Does the Bible have Mistakes? [Aquila Praefortis versus elfdude]

[total relism]

thread Does the Bible have Mistakes? [Aquila Praefortis versus elfdude]


http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...versus-elfdude




In response to elf first post


his main argument is that it is " ambiguous", that it can be understood a multiple ways, so that to him somehow makes it not the word of god. But this can apply to anything, said i am following my gps directions, and it tells me to take next left, i can chose to interpret that it means turn left imidtely into the woods, than claim the gps is wrong because i can chose to interpret it as tacking a immediate left. This in no way makes the gps directions wrong, but my interpretation of it wrong. The gps cant be held responsible for my actions or decisions.


he also seems to think that because we might not know 100% everything about the bible that makes it false, i think that is what makes it special, anyone can read and understand the bible and salvation message, yet phd who have studied their whole life still learn new things and gain better understanding of it.


So op is right in saying their is no contradiction in luke/matt passages on Jericho.just because someone can chose to take anything away from the accounts written and intended by authors,has no bearings on if its true or word of god. Elf opinion it is ambiguous
is just his opinion and not related to topic. He has to show that interpreting it that way as word of god is false. The meaning of original authors was their own, so elf must assume by going outside the bible, they might contradict each other.


Elf seems to think we must understand all of bible and what is meant in every passage as we must know what jericho they speak of. But that is not needed to know from a american today, it does not change bible or its message. Why is it the bible is understood around the world 2,000 years later? it is not because it is ambiguous. In fact the bible says we cannot understand 100% god or his ways.



sacrifice of Issac genesis 22
elf says
"No one is able to really explain why a good god would ever command someone to sacrifice their son"

the bible says to offer him v2 not sacrifice. Notice Abraham new he and his son would return in v5 when he says we will return, v8 were Abraham says god will provide the sacrifice. Abraham had faith in gods promise to bless him through Issac 12 2-3 17.19 gen 22.17 [that would require issac alive] makes that connection. The bible speaks against child sacrifice many times.


now notice elf says
"Now barring the amount of emotional torment a parent would undergo in sacrificing his son"

yet the bible says nothing of the sort,the very thing he says not to do with his objection to luke/matt passages, that you must go outside of the bible and assume this. But i would agree,that is why this act was the ultimate test of faith, and when Abraham passes, he is blessed.


elf than says
" it is not god interceding and stopping abraham that prevents the sacrifice but abraham's own decision that the act is evil that stops it. After that the angel appears to confirm that abraham was correct, god does not want human sacrifice."


this is false, notice v 8 were Abraham says god will provide the sacrifice. v 10-12 make it clear god is the one who stops the sacrifice not Abraham.



elf says
"This is an entirely different morality than that of the blind faith in god morality that most christian scholars take to interpet this. I shouldn't have to spell out anymore how ambiguous this is."



no fault of bible/god that some can misread/misintprit or even take multiple meanings from passages. could i suggest the passages have a clear meaning to them?

sacrificeof Issac genesis 22 foreshadow of jesus
issacwas abrahams only son whom you love v2 to offer as asacrifice/offering. Just as god sacrificed his only son for us. .
Same mountain top as jesus was crucified on in the Mount Moriah.
god provided the sacrifice for Abraham,v13-14.
Abrahamhad faith that god would provide or raise issac up on the third day,same day messiah/jesus was raised. Abraham had faith god would provide the lamb for sacrifice v 8.
Bothsons carried the wood for their own sacrifice
Bothwere "bound" and placed on top of the wood
Bothsons were "resurrected" or "given back" the theirfathers on the third day.
abraham sees god will provide the sacrifice for issac and all of us.




he than says
"The truth of the matter is most every lesson in the bible can be interpretted multiple ways such as this which makes me question who really possesses the word of god,"


the bible is the word of god, not any humans knowledge, i will agree with elf not one person has 100% understanding of bible. That has no effect on the bible not being the word of god.



elf said
" I would assert the opposite, only because christians invariably do have morals can they interpret the bible to support or detract from those morals. Different people invariably have different morals which means the bible (due to ambiguity) will be interpretted differently by those people."


he is correct that people need certain god created things such as brain to read/interpret bible. Not sure what that has to do with bible being word of god. Or that people /interpret certain passages different.


he than says
"I've only covered the most vague areas here but your position that the bible is True is iffy, it might be true if you view it in a certain way. The position that the bible is inerrant is demonstrably false, there are explicit contradictions which require outside information to resolve."


but notice in hear he does just that, he goes outside the bible to assume it contradicts, the thing he says makes the bible uncertain. It is a perfect self refuting argument. Elf has not in any way demonstrated it contradicts, just that he can go outside the bible and assume it does.



If anyone is wondering why elf accepted this debate with short op post and not a creation/evolution with longer posts, but said he needed to write a dissertation, your not alone.

[Elfdude]

his main argument is that it is " ambiguous", that it can be understood a multiple ways, so that to him somehow makes it not the word of god.

How can you know it's the word of god if you can't reliably understand it's meaning? You may interpret it right, or you may interpret it wrong. If you interpret it wrong you are by nature a blasphemer. This is why Thomas Aquinas stated that to believe in the bible literally was to blaspheme because ultimately the message is not literal or obvious.

But this can apply to anything, said i am following my gps directions, and it tells me to take next left, i can chose to interpret that it means turn left imidtely into the woods, than claim the gps is wrong because i can chose to interpret it as tacking a immediate left.

Yes this is ambiguity. If your GPS told you to take a left but didn't state in 1.2 miles you may think it means in 100 feet or in 4 miles, this is a poor GPS and it would not be one I would use due to the ambiguity.

