Why the Christian Bible must be interpreted

Author: Critical-Tim
Christianity
Bible
scriptures
Interpretation
Definitions

Posts

Total: 106
Topic's author
#1
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
This forum is meant to continue the interruptive discussion left off in the forum "Everything about Buddhism," specifically between me and Mr.BrotherD.Thomas.

I would normally post my positive environment guideline below, but since none of the mods are concerned with enforcing site policies for Mr.BrotherD.Thomas (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913-everything-about-buddhism), I can only ask each person is not the root of negativity.



Let me sum this up:

You fail to reconcile your belief with God's direct words from Micah 6:4, rather than choosing to believe in all God's words.

You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:1 could be interpreted literally as one God who is also Jesus, or two beings, God as God and Jesus as Saviour.

You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:20 could be interpreted literally as using the word "interpretation" to describe the "origin," or the "reading" of prophecies.

You fail to present any evidence that the 1611 KJV Bible is the closest to God's words, begging the question why?
Side note: God didn't speak in English, so it's an interpretation, which you quote from to paradoxically prove interpretation invalid.

You refuse to provide evidence for a God given dictionary in which to interpret his words, since words lack inherent meaning.
Side note: Failing to use a God given dictionary necessitates a human dictionary to interpret meaning, then quoting said interpretation with human dictionary paradoxically claiming all interpretations invalid, which includes your arguments source.

Finally, you have the audacity to ask me to reply to your comment #49, which bears no question mark, necessitating my interpretation of your words to respond.

Topic's author
#2
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
All comments regarding Christian scriptures and interpretations can be addressed here.
Now, let us begin.
#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Bro D is and will be Bro D.

And one can choose to either ignore Bro D or interpret their intent as one sees fit.


As for the Christian Bible.

That is also what it is and will be.

And one can choose to either ignore or interpret it's intent as one sees fit, in accordance with the parameters of the human onboard computer and it's programming.


Basically, if one is formatively and quite rigorously programmed with certain data, then one will tend to utilise such data as an ongoing modus-operandi.

As such the veracity of the data is of little significance.
#4
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
I totally agree that the Christian Bible, OT and NT needs to be interpreted and to be interpreted properly. 

I come from a background where people say that they interpret the Bible literally.  I personally think that they don't actually understand what they are saying.  And it has become confusing in much conversation. 

In Christian history, there initially was two primary streams of interpretation. One was the Eastern method which was allegorical. And in the West they preferred literalism.  This however is very different to how most people use the word literal today. 

Today, in many churches, the term literalism has become almost a distinct genre. And it is quite wooden in its approach.  But experts in literature do not understand that literalism is a genre - rather a term used to distinguish from the allegorical approach. 

In literature, it is a truism that poetry is literal.  And so is historical narrative and so is prophetic language. And interestingly enough even in this form of understanding the language literal - we can have allegorical types of stories.  Yet these allegorical stories ought not be confused with the Eastern allegorical interpretative method. 

I take what is called a grammatical historical approach to interpretating scripture. Yes, it is literal, because I think words have meaning and can be understood.  Yet in my view, the poetry, and the parables and the prophecies are to be understood as poetry and parables and prophecies. And the historical narratives are to be understood as historical narratives.  

Some on this site use a literal methodology as their genre.  This is simply reading a book wrongly. I have encouraged people to download and read a book - called "how to read a book",  by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Daren. It is well worth reading, pardon the pun.  They are not Christian authors. Yet the book is brilliant. 

I take the view that 2 Peter 1:1 as referring to one person. I don't think literalism has anything to do with it. The connection and in the context seems to make perfect sense. I understand that some people choose not to see it that way.  the JW would never see it as the same thing. Yet, the entire passage intentionally goes on in v. 3 and repeats it. and then talks in v. 4 of his divine power. The his there is clearly referring back to Jesus. there is also the other intriguing thing here. If Jesus is not God, why would Peter, elevate Jesus to the same level of authority as God, putting them both on the same level. That would - I imagine for the Jew a thing of abomination. For there is no one like GOD, no one besides him or on the same level. 

