Saving the Bible through selective interpretation

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 21 by Justin108]


DOES THE BIBLE SAY GOD CREATED PLANTS BEFORE HE CREATED THE SUN/LIGHT?

No, it does not. The first verse of Genesis (1:1) mentions the creation of the heavenly bodies, it reads: "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth ..." This no doubt would have included our sun and the stars.


DAY 1
On the first creative "day" the bible explains that initially " the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep ..." (note, it did not say the universe had no light, only that what light may have existed did not reach "the surface" of the planet at the time. Evidently, the light from the sun was not visible from the earth. Scientists theorize that the primitive earth long remained covered in darkness, due to outgassing from volcanic eruptions.

Eventually God proceeded to say: "Let light come to be." This "light" came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Hebrew word there used for "light" (on day 1) is "ohr", meaning light in a general sense; the SOURCES of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth.

Translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: And gradually light came into existence. (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis).

To illustrate: Have you ever tried to find the sun on a day when the sky was completely overcast? You know the sun is THERE (it's not dark, there is light) but you cannot see where the light is coming from because of the clouds. This is similar to the situation from days 1 through 3 in Genesis with the planet moving gradually from being shrouded in darkness (due to the light being blocked from reaching its "suface") to having enough light for plants to grow.

DAY 3
By the close of this third creative period, however, the diffused light would have become quite strong, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Thus the creation of the three broad categories of land plants.

DAY 4

On the fourth day the bible speaks of the luminaries or the light sources. On this day, the Hebrew word for LIGHT changes to ma¡ohr¡ä, which esentially refers to the source of the light. The Emphasised Bible, states that the Hebrew word ma'ohr used in verse 14 means something affording light. So on this fourth day, the "source" of light would have become discernable The atmosphere cleared enough for the SOURCE of light to be clearly distinguishable.


v3 ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.� - v14 “affording light.� - Luminaries, Rotherham, Emphasised Bible


Strongs #216 Light "owr" [Genesis 1:3]
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebibl ... 2.htm#S216

Strongs #3974 Light "ma'owr" [Genesis 1:14] "properly, a luminous body or luminary"
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebibl ... .htm#S3974


NOTE In hebrew there are two distinct words used in Genesis, "Bara" which basically means CREATE (ie make from 'nothing') and "asah" (which means "do" "make" "prepare") ie, process what has already been created. The word used in the English "MADE [...the liminaries] in Genesis 1:16 is "asah" so it does not mean God created the luminaries at that time but by the fourth day he made (or enabled/caused) the already previously created heavenly bodies to serve their purpose.

CONCLUSION: Though some, from a perfunctory reading of Genesis conclude that the sun, stars and all universal light sources are spoken of coming into existence on the fourth day, this is in fact not what the text actually says.

Further reading
http://nephesh-chaiyah.blogspot.com/200 ... hayah.html
BARA v ASAH Doesn't the bible say that God MADE the luminaries on the 4th day?

Romans 13:1 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placedin their relative positions by God.

Yes, I've read the verse thank you. I have told you what we understand the verse to mean and I think I understand what you believe. You believer the verse means God "placed" and "established" governments by his active participation in their formation, I believe he "placed and established" by his refraining from stopping their formation.

You have your view, so do I. We will just have to agree to disagree.

2) The mustard seed parable [Matthew 13:31-32].
Jesus claims as a fact that the Mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds in the Bible. Yet we know the Orchid seed is smaller than the Mustard seed. Jesus failed to be correct.

Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
Matthew 13: 32

That says “least�, which can be understood “as of rank or influence�. Why do you choose the meaning smallest in size, when it can also be understood as low in rank?

Perhaps you would like to do an interlinear search regarding that verse concerning the mustard seed. It is here which will confirm in the Greek translation (or Hebrew that may apply) that indeed Jesus was talking about the mustard seed being the smallest of "every" seed in the world.

Let's compare Matthew 13:32 word for word in English to Greek:

"Though it is the smallest of all seeds..."

"ὃ μικ�ότε�ον μέν �στιν πάντων τῶν σπε�μάτων..."

