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

Sun Matrix:
Let's. Here is a quote I made on another thread when you last raised the issue:

Originally posted by mytym
Sun Matrix asked me for one example of an opportunity that the Bible provides to be proven wrong. My example was the 120 age limit imposed by God on humans, despite many examples of humans living longer than this. He/She proceeded to use his/her opinions and assumptions to devise an alternative interpretation in an effort to avoid the contradiction. He/She then went on to deny that he/she had interpreted or assumed anything. Sun Matrix answered the question, but failed to prove the answer is factual and not merely his/her assumption, interpretation and opinion.

You asked for me to produce ONE of these many opportunities, which I did. To date you haven't had the courage to provide a valid answer. As I have stated many times, I will be happy to provide another as soon as you can provide a valid answer for the original challenge. I still await your response, which due to your lack of courage, seems unlikely to ever eventuate.

Any of this refresh your memory?

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

Hewbrew is directly descended from the Phoenician language.

Actually the Hebrew, Aramaic, Phoenician & Greek Alphabets all CORRESPOND to each other.

The Mathematical argument is also relevant because the Letters & Words of these Ancient Languages all indeed have Numerical Values that can be computed.

Of-course the Bible is Open to Interpretation! ALL books are open to Interpretation! As a matter of fact IT SAYS right in the Bible that God endowed us with the capacity for Free Will & Free Thought!

[edit on 28-5-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

I leave this unedited Seraphim, but wished to note something in addition to this.

The Bible, KJV or whatever, has NO MATHEMATICAL Values what so ever. Someone previously noted this, but that is not a Fact. Seraphim has noted quite accurately which languages have applied Numerics assigned to their letters, but it was misrepresented by such works as the Bible Code. The Bible has no Numeric Code. The Torah certainly does.

And how are you Seraphim? Have you been hiding or busy in another site? I have not seen your input for sometime. Nice to see it again.

Ciao

Shane

I'm going to go back to the original post of this thread ''» The Bible is open to interpretation, thus cannot be used as factual evidence »''
And answer that!

Originally posted by mytym
Sun Matrix:
Let's. Here is a quote I made on another thread when you last raised the issue:

Originally posted by mytym
Sun Matrix asked me for one example of an opportunity that the Bible provides to be proven wrong. My example was the 120 age limit imposed by God on humans, despite many examples of humans living longer than this. He/She proceeded to use his/her opinions and assumptions to devise an alternative interpretation in an effort to avoid the contradiction. He/She then went on to deny that he/she had interpreted or assumed anything. Sun Matrix answered the question, but failed to prove the answer is factual and not merely his/her assumption, interpretation and opinion.

You asked for me to produce ONE of these many opportunities, which I did. To date you haven't had the courage to provide a valid answer. As I have stated many times, I will be happy to provide another as soon as you can provide a valid answer for the original challenge. I still await your response, which due to your lack of courage, seems unlikely to ever eventuate.

Any of this refresh your memory?

Sure, I answered your question simply by reading exactly what the Bible said. And guess what, we didn't have to interpret anything. Here is my all too familiar response after answering your question.

Mytym, Notice that I didn't interpret anything. I just showed you what the Bible said. God said that he would make mans days 120 years and then I showed you that God said that he would destroy man from the face of the earth. Just like it says, no interpretation is needed. If an interpretation is needed, you will find that the Bible explains the Bible.

As before you have a problem facing the facts. Your question was answered, your wad was shot. Your crutch is gone. You have not one single fact to disprove the Bible. Face the facts, face your fear.

Originally posted by riley

You have voted mytym for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by mytym

If something in the bible is fact.. other facts would support it, otherwise it's NOT a fact and is either an opinion or a delusion. This is happening way too much here and needs to be discouraged as much as possible as it promotes ignorance.

[edit on 28-5-2006 by riley]

Well, heres a fact.

During the period of Solomon's and David's reigns, it was suggested, according to Scripture, that the Population within Israel (All twelves tribes at this time) had a level of education, and could read and write their language.

Of course, Academia with it's infant wisdom was quick to support the premise that this is not factual, and they suggest the stories of David and Solomon where invented centuries later.

Academia was also quick to indicate there was no written skills during the period of Solomon's and Davids reign, I think this Changed on Nov 9th/05.

www.post-gazette.com...