I am not a fan of the KJV. I don't dislike it. I just don't think it is the only translation of the originals.  It is valid. But it is not the only. 99% of the bible is considered known. There are a few little issues. But mostly every year, the science continues to improve and the Greek and Hebrew is becoming more and more known. 

I also think that the variety of translations is one of the strengths of Christianity. IT is not a weakness. similar to denominations. I think strength. 

Good post - and good topic. Keep it coming. It is good to have someone on here who is prepared to take it up to the trolls.  I personally have blocked both of them at the moment. And will continue to do so - until they have a change of heart. So in other words, I reckon - NEVER.   


#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Proper interpretation, is basically a contradiction in terms.

In so much as an interpretations, by definition, come to varying conclusions and therefore cannot be said to be either proper or improper.

Rather, just a collection of indefinite outcomes, which in turn can be reinterpreted.
#6
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,514
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
That's why there are a lot sects in christianity, because they can't agree with the interpretation of the bible. Lol. 
Topic's author
#7
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think Bro D. will change, but for his actions and intrusiveness, along with his disrespect toward my forum's guidelines, I want it to be known to all who were involved that his claims are paradoxical and self-contradictory.
Topic's author
#8
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@IlDiavolo
That's why there are a lot of sects in Christianity, because they can't agree with the interpretation of the bible. Lol. 
The existence of numerous different versions and denominations within Christianity can indeed be attributed to differences in interpretation of the Bible.

Historically, the Catholic Church played a significant role in the interpretation and teaching of the Bible. During the medieval period, it was often only priests and clergy who had access to the Bible and were trained in its interpretation. The idea behind this restriction was to ensure uniformity in religious doctrine and practice, as authorities believed that allowing unrestricted access to the Bible could lead to differing interpretations and theological divisions.

The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century challenged the Catholic Church's monopoly on biblical interpretation. Reformers like Martin Luther argued for the priesthood of all believers, emphasizing the idea that individuals should have direct access to the Bible and be able to interpret it for themselves. This led to the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages and a proliferation of interpretations.

As a result, various Protestant denominations emerged, each with its own interpretation of Christian doctrine. Over time, differences in theological emphasis, rituals, and practices gave rise to diverse Christian traditions, such as Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, and many others.

The priests' insistence on maintaining their interpretations was partly aimed at preserving national unity. It was foreseeable that if all peasants gained access to religious literature and began forming their own interpretations, it could lead to the emergence of various denominations and potentially divide the nation. This historical dynamic is exemplified by the original thirteen colonies in America.

#9
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
No shit, sherlock. 
Topic's author
#10
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
@Intelligence_06
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
No shit, sherlock. 
Quite the contrary for Mr.BrotherD.Thomas and Stephen.

Check out our previous discussions here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/410902
He claims the Bible must only be understood literally, and the only true Bible is the 1611 KJV with many other absurd claims.

I'm still waiting for him to fulfill his comment: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/411248
Jesus and I have such great plans for poor Critical-Tim, where he said that he will not run away from me, like the Bible inept Miss Tradesecret had to do to try and save face in front of the membership!
This was for my skepticism to the above claims.
Topic's author
#11
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Get back soon, the audience is growing.
#12
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
it's obvious the bible needs interpreted.  even beyond that, the bible itself just said that scripture is 'profitable' and 'inspired'. it doesn't say inerrant. there is one verse, though, that i consider interesting... jesus said scripture cannot be set aside. that doesn't say it's infallible, though, and i think he meant 'even by your standards' scrpture testifies to him, not necessarily that scipture is inerrant. 

here is the verse i was talking about...