Now let's condense the translations needed down to: "smallest of all seeds"

smallest = μικ�ότε�ον = mikroteron

GRK: ὃ μικ�ότε�ον μέν �στιν
NAS: and this is smaller than all
KJV: indeed is the least of all seeds:
INT: which smallest indeed is

of all = πάντων = pant�n

GRK: μέν �στιν πάντων τῶν σπε�μάτων
NAS: is smaller than all [other] seeds,
KJV: is the least of all seeds: but
INT: indeed is of all the seeds

seeds = σπε�μάτων = spermat�n

GRK: πάντων τῶν σπε�μάτων ὅταν δὲ
NAS: than all [other] seeds, but when
KJV: the least of all seeds: but when
INT: of all the seeds when however

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/13-32.htm (source)

Clearly from the Greek translations themselves it shows that Jesus explicitly said that the mustard seed INDEED IS THE SMALLEST OF ALL SEEDS! It's all there! Nothing more was noted nor nothing less was noted, all in Greek!

This is the last I will argue this point about the seeds unless an apologist has a far exceeding better explanation to challenge me. Until then, I will not answer the next apologist who comes in with superficial answers in which he/she did not do his own research to make his assertion. This is becoming redundant now.

Case closed. Christianity is a fraud and Jesus was wrong.

If that doesn't convince you, so be it (amen?). It's your life. Do whatever the hell you wanna do with it.

Unless of course Jesus was not speaking in absolute terms; which of course we usually don't. This illustrates the problem when people present these supposed errors, they are usually based on unsubstantiated presumptions.

Some theists are big fans of selective interpretation when it comes to patching up the moral inconsistencies and scientific inaccuracies of the Bible. Whenever there is an inaccuracy in the Bible, these people will never admit to this inaccuracy. Instead, they will do his best to twist the words until they are satisfied with the outcome.

Questions for debate
1. Is this mode of interpretation dishonest? Does anyone using this method actually look for truth in the Bible? Or does he/she selectively interpret the Bible to make it true?
2. Is it theoretically possible to interpret literally any claim, no matter how blatantly false, in such a way as to make it true?
3. Had this been a Muslim instead, would he/she be able to use this method of selective interpretation to fix every moral inconsistency and scientific inaccuracy in the Quran? If so, does this suggest that the Bible is just about as credible as the Quran?

[The Tanager]

8.We usually say that SUBJECTIVE means something like "To the person".. A subjective truth CAN be true for just one person. Sometimes, we call subjective truths "matters of taste" as when we choose chocolate over vanilla. That's ONE kind of subjective truth.

But isn't that truth "Person A's love of chocolate over vanilla" true for everyone? It is true for me that Person A loves chocolate over vanilla even if I love vanilla over chocolate.

13. Ooof, this is like juggling 4 philosophy books while cleaning my toilet bowl. You better appreciate. i expect at LEAST 10 tokens and a half dozen likes. I'm all tuckered out here. Gimme a smily, gimme SUMTHIN' Im dyin here. You broke my heart in two. Ok you feel guilty about this, so I'm done. Tokens would be nice and all.. but you don't have to, I'm good. It's cool. Just feel as bad as you can. Dig?

I like your humor and effort, but I've never bothered to really figure out how these token things work. I'm sure it's easy and I probably could have figured it out in the time it took me to write this paragraph out, but oh well, I must move on to other things now that I wasted that time.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 11 by The Tanager]



[center]Blastcat is truth[/center]

8.We usually say that SUBJECTIVE means something like "To the person".. A subjective truth CAN be true for just one person. Sometimes, we call subjective truths "matters of taste" as when we choose chocolate over vanilla. That's ONE kind of subjective truth.

But isn't that truth "Person A's love of chocolate over vanilla" true for everyone? It is true for me that Person A loves chocolate over vanilla even if I love vanilla over chocolate.

It DO get complicated, don't it?

13. Ooof, this is like juggling 4 philosophy books while cleaning my toilet bowl. You better appreciate. i expect at LEAST 10 tokens and a half dozen likes. I'm all tuckered out here. Gimme a smily, gimme SUMTHIN' Im dyin here. You broke my heart in two. Ok you feel guilty about this, so I'm done. Tokens would be nice and all.. but you don't have to, I'm good. It's cool. Just feel as bad as you can. Dig?

I like your humor and effort, but I've never bothered to really figure out how these token things work.

Too bad for the kitty cat.
I think I'm going to dance now.

I'm sure it's easy and I probably could have figured it out in the time it took me to write this paragraph out, but oh well, I must move on to other things now that I wasted that time.

Anything else you want to waste your time with?
Just ASG

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 3 by Justin108]

So when I read "God made the stars on day 4" to mean that God made the stars on day 4... then I'm selectively interpreting the text...? When I read "the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God" to mean "the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God" then I'm selectively interpreting? Okay...

There is more to those statements than you are letting on.

Take the authorities bit. I can totally agree with what you wrote there but our interpretations of that statement, trust me, are miles and miles apart.

