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

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

Time and time again I notice members here on ATS citing Bible references as forms of proof to support a particular point of view. I have no problem with people believing in and following the teachings of the Bible, but when it comes to presenting quotes from the Bible as facts, I take issue with it. I have brought this issue up many a time before and I am sure I will bring it up again, but if the Bible is open to interpretation, then using any passage in the Bible as factual proof is not permitted, as a different interpretation of the passage will result in a different conclusion. Some argue that the Bible requires no interpretation, and can be taken literally. If this is your belief that is fine, but please do not make any
interpretations or assumptions to explain the passage when using it to
support a point of view.

[edit on 27/5/06 by mytym]

Great point. Could not agree more.
It does seem to happy a LOT here.

here'e some proof of the authenticity of the Bible.
www.direct.ca...

[edit on 27-5-2006 by ivanterrible]

Originally posted by ivanterrible
here'e some proof of the authenticity of the Bible.
www.direct.ca...

[edit on 27-5-2006 by ivanterrible]

How does that prove anything?
I really cant see how it could...

[edit on 27-5-2006 by Jugg]

Originally posted by Jugg

Originally posted by ivanterrible
here'e some proof of the authenticity of the Bible.
www.direct.ca...

[edit on 27-5-2006 by ivanterrible]

How does that prove anything?
I really cant see how it could...

[edit on 27-5-2006 by Jugg]

It proves that through mathematical calculations done by the most genius of all mathemeticians it is real. just read and learn. www.wordworx.co.nz...

try to read and learn from the sites above and see for yourself, or just google Ivan Panin. www.direct.ca...

Well... i still cant see it proves anything?

Just because something is mathematical, every thing it contains must be true?


I could easy type in a story about Bob Saget created the world, and then hide a little math in it, but that still wouldnt make it true?

OK...

So, a book with crazy number patterns is fact, as long as you disregard tidbits like plants created before the sun...right.

It must be very conforting for those that choose to actualy believe the Bible is the uncorrupted .'Word of God'.
A powerful and compact nugget of pristine truth that can be quoted from ad nauseam as supposed proof of the mind of God, of what is right and what is wrong, of the correct way to live, how to attain Heaven, the true history of the world, etc., etc.

It is truely amazing that every one of the numerous authors of the various books of the Bible is believed to be an uncorrupted and pure conduit for Truth.
What are the odds?
That those who chose which books to include and which to exclude were also all pure of intention and not subject to human error.
What are the odds?
That none of the books could have been edited or added to by ones of less than pure intention.
What are the odds?
On top of all that , the various books that form the Bible in its present form(s) can be interpreted in various different ways by individuals and religious institutions.
Which interpretation is correct if one chooses to set aside logic and believe it is the uncorrupted truth?

It's very easy and covenient to choose to believe a widely available book such as the Bible that has millions of supporters world wide.
No further tedious research is required. The search is over.
This popular path to supposed 'truth' is a widely travelled.
In a perfect world there would be nothing to be wary about in taking of this path.
However in a world such as ours, the popularity and ease of this path can also be indicative of a potential trap to stop one from seeking further.

[edit on 27-5-2006 by point]

Originally posted by truthseeka
OK...
So, a book with crazy number patterns is fact, as long as you disregard tidbits like plants created before the sun...right.

That has always been my biggest argument. How do you mathematically explain photosynthesis without the sun?

I think there are a few bits that can be referenced from other religious texts predating the bible to show that there may indeed have been things like a flood (but that's for another thread that I am sure has already been created times over).

Originally posted by truthseeka
OK...

So, a book with crazy number patterns is fact, as long as you disregard tidbits like plants created before the sun...right.

Your a civil poster, and not what I would consider one makeing silly comments, but where may this tidbit be, noting God created Plants before the Sun?

I have heard many claim assissine things in respects to Bible translations and such, but I have never heard this.

And to solve those questionable problems associated with interpetations of the Scriptures that are out there, why not just use the 1611 Version, and use a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, so when you need to findout what something actually meant, you have a tool to do so. This is much better than having a tool tell you so.

Here's a link to the KJV 1611 Bible, complete with the message that the Translators wrote to YOU, the reader. You can find it in the index.

www.jesus-is-lord.com...

And let me know where this plant thing is my friend

As for the Topic Mytym

Forgive me, if there are some, such as you, that find it difficult to deal with if I opt to support a premise utilizing scripture.

You can skip the post. Stand up for your rights and do not partake in the discussion. You have that God given abiltiy of free will. Use it. But do not be telling me, what I can or can not use. I have the same right as you do, and excerise it constantly in various topic areas. I just abstain.

Ciao

Shane

Excellent post Shane.

The truth is under it's greatest attack in these final days. Nice to run across someone who can see.

