something?

Alas I think we are supporting the OP statement that the Bible as well as everything written here at ATS pretty much can be interpreted differntly by differnt people. Does that make it any less true or incorrect? I think the fault lies with man and not God or his word.

PS: I do agree there is the previous earth age (history of the world) the present one we live in, and the one to come. I just dont know if I can fathom it happened/started just like the link you posted.

And just since these always seem to be brought up here this is an interesting link for those who may be interested.

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 04:25 PM

Ultimately, we all believe what we believe unless and until given reason to do otherwise. It is not though these beliefs - whatever side of the fence one lands on - that we wield the ability to harm ourselves and one another, but rather through the actions we freely choose to carry out, the words we decide to speak, and the rules we elect to live by, inspired and supported by them. With that in mind, I would suggest that the lens through which we view (or the spin we choose to place upon) our beliefs, whatever they may be, is a greater factor in how we treat reality than the beliefs themselves. It all comes down to free will, even in the case of perception.

Are you saying something like we are all a product of our environment, our upbringing, and other external influences? Thus that is the lens you look through when viewing the world and seeking truth etc.? If so I think I would have to agree with you for the most part.

The Bible states we are all born when and where God wants us to be in order that men will seek him. (you have the best chance to hear and believe the truth)

Acts 17:26-27 (New International Version)
26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

With all of that said, I feel compelled to ask why either side cares what the other side believes or how they choose to back up their arguments. If the religious side feels they're right and wants to back up their arguments with their religious beliefs, particularly when the non-religious side is equally confident in its own interpretation of reality, what harm is there in that? If the other side doesn't believe what they do, why is that a bad thing?

I can tell you simply that if you are on the side of the fence that believes then you care about those who do not because you believe nothing is more important. You want to share with them the truth you have come to understand for yourself and your compasion and love for them (even those you dont know) calls for you to "show them the way". I dont think I need to qoute any scripture here as I am sure you have heard it already.

Now the other side needs to prove they are correct and the Bible is not the inspired true word of God becuase if it is and they choose not to except it... (well you know the rest here I am sure) That and pride. Who wants to admit they are wrong? Who would want to acknowledge God for thier creation and existence when they can claim to be gods themselves? Hey if God doesnt exist then you dont have to be accountable to anything greater than yourself isnt that what people like to hear?

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 07:42 PM
It seems than many on this thread are getting off the track. The purpose of the thread is not to debate the validity of the Bible. This has been done countless times. As it states in the opening post, this thread wishes to make the assumption that the Bible's validity is beyond doubt. The purpose is to point out that what's written in the Bible, as truthful and accurate as it may be, is interpreted differently by each reader, thus using a Bible passage to support a factual argument is terminally flawed by the readers interpretation of what the passage means.

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 08:11 PM
Hope this get through. When i see the creation, trees, stars, oceans, or hold a new baby with it's small hands after birth. the air that we breath I feel that's enought to make me believe that there is a higher power than me,whether one calles it their higher power, or God. I believe He exist.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 07:57 AM
I am a Darwinian evolutionist but I also do interpreting studies of the Bible. I see no conflict between Darwin and the Bible:

(Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ‘ruddy’, rosy, the flush of red blood

"man became a ‘living soul’ " (Genesis 2:7):
soul (Hebrew & Greek) = animal principle/breathing creature

- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth -dust/ground-primordial soup)

Adam/man was not initially a human being as many believe but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (chimpanzee; somewhere along the line human beings caught the chimp gene because of recent human genome DNA mapping).

Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the ‘human’ species. If human beings are in part ‘soul (primate/mammal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in primates? Could it be because we have something primates don’t have?

animal = soul
human being = soul + spirit

soul = mortal (of earth)
spirit = immortal (otherworldly, aura, transcendent, supernatural = God's image)

Prior to being put into the garden, ruddy did not have 'spiritual' ability, he only gained that after he entered the garden; '...and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had made.' (Gen. 2:8)

It was the gaining of this other element that enabled 'one' primate to change from animal to human, and unless he had gained this other element, he could not have changed - thus the reason we don't see other primates in various stages of change.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 11:06 AM
What really kills me is,if some of these people don't believe in the bible or in GOD why bother whining about it?,if there is something I disagrre with I just avoid it at all costs,do these people have a life? it's pretty obvious that people have certain beliefs and some indigo child decides it's not true? I consider the souse! I mean source

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by Oldtimer2

It's difficult to get away from it when the self-proclaimed "Leader of the Free World" keeps banging on about how his invisible jewish sky wizard friend makes the decisions for him. Try getting away from that.

Try thinking about other folks for a change - put yourself in their shoes. It's not nice being an atheist when Christians repeatedly ram their religion down your throat 24/7. No pun intended.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by ivanterrible

Maths in the bible, aye?

Of course the bible also says that Pi = 3.

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in