Setting The Bible Reader Straight

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all I am not assuming or reading into the scripture things it does not say. This is what you are doing and why you do not understand the scriptures as your only reading them from your view that there is no God. Until you change your thinking you will never know God or His Word because you do not know God or his Word.

No, that is your sin. Satan could not have shown Jesus any significant part of even the Roman Empire. By the way that was a fallacy of moving the goalposts. You are the one that continually reinterprets the verse since if read as written it is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your just repeating yourself here and this content has already been addressed elsewhere. I noticed you avoided answering my question. Do you believe in God?

Of course I don't believe in a God and you failed to show any context.

 

[3rdAngel]

Right, I do not believe in a God. I do not need to prove that one does not exist. You are now guilty of trying to shift the burden of proof.

Are you worried abut The Flying Spaghetti Monster? (Ramen). Once again you have demonstrated that you do not understand the burden of proof. Now it is a lie to claim that I am lying. You may believe that lie, but that does not mean that you did not just break the Ninth Commandment. Another concept that you do not understand.

The burden of proof is upon you when you claim that your God exists. You need to learn how to think logically. The null hypothesis is essentially a lack of belief in a claim. When it comes to a god belief the null hypothesis position would be atheism. A lack of belief.

I am not guilty of anything. Your the one that has come to a religious forum claiming there is no God not me and you cannot prove there is no God. Amazing something for you to think about I guess

 

[3rdAngel]

No, that is your sin. Satan could not have shown Jesus any significant part of even the Roman Empire. By the way that was a fallacy of moving the goalposts. You are the one that continually reinterprets the verse since if read as written it is wrong.

Nonsense. I have been consistent with my posts showing the context that show why your claims are in error. You just do not believe the scripture quoted when the context is added to the time period which is supported by History.

 

[3rdAngel]

Of course I don't believe in a God and you failed to show any context.

Then if you do not believe in God prove to me there is no God? If you cannot prove that there is no God does it not worry you that there maybe a God who you might be finding yourself fighting against? I am all ears .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all I am not assuming or reading into the scripture things it does not say. This is what you are doing and why you do not understand the scriptures as your only reading them from your view that there is no God. Until you change your thinking you will never know God or His Word because you do not know God or his Word.

That is not true. It says that Satan took Jesus to a high place to show him the world, however you want to define it. That implies that this was a visual event. That only works in a flat Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. I have been consistent with my posts showing the context that show why your claims are in error. You just do not believe the scripture quoted when the context is added to the time period which is supported by History.

No. Now you are truly delusional. You only demonstrated a biased interpretation because a literal interpretation is not acceptable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then if you do not believe in God prove to me there is no God? If you cannot prove that there is no God does it not worry you that there maybe a God who you might be finding yourself fighting against? I am all ears .

You have it backwards again. The burden of proof is upon you.

Do you believe in Bigfoot? If not prove to me that he does not exist.

And why would you claim that your God is evil?

 

[3rdAngel]

You have it backwards again. The burden of proof is upon you.
Do you believe in Bigfoot? If not prove to me that he does not exist. And why would you claim that your God is evil?

Your the one that has come to a religious forum claiming there is no God not me so the burden of proof is on you. Please if you do not believe in God prove to me there is no God? If you cannot prove that there is no God does it not worry you that there maybe a God who you might be finding yourself fighting against? I am all ears .

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ Not at all I am not assuming or reading into the scripture things it does not say. This is what you are doing and why you do not understand the scriptures as your only reading them from your view that there is no God. Until you change your thinking you will never know God or His Word because you do not know God or his Word.

Your response...

That is not true. It says that Satan took Jesus to a high place to show him the world, however you want to define it. That implies that this was a visual event. That only works in a flat Earth.

Sure it is true. The kingdom of the known world in the time of JESUS was the Roman Empire. History says so. Seems you do not believe History. As posted earlier you are simply repeating yourself assuming things the bible does not say.

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ Nonsense. I have been consistent with my posts showing the context that show why your claims are in error. You just do not believe the scripture quoted when the context is added to the time period which is supported by History.