None of this proves that everything in the bible is facts?
It dosent prove anything in the bible to be fact.

Not at all...

The final days....the end of days.....the end times....


Humanity has been knashing its teeth, and throwing ashes on their heads for tens of thousands of years, preparing for the end of the world. Most Christians dont know, or want to know, the history of the Bible, how Hewbrew is directly descended from the Phoenician language, and from this comes the fables, stories of adam and eve, and creation myths. They were gathered the world over, from one seaport to another, and handed down to the hebrew scribes and scholars.

The Bible is used to support the mass murder of entire cultures, the wholesale burning of women in the middle ages...its a long list and goes on and on. We have a President that thinks God told him to bomb Iraq, and has the Support of the sheep that follow him into the Abyss.

The Truth is the Bible has brought little more than death and destruction in the last 2 thousand years, but hey, it provides solace to the people about to be murdered by its followers.

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.

Time and time again I notice members here on ATS citing Bible references as forms of proof to support a particular point of view. I have no problem with people believing in and following the teachings of the Bible, but when it comes to presenting quotes from the Bible as facts, I take issue with it. I have brought this issue up many a time before and I am sure I will bring it up again, but if the Bible is open to interpretation, then using any passage in the Bible as factual proof is not permitted, as a different interpretation of the passage will result in a different conclusion. Some argue that the Bible requires no interpretation, and can be taken literally. If this is your belief that is fine, but please do not make any
interpretations or assumptions to explain the passage when using it to
support a point of view.

[edit on 27/5/06 by mytym]

I understand what your trying to say here mytym, but your opinion is exaggerated. Or maybe I should say it's to general. How can every verse of the Bible be open to interpretation, it's really not, so it depends on what the person is quoting the passage for. There are some things that either are true or its not, period. For instance theres certain history mentioned and either that history is factual or it isn't, the whole book is not like prophecy where you come up with interpretations. There are some things that the Bible says which people say because God said it, it must be wise and good for the human being. This is either true or it's not true. Circumscion is it good for you, yes, medically this has been proven, so you just can't say it's all speculation. The bible says the Assyrians were a mighty superpower, either they were or they weren't. I've even heard that for a long time the world only new about the Hittites through the Bible, so for awhile historians thought they never existed, except as myth but then they found out later that they actually existed, so you can't everything is open to interpretation, you need to be clear on what subjects is just quoting the Bible not good enough.

Well, here you go, Shane.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

I don't fault you for saying my comment was silly, I heartily agree that this is silly. It's just too bad that this silliness (is that a word?) is straight from the bible.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Well, here you go, Shane.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

I don't fault you for saying my comment was silly, I heartily agree that this is silly. It's just too bad that this silliness (is that a word?) is straight from the bible.

Germinating a seed would require a light source. According to you, there was no light when the seeds were germinated. Most people that live in a city where they require HID lighting to grow plants, would question this to some extent. Seeds need warmth, what was providing the warmth for the seeds?? I have a feeling I already know the answer, I just wanna wait to argue that one.

The Truth is the Bible has brought little more than death and destruction in the last 2 thousand years, but hey, it provides solace to the people about to be murdered by its followers.

Can you provide any facts on this? I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Well, here you go, Shane.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

I don't fault you for saying my comment was silly, I heartily agree that this is silly. It's just too bad that this silliness (is that a word?) is straight from the bible.

Well, now I see why some may be better not to quote scripture.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the
face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided
the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which
were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the
morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered
together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it
was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering
together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it
was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was
in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

As for this so far, There is Day and Night which took place on the first 'day'. There is something not addressed yet, but it comes shortly.

But since I have to ask. What is shining during the day?
And why is there Darkness during the Night?

And then on 'day' three the earth brought forth Grasses and Herbs etc.

As we progress, and see the forth 'day'

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven
to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule
the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the
stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give
light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide
the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

These are the Stars and Moon. The Sun, is already evident in the first day, but mentioned here again as something God made, and refered to in specific, to denote the difference from the lessor light which ruled the Night.

It's not brain surgery my friend!

Ciao

Shane




[edit on 28-5-2006 by Shane]

[edit on 28-5-2006 by Shane]

[edit on 28-5-2006 by Shane]

KJV 1611 Bible, complete with the message that the Translators wrote to YOU, the reader.

"KJV" means "King James Version", what makes him so special to be able to have "his own" version?
And that it was, he rewrote it to be able to control his people. His version is still controlling people to this day.
Have you ever done a search looking for what kind of person King James was? It's all a matter of recorded history, the answer may terribly surprise you.
I'm not posting any links, you'll believe more if you find it yourself.
Lets just say he had a fondness for young boys, and he would also roll around in the blood of dead animals that he hunted. Strange, to say the least.....