This in no way makes the gps directions wrong

You don't know whether or not the GPS's directions are wrong because it's too ambiguous to tell.

but my interpretation of it wrong. The gps cant be held responsible for my actions or decisions.

However the makers of the GPS can be held responsible for creating an ambiguous system of directions. If you can't understand what's being asked of you or told to you then you can't follow directions. In the same way, if you can't understand the meaning in the bible because of ambiguity and no authors remain to clairify the ambiguity then any interpretation you take is likely based on nothing more than yourself. Which means you're a blasphemor and a heretic.

he also seems to think that because we might not know 100% everything about the bible that makes it false

Correct, if you add 2+2 and come up with the answer of 3.999999 you are incorrect.

i think that is what makes it special, anyone can read and understand the bible

Wrong, ambiguity precludes understanding, to get to understanding you must define the texts past their ambiguities which means you must assert your own interpretation. That interpretation could in a vague sense be the correct one, but you have no way of knowing that, thus no one can really read and understand the bible.

So op is right in saying their is no contradiction in luke/matt passages on Jericho.just because someone can chose to take anything away from the accounts written and intended by authors,has no bearings on if its true or word of god.

Wrong. If neither interpretation can be validated as the intended word of god due to ambiguity then neither interpretation can be asserted as truth or the word of god.

Elf opinion it is ambiguous is just his opinion and not related to topic.

Wrong.

He has to show that interpreting it that way as word of god is false.

If the bible is ambiguous no word of god can be detected reliably, which means the bible is not the word of god.

The meaning of original authors was their own, so elf must assume by going outside the bible, they might contradict each other.

I do not assume this, it is ambiguous, it could be that they contradict each other. Reading comprehension is pretty important to spend time with.

Elf seems to think we must understand all of bible and what is meant in every passage as we must know what jericho they speak of.

In order to call the bible truth and the word of god, yes you must.

But that is not needed to know from a american today, it does not change bible or its message.

Do you even know what ambiguity is?

Why is it the bible is understood around the world 2,000 years later? it is not because it is ambiguous. In fact the bible says we cannot understand 100% god or his ways.

I never argued the point that we could understand 100% of god or etc and it is not necessary for understanding the bible. This is an irrelevant statement. What we do need to do is be able to understand the bible.

sacrifice of Issac genesis 22
elf says
"No one is able to really explain why a good god would ever command someone to sacrifice their son"

the bible says to offer him v2 not sacrifice.

I'm sorry but the original hebrew texts state, to slaughter him, which means to kill him, further context reveals this is a ritual killing or sacrifice. You're just plainly wrong.

Notice Abraham new he and his son would return in v5 when he says we will return, v8 were Abraham says god will provide the sacrifice. The bible speaks against child sacrifice many times.

Which is funny because god commands him to do it. You're interpreting the passage a different way than even I did and I provided multiple options. You've done nothing but prove the bible is even more ambiguous, the reason you choose this position is because you obviously have no access to the original hebrew texts.

"Now barring the amount of emotional torment a parent would undergo in sacrificing his son"

yet the bible says nothing of the sort,the very thing he says not to do with his objection to luke/matt passages

What? The bible does state specifically abraham was struggling with the decision. You're simply wrong again.

that you must go outside of the bible and assume this.

I'm not arguing for the validity of the bible. I'm arguing the only way to make sense of the bible is to use information outside of the bible itself. Which means the bible cannot be said to be true, it cannot be said to reliable, it cannot even be said to be the word of god. Which interpretation is true? Which interpretation is reliable? Which interpretation is the word of god? No one knows. You've made a nonpoint and provided support for my position, good job.

But i would agree,that is why this act was the ultimate test of faith, and when Abraham passes, he is blessed.

So wait, you use information outside of the bible too? Thanks for supporting my argument

elf than says
" it is not god interceding and stopping abraham that prevents the sacrifice but abraham's own decision that the act is evil that stops it. After that the angel appears to confirm that abraham was correct, god does not want human sacrifice."

this is false, notice v 8 were Abraham says god will provide the sacrifice. v 10-12 make it clear god is the one who stops the sacrifice not Abraham.

Hebrew texts, I'm not even sure what version of the bible you're using. You should realize that we have limited which edition of the bible will be used as well as allowed the original hebrew texts with regards to the torah and the old testament. You're wrong because you're ignorant. Proving again that the bible is ambiguous and cannot be decided any specific way without addition of outside information.

no fault of bible/god that some can misread/misintprit or even take multiple meanings from passages.

I'm not blaming anything your apparent understanding of the debate is so puerile it's cute.

could i suggest the passages have a clear meaning to them?

You could suggest it but you'd be wrong.

sacrificeof Issac genesis 22
issacwas abrahams only son whom you love v2 to offer as asacrifice/offering. Just as god sacrificed his only son for us. . Same mountain top as jesus wascrucified on in the Mount Moriah.
godprovided the sacrifice for Abraham,v13-14.
Abrahamhad faith that god would provide or raise issac up on the third day,same day messiah/jesus was raised. Abraham had faith god wouldprovide the lamb for sacrifice v 8.
Bothsons carried the wood for their own sacrifice
Bothwere "bound" and placed on top of the wood
Bothsons were "resurrected" or "given back" the theirfathers on the third day.

Copy pasta from a list of comparisons between jesus and isaac. You are hilarious. This is entirely irrelevant.

he than says
"The truth of the matter is most every lesson in the bible can be interpretted multiple ways such as this which makes me question who really possesses the word of god,"

the bible is the word of god, not any humans knowledge, i will agree with elf not one person has 100% understanding of bible. That has no effect on the bible not being the word of god.