So I would still say you are being extremely selective (as am I).

Again, you are accusing me of being selective for interpreting the text to say exactly what was written down. That is not selective interpretation, that is simply reading.

If Paul did not mean X, then why did he write X? Did the various authors go to bed at night, giggling at the prospect of having people try to figure out the cryptic messages in their writings? There is nothing to suggest Romans 13:1 means anything other than what was written down.

My interpretation of Romans 13:1 "the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God" is that the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Please point out where in my interpretation did I "tilt" any words?

It's all in what you mean by existing authorities. I don't think Paul meant Rome. He meant Jesus. He makes that very clear in Romans 13:4:

"For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good."

That is Jesus.

Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities

- Jesus held no place in any government
- "Authorities" is plural. Jesus is singular. If Jesus was the only authority suggested by Romans 13, then the text would read "authority" rather than "authorities"

for there is no authority except that which God has established.

- This clearly suggests again several authorities rather than just Jesus. In fact, the text clearly states all authorities. Was the Roman government an authority? Yes. Then it was established by God. Was Nazi Germany an authority? Yes. Then it was established by God.

Reading the rest of Romans 13:4 (before you cut the rest off)

Romans 13:4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

- Again, notice the plurals. So no... your theory that Romans 13 refers only to Jesus as an authority is simply false

[theophile]

[Replying to Justin108]

Again, you are accusing me of being selective for interpreting the text to say exactly what was written down. That is not selective interpretation, that is simply reading.

Reading "exactly what is written down" is critical. I agree. But even doing that, we are left with ambiguous texts that still require interpretation. That is my point.

With this particular text, reading is insufficient. You still need to add meaning through interpretation.

Where you use Romans 13:7 as your key, i.e. the reference to taxes leads you to select the interpretation that Paul is speaking of Rome, I use Romans 13:4 as my key. This has me select the interpretation that Paul is speaking of Christ when he says "authorities."

Both of these readings are perfectly valid and follow from reading "exactly what is written down."

That is the genius of Paul's subversive text here.

But let's be fair: what do you think Paul is truly proclaiming? What would you expect? Rome as God's authority on earth or Christ? This is what breaks it for me. My selection just makes so much more sense and orients us to who we know are the true authorities in this world... Those in the spirit of Christ (recall what this means: anointed, i.e., to rule, like a king).

- Jesus held no place in any government
- "Authorities" is plural. Jesus is singular. If Jesus was the only authority suggested by Romans 13, then the text would read "authority" rather than "authorities"

Go back to gen 1. God established humankind to rule over the earth, i.e., to govern it. Paul is telling us in Romans 13 who those true governing authorities are within our ranks: the ones who serve the good of others (13:4).

Those are the ones we ought to pay taxes to. Those are the ones in the spirit of Christ: the anointed ones... The ones truly appointed by God to rule... It is not, and was never meant, to be a singular concept. All of us are meant to be Christ. Or in the spirit.

The theory holds just fine. Pay taxes to those authorities, for they serve the good of others and are established by God.

[Justin108]

Reading "exactly what is written down" is critical. I agree. But even doing that, we are left with ambiguous texts that still require interpretation. That is my point.

True enough, but you cannot appeal to ambiguity if you literally need to redefine a word in order for your interpretation to fit as JW did in the OP.

Romans 13:1 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.

Yes, I've read the verse thank you. I have told you what we understand the verse to mean and I think I understand what you believe. You believer the verse means God "placed" and "established" governments by his active participation in their formation, I believe he "placed and established" by his refraining from stopping their formation.

Since when is the word "placed" ambiguous enough to potentially mean "allowed"? Your interpretations have room for validity. Your interpretations do not depend on the complete redefinition of a word. JW's isn't. I have no major gripe with your interpretation of this text. I would call your interpretation an alternate one to mine. I still believe mine is a more accurate reflection of the text, but I can budge to allow your interpretation to be possible. JW's isn't. He literally redefines a word in order for his interpretation to stand. That is selective interpretation.

With this particular text, reading is insufficient. You still need to add meaning through interpretation.

How do you know reading is insufficient? Is my interpretation somehow implausible?

Where you use Romans 13:7 as your key, i.e. the reference to taxes leads you to select the interpretation that Paul is speaking of Rome

My interpretation is that Paul is speaking of all authorities. I back this up by Paul's own words stating "for there is no authority except that which God has established". Is Rome a governing authority? Yes. Does it then follow that Rome falls under the "authorities" mentioned by Paul? Yes. Rome along with any other governing authority. That is what the text says.