Further Conflict Over Jesus’ Claims
22 Then came the Festival of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".
Topic's author
#13
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@n8nrgim
I agree, but it is Mr.BrotherD.Thomas and Stephen that insist otherwise.
#14
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
'according to my interpretation of the bible... there is no need for interpretation of the bible'. lolz
#15
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,610
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

"The word 'God' is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses; the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish," -  -   Albert Einstein 1954
#16
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Critical-Tim
So you had a run-in with Stephen and Mr.Brother.D.Thomas? Good luck with that. You'll find out soon enough, if you haven't already, that their arguments relentlessly consist of quotes taken out of context, and syntactic literalism.
Topic's author
#17
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I noticed that Mr.BrotherD.Thomas has been banned before and simply creates a new account. This is because he has never been confronted and thus will remain in dominancy. Banning him is simply a band-aid, I wish to directly confront his preposterous theories for all to see as they are clearly and concisely dismantled. It is then that no number of new accounts will ever have ground to stand on. His propositions will be nothing to anyone, since all can simply refer back to the conclusion of this forum. Finally, with no one left to so called "preach," his reputation gone, and lacking all respect, if he has any sense, he will leave, or forever be humbled by his humiliation.
Topic's author
#18
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
Perhaps portions of their beliefs are impossible to disprove, but from our last discussion I am ready to conclude his accusation are false, the reason for this very forum.
#19
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Critical-Tim


.
Critical_Tim, who is on record in calling Jesus a LIAR as God because of His literal words, and is vying to be as Bible Stupid as Miss Tradesecret, and was obviously sent to this Religion Forum from Satan himself to disrupt Jesus’ true literal words within the scriptures, and now calls Peter a LIAR, and as explicitly shown, wants to be this Religion Forum's funny comedian because of his Devil Speak in reinterpreting Jesus' LITERAL words that are laughter at its best!

You have your homework to do with these links within your Buddhism thread, whereas you DO NOT run away from them again in front of the membership, as it was shown: 

Furthermore, I have had to change my name many times because I could not log in with my previous information, therefore to do so, I have to change my name at  different times, understood?  Uh, you weren't he cause of this malfunction, were you?  The irony of which in myself not being able to log in, was always subsequent to me making certain pseudo-christians upon this forum in being as Bible foolish as you are!  Hmmmmmm.  

.
#20
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Critical-Tim


.
Critical_Tim, who is on record in calling Jesus a LIAR as God because of His literal words, and is vying to be as Bible Stupid as Miss Tradesecret, and was obviously sent to this Religion Forum from Satan himself to disrupt Jesus’ true literal words within the scriptures, and now calls Peter a LIAR, and as explicitly shown, wants to be this Religion Forum's funny comedian because of his Devil Speak in reinterpreting Jesus' LITERAL words that are laughter at its best!


In any event, my absence for only a day was because I was committed to being present at one of my Nudest Camp Ministries, where the weather was really cold, but the men were still standing up, so to speak, for the TRUE words of Jesus the Christ, praise!  The second class women that were at this event, were as well naked, where both ungodly naked men and women were going directly against Jesus as God's true teachings shown below:

“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness.“Behold, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake, keeping his garments on, that he may not go about naked and be seen exposed!” (Leviticus 18: 6-23)

“You shall make for them linen undergarments to cover their naked flesh. They shall reach from the hips to the thighs;” (Exodus 28:42)

“And on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty,” (1 Corinthians 12:23)


Critical-Tim, in closing, how do you want to be made the outright Bible fool by me, slowly, or quickly? You decide!  This is of course, you breaking the COC rules in having a "Call out" thread towards me!  Tsk, tsk, tsk. 

.
#21
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Critical-Tim


.
Critical_Tim, who is on record in calling Jesus a LIAR as God because of His literal words, and is vying to be as Bible Stupid as Miss Tradesecret, and was obviously sent to this Religion Forum from Satan himself to disrupt Jesus’ true literal words within the scriptures, and now calls Peter a LIAR, and as explicitly shown, wants to be this Religion Forum's funny comedian because of his Devil Speak in reinterpreting Jesus' LITERAL words that are laughter at its best!


Let me sum this up CORRECTLY at your embarrassing expense once again: 

YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE #1: “You fail to reconcile your belief with God's direct words from Micah 6:4, rather than choosing to believe in all God's words.”