Exciting discovery: 38-pound stone holds an ancient alphabet
Thursday, November 10, 2005

By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

On the last day of his 2005 archaeological dig in Israel, Ronald Tappy was up in a cherry picker, photographing his site, when a supervisor asked him to look at "some scratches" a college volunteer had found on a stone........

It goes on.....

Because it was sealed in a layer of debris caused by a fire, roughly between 925 and 900 B.C., he knew it could have been written no later than that time.

"The remains of the building, including the inscription ... have been protected all this time. They have been lying there, sleeping silently all these 3,000 years," he said.

Some scholars argue that biblical accounts of King David and King Solomon were invented centuries later. These scholars claim that 10th-century Judeans were illiterate, but this stone shows that they could have recorded their history, he said.

"This is a site from the outskirts of a 10th-century kingdom that was establishing itself exactly at that time in Jerusalem. This is the time of the Solomonic kingdom in Jerusalem," he said.

So we know right now, without any debate, in David's and Solomon's time, Hebrews could write and make the account of their history then. Not as Skeptics preceived, many centuries later.

You see, the Scriptures are fact, in respects to this example.

Your turn

Ciao

Shane

I assume the post also refers to - as suggested by one member - the legitimacy of the koran and not just the Holy Bible?

hello Mytym

I haven't even finish the Second page, and I must say, you have certainly caused a Debate.

And I have no difficulties with this. As long as everyone is civil, then it's all good.

Live and Learn. It's never a bad thing to discuss. It's even better when one is willing to learn.

And no, I asked a stupid question in respects to a stupid comment, which I expect will open another can of worms since those responses are already on Page 4, and like I noted, I have not gotten to the end of Page 2 yet.

But I would like to acknowledge your direct response (First one anyways), and your explaination was well made, and I accept your view in this respect.

But I am not going to vote for you

Have a good evening, Go Sabres Go

Ciao

Shane

Sun Matrix:
Your answer invloved interpretation, as is evidenced by the fact that I have a different interpretation. As I have mentioned ad-nauseum, interpretations cannot be used as factual evidence to support a point of view. I even went so far as to humour your interpretation, but you were unable to demonstrate the passing of 120 years between the time the ruling was made, and the time man was destroyed from the face of the Earth. A valid answer has not been provided to date. I will await the day you are able to provide one, but forgive me if I choose not to hold my breath.

Also, whilst you allow your lack of courage to inhibit you from addressing my point, try coming up with your own material instead of borrowing my observations of you.

Shane:
That's fine, I accept your point of view also. Believe it or not, I even accept Sun Matrix's point of view. We are all entitled to them. There is no reason why we all have to agree, just that we can respect that we all see things differently. I commend you on your ability to accept that alternate perspectives exist. It is a rare commodity in this style of thread.

Happy Posting
mytym

Let me go on record saying that I a very non-religious individual. I have my spiritual beliefs, and I passionately adhere to them, but I'm not religious, and I don't consider myself Christian anymore than I consider myself Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else. Having said that, I'd still like to express my respect and even support both for those who choose to back up their arguments with unproven but nonetheless relevant (to them) religious scripture, and those who disregard such beliefs as they pertain to their view of reality. Why? Because everything in life is open to interpretation.

Can you prove I even exist anywhere but in your mind? Can you prove the sky is really blue? Can you prove your computer looks the way it appears to you? All perception is subjective, and no means of measurement, assessment, confirmation, investigation, or experimentation is wholly infallible. Facts are merely shared and widely held perceptions. Facts are beliefs that seem obvious and have yet to be disproved. Facts are the best guesses we can make based on what appears to be true. It doesn't matter how much proof there is of something, because ultimately, our perception of that proof is potentially fallible.

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.

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? What if I look up, and the sky really appears green to me? What if, to back up that perception, I tell you it's always looked green to me, and that I know for a fact it's green? You can insist it's actually blue, but why does it really matter anyway? Why does either side care about being right? What's more important: The color of the sky, or the fact that we have to live under it together regardless?

I think that's what we should really be pondering, rather than who's right or wrong.

Originally posted by mytym
Sun Matrix:
Your answer invloved interpretation, as is evidenced by the fact that I have a different interpretation. As I have mentioned ad-nauseum, interpretations cannot be used as factual evidence to support a point of view. I even went so far as to humour your interpretation, but you were unable to demonstrate the passing of 120 years between the time the ruling was made, and the time man was destroyed from the face of the Earth. A valid answer has not been provided to date. I will await the day you are able to provide one, but forgive me if I choose not to hold my breath.