I use Romans 13:4 as my key. This has me select the interpretation that Paul is speaking of Christ when he says "authorities."

How is Romans 13:4 a key when as I already mentioned it refers to plural authorities and not just a singular authority (Jesus)?

Both of these readings are perfectly valid and follow from reading "exactly what is written down."

Going by "exactly what is written down", please explain how Jesus ticks the following boxes
- Governing authorities (plural) - Romans 13:1
- Rulers (plural) - Romans 13:3
- Rulers (plural), Servants (plural), Agents (plural) - Romans 13:4
- Authorities (plural) - Romans 13:5
- This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing - Romans 13:6

Romans 13:6 is probably the most damning of all as it repeatedly mentions plural authorities in positions of government where they receive taxes for their services. Please explain to me how this would apply to Jesus?

But let's be fair: what do you think Paul is truly proclaiming? What would you expect? Rome as God's authority on earth or Christ?

I don't pretend to know Paul's intentions. I am not Paul. It is no secret that many churches over the years have believed themselves to be God's authority on earth so why should we expect any different from Paul? Once you start speculating about the author's character rather than what is written is when you start selectively interpreting the text. You don't like the idea that Paul gave that much credit to earthly governments and so you selectively interpret the text to say otherwise. Looking at the text and only the text with your own personal biases aside, the text is clear: Paul is speaking about all governing authorities. How do I know this? Because that's what the text says!

This is what breaks it for me. My selection just makes so much more sense

No your selection just suits your desired narrative better. This way of thinking, that the gods are responsible for success in government, success in war, success in economics, etc. was common place at the time. So why do you insist that this time was different? Why do you assume that Paul just "knew better" than all the others? Especially when his writings say otherwise?

- It was common place to believe that the gods were responsible for governing and economic success
- Paul echoed that sentiment in his writings
- Therefore, the most reasonable conclusion is that Paul believed the worldly governments were placed there by God since he literally wrote exactly that

[theophile]

[Replying to post 15 by Justin108]

True enough, but you cannot appeal to ambiguity if you literally need to redefine a word in order for your interpretation to fit as JW did in the OP.

I would argue vehemently against JW's interpretation as well. Is that selective interpretation though? I feel like that is just bad interpretation and ignoring the words that are there.

Selective interpretation is working within the valid, semantic range of the text and leaning toward one way of reading it over another because it suits your bias. It is not changing the words or meaning of the words.

That's not allowed in any interpretation but a bad one.

How do you know reading is insufficient? Is my interpretation somehow implausible?

No, not implausible. Absolutely not. But you can't just state the verse and say "done." The verse cited can still support divergent meanings (like mine). Hence, reading the verse alone is insufficient. Further interpretation is required.

My interpretation is that Paul is speaking of all authorities. I back this up by Paul's own words stating "for there is no authority except that which God has established". Is Rome a governing authority? Yes. Does it then follow that Rome falls under the "authorities" mentioned by Paul? Yes. Rome along with any other governing authority. That is what the text says.

Yup. And my view is that Paul is speaking of TRUE authority. Rome is a power, not an authority we should be governed by per se. It is more in the class of the "powers and principalities" that will pass away. Not an authority established by God from the beginning.

How is Romans 13:4 a key when as I already mentioned it refers to plural authorities and not just a singular authority (Jesus)?

Because Jesus isn't the only Christ. Again, gen 1. We were all called to rule. To be anointed / Christ.

- Governing authorities (plural) - Romans 13:1
- Rulers (plural) - Romans 13:3
- Rulers (plural), Servants (plural), Agents (plural) - Romans 13:4
- Authorities (plural) - Romans 13:5
- This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing - Romans 13:6

True authorities, i.e., those that should govern us, and spend all their time doing it, are the ones who "serve the good of others." 13:4

Pay your taxes to them and follow their rule.

I'm not seeing what doesn't fit here...

My argument isn't that Jesus held office, but that his way of life should govern our own. We should look to him for the model of how to live and rule,, i.e., if we want to live and rule with authority, then we should do so by serving the good of others. That is the God established way.

Furthermore, we should support with taxes those who do that. Happily and willingly. So that they can keep doing that.

(If Rome does that, then by all means, pay taxes to Rome!!)

Paul is speaking about all governing authorities. How do I know this? Because that's what the text says!

The text also says (13:4) that the authorities Paul is speaking of are those who serve the good of others.

Does Rome do that? Maybe to a degree. But definitely not like Christ does.

So tell me, please, how you reconcile your view with 13:4.