The verse in question: “For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.”

What did you want me to infer with the above passage, please be more clear in your lack of understanding the scriptures. Thank you.



YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE #2: “You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:1 could be interpreted literally as one God who is also Jesus, or two beings, God as God and Jesus as Saviour.”

I love your term “could be interpreted literally” where you do not present an absolute proposition, but leaves you floundering around like a fish out of water!  LOL! 

The verse in question: “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:”

Okay, since you are having such a hard time in “trying”  to refute that Jesus isn't God in the verse above by comically stating” “could be interpreted,” *cough,* then I will present the following verses to show that Jesus is in FACT, God!  (You are forgetting about the Trinity Doctrine where the word "AND" can be used in the three entities of said doctrine, get it Bible Dumb Ass®️?

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” (Matthew 1:23)

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:16). Who was manifested in the FLESH, and who was taken up in glory at His ascension  is Acts 1:11? Yes, it was JESUS as God!  2+2=4 at your embarrassing expense AGAIN!

“Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:27-28).   Do you want to call Thomas a LIAR as well like you did with Peter?

What you seem to be embarrassingly forgetting, is when the word “and” is used in said passages, it is in relation to the Trinity Doctrine of Jesus the Christ, where as Jesus being the Holy Spirit, the son, and God are all ONE ENTITY!  GET IT BIBLE FOOL?  



YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE #3: “You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:20 could be interpreted literally as using the word "interpretation" to describe the "origin," or the "reading" of prophecies.”

Without you mudding up the verse in question, the BOTTOM LINE is the biblical axiom that Jesus as God inspired ALL, I repeat, ALL of the scriptures, period!

The verse in question: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” ( 2 Peter 1:20-21). Who was the Holy Ghost in the Trinity Doctrine in being part of God? YES, it was Jesus!   Now, wipe the proverbial egg from your face AGAIN! :(



YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE #4: “You fail to present any evidence that the 1611 KJV Bible is the closest to God's words, begging the question why?

There is no begging Bible fool, whereas since the KJV1611, the “plethora” of other Bible translations go though the modernization of  the English language in insidious ways for the convenience of the readers. However, the King James Bible's flowery language uses the most accurate word choice for the time period in which it was written, allowing for a more accurate reading and being closer to the exact LITERAL words of Jesus as God!

For further study on your part upon the KJV1611, Google is your best friend to not make you such an embarrassing Bible fool all the time, understood?



YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE #5:  “Side note: God didn't speak in English, so it's an interpretation, which you quote from to paradoxically prove interpretation invalid.”

WRONG BIBLE FOOL!  Jesus as God spoke as follows: “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)”



YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE #6:  “You refuse to provide evidence for a God given dictionary in which to interpret his words, since words lack inherent meaning.”

H-E-L-L-O, what part of 1 Thessalonians 2:13 shown above don’t you understand?  Therefore, there is no need for you AGAIN to muddy up the waters with an assumed God given dictionary! You are truly the comedian like I proposed!  LOL!



YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE #7:  “Finally, you have the audacity to ask me to reply to your comment #49, which bears no question mark, necessitating my interpretation of your words to respond.”

I already embarrassed you with your runaway comment to my post in question in the link below that you are to address this time, instead of running away from it with your child like excuse as shown:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/411420


IS THERE ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THIS ESTEEMED RELIGION FORUM THAT CAN HELP POOR “CRITICAL-TIM” IN NOT BEING SO GOD DAMNED BIBLE STUPID? 

.
Topic's author
#22
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Athias
@Intelligence_06
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
While you were on your religious retreat beating children with sticks, subjugating women, and selling your daughters into slavery in the name of Jesus, all with your nudist companions, I had a revelation: you are a cult leader. Cited: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/411421

BrotherD., you may tell yourself that you are not a cult leader, so take a moment to look in the mirror and tell yourself, "If it walks like duck and talks like duck, it is a cult leader."