:iaughter:

If you can't even understand basic english then how can you believe you can interpret the english bible correctly? You cannot. Thank you again for providing more support. Similarly if you have multiple possible interpretations of the bible, but only one possible interpretation that is the word of god, you cannot know if any interpretation is in fact the word of god.

elf said
" I would assert the opposite, only because christians invariably do have morals can they interpret the bible to support or detract from those morals. Different people invariably have different morals which means the bible (due to ambiguity) will be interpretted differently by those people."

he is correct that people need certain god created things such as brain to read/interpret bible. Not sure what that has to do with bible being word of god. Or that people /interpret certain passages different.

See above. Again, only one interpretation = word of god, if multiple interpretations exist there exists no way to tell which is the 'true' word of god which means the bible cannot be used to define the word of god because the bible itself is not defined enough to even indicate a specific viewpoint. If this is the case then the bible is ambiguous and most translations or interpretations of it have nothing to do with the word of god. If you cannot interpret the word of god accurately, you cannot call something the word of god.

but notice in hear he does just that, he goes outside the bible to assume it contradicts the thing he says makes the bible uncertain.

Which is my position and something I can do. The one who cannot do this is the opposite side of the debate.

It is a perfect self refuting argument. Elf has not in any way demonstrated it contradicts, just that he can go outside the bible and assume it does.

No I have demonstrated the bible internally contradicts. The only way to resolve that contradiction is outside of the bible. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit I'm guessing?

If anyone is wondering why elf accepted this debate with short op post and not a creation/evolution with longer posts, but said he needed to write a dissertation, your not alone.

Both debates were held with the same rules, the difference is aquila accepted and you ran away and hid. I'm still waiting on those screenshots from the PM's I altered, I'd be more than happy to provide a screenshot of every PM sent between us.



Talking out of your ass as usual.

[total relism]

elf, your own arguments contradicts itself and has nothing to do with if the bible is true or word of god, not to mention in your post you show you do no even accept the assumptions you carry and apply to the bible. Given the bible can be attacked 1,000 ways i am very surprised you have chosen this illogical self contradictory argument that you yourself show to be false in your posts. You disprove your argument in about a half dozen responses below. plus your whole argument amounts to extra biblical material not essential to bible or its message, all that essential to bible and its message is explained in the bible. Also for someone who claims to be professional debater, you make many illogical claims, many unsupported claims and many logical fallacies.

How can you know it's the word of god if you can't reliably understand it's meaning? You may interpret it right, or you may interpret it wrong. If you interpret it wrong you are by nature a blasphemer. This is why Thomas Aquinas stated that to believe in the bible literally was to blaspheme because ultimately the message is not literal or obvious.

i dont count the word of god [bible] based on me, but the bible and god, you seem to put authority on man, not god, a unblical idea. Who gives a **** what Thomas Aquinas says?.


Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar romans 3.4

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding proverbs 3.5

Yes this is ambiguity. If your GPS told you to take a left but didn't state in 1.2 miles you may think it means in 100 feet or in 4 miles, this is a poor GPS and it would not be one I would use due to the ambiguity.

how about next left? that is what mine says and i have never interpreted it as left in woods,no problem with gps. But i do believe you missed my point.

You don't know whether or not the GPS's directions are wrong because it's too ambiguous to tell.

really? i think you have unfair expectations, are you disappointed in life alot?

However the makers of the GPS can be held responsible for creating an ambiguous system of directions. If you can't understand what's being asked of you or told to you then you can't follow directions. In the same way, if you can't understand the meaning in the bible because of ambiguity and no authors remain to clairify the ambiguity then any interpretation you take is likely based on nothing more than yourself. Which means you're a blasphemor and a heretic.

so i think what your saying is, if we did not have a brain etc to read intperate the bible, than it cant be the word of god?. I dont see how this follows in anyway, neither is this a biblical idea. This is like saying jesus died on the cross but not for all men, because some wont be saved. No he died for all though some will reject him. Bible is true or not,god is true or not regardless of what man thinks or thinks he knows or lack of knowledge. Besides the bible can and is easily understood on the level it needs to be, what jericho jesus healed in may not be as well know, but not vital and has no bearing on if jesus healed 1 or 2 men, or were he healed them.

please support were you get the idea that is you misunderstand a biblical passage [i have done many times] you are a
"Which means you're a blasphemor and a heretic."

Correct, if you add 2+2 and come up with the answer of 3.999999 you are incorrect.

agreed, but you dont need 100% of bible to understand it, or for it to be word of god. If you are debating that your openant theology is 100% correct and whatever he says gods word/truth. Than i am on your side and agree with you that is false.

Wrong, ambiguity precludes understanding, to get to understanding you must define the texts past their ambiguities which means you must assert your own interpretation. That interpretation could in a vague sense be the correct one, but you have no way of knowing that, thus no one can really read and understand the bible.

than all knowledge is unknowable, your beliefs on that the bible cant be understood is unknowable. The simple fact is the bible by and large and its message is knowable. You chose a few passages were it is not fully exspalined on a matter that does not matter to understanding bible, your even shown how it fits in, and still think it. god created man and bible and nature to be understood. Your opinion that the bible/god are not word of god/true, is just your opinion and cannot be known.


you would not type to me or debate online unless you started with assumptions your own words could be understood,clearly we know we can be understood. If i misunderstand you or misintrit your words, does that make your words not true or not what you originally wanted or wrote?.

Wrong. If neither interpretation can be validated as the intended word of god due to ambiguity then neither interpretation can be asserted as truth or the word of god.

than apply that to my post, how can you respond to me if my words can be intpreted in any way?why type to me, as i will just misunderstand and inteprit your post anyway i chose, proving in your mind,you are false and are not the word of elf.