13:4 is the key because it tells us who the true authorities are, and how to recognize them. It is not by POWER (e.g., Rome) that we recognize authority, but by SERVING THE GOOD OF OTHERS that we will know them.

No your selection just suits your desired narrative better. This way of thinking, that the gods are responsible for success in government, success in war, success in economics, etc. was common place at the time. So why do you insist that this time was different? Why do you assume that Paul just "knew better" than all the others? Especially when his writings say otherwise?

Because I'm following Paul closely. In 13:4 he tells us precisely what he means by authority. I may be biased, but I can't possibly think that he is talking of Rome, or anyone with a stick out there that forces their rule on the world, when he says "governing authorities."

What he is talking about is Christ, i.e., those who demonstrate their authority by, let me say it again, serving the good of others.

(Like I said, 13:4 is the key. But hey, I get your view. I really do. It suits your bias just as mine suits mine - I get why you select it. And I wouldn't argue that it isn't viable. It absolutely is. But I think the context of other Pauline texts, and his general mission of proclaiming Christ closes the deal. But that's just me.)

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 16 by theophile]

But you can't just state the verse and say "done."

Unfortunately, this is what usually passes for the philosophy of religion in here.. the rules stipulate that we need to support our claims with some Bible verse. Most people find one.. and then their pretty much "done", alright.

Then they just dig in their heels.

[Zzyzx]

.

But you can't just state the verse and say "done."

Unfortunately, this is what usually passes for the philosophy of religion in here.. the rules stipulate that we need to support our claims with some Bible verse. Most people find one.. and then their pretty much "done", alright.

Then they just dig in their heels.

Moderator Intervention

The above is NOT correct. In this, the C&A, sub-forum the Bible is NOT considered authoritative or proof of truth. It can only be cited to show what the Bible says or what Christianity professes.

Rules
C&A Guidelines
______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 18 by Zzyzx]

The above is NOT correct. In this, the C&A, sub-forum the Bible is NOT considered authoritative or proof of truth. It can only be cited to show what the Bible says or what Christianity professes.

Ooops.

I forgot where I was.. good call.

But still my criticism remains.. some people think that as soon as they get ONE Bible verse to support their position, they are done defending it. And then they dig in.

In the other part of the forum, Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma, the Bible Canon is supposed to be authoritative, and some people have learned to support their assertions with just one verse, which in most cases is just cherry picking.

There are verses that contradict that they forget to consider. So, good call about the rule, Z, thanks for the correction.

[Justin108]

Yup. And my view is that Paul is speaking of TRUE authority.

Sounds a lot like a no-true-Scotsman fallacy to me.

How is Romans 13:4 a key when as I already mentioned it refers to plural authorities and not just a singular authority (Jesus)?

Because Jesus isn't the only Christ. Again, gen 1. We were all called to rule. To be anointed / Christ.

- Governing authorities (plural) - Romans 13:1
- Rulers (plural) - Romans 13:3
- Rulers (plural), Servants (plural), Agents (plural) - Romans 13:4
- Authorities (plural) - Romans 13:5
- This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing - Romans 13:6

True authorities, i.e., those that should govern us, and spend all their time doing it, are the ones who "serve the good of others." 13:4

Pay your taxes to them and follow their rule.

I'm not seeing what doesn't fit here...

My argument isn't that Jesus held office, but that his way of life should govern our own. We should look to him for the model of how to live and rule,, i.e., if we want to live and rule with authority, then we should do so by serving the good of others. That is the God established way.

Furthermore, we should support with taxes those who do that. Happily and willingly. So that they can keep doing that.

Define "taxes"

So tell me, please, how you reconcile your view with 13:4.

13:4 is the key because it tells us who the true authorities are, and how to recognize them. It is not by POWER (e.g., Rome) that we recognize authority, but by SERVING THE GOOD OF OTHERS that we will know them.

The God of the Bible and Christianity in general has done some morally questionable things over the years. Often when I bring this up to a theist, he would respond with "who are you to tell God what to do? Surely God's morality is superior to yours?". So even if Rome were, in your opinion, immoral, someone holding my interpretation would ask "who are you to question these authorities, since God is the one who placed them there?".

So my reconciliation would be
- 1. What have these governments done that is not God's will?
- 2. How do you know what they have done is not God's will?

I may be biased, but I can't possibly think that he is talking of Rome, or anyone with a stick out there that forces their rule on the world

Have you read the Old Testament? God's tribe has been forcing their rule on the world for ages. They have waged war after war to spread the will of their God. Why should Rome be any different?