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?

[theophile]

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.

Can you point out selective interpretation? You have selected your interpretation as much as anyone else has, no?

In the passages you cite, I may disagree with the conclusions, but I see an effort to do a close, careful reading of the texts, which is a good thing if we want to get to the right interpretation of them.

Of course we all tilt words if we have the freedom to do so to get them closer to the meaning we hope to find in them. You as much as any other I would imagine in wanting to find inconsistencies in the bible.

(In fact, I see more danger in those who are trying to disprove the bible, or already believe it is all a contradiction, because they stop trying to understand at the first "demonstration" of that and don't even try to read deeper into what is really going on.)

[Justin108]

Can you point out selective interpretation? You have selected your interpretation as much as anyone else has, no?

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...

In the passages you cite, I may disagree with the conclusions, but I see an effort to do a close, careful reading of the texts, which is a good thing if we want to get to the right interpretation of them.

Unless you make an effort to compare and deliberately interpret Genesis 1 to conform to modern science, it is virtually impossible to reach the above mentioned interpretation.

Please explain how one could come to the conclusion of "volcanic gasses" looking only at Genesis 1 and not contrasting it to modern science? What part of Genesis 1 suggests volcanic gasses?

Of course we all tilt words if we have the freedom to do so to get them closer to the meaning we hope to find in them.

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?

You as much as any other I would imagine in wanting to find inconsistencies in the bible.

I don't want to find inconsistencies in the Bible. They are just there, clear as day. Even if not a single inconsistency existed, I would still be an atheist so the existence of these inconsistencies do not affect me in any way.

(In fact, I see more danger in those who are trying to disprove the bible, or already believe it is all a contradiction, because they stop trying to understand at the first "demonstration" of that and don't even try to read deeper into what is really going on.)

I was a Christian for most of my life. Even as a Christian, I found these contradictions without even trying. In fact, I did my best to try to explain them away but unlike other theists on this site, I do not have the ability to effectively fool myself

[The Tanager]

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?

1. There is a difference between whether someone IS selectively interpreting a passage and whether they KNOW they are. It is only dishonest if they KNOW they are. And, by definition, if they KNOW they are doing this, they aren't looking for truth because they are arguing for something they know is not true. Most of the time whomever is doing the selective interpretation does not know they are doing it; they think their move is rationally justified and true to the text.

2. If one believes truth is relative, then yes there would seem to be.

3. A Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu or a Materialist or whomever could also use this method with or without knowing it. This says nothing about the credibility of the sources of authority themselves. To say otherwise seems to me to be committing the genetic fallacy. Something is true based on the evidence and reasoning for it, not on how a specific believer in that truth comes to that belief. I believed 2+2=4 because my dad told me it was true and I trusted him, not because I rationally figured it out. I still held a true belief.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]



[center]Conflating subjective with objective[/center]

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?

It all depends on the KIND of truth we are looking for. If we are looking for a kind of subjective truth.. well.. as long as it makes some kind of sense, were done. it's "true".

What might be true for me, might not be true for you.
End of that discussion.

If we are talking about OBJECTIVE truth.. well of course it's wrong. I don't know about HONESTY, because that speaks to a person's intentions. But it's sure wrong.

People get real mixed up between what is subjective and what is objective.
Something to do with religions, I suppose.

2. Is it theoretically possible to interpret literally any claim, no matter how blatantly false, in such a way as to make it true?

Yes.
People do that all the time, and not only Christians, I'm afraid.
Of course, we are still talking about subjective truth.. not at all about objective.

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?

Child's play.
It takes two things:

1. Imagination
2. Focused interest

If so, does this suggest that the Bible is just about as credible as the Quran?

No.

The Bible actually doesn't have anything to do with the Quran. We have to decide if either are true or not on their very own merits.

One at a time, one at a time.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by theophile]



[center]

Different tastes for different folks.[/center]

Can you point out selective interpretation? You have selected your interpretation as much as anyone else has, no?

Some people allow others to interpret the Bible for them.
Some people prefer to roll their own.

[theophile]

[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).

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.

[The Tanager]

It all depends on the KIND of truth we are looking for. If we are looking for a kind of subjective truth.. well.. as long as it makes some kind of sense, were done. it's "true".

What might be true for me, might not be true for you.
End of that discussion.

What do you mean by subjective truth? Can you give an example?

[rikuoamero]

[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).

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.

Is it? Where does it identify explicitly that that is Jesus and no-one else. If someone believes Romans 13:1 "The authorities that exist have been established by God." to mean Rome and other governments (which from what I can see, seems to be a valid interpretation of the text), then how is that person wrong or incorrect for thinking verse 4 also refers to the governments of the day (i.e. Rome)?
Indeed, why is it that you yourself read Romans 13, and think to yourself that in verse 4, it talks about Jesus? The rest of Romans 13 (at least in the NIV), before verse 8 talk about rulers and governments and taxes. Indeed, I can point out the rest of verse 4 which you conveniently do not mention.
Here is the entirety of verse 4, from the NIV.
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
Verse 6

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
All I see in the first seven verses of Chapter 13 of Romans is talk about the governing authorities, and how the people Paul is talking to should submit. I see no mention of Jesus, nor any reason to suppose Paul is even thinking about Jesus or means Jesus in any way.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 8 by The Tanager]

[center]

Well, i guess it's time for me to define my term.
Usually, it's always the other guys. [/center]

What do you mean by subjective truth? Can you give an example?