Wrong.

one time you told me you were a professional debater, how would this go in a debate as a answer? what if your opponent did same to your post? please support with logical reason why.

If the bible is ambiguous no word of god can be detected reliably, which means the bible is not the word of god.

assuming your false idea true, that does not follow at all, it shows we are unable to understand it. You yourself show this false by understanding the bible speaks of two jericho and you claim it might be a contradiction,showing it can be understood.

i just made up a language tell me what this means

ss00ss

you have no idea, that does not mean its not how i communicate or that i do not exists or that the code does not mean a certain thing.

I do not assume this, it is ambiguous, it could be that they contradict each other. Reading comprehension is pretty important to spend time with.

so wait, you say i misunderstood you? that i took it as a different meaning? than that proves your post are ambiguous, so you cannot be elf and cannot possibly be your word or proper meaning to your post. Do you not see how your argument fails your own posts?.

In order to call the bible truth and the word of god, yes you must.

Do you even know what ambiguity is?

please do tell why we must? it fails bionically and logically.

I never argued the point that we could understand 100% of god or etc and it is not necessary for understanding the bible. This is an irrelevant statement. What we do need to do is be able to understand the bible.

first no we dont, if god wrote a book and we cant understand it at all, that in no way makes god not true or his word false. This is simple logic, its like saying i have a Chinese book i cant read so that proves their is no Chinese people or language. Not to mention as i pointed out the bible is easily understood by all people throughout time.

I'm sorry but the original hebrew texts state, to slaughter him, which means to kill him, further context reveals this is a ritual killing or sacrifice. You're just plainly wrong.

i am sorry just checked it is offer him. But does not matter any who,as Abraham/god both show he was not to be sacrificed.

Which is funny because god commands him to do it. You're interpreting the passage a different way than even I did and I provided multiple options. You've done nothing but prove the bible is even more ambiguous, the reason you choose this position is because you obviously have no access to the original hebrew texts.

hmm, original Hebrew right in front of me,and the only reason you believe it is ambiguous is because you wont allow the bible to speak, you start with a assumption than wont allow the bible to exspalin for you. Its not more options, it deeper meaning theology, clear to anyone who reads the chapter and verses i sited. So the fact remains Abraham/god both new he was coming back.

What? The bible does state specifically abraham was struggling with the decision. You're simply wrong again.

not sure were your getting info, atheist site or dawkins perhaps, but as i said were in bible does it say this?


so i will say again
yet the bible says nothing of the sort,the very thing he says not to do with his objection to luke/matt passages

I'm not arguing for the validity of the bible. I'm arguing the only way to make sense of the bible is to use information outside of the bible itself. Which means the bible cannot be said to be true, it cannot be said to reliable, it cannot even be said to be the word of god. Which interpretation is true? Which interpretation is reliable? Which interpretation is the word of god? No one knows. You've made a nonpoint and provided support for my position, good job.

to argue against it, you must do what you claim cannot be done was my point, you self refuted your argument. Again assuming that the bible cant be understood [false and you show that idea false by typing to me that you dont believe it either] that in no way makes it false or not the word of god. That means you cant understand it, yet you show over and over you understand passages by trying to argue against the very thing you claim makes it false, as sated a self refuting argument.

So wait, you use information outside of the bible too? Thanks for supporting my argument

if you see it as argument, i never said that conclusion must be right, i said it is good assumption to make. But this shows how weak your argument is, we both would assume [outside bible] from personal experiences that Abraham had emotional trouble with what he was called to do. This in your mind means the bible is false,god is untrue and we cant understand the bible because he may or may not have been troubled. have you ever converted anyone to atheist based on this reasoning?.

Hebrew texts, I'm not even sure what version of the bible you're using. You should realize that we have limited which edition of the bible will be used as well as allowed the original hebrew texts with regards to the torah and the old testament. You're wrong because you're ignorant. Proving again that the bible is ambiguous and cannot be decided any specific way without addition of outside information.

what a logical fallacies ridden rant response, did you not tell me your a professional debtor?

I said this

elf than says
" it is not god interceding and stopping abraham that prevents the sacrifice but abraham's own decision that the act is evil that stops it. After that the angel appears to confirm that abraham was correct, god does not want human sacrifice."

this is false, notice v 8 were Abraham says god will provide the sacrifice. v 10-12 make it clear god is the one who stops the sacrifice not Abraham



to support you claim original Hebrew is is different with no support, i happen to have original greek/hebrew of entire bible, this seems to be your scapegoat to hopefully fall back on, hoping the person you talk with cant respond.

you than go on to commit both
adhominem
Questionbegging epithet

I'm not blaming anything your apparent understanding of the debate is so puerile it's cute.

misunderstood, the bible cannot be blamed on someone not understanding it, great example you say i misunderstood the debate above, does that prove your wrong and cant be understood? or was it my fault?. Either you have to admit your wrong about what the debate is about, that you misunderstood, or your whole argument that people could possible misunderstand certain text of bible proving it wrong is false? ahh the great irony self contradictory staments you make, i enjoy myself sometimes.

You could suggest it but you'd be wrong.

so wait, than only your interpretation is true, we have found truth, its whatever you tell us is true. So thir is a only one way to understand the bible, so long as its your way, thus proving your argument wrong that it can be understood many ways.

Copy pasta from a list of comparisons between jesus and isaac. You are hilarious. This is entirely irrelevant.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

:iaughter:

not to meaning of text as i pointed out.