Also, whilst you allow your lack of courage to inhibit you from addressing my point, try coming up with your own material instead of borrowing my observations of you.

I guess you are right, in a way. I didn't answer your question. The BIBLE did. I just posted exactly what it said and your question was answered without any interpretation.

I am continually amazed at how you reject fact. It is your fear that there is a God that causes you to post all this bull. Your just going to have to deal with it at least until you can come up with a way to disprove the factual Bible. Good luck with that. As far as courage, please, you can't even face fact.

Sun Matrix:
No, actually you did answer my question, you just failed to provide a valid answer. Whether you believe you needed to intyerpret it or not, you did. That's a fact, and I've already shown why that is so. I am continually amazed at how you can refer to something so often, yet have no understanding of the meaning of the term. I am very comfortable with the existence of a God. I have nothing to fear in that regard. Let me know when you build up the courage to provide a valid answer and I will be more than happy to listen.

Was that a buzzer I heard. I think your next batch of humble pie is ready to be taken out of the oven.

www.ancientscripts.com...


The Hebrew Alphabet is derived from the Phoenician. They do not correspond to each other, one is derived from the other. What was Phoenician, the hebrew took for their own stories, some were embellished, disguised, but can be traced to their origin, the proto caaninite and Phoenician Cultures.

the story of Adam and Eve are derived from Proto Caaninite language and culture, not Hebrew. The story of the serpent is based on Pheonician Legends, the story of Noah is based on people that lived one thousand years before Noah was Born. Jonah is a phoenician boy, creation myths are based on far earlier myths, which are probably based on even earlier myths...

Taking the entire Bible as fact, then attempting to Justify by using the same Bible as its own proof, is the only way to maintain the Charade.

If evidence other than the Bible is introduced, the Bible begins to fall apart under the weight of Evidence to the contrary, and much evidence exists.

In no way does this dispel the message of salvation, or the morals and ethics that are benificial to humanity, the message Christ intended for us to recieve.
It does strip away the power structure of the organized church, and the reason to invade and kill people that do not believe the Bible is factual.

Maybe in a few hundred years....or a thousand, a form of belief will emerge based on treating your brother and sister on earth in a manner that you wish to be treated, which is after all the central theme of Christ's message.

AceWombat just got a vote for way above from me, Really Really good point, everything in life is open to interpretation, think the skys blue, try some drugs it might not be anymore, because your brain will interpert it differently.

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...

[edit on 27/5/06 by mytym]

I agree nearly 100%. Problem is - I'm incapable of believing for one instant that it's in any way an accurate historical account.

I saved this list some time ago, and am no longer able to give it's original source:

1. The Bible did not drop down from heaven ready-made, as some people seem to imagine. It did not suddenly appear on earth, carried down from God by an angel. It was written by people who held in their hand the reed, ink, and parchment, and laboriously traced every letter in the original languages of the East.

2. People have to remember that the Bible was not written all at once, or by one man, like most other boks. There were 1500 years between the writings of Genesis and the Apocalypse or Revelation of John. It is made up of a collection of different books by different authors, forming a sort of library instead of a single work. The Greek for books is "biblia", and that is obviously where the word "Bible" comes from.

3. What we read today are translations, and that is why priests and scholars, for example, will study the Scriptures in the original languages (the Old Testament was in Hebrew and the New Testament was in Greek), in case the text has been deformed in any way by its translation.

4. The Bible was not printed in any language until about 1500 years after the alleged birth of Christ, for the simple reason that there was no printing before that date. Before that, the Testaments had to be read from the handwriting of some monk or friar on parchment or vellum or paper. They had to be copied slowly and laboriously. Through teaching and by word of mouth, souls could allegedly be saved, people could alledgedly become saints, and believe and do all that Jesus Christ meant them to believe and do, all without either the written or printed Bible.

Like any religion, the Bible itself is a matter of faith - not of fact. Any modern theologian will tell you that Christianity is about faith. As the Bible is the "handbook" for Christianity, it seems to stand to reason that it's also about faith.