Sorry you asked.

Now.. I'm no expert BUT.. I do read a bit about this, so I can give it a try.
Ok.. a short and dirty definition so we can roll along.

________________

What does the term "subjective truth" mean?

A definition,
Condensed version.
Part One
________________
________________

1. First off you need to know this: the subjective truth really really irritates me. It's real hard to pin that one down, it's a very irritating subject, we never get anywhere, people give up and use the two concepts to make argument from when they don't even know what the words mean, for heaven's sake. That's very irritating to me.
2. Same thing goes for objective truth.. we compare objective vs subjective. They are both pains.They are opposites, mutually exclusive, in two quite distinctive epistemic categories. They are quite separate. They ain't the same, kinds different, on the other side of the track, if you see what I mean.
3. When you see the big words like "epistemology" and a phrase like "mutually exclusive categories" you should go "OH-OH, here come the big words again."
4. Now, you have to ask me what I meant by THAT... right?
5. Don't change the subject. LOL.. this is the short version, trust me.
6. Were getting there, were getting there.
7. Did I ever tell you about the time that I went to Rome, and I mean the one in Italy, not the one near Syracuse... NO.. not that Syracuse NOT the one in Sicily. I been there but that's not the one I'm talking about I mean Syracuse New York. yeah, I been there too. But the POINT of my story is I went to the actual ROMA... get it? . ?... I did that. So.. where were we again? Oh yeah.. subjective vs objective.. yeah yeah yeah, I got this.
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. ....Say what? "There is more than one kind of subjective truths you say"?
9. The answer to that is "yes".
10. "So that's all you're going to say about the subjective truth right now?"
11. No. Just catching my breath. I'm old.
12. One more thing: In order to do a good job of defining what the subjective truth can possibly mean, it's important to note that it often gets mixed up with "objective". So, in order to not fall into that trap, we NOW have to define what we mean by it's opposite, i.e. "the one and only very lonely but always lovely objective".
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?
13. By "objective" we mean something like.. not depending reaction of the person, not affected by any mental state, it would be also said to be "person independent", such as when something is said to be objectively true, the truth value isn't dependent on the person taking the data. It would be same data whoever did the test. If too many people get different data from the same test, the test is flawed, or the hypothesis fails. If the test yields a consistently positive result that has been predicted by the hypothesis, the hypothesis is said to be most probably true. The more consistent data, the more predictions, the closer to the truth the theory becomes. Scientists and philosophers usually don't care about any absolute number, because we just really can't get those. We have to take small samples for many experiments, due to size limitations.
14.Fun, eh? Well I said it would only be an introduction, after all. That's why this is so short. It's condensed. Like the milk.
15. In other words, if you find it helpful, you can also think of objective truth as "scientific truth". Scientists deal with what is objectively testable. Is it really out there or is it not, is the usual scientific question. Skepticism is a very good method to sort the subjective out of scientific experiments. Skepticism is pretty easy to learn, and I promote it. If we want to know what subjective and objective may mean.. and there are several opinions, learning the highly portable skill I call "skepticism" or if you prefer "critical thinking" is a great way to start. Then, when that's all sorted out in your head, ( again, because you will have to form your own opinion ) you can even use skepticism again. Like any skill, the more we use it the better we can get at it.
16. I'm officially tired now. I have a small pain in my left index finger. Could be a heart attack. Maybe I'm dying and you make me do THIS. How heartless. Feel the guilt. Somehow, that helps motivate me.
17. So, by "subjective truth", I mean "to the person" an example of that is a guy in an art gallery. He is in a room with modern abstract art, and a renaissance master piece. Their might be one he prefers over the other. The one he chooses is subjectively best to him. Someone standing next to him might not agree. For example, I like modern art. So.. I might like that one "best" .. that's weird, maybe, strange, but it's a personal, subjective kind of "truth".
18. The OBJECTIVE truth about these two paintings would be something we could test for, like their size, how old they are, how much the gallery payed for them, and so on. It doesn't matter WHAT PERSON is going to measure or count, or whatever, we would say it's objective truth if everyone gets the same results.
19. Something that is "subjectively true" could vary from person to person. What we call "objectively true should not.

Well, that's all I got right now.

20. That's what I meant by "The subjective truth really really irritates me".

_________________

That's it for now.

"What!!!?"

Oh no no no lol.. Were not DONE...
We haven't even begun.

That's only the intro to the definition, and I don't feel the interest in writing that very long dull, tedious, la dee da pretentious, didactic, quite bombastic hilarious but deep in that meaningful . the kind that really hits you right there, do you know what I mean rest of the definition.

But maybe I gave you a place to start.

If you have any questions so far, don't hez.