If you can't even understand basic english then how can you believe you can interpret the english bible correctly? You cannot. Thank you again for providing more support. Similarly if you have multiple possible interpretations of the bible, but only one possible interpretation that is the word of god, you cannot know if any interpretation is in fact the word of god.

and? that in no way makes the bible not the word of god, what your arguing is no one person can have perfect knowledge of entire bible, i agree. We can have knowledge of what is said in bible, for example with Jericho passages,

Mark 10:46a says “and they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd”,.”


we know jesus came to jericho, and left with disciples and a crowd, we dont know which Jericho etc. That does not matter as it is outside bible.

See above. Again, only one interpretation = word of god, if multiple interpretations exist there exists no way to tell which is the 'true' word of god which means the bible cannot be used to define the word of god because the bible itself is not defined enough to even indicate a specific viewpoint. If this is the case then the bible is ambiguous and most translations or interpretations of it have nothing to do with the word of god. If you cannot interpret the word of god accurately, you cannot call something the word of god.

no you could say and i agree, i dont have 100% knowledge of god and his word, just as bible says i cannot.

Which is my position and something I can do. The one who cannot do this is the opposite side of the debate.

yet you say they can in first post?. this is discussion of extra biblical things, supposed assumed contradictions, extra biblical. Plus as you showed you must go outside the bible [the thing you claim cant be done] to try and assume a contradiction, you cant prove the bible internally contradicts, you must go outside and assume/try with extra biblical data. So as op said, it is right to say the bible does not contradict.

No I have demonstrated the bible internally contradicts. The only way to resolve that contradiction is outside of the bible. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit I'm guessing?

no were did you show that, their is no contradiction unless you assume their is only one jericho, not said in bible that they were same Jericho. You would think a self proclaimed debater would realize the falsehood in that simple fact and the logical fallacies sent in my direction.

Both debates were held with the same rules, the difference is aquila accepted and you ran away and hid. I'm still waiting on those screenshots from the PM's I altered, I'd be more than happy to provide a screenshot of every PM sent between us.

i think it clear to all who ran from debate, you wanted elephant hurl and run from debate. But i guess we define debate different,me back and fourth on focused topic, you who can write and has most time.

[MathiasOfAthens]

i dont count the word of god [bible] based on me, but the bible and god, you seem to put authority on man, not god, a unblical idea. Who gives a **** what Thomas Aquinas says?.

I didnt know you can read Classical Latin ancient Greek and/or ancient Hebrew. That is a mighty accomplishment you have achieved TR.

Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar romans 3.4

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding proverbs 3.5

The original bible wasnt written in English. Dont post this quote because it is just your interpretation. Not Gods. God speaks Hebrew or Latin remember.

[total relism]

I didnt know you can read Classical Latin ancient Greek and/or ancient Hebrew. That is a mighty accomplishment you have achieved TR.


The original bible wasnt written in English. Dont post this quote because it is just your interpretation. Not Gods. God speaks Hebrew or Latin remember.

hi mathias hows it going?.


never said i could, i just said i have the original Greek/Hebrew in front of me, the direct English translation is offer, it is different for sacrifice. I do have however those i consult if need be who do know the languages, as well as studies i have done on genisis with hebrew speaking jews, i consulted my notes as well their.



than provide the correct English translation,You claim this is not acuretley translated,explain why. Claiming its just a interpretation i think you misunderstand, you could at best with no support say it is mistranslated.

[Niwa Nagahide]

How can you claim to understand the true meaning of the Bible when you're reading the translated version, and you yourself fail so fundamentally on so many levels with the English language? At one point you used the word 'bionically', which is possibly the most ridiculous misuse of any word in the English language that I've ever seen. Your username isn't even spelled properly - how exactly have you got so much confidence in your ability to determine Biblical truth from the English translation when you're so utterly incapable of understanding or applying even rudimentary English?

Furthermore, why is it that you attack your opponent for criticizing the Bible on a non-Biblical basis? To be sure, he showed the internal inconsistency of that storybook, but there is absolutely no reason to think that because he also pointed out Biblical inconsistencies with simple logic or theology that his argument loses weight. In fact, he gains ground on that basis. To show that the Bible is simply consistent with itself does not establish Biblical truth. The Bible could be entirely consistent and entirely mistaken.

[total relism]

How can you claim to understand the true meaning of the Bible when you're reading the translated version, and you yourself fail so fundamentally on so many levels with the English language? At one point you used the word 'bionically', which is possibly the most ridiculous misuse of any word in the English language that I've ever seen. Your username isn't even spelled properly - how exactly have you got so much confidence in your ability to determine Biblical truth from the English translation when you're so utterly incapable of understanding or applying even rudimentary English?

Furthermore, why is it that you attack your opponent for criticizing the Bible on a non-Biblical basis? To be sure, he showed the internal inconsistency of that storybook, but there is absolutely no reason to think that because he also pointed out Biblical inconsistencies with simple logic or theology that his argument loses weight. In fact, he gains ground on that basis. To show that the Bible is simply consistent with itself does not establish Biblical truth. The Bible could be entirely consistent and entirely mistaken.

you have missed the whole point, i dont have 100% understanding never claimed to. I said the bible is god's word is independent of the english language or my personal ability to understand it,spell etc. Luckily god has created a book, even the ignorant [myself] can understand. Also i would say the bible is 99.9% accurate in english, i happen to have info sources for original as well. But i promise you no fundamental theology of the bible is lost when translated to the english language. But i am not hear to defend the english translated bible, that is for another topic.



I attacked him to show his self contradictory arguments, it was a internal refutation of his argument, showing if his argument/assumptions were true, they would disprove his own argument. Never did he show the bible was inconsistent internally or externally,please show me were you believe he did, i find it heard to believe you read his post.