From a storytelling point of view, I think that the Bible is a wonderful work of fiction, and from time to time can indeed actually generate productive discussion and debate. So ultimately, I feel that's a very healthy thing. When fiction stimulates the mind and results in a dialogue between groups of people, that's a good thing. It's the unfortunates that are unable to see the forest for the trees that cannot make the determination that faith and truth are not inseperable terms that cause the problems.

[edit on 29/5/06 by Bripe Klmun]

[edit on 29/5/06 by Bripe Klmun]

What about the material that has only come to light in recent years, I'm thinking about the stuff in the Nag Hammadi Codices as an example, laid 'undiscovered' for ~1600 years ?

How does that relate to the central text, if any version is regarded as canonical, and new revalations come to light (such as in the Gospel of Thomas, or The Thunder, Perfect Mind) - what then ?

Are they all to be regarded as apocrypha, or even discredited as heresy ... in either case, what then for the evolution of religion ?

I mean no offence by this, but aren't the Abrahamic religions a kinda collection of mystery cults that have been pulled together into some kind of othrodoxy anyway. As such, would that process not have been based upon compromise - such as The Council of Nicaea or the The Council of Jamnia. Would this not have required that the very word of god was interpreted by the interested parties as they strove for that canonical orthodoxy (which still remains elusive of course)?

Originally posted by toolman
It does strip away the power structure of the organized church,

Maybe in a few hundred years....or a thousand, a form of belief will emerge based on treating your brother and sister on earth in a manner that you wish to be treated, which is after all the central theme of Christ's message.

Although I find some of your assumptions on the Bible being myths and unrealistic distressing, you have hit a valid point with RELIGION.

I am Christian, but I am in no way, RELIGIOUS, as defined by denomination. This is what I tend to refer to, as the Theology, or Doctrines of man.

man in his narrow scope and outlook on things, is in no way prepared to create doctrine. Although, for some reason, this is exactly what most/all of them wish to do.

Your notes on the message, and Christ's sacrafice, for us all, is of course the most important.

But relying on the Bible, IT'SELF, is actually not all that afar from what Science, (in it's ever clever attempts to dismiss the Bible), ultimately supports. It's the Churches stances and the Doctrines they have developed within the 'Sects' that are contrary to Science, and strangely enough the Word of God, found within The Bible.

Of course there are some Churches that may actually teach the Bible, rather than USE IT for their 'Own' accords. Sadly, if Revelations is an indicator, only 2 out of every 7 churches, are looked upon and found pleasing God. (Teaching Gods Word)

Oh, and Toolman, You will have you wish, in your lifetime. It's just around the corner.

Ciao

Shane

It is not "the sun" that is a part of photosynthesis; it is the energy from the sun. This energy may have been, and most likely was, just as pervasive in the universe the moment "light" was created. Our sun is not the only source of energy in the universe. So, it stands to reason that the energy required for plants to photosynthsize CO2 may have been present before the "great lights" were created. But, of course, I have no proof for I was not there...

Originally posted by Ross Cross
I assume the post also refers to - as suggested by one member - the legitimacy of the koran and not just the Holy Bible?

I do not know if you got an answer from anyone so I'll offer this.

I can not, find any reason, this would/should be excluded, although due to my own ignorance, I have never seen a Quran, and if I did, it would be a foreign text to me.

If the Islamic people, had a person who devoted his energies, to Translate the English version of the Quran, much akin to what Strong has done with the Hebrew/Chaldean and Greek, then this would make study of the Koran possible for anyone.

It would/could also afford 'Christians' and Your Cousins, the Jewish, an opportunity to actually learn.

Sadly, when wondering about the Quran and people, like say Ibrahim, our common father, or other things that tend to bind us, rather than devide us, the only source of details is within sites such as Wikipedia.

But it would do everyone a great service, if their was something like a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for the Quran.

Ciao

Shane

Like any religion, the Bible itself is a matter of faith - not of fact. Any modern theologian will tell you that Christianity is about faith. As the Bible is the "handbook" for Christianity, it seems to stand to reason that it's also about faith.

The Bible is a book of factual truth. Just because someone has the opinion that it is not fact, is not going to change the truth.

The question is do you have the faith to believe what it says? The Bible says that a Messiah is going to come. He came and died for the sins of man and rose from the dead. This is the truth. Do you have the faith to believe that a man rose from the dead? That's where faith comes into play.