BrotherS., you may tell yourself that you are not an acolyte, so take a moment to look in the mirror and tell yourself, "If it walks like duck and talks like duck, it is an acolyte."


BrotherD., I'm glad you found me a comedian, otherwise I may not have had an opportunity to share my comedy script with you.

"You know, in some cults, they've got these wild beliefs. It's like they're playing a game of 'let's one-up the Bible.' They'll stand there with a straight face and declare, 'I hereby say in the name of God that the new Webster's dictionary is the true word, for it has all the meaning to fill in the emptiness of the words in the Bible.' So, our salvation now depends on Merriam Webster? Is that what we're saying?

And they're dead serious about it! They'll gather 'round and chant, 'Let us praise our lord Merriam Webster for giving our empty script meaning that can guide us to salvation.' I don't know about you, but I think even Webster would find this concerning.'

But hey, to each their own, right? If you find meaning in the dictionary, more power to you. Just remember, when you're a cult leader, 'Webster' might be your savior, but 'Spellcheck' is your best friend."


I think it's only fair that the one who is always dubbing others must be dubbed, otherwise he lacks the credentials to do so. Therefore, I hereby dub you BrotherD.CultLeader, and BrotherS.Acolyte, the CultBrothers.

BrotherD.CultLeader, if you think this is a joke, I'm sorry to tell you it is not. It is as literal as your literal translation. You are, in your own words, literally... a cult.


In regard to all BrotherD.CultLeader's comments, both in the Buddhist forum and this one, you have two foundational axioms within your arguments:
  1. There is no valid interpretation of God's direct words, they are exactly as God intended, literal.
  2. The English 1611 KJV Bible is the only true word of God, no other scripture before or after is relevant.
The 'Table Alphabeticall' by Robert Cawdrey, published in 1604, served as the standard dictionary used to interpret the 1611 King James Version (KJV) Bible. This dictionary contained around 2,500 words, providing concise definitions for commonly used English words, including those borrowed from various languages.

Therefore, not only is the 1611 KJV an interpretation of God's original words based on the dictionary standard, but not even the direct source of his words, as the KJV was a translation (interpretation) from words that were not English. Your foundation is quicksand at best BrotherD.CultLeader. Next time you choose a cult, choose one that is set upon a hill, like "The Church of SubGenius."

You claim the interpretation is valid over his original words, then you claim no interpretation is valid. Your claim is paradoxical, self-contradictory, and illogical. Don't try to escape this claim and muddle up the water by simply quoting many scriptures without context or a point to make, as you have done till now. You are out of rope, as it all comes down to this simple point: you contradict yourself.

Simply put, you cannot claim all interpretations are invalid and base the source of your claim on that very interpretation.

Don't try to weasel your way out of this fact by asking me to address your other scriptures also derived from the very interpretation you renounced until you acknowledge your whole foundation is ripped from beneath you by your own words. You must interpret the Bible, for all that we have is interpretations without a God given dictionary.


I must now proclaim that my statement in comment #17 has been fulfilled. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9932/posts/411414
Your comments are hereby to be known as self-contradictory and paradoxically invalid. They hold no value and are therefore worthless, since they are blatantly irrational.

CultBrothers, with this, I bid your paradox farewell...


Woooooow, I feel so uncomfortable for you, literally. I couldn't even imagine how embarrassed I'd feel being in your shoes when you read this. I almost feel bad for you, if you hadn't treated everyone the way you did every step of the way, but all bully cult leaders meet the same fate, humiliation.

If only there was a scripture that could have warned this would happen, perhaps even a proverb that would literally apply to this situation as clearly as day, like a huge neon sign flashing in the dark of night. Oh wait! Proverbs 16:18, says: "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

This comment will forever be a monument of why one should not forcibly proclaim their cult doctrine to a community of people that actually think.

Good luck CultBrothers, literally.
#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Critical-Tim
God didn't speak in English, so it's an interpretation, which you quote from to paradoxically prove interpretation invalid.