If the bible were internally constant it is true that does not make it truth, i never said it did. I responded to the arguments made,not arguments he should have made.

[Niwa Nagahide]

you have missed the whole point, i dont have 100% understanding never claimed to. I said the bible is god's word is independent of the english language or my personal ability to understand it,spell etc. Luckily god has created a book, even the ignorant [myself] can understand.

Based on your failure to use or comprehend most simple English statements, I seriously doubt that. You certainly lend no credibility to your argument by being so improbably incompetent. Honestly, your responses take virtually no account of what you are actually quoting.

i find it heard to believe you read his post.

Like this ****, right here. This is unbelievable.

[xcorps]

I love total relism's debating.

Passionate.
Determined.
Eloquent.

(well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad)

Claiming its just a interpretation i think you misunderstand, you could at best with no support say it is mistranslated.

If you would, please PM me with YOUR thoughts (ABSOLUTELY NO COPY/PASTA) on the authenticity of the Pauline Epistles. I am particularly interested in how you can make a reasonable claim of fact regarding the authorship of Hebrews considering the indisputable lack of hermeneutic consistency of this book with the other writings ascribed to Paul.

I would also be interested in reading how you reconcile denominationally inconsistent gospel. You cannot deny a denominational dispute between canon and apocrypha, so I would like to hear your explanation of it.

[total relism]

I love total relism's debating.

Passionate.
Determined.
Eloquent.

(well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad)



If you would, please PM me with YOUR thoughts (ABSOLUTELY NO COPY/PASTA) on the authenticity of the Pauline Epistles. I am particularly interested in how you can make a reasonable claim of fact regarding the authorship of Hebrews considering the indisputable lack of hermeneutic consistency of this book with the other writings ascribed to Paul.

I would also be interested in reading how you reconcile denominationally inconsistent gospel. You cannot deny a denominational dispute between canon and apocrypha, so I would like to hear your explanation of it.

66% is great for 3pt%. Debating? i have no idea.


pm on the way. Great questions.

[total relism]

Based on your failure to use or comprehend most simple English statements, I seriously doubt that. You certainly lend no credibility to your argument by being so improbably incompetent. Honestly, your responses take virtually no account of what you are actually quoting.Like this ****, right here. This is unbelievable.

not sure if you noticed, but your response was just a emotional logical fallacy filled rant. If you have any logical argument or opinion regarding topic i would love to discuss. But as I said last post, it seems very clear you did not read his post and that is why you again cannot back up your claim.

[Niwa Nagahide]

as i sated, you cannot back up your claims as you never read yourself. I am not sure if you noticed, but your post was just one big emotional rant with multiple logical fallacies thrown in. I would respond to any argument or anything of substance but i find nothing to do so with. If you have something of substance to add to discussion i would enjoy hearing it.

Your very personal lack of ability with the English language throws considerable doubt onto your arguments because you make arguments that center around discerning the meaning of the translated text. As it stands, there's absolutely no credibility behind any of your claims, largely because you as a person have demonstrated nothing but pure incompetence with the language you claim is so easy to understand.

[MathiasOfAthens]

hi mathias hows it going?.


never said i could, i just said i have the original Greek/Hebrew in front of me, the direct English translation is offer, it is different for sacrifice. I do have however those i consult if need be who do know the languages, as well as studies i have done on genisis with hebrew speaking jews, i consulted my notes as well their.



than provide the correct English translation,You claim this is not acuretley translated,explain why. Claiming its just a interpretation i think you misunderstand, you could at best with no support say it is mistranslated.

Except languages cannot be easily translated from one language to another. Translating from German to French is a hell of a lot easier to do than translating from Ancient Hebrew to English. There is a 3000 something year difference.

Your accepting the translators interpretation. You have one bible in front of you. There are a dozen if not more other such literal translations.

[total relism]

Except languages cannot be easily translated from one language to another. Translating from German to French is a hell of a lot easier to do than translating from Ancient Hebrew to English. There is a 3000 something year difference.

Your accepting the translators interpretation. You have one bible in front of you. There are a dozen if not more other such literal translations.

not sure your point as i said before,english cannot be 100% to Hebrew. Had you read my posts you would see that has nothing to do with my responses.


assuming hebrew to english is hard, that is why hundreds of scholars spend years to acuretley translate the bible.



you asume age means more difference/harder to translate. Please tell me a doctrine in hebrew that cannot be understood in english,what major theology cant we translate?.


please support with example were a major doctrine or change cant be translated, than tell me what this has to do with topic.


I have original Hebrew/greek,as well as direct translate in english, and meaning translations.

[MathiasOfAthens]

not sure your point as i said before,english cannot be 100% to Hebrew. Had you read my posts you would see that has nothing to do with my responses.


assuming hebrew to english is hard, that is why hundreds of scholars spend years to acuretley translate the bible.



you asume age means more difference/harder to translate. Please tell me a doctrine in hebrew that cannot be understood in english,what major theology cant we translate?.


please support with example were a major doctrine or change cant be translated, than tell me what this has to do with topic.


I have original Hebrew/greek,as well as direct translate in english, and meaning translations.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet."

(1 Timothy 2:12)

Surely that was translated wrong.

Or maybe its just some guy adding his two cents and not god. Ok.

How about this one:

"Then God said: 'Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you'."

(Genesis 22:2)

Wrong again of course... surely god didnt say this.

