Evidence for God from Science

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:Why does the verse say that beating purge the inmost being? Why use the words blows, wounds, and beatings if thats not the message God was actually trying to get across?

I've already explained that. That is the message God is getting accross. Scroll up and read my 2 previous posts on Pr 20:30. Why are you having so much trouble understanding? Is English your mother tongue or is it an alternate language for you? You do not have to agree with everything the Bible says; as an atheist, that is impossible for you. The point here is to understand difficult passages.

Now, move on and stay focused. How do you read Lev 25:44-46?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:Well my point all along has been that the notion that the bible needs to be interpreted is pretty silly and is evidence that the bible was not divinely inspired. What kind of omnipotent, all-knowing God would have his message inspired in such a way that his creation generations later wouldnt be able to understand it with out complicated methods of interpretation. That doesnt make any sense at all.

No one is talking about mystical interpretation except you. I gave you a simple explanation on Pr 20:30 - it means exactly what it says - and you still do not understand! I also showed you how to go about discovering what a difficult passage like Pr 20:30 means, yet you are not able to use the technique.

You've said on several occasions that you want to understand the Bible. I have no doubt that there is a sliver of truth here. However, this understanding will not be yours until you get rid of your spiteful attitude and discipline your mind.

FL

MAGSolo wrote:Well my point all along has been that the notion that the bible needs to be interpreted is pretty silly and is evidence that the bible was not divinely inspired. What kind of omnipotent, all-knowing God would have his message inspired in such a way that his creation generations later wouldnt be able to understand it with out complicated methods of interpretation. That doesnt make any sense at all.

MAGSolo wrote:You say it means exactly what it says, Daniel says it means something else. If Christians cant agree on what a verse actually means, how can you expect people like me to understand? Youre taking me to task while completely ignoring the fact that Daniel completely contradicted you. Tell me honestly, how do you think it looks when two Christians say that the same verse means two different things. You both cant be right, so that means one of you is on here spreading misinformation. Can you come to an agreement on who it is?

MAGSolo wrote:You say it means exactly what it says, Daniel says it means something else. If Christians cant agree on what a verse actually means, how can you expect people like me to understand? Youre taking me to task while completely ignoring the fact that Daniel completely contradicted you. Tell me honestly, how do you think it looks when two Christians say that the same verse means two different things. You both cant be right, so that means one of you is on here spreading misinformation. Can you come to an agreement on who it is?

neo-x wrote:Dan, hope you don't mind me saying this but by the look of it, you are wasting your time. I am not saying it is totally futile, just that I think Magsolo's theological perception is wrong on a devestating scale and unless that gets sorted out first, you two are talking past each other. Just my two cents, for what its worth.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:You say it means exactly what it says, Daniel says it means something else. If Christians cant agree on what a verse actually means, how can you expect people like me to understand? Youre taking me to task while completely ignoring the fact that Daniel completely contradicted you. Tell me honestly, how do you think it looks when two Christians say that the same verse means two different things. You both cant be right, so that means one of you is on here spreading misinformation. Can you come to an agreement on who it is?

Error FL and I had the same answer...................

Kurieuo wrote:Even Christians will interpret the passage differently. But this just means there are many ways of looking at it.

The smartarse of a creator of that table has columns "You Say" and "God Says". Does he really believe "God says"? No. Then why say "God says"? Because he's playing a game.

He would have been more honest writing the "Tanakh says" or "Scripture says" or the like, because he doesn't believe in God. Or perhaps his words betray Atheism.

While Scripture is God-breathed, it doesn't mean every word is God's or straight-forwardly endorsed by God. Proverbs, Psalms and Song of Solomon are all books from man's experiences and often state words of wisdom that ring true. A clear case of this which is also very appropriate I think of the person who created this table is found in Proverbs 26.

In verse 4 we read: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him." So are we not to answer the fool? But then immediately in verse 5 we read: "Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes." Oh, so are we to answer the fool? No... it's just stating how things will probably be.