I see. So all the Bibles ever written in English are invalid, pointless , redundant and have no value whatsoever?



All comments regarding Christian scriptures and interpretations can be addressed here.
Now, let us begin.

Can you tell me what language  "god" did speak in, when he spoke to Adam, Eve and Abram all those years ago in Mesopotamia?



#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Just as Bro D can be ignored, so can your guidelines.

But the fact that Bro D can stimulate a response is of some significance.

The forum is an open discussion platform and therefore in the interests of freedom of speech and expression we must tolerate unwanted intrusions into our minds.

Like I said, if you think Bro D's comments are absolutely unworthy, then ignore.

Ignorance is Bliss Tim.
#25
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Hi Stephen.

Just to clarify.

No known GOD.

So

No known language.

So hypothetically 

Could have been 

Welsh.

Would be great if GODDO.

Spoke West Mids.

And it said unto Adam

Yow Yow.
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4

Would be great if GODDO.

Spoke West Mids.

And it said unto Adam

Yow Yow.

😂 luv it , Vic.
#27
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Critical-Tim
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Tradesecret wrote @Critical-Tim: I am not a fan of the KJV

Tradesecret also wrote:


The Bible is a primary source for me.#28

TheBible is clear from my point of view.#51


 I am comfortable with our English bible translators and their attempts to convey the right balance as they understand it.#39


I hear god's word primarily through scripture whether it's being read or preached Ihave never had a personal communication from God without theScriptures being involved #36


The authors in the bible are pretty clear about what they want to communicate.#62



Every word of God remains flawless#49


Well, I for one, do not believe that the bible is ambiguous at all.  It is clear. Crystal clear in fact.#55


In my view, the Bible is the best source for understanding the reason for the existence of the Sabbath.  #38


 My view is that the bible is written by fallible men but that it is also breathed out by an infallible God.  Like Jesus - it is both divine and human.  The infallible God used fallible men to write his word to us - using their fallible tools and minds but nevertheless speaking the mind and word of God.  
Hence the bible is both infallible and inerrant.  It is divine and totally perfect.  It is its own measuring tool - making it inerrant. #9


The Bible is a book that reflects life in all of its glory.  It does not hide the messiness of life. It is a very real book and sometimes hard book. I think that adds to its character and integrity. I cannot say I hate discussing any passage - because from my perspective all of it is relevant and useful.#3


Itis more correct  that the Bible is used by God as a tool to bring about change in us.  Its main goal is to proclaim theglory of God, yet, it also has other goals which ought not bedismissed. #2

"I am no fan of the KJV bible" he says. I see. Ok.

And the Reverend Tradesecret adds this beauty:


I have never believed in religion. Religion ought to be abolished from my point of view.#52

 THIS! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ from the person that also claims to be paid by Universities to  teach and tutor on religious matters  to hundreds of university students, which must include  BIBLE  (written in ENGLISH) study in one form or another.   Is a Chaplain to his countries Armed Forces and is also a Pastor#20 that preaches to a congregation of over "300 worshipers" every Sunday.


Yes, indeed all  of this contradictory BS  from the contradictory Reverend clown that also tells us:


God moved in me and I was compelled to believe and now I am totally sold on him.  It was not an experience - it was simply that he moved and I responded. And then the Spirit of God worked in my heart.#50

Idid not choose God. He chose me. TheGod of the Bible chose me to be his #31 


I did not choose my religion. God chose me. I did not have the capacity or the ability to reject him. He outsmarted me. And now I am sold on him. #48


But   s/he says "religion should be banned" and that he is "no fan of the KJV bible"! 
#28
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,647
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
You are feeding a troll who will do nothing but insult you.
He is not interested in honest debate, nor in any kind of productive conversation.
All he is interested in is writing a wall of insults in a repeating structure to provoke people, and he will never admit that he is wrong.
#29
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,514
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
I've never seen a troll call "troll" to another person. Rofl.

Shame on you, BK. 😁
Topic's author
#30
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
That is why they are the CultBrothers; they don't actually think.