But the truth is how do you translate metaphors? Your bible seems to translate them as literal. So literally God has a hand ("Gods hand") and the lord is a shepherd.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joe...b_1007058.html

Knowing what an office is does not shed light on what an officer does, even though "officer" has the word "office" in it, just as sweetbread is not sweet and it's not bread. These words demonstrate the danger of relying on internal structure -- roots, prefixes, suffixes and so forth -- to discern a word's meaning. (Also, a "strip mall" isn't what some people might suspect.)

There's a word "demand" in French and it confuses English speakers because it means "to ask," not "to demand." In Spanish, "embarazada," does not mean "embarrassed" but rather "pregnant."

These kinds of related words (known as cognates) are common in various languages. It stands to reason that if the words are related they ought to mean the same thing, but it's not true. Cognates, like etymology and internal structure, are unreliable. So your Bible translation contains flaws as bad as: mixing up "ballot" and "bullet" (etymology), thinking that all officers work in offices (internal structure), mixing up requests and demands (cognates), thinking that turtles fly (history), and thinking that romance must involve cancer (metaphor).

Proverbs 28:21 in the 400-year-old classic English translation known as the King James Version (KJV) cautions, oddly, that "to have respect of persons is not good." But 400 years ago, "respect" meant "to be partial," and the point was to avoid favoritism. Additionally, the KJV's "turtle" whose voice is heard in the beautiful imagery of Song of Solomon is a bird. These examples demonstrate a fourth problem plaguing modern translations: the power of history.

Nobody speaks ancient hebrew so nobody can say for certain what some ancient words are today. Is Juliet literally the sun because Shakespeare said she was?

[total relism]

(1 Timothy 2:12)

Surely that was translated wrong.

Or maybe its just some guy adding his two cents and not god. Ok.

How about this one:
(Genesis 22:2)

Wrong again of course... surely god didnt say this.

But the truth is how do you translate metaphors? Your bible seems to translate them as literal. So literally God has a hand ("Gods hand") and the lord is a shepherd.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joe...b_1007058.html


Nobody speaks ancient hebrew so nobody can say for certain what some ancient words are today. Is Juliet literally the sun because Shakespeare said she was?

what makes you say 1 timothy 2.2 was translated wrong? what does this have to do with topic?, please dig deeper into what paul says on woman [its not what the atheist sites tell you].


woman in bible / 1 timothy

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

womanin bible
Giventhis history, let's see how God approaches women in the Bible. Thefirst person to see the resurrected Christ was a woman (John20:15-18). The first European convert was a woman (Acts 16:14). Theonly followers of Jesus to stand with Him in his crucifixion werewomen. There were woman in the upper room and anointed with the HolySpirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14, 2:1-4). Jesus was born toan earthly mother, but not an earthly father(Matt. 1:18,etc.). Only awoman understood Christ's upcoming death (Mark 14:8). These actionsshow that women played a part as crucial to Christ's ministry as themen


InGalatians 3:28 the scriptures explicitly state that women hold aposition of equal value and importance to men: "There is neitherJew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neithermale nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
TheBible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ.Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God moreaccurately (Acts 18:26).
Itdoes not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The fourdaughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to menfor edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesyand other gifts can be used between women and men.
Itdoes not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after beingconverted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelizedothers(Acts 16:14,40).
Thisdoes not make the man superior, only placed in a different role thanthe woman. The best example of this I can think of is the tribes ofancient Israel. The Levites were chosen out of the twelve tribes tobe the priests and to run the house of God, but this didn't mean theywere superior to any of the other tribes. That is just the positionin which God placed them. In the same way, men are to be theauthority in the church. Women are allowed to teach other women, andinstruct men. Even Timothy, the recipient of this epistle, wastutored by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). God alsocommanded Abraham to listen to the council of his wife in Genesis21:12. However, since the authority falls to the man, it is he whowill be held accountable for improper decisions, such as alsohappened to Abraham when he followed bad advice from Sarah in Genesis16.
So,God is not against women at all. Because each sex has a differentrole to play, doesn't make one role more important than theother.
AndGod created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;male and female He created them.
gen1.27


menthe head of woman/above in charge
mark10 42-44


readhere for pauls letters
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

what translation for genesis are you using? I never said anywhere at anytime that anytime someone translates from original that it becomes perfect. Please read up the debate and my posts, you are always off topic. Not to mention proof yet again you dont read post, Genesis 22 was discussed in the op of commentary thread on this debate by me, and my next response to elf.


posting a link from far left huff post has no authority to its accuracy. But again as i said, depending on translation what do you do literal? or meaning for meaning,if literal gods hand [should be ] no one really thinks his real hand. Anyways the whole article is flawed, yes words used in original even kj version, know have different meaning in english today from 400 years ago, that is why bibles are updated with changing english language.

[MathiasOfAthens]

There are plenty of quotes in the bible to show god hates women as well as quotes that contradict the former. When did Jesus ever talk about gays? Never yet christians today claim he is god while speaking on why gays are immoral.

[total relism]

There are plenty of quotes in the bible to show god hates women as well as quotes that contradict the former. When did Jesus ever talk about gays? Never yet christians today claim he is god while speaking on why gays are immoral.

I disagree fully, their are quotes from atheist to allow you believe what you want of bible [god is immoral hates woman etc]. What does this have to do with topic?. Jesus talked about gays many times,who cares what does it have to do with topic?. I would give references to books that would answer all your objections on these topics, but we both know you are not after truth.

[MathiasOfAthens]

http://www.openbible.info/topics/women

These are not quotes from Atheists. Look them up in your bible and prove me wrong.

