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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 20 by Justin108]

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

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

No true Scotsman would ever disagree with those two statements.

[theophile]

[Replying to Justin108]

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

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

You'll have to elaborate on that for me. I'm trying to setup a strict definition of authority. Those with authority in this world are those who serve the good of others.

Like Jesus says elsewhere in perfect accord: the greatest are those who serve the least among you.

Same thing. The greatest are not those who currently hold all the power. That's not the biblical logic, which disrupts and overturns conventional power structures.

1 Corinthians 1:22-28 puts it perfectly:::

Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,[a] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are

These are the true authorities that Paul is speaking of in Romans 13. The ones who look weak in the eyes of the world because they serve the good of others. Christ crucified.

Define "taxes"

Taxes are taxes. An amount paid to support common services. In this case, paid to those who serve the good of others. If it be Rome, or the US government, great. Pay them the taxes owed if they are serving the good of others.

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 still don't think God placed them there, but to give an answer nonetheless:

- 1. Rome is not necessarily bad - it can and didserve the good of others... But I think a lot of Rome, and its so-called "governing authorities," do not. They are self-interested and serve only themselves. They accrue riches while others go without basic needs. They are corrupt. They invade lands to expand their own holdings, versus, say, to free oppressed peoples...

Those are some examples anyways of how Rome fails to serve the good of others and be a true authority on earth. (But of course there is good there too which should be maintained: the engineering, the roads, the water systems, the...)

- 2. God's will is that we serve the good of others. That we support life in this world in the broadest sense possible and do not needlessly inhibit it through our actions. I think a Roman senator that takes bribes for self-gain to the neglect of real needs in this world is in clear contradiction to that will, to give an example. Much like today, Trump is contrary to God's will when he removes environmental regulations to support special interests. When he condemns the environment and the life that it supports for a few jobs, or so that others can get rich...

That is not serving the good of others. That is not God's will.

Does this mean there are no grey areas? Of course there are. This isn't always easy stuff to decide.

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?

Yeah, and I wouldn't hold Israel up as an example of perfect humanity. Far from it. Rather, they are humanity in all its glory and shame. Let's be fair: God is upset with Israel more often than not! Endlessly criticizing her... Patience always wearing thin...

But that is God's patience with us. That is God serving the good of others and being patient with life, and with us, as we try to become something better - what God declared of us in the beginning and holds hope we can become: true authorities in this world...

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 22 by theophile]



[center]
A challenge[/center]

Those with authority in this world are those who serve the good of others.

You are now being challenged to back that up or drop it.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 23 by Blastcat]

You are now being challenged to back that up or drop it.

Back it up how, biblically? Logically? Empirically?

Biblically, the question comes down to who should rule the earth. What the mark of true authority should be if we want a world where life of every kind can flourish (gen 1 in a nutshell). Answer: those who are truly authorized to rule are those who serve the good of others.

Logically, this makes sense. Would you want to be ruled by someone who was driven by self-interest? Would you recognize the authority of said corruption? Or do you think the biblical end, i.e., a world where life of every kind can flourish, would in fact be better supported by an authority who serves the good of others, and shows willingness to act contrary to their own self interest in order to establish and maintain such a world? I would recognize that authority over the other any day. It logically fits.

Empirically, this is a tough one. Trying to think of a reasonable microcosm that could fit this model to show its superiority. Perhaps the Greeks can help. Aristotle studied tonnes of political systems in order to determine his "best" and what did he decide? Details aside, the best is that which promotes the common good of all citizens (and whose rulers serve that good). Plato, in perfect accord with this, insisted in his ideal political system that the ruling class be "forbidden from owning property in order to preclude that the policies they undertake be tainted by personal interests." (wiki)

So hey, the Greeks seem to see authority in serving the good of others too versus self-interests. And even took steps to separate self-interest from the equation (Plato) to purify the system.

Please clarify what you are looking for here or else "drop it."

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 24 by theophile]


[center]
Conflating what we want for what we have[/center]

You are now being challenged to back that up or drop it.

Back it up how, biblically? Logically? Empirically?

That's entirely up to you.
Please provide your evidence, or drop the claim.

Biblically, the question comes down to who should rule the earth. What the mark of true authority should be if we want a world where life of every kind can flourish (gen 1 in a nutshell). Answer: those who are truly authorized to rule are those who serve the good of others.

