Evidence for God from Science

Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.

Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.

Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.

If you want to know more about it, you can scroll down on this link.
https://bible.org/seriespage/8-bible-un ... ts-message

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.

Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.

Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.

If you want to know more about it, you can scroll down on this link.
https://bible.org/seriespage/8-bible-un ... ts-message

Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.

Nothing is "normal".

Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things.

The word literal is avoided here since it often leads to wrong ideas that must be later corrected. Rather, I am using the terms plain or normal to express the proper method of interpretation. By plain or normal we mean the words of Scripture are to be understood in their normal meaning just as we normally understand words in our normal, everyday communication. When we read the newspaper or a recipe in a cookbook, how do we read those words? We understand them according to their literal or normal meaning. If the recipe says two cups of flower, you don’t symbolize that to mean, a great quantity to be chosen at your discretion. If, however, it calls for a pinch of salt, you understand it to be somewhat symbolical of a very small amount.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.

Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.

Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.

If you want to know more about it, you can scroll down on this link.
https://bible.org/seriespage/8-bible-un ... ts-message

Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.

Nothing is "normal".

Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things.

Daniel,

That's the way it is named. It is what it is. It doesn't mean other interpretations are abnormal. It's just the name given to the method of interpretation.

Read this part if the link, if you don't want to read the whole link. It explains it:

The word literal is avoided here since it often leads to wrong ideas that must be later corrected. Rather, I am using the terms plain or normal to express the proper method of interpretation. By plain or normal we mean the words of Scripture are to be understood in their normal meaning just as we normally understand words in our normal, everyday communication. When we read the newspaper or a recipe in a cookbook, how do we read those words? We understand them according to their literal or normal meaning. If the recipe says two cups of flower, you don’t symbolize that to mean, a great quantity to be chosen at your discretion. If, however, it calls for a pinch of salt, you understand it to be somewhat symbolical of a very small amount.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.

Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.

Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.

If you want to know more about it, you can scroll down on this link.
https://bible.org/seriespage/8-bible-un ... ts-message

Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.

Nothing is "normal".

Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things.

Daniel,

That's the way it is named. It is what it is. It doesn't mean other interpretations are abnormal. It's just the name given to the method of interpretation.

Read this part if the link, if you don't want to read the whole link. It explains it:

The word literal is avoided here since it often leads to wrong ideas that must be later corrected. Rather, I am using the terms plain or normal to express the proper method of interpretation. By plain or normal we mean the words of Scripture are to be understood in their normal meaning just as we normally understand words in our normal, everyday communication. When we read the newspaper or a recipe in a cookbook, how do we read those words? We understand them according to their literal or normal meaning. If the recipe says two cups of flower, you don’t symbolize that to mean, a great quantity to be chosen at your discretion. If, however, it calls for a pinch of salt, you understand it to be somewhat symbolical of a very small amount.

melanie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.

Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.

Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.

If you want to know more about it, you can scroll down on this link.
https://bible.org/seriespage/8-bible-un ... ts-message

Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.

Nothing is "normal".

Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things.

Daniel,

That's the way it is named. It is what it is. It doesn't mean other interpretations are abnormal. It's just the name given to the method of interpretation.

Read this part if the link, if you don't want to read the whole link. It explains it:

The word literal is avoided here since it often leads to wrong ideas that must be later corrected. Rather, I am using the terms plain or normal to express the proper method of interpretation. By plain or normal we mean the words of Scripture are to be understood in their normal meaning just as we normally understand words in our normal, everyday communication. When we read the newspaper or a recipe in a cookbook, how do we read those words? We understand them according to their literal or normal meaning. If the recipe says two cups of flower, you don’t symbolize that to mean, a great quantity to be chosen at your discretion. If, however, it calls for a pinch of salt, you understand it to be somewhat symbolical of a very small amount.

Haha I can't take this seriously
Two cups of flower? I symbolise that to mean some daffodils in my cake recipe.
Flour maybe?
Pretty funny considering it is talking about the correct or 'normal' use and interpretation of language.

melanie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.

Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.

Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.

If you want to know more about it, you can scroll down on this link.
https://bible.org/seriespage/8-bible-un ... ts-message

Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.

Nothing is "normal".

Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things.

Daniel,

That's the way it is named. It is what it is. It doesn't mean other interpretations are abnormal. It's just the name given to the method of interpretation.

Read this part if the link, if you don't want to read the whole link. It explains it:

The word literal is avoided here since it often leads to wrong ideas that must be later corrected. Rather, I am using the terms plain or normal to express the proper method of interpretation. By plain or normal we mean the words of Scripture are to be understood in their normal meaning just as we normally understand words in our normal, everyday communication. When we read the newspaper or a recipe in a cookbook, how do we read those words? We understand them according to their literal or normal meaning. If the recipe says two cups of flower, you don’t symbolize that to mean, a great quantity to be chosen at your discretion. If, however, it calls for a pinch of salt, you understand it to be somewhat symbolical of a very small amount.

Haha I can't take this seriously
Two cups of flower? I symbolise that to mean some daffodils in my cake recipe.
Flour maybe?
Pretty funny considering it is talking about the correct or 'normal' use and interpretation of language.

melanie wrote:I'm confused,
I think perhaps you didn't read what I wrote Dan

Daniel wrote:
You didn't read what I wrote did you, I said interpreting scripture is not the same as reading a recipe or newspaper, they are not analogous, so you cannot apply the same method of interpretation.

You know it's pretty insulting to say you can't take someone seriously when you didn't even bother to read what I wrote.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

melanie wrote:I'm confused,
I think perhaps you didn't read what I wrote Dan

Ahh yes your right my apologies.

I did read it, just misunderstood it.

melanie wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

melanie wrote:I'm confused,
I think perhaps you didn't read what I wrote Dan

Ahh yes your right my apologies.

I did read it, just misunderstood it.

All good Dan
Happens to the best of us

The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
You didn't read what I wrote did you, I said interpreting scripture is not the same as reading a recipe or newspaper, they are not analogous, so you cannot apply the same method of interpretation.

You know it's pretty insulting to say you can't take someone seriously when you didn't even bother to read what I wrote.

Daniel,

Are you feeling ok?

First you jumped to conclusions on what you thought FL was saying, and you unnecessarily went off on him.

And then you just completely misread what Mel was talking about. She was talking about not taking the article I posted seriously, because they put "flower" instead of "flour".

You really need to step back, calm down, stop accusing people, and give others the benefit of the doubt if you don't understand something someone is saying.

It's really becoming an issue with your posts lately.

The normal method of biblical interpretation, also known as the literal-historical method, allows for poetry, for idiomatic expressions, for figurative language and such, and seeks to understand the literal meaning behind the literary construct. The allegorical, the mystical and other fruitcake methods of interpretation create confusion by spiritualizing the meaning. Adherents of these methods must confront a plasticity of meaning that ends up being meaningless. In plain language: it's just a bunch of BS and adherents don't know what theiy're talking about, and don't know that they don't know. The Bereans were certainly not allegorical/mystical interpreters because they "...examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." They consulted the Scriptures themselves and verified that they were being taught the truth. The only way they could understand the Scriptures was to interpret them literally. Any other form of interpretation requires some sort of twisted Template that says This=That...or a guru.

Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.