Kind of like how MAGSolo thinks he is wise for throwing the gauntlet down here to prod a response to certain passages, and then hiding behind "Stygian's the one whose wanting answers".

Now here is a really easy counter for Christians. At the very most, all you have are contradictory passages. The Atheist likes to glim over the "good" and "moral" passages which would easily suit people's sensitivities a lot more. Rather they unfairly search the Bible for one verse that they'll happily rip out of context. What about all those other verses which would contradict the verses the Atheist rips out? Oh, don't worry about them.

This table doesn't show what "God says" or even what "Scripture says" because it is incomplete. Even given that the way the creator paints the interpretations of verses is correct, then if we muster 10 other verses that contradict what he has in the "God says" column -- the most he has is that Scripture is contradictory.

Or perhaps... just perhaps... his interpretation is just clouded by the lens of his own Atheism and a foolish desire to play such games.

1over137 wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:Well my point all along has been that the notion that the bible needs to be interpreted is pretty silly and is evidence that the bible was not divinely inspired. What kind of omnipotent, all-knowing God would have his message inspired in such a way that his creation generations later wouldnt be able to understand it with out complicated methods of interpretation. That doesnt make any sense at all.

MAGSolo wrote:You say it means exactly what it says, Daniel says it means something else. If Christians cant agree on what a verse actually means, how can you expect people like me to understand? Youre taking me to task while completely ignoring the fact that Daniel completely contradicted you. Tell me honestly, how do you think it looks when two Christians say that the same verse means two different things. You both cant be right, so that means one of you is on here spreading misinformation. Can you come to an agreement on who it is?

Mag,
Do you expect that you should understand every verse you read in the Bible just by reading that verse? I do not. And when it needs some interpretation we do it according to the principle 'Scripture interprets Scripture'. So, to understand some verse it may well be that you need to know a lot from the Bible.

It looks normal when two Christians disagree on some thing. We discuss, we debate. We are not blind followers of some I-do-not-know-what. We study, we learn, we grow, and possibly are coming to mutual understanding of things.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

neo-x wrote:Dan, hope you don't mind me saying this but by the look of it, you are wasting your time. I am not saying it is totally futile, just that I think Magsolo's theological perception is wrong on a devestating scale and unless that gets sorted out first, you two are talking past each other. Just my two cents, for what its worth.

Yea I know, but I have hope, I will never give up trying to change his perception even though I am probably not very good at it lol.
The thing I find most frustrating is that others and I make some good points, which he just ignores and then just picks and chooses what he wants to respond to.


Dan

MAGSolo wrote:

1over137 wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:Well my point all along has been that the notion that the bible needs to be interpreted is pretty silly and is evidence that the bible was not divinely inspired. What kind of omnipotent, all-knowing God would have his message inspired in such a way that his creation generations later wouldnt be able to understand it with out complicated methods of interpretation. That doesnt make any sense at all.

MAGSolo wrote:You say it means exactly what it says, Daniel says it means something else. If Christians cant agree on what a verse actually means, how can you expect people like me to understand? Youre taking me to task while completely ignoring the fact that Daniel completely contradicted you. Tell me honestly, how do you think it looks when two Christians say that the same verse means two different things. You both cant be right, so that means one of you is on here spreading misinformation. Can you come to an agreement on who it is?

Mag,
Do you expect that you should understand every verse you read in the Bible just by reading that verse? I do not. And when it needs some interpretation we do it according to the principle 'Scripture interprets Scripture'. So, to understand some verse it may well be that you need to know a lot from the Bible.

It looks normal when two Christians disagree on some thing. We discuss, we debate. We are not blind followers of some I-do-not-know-what. We study, we learn, we grow, and possibly are coming to mutual understanding of things.

Actually yes I do expect that I should understand every verse just by reading that verse or at least that chapter. I dont think I should have to go to a verse in the book of Ruth, Titus, or Jude to understand the meaning of a verse in the book of Genesis. Can you explain why that is an unreasonable expectation?