1 Timothy 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.


Ephesians 5:22-24Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Titus 2:4-5Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.1 Peter 3:1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

God's killings in the Bible:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

• Forced friends and family to kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf?
• Burned Aaron's sons to death for offering him strange fire?
• Burned complainers to death, forced the survivors to eat quail until it literally came out their noses, sent "fiery serpents" to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water, and killed 14,700 for complaining about his killings?
• Buried alive those that opposed Moses (along with their families)?
• Burned 250 men to death for burning incense?
• Rewarded Phinehas for throwing a spear though the bellies of an mixed-faith couple while they were having sex?
• Ordered, assisted in, or approved of dozens of complete genocides?
• Accepted human sacrifice in the cases of Jephthah's daughter and Saul's seven sons?
• Helped Samson murder thirty men for their clothes, slaughter 1000 with the jawbone of an ass, and kill 3000 civilians in a a suicide terrorist attack?
• Smote the Philistines of several cities with hemorrhoids in their secret parts?
• Killed a man for trying to keep the ark of the covenant from falling and 50,070 for looking into the ark?
• Approved when David bought his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins?
• Killed King Saul for not killing every Amalekite as he told him to do?
• Slowly killed a baby to punish King David for committing adultery?
• Killed 70,000 because David had a census that he (or Satan) told him to do?
• Sent a lion to kill a prophet for believing another prophet's lie, another lion to kill a man for not smiting a prophet, and some more lions to kill people that didn't fear him enough?
• Killed 450 religious leaders who lost a prayer contest with Elijah and burned 102 men to death for asking Elijah to come down from his hill?
• Sent two bears to rip apart 42 boys for making fun of Elisha's bald head?
• Killed 27,000 Syrians by having a wall fall on them, sent an angel to kill 185,000 sleeping soldiers, interfered in human battles to kill a half million Israelite and a million Ethiopian soldiers?
• Killed King Ahab for not killing a captured king, and then sent King Jehu on a series of mass murders to kill all of Ahab's family and friends who had ever "pissed against a wall?"
• Killed Jehoram by making his bowels fall out?
• Killed Job's ten children in a bet with Satan?
• Killed Ezekiel's wife and told him not to mourn her?
• Killed Ananias and Sapphira for not giving Peter all their money?
• Killed King Herod by feeding him to worms?

Christianity is an eastern religion that keeps women in the kitchen. Thats why when it became the dominant religion of Rome it changed the Roman culture, as well as the culture of the Gauls and Iberians who all allowed women more freedom. The christians disallowed freedom for their women.

[total relism]

http://www.openbible.info/topics/women

These are not quotes from Atheists. Look them up in your bible and prove me wrong.

1 Timothy 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.


Ephesians 5:22-24Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Titus 2:4-5Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.1 Peter 3:1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

God's killings in the Bible:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

• Forced friends and family to kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf?
• Burned Aaron's sons to death for offering him strange fire?
• Burned complainers to death, forced the survivors to eat quail until it literally came out their noses, sent "fiery serpents" to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water, and killed 14,700 for complaining about his killings?
• Buried alive those that opposed Moses (along with their families)?
• Burned 250 men to death for burning incense?
• Rewarded Phinehas for throwing a spear though the bellies of an mixed-faith couple while they were having sex?
• Ordered, assisted in, or approved of dozens of complete genocides?
• Accepted human sacrifice in the cases of Jephthah's daughter and Saul's seven sons?
• Helped Samson murder thirty men for their clothes, slaughter 1000 with the jawbone of an ass, and kill 3000 civilians in a a suicide terrorist attack?
• Smote the Philistines of several cities with hemorrhoids in their secret parts?
• Killed a man for trying to keep the ark of the covenant from falling and 50,070 for looking into the ark?
• Approved when David bought his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins?
• Killed King Saul for not killing every Amalekite as he told him to do?
• Slowly killed a baby to punish King David for committing adultery?
• Killed 70,000 because David had a census that he (or Satan) told him to do?
• Sent a lion to kill a prophet for believing another prophet's lie, another lion to kill a man for not smiting a prophet, and some more lions to kill people that didn't fear him enough?
• Killed 450 religious leaders who lost a prayer contest with Elijah and burned 102 men to death for asking Elijah to come down from his hill?
• Sent two bears to rip apart 42 boys for making fun of Elisha's bald head?
• Killed 27,000 Syrians by having a wall fall on them, sent an angel to kill 185,000 sleeping soldiers, interfered in human battles to kill a half million Israelite and a million Ethiopian soldiers?
• Killed King Ahab for not killing a captured king, and then sent King Jehu on a series of mass murders to kill all of Ahab's family and friends who had ever "pissed against a wall?"
• Killed Jehoram by making his bowels fall out?
• Killed Job's ten children in a bet with Satan?
• Killed Ezekiel's wife and told him not to mourn her?
• Killed Ananias and Sapphira for not giving Peter all their money?
• Killed King Herod by feeding him to worms?

Christianity is an eastern religion that keeps women in the kitchen. Thats why when it became the dominant religion of Rome it changed the Roman culture, as well as the culture of the Gauls and Iberians who all allowed women more freedom. The christians disallowed freedom for their women.

mathias, you bring up off topic stuff, will you debate me 1v1? in that debate you can bring up your top 5 objections to Christianity,i will my top 5 vs atheism. Your objections are easily answered and deserved to be in fight club. You can for example say god is sexist against woman and wants to keep them in the kitchen, then provide your quotes,than say god is evil and kills,than provide verses etc etc. Otherwise admit you have no idea about the bible and what it teaches, and admit to misinterpreting or not allowing the bible to speak for itself. If you deny this offer, than i see no reason to discus with you anymore,unless it happens to actually be on topic. BYT, i am doing future thread on both topics you brought up here, i am going through them on twc.org if your interested.


at least one and maybe both are on my next thread topic
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...tions-to-bible