We don't always get what we want. You weren't talking about what kind of world we want. You said that people in authority want to serve the good of others.

What evidence do you have for your claim that those with authority in this world are REALLY those who serve the good of others.?

Logically, this makes sense. Would you want to be ruled by someone who was driven by self-interest?

Your claim wasn't about our desires. You claimed something else.

Demonstrate that your ACTUAL claim is a true one, or drop it.

What evidence do you have for your claim that those with authority in this world are TRULY those who serve the good of others.?

Empirically, this is a tough one.

Ah.

You mean empirical data that those with authority in this world are ACTUALLY those who serve the good of others?

Bit tough is it?
I agree.

Bit tough.
That's precisely why I challenged your assertion back there.

Please clarify what you are looking for here or else "drop it."

I'm looking for any data that would suggest that you didn't just make that up.
Provide evidence for your claim, or drop it as per the rules.

[theophile]

[Replying to Blastcat]

We don't always get what we want. You weren't talking about what kind of world we want. You said that people in authority want to serve the good of others.

There's something called 'context.' It's important to understand when a claim is made what the context is.

What evidence do you have for your claim that those with authority in this world are REALLY those who serve the good of others.?

Again, what do you want shown. That this is the biblical answer? Okay great!

Romans 13:4, as I've said about 1000 times:

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

Or how about Matthew 23:11:

"The greatest among you will be your servant."

Or how about Luke 22:26:

"But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves."

Do you need more? It's so obvious I have no idea how people can still keep claiming that Romans 13 is about Rome.

Bit tough is it?
I agree.

Bit tough.
That's precisely why I challenged your assertion back there.

We are talking about political economy here. How much empirical evidence do we have for any political economy? Communism? Liberalism? Come on man. Not exactly an experiment you can run many times to build up a good sample size.

Speaking of empirical data, why didn't you answer any of my questions?

What kind of ruler would you give authority to?

One who serves their own interests, or one who serves the good of others?

I would prefer the latter, and sleep better at night knowing that the ones running the show are serving my good versus their own.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

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.

Individuals can and will twist words to satisfy their positions, and it is my observation that theists are not the only ones who do so.

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?

Yes it is dishonest.
I think people can still look for truth in the bible, even that they use that truth to try and uphold the obvious nonsense.
It does not matter how one selectively interprets anything. If it is not true, no amount of juggling is going to make anything true IF it is false. The thing to do is to not think in terms of true or false unless (whatever) has been verified as either.

This is often where those who uphold the bible as 'the word of GOD' are in the quagmire, and rather than questioning their position in that bog, they wriggle and squiggle in their attempts to justify the unjustifiable - and do the impossible... make truth of a lie.

It is tricky. One has to remember that for many Christians, the fear of upsetting the GOD idea they have been taught about and suffering eternal damnation works like leg hold traps. Only, on the mind.

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

I would say that if one can interpret a claim in such a way to make it true, then the claim has not yet been proved to be blatantly false. It only appears to be so, by those who are either unwilling or unable to think out of the box of their particular preferred positions.
For example, I can read the story of the Garden of Eden in a quite literal manner IF I put ET as being the 'creator GOD' and the ET is a species which is substantially older than our own and has great knowledge of science and technology. This is quite possible in the light of what we currently understand about the nature of our universe.

However, this is unacceptable to some, (theists and non-theists alike) not because they deny the possibility, but because it lends some kind of legitimacy to the story, or makes that GOD, not GOD. Thus, they reject out of hand the notion, and remain in the boxes of their preferred positions.

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?

I think 'credible' is in the eye of the beholder, like everything else. Is the claim that the bible is 'The Word of GOD' a credible claim? I don't think so.
People spend a great amount of time defending that it is. They would be far more useful growing vegetables and herbs in their gardens and sharing what they have with others, than trying to defend a book as if it were GOD.

But *shrug*. Each to their own in this crazy world.

:pope:

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 26 by theophile]


[center]
Blastcat FINALLY answers the darn question ![/center]

Speaking of empirical data, why didn't you answer any of my questions?

What kind of ruler would you give authority to?

One who serves their own interests, or one who serves the good of others?

You might not have ever heard of the term "evil dictator". Not everyone gets a choice.
But yeah, I like them good leaders.



Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Jong-un not so much.

I would prefer the latter, and sleep better at night knowing that the ones running the show are serving my good versus their own.

Sleep tight.
Not everyone is as lucky.