Your response...

No. Now you are truly delusional. You only demonstrated a biased interpretation because a literal interpretation is not acceptable.

Or is it you that is being biased by trying to read into the scriptures that which the scriptures do not say?

 

[3rdAngel]

@Subduction Zone

Ok my friend it has been nice talking to you. I have some other things to do now. Maybe we can catch up latter. Merry Xmas and all the best for 2020.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all the scriptures do not say how Jesus was shown the kingdoms. Seeing with physical eye sight is your assumption. As far as the eye can see is simply showing everthing the eye can see. Everything from the known world at that time was controlled by the Roman Empire. This was what the temptation was over. You can have everything if you bow down and worship me

Wrong, not an assumption. And that is a foolish claim to make since it puts the burden of proof upon you. It is a deduction based upon the scripture and reading it in context.

And no, what makes you think that everything from the known world was the Roman Empire? You really cannot believe that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your response...


Or is it you that is being biased by trying to read into the scriptures that which the scriptures do not say?

No, I am simply reading what they say with a minimum amount of reinterpretation. You have to go to great lengths because a literal reading fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone

Ok my friend it has been nice talking to you. I have some other things to do now. Maybe we can catch up latter. Merry Xmas and all the best for 2020.

Merry Christmas to you as well. And think about proving Bigfoot and why you don't have to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not guilty of anything. Your the one that has come to a religious forum claiming there is no God not me and you cannot prove there is no God. Amazing something for you to think about I guess

Oh look, was that Chevie? No, it w as a Dodge. Once again you do not understand what you are debating against. You do not understand what atheism is. Where did I ever claim that there was no God? That is a false claim on your part.

Tell me, do you believe in Bigfoot? If you can't then according to you you need to be able to prove that he does not exist.

 

[whirlingmerc]

This doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell. Please break this down further in some way to make it actually mean something. "true in the sense of the literature?" What does that MEAN?

But then, even you would have to admit that "estimates" or idioms like these your are describing are not "truth." They simply aren't. They may hint at, as you said, some "rule of thumb" - but they are very grossly underestimating approximations of various situations - they are not "the truth" of those situations.

Once again, none of that is what I would put the label "truth" on at all. As soon as there is an aspect of subjectivity to a thing, it loses any possibility of being objective "truth." This should be entirely obvious, and yet people label The Bible "true," very glibly, all the time.

I have no idea whatsoever what this text was in response of reference to. I read back over both of our posts several times and still can't make heads or tails of it.

True in the sense of the literature is true in contrast with always saying true in a wooden literary sense

Parts of the Bible might be true in ensemble, take together or true as rules of thumb or as a parable. If meant as history, then true as history. If true as a poem then the images point to something stronger but God would not have feathers as he gathers you under his wings for example

True in the sense of building on earlier things and being consistent. Could have apparent contradictions to make one think. Proverbs might be wisdom in living, Job wisdom in suffering despite doing the right things, Ecclesiastes wisdom in life not overemphasizing pleasures turned in on yourself Psalms wisdom in worship.. Wisdom is all of it taken together.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's a cop out.

So you still don't believe that the Hebrew there does not mean birds only?

 

[YoursTrue]

True in the sense of the literature is true in contrast with always saying true in a wooden literary sense

Parts of the Bible might be true in ensemble, take together or true as rules of thumb or as a parable. If meant as history, then true as history. If true as a poem then the images point to something stronger but God would not have feathers as he gathers you under his wings for example

Excellent point, thank you for sharing.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Ok, I admit, my answer was not good. So, if you allow, I try again. So, let’s look first what the Bible said:

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: 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.
Matt. 13:31-32

It says “least”. Thing can be least in many meanings. In this case it the mustard tree seed was not appreciated as high as the other plants and so was least of the seeds, low in rank. But it can grow as said there and as can be seen from the images here:

https://www.google.fi/search?q=must...=0.95#imgrc=04-HVlUpCToJyM:&spf=1577391708442


Sorry, I should have been more focused.

That's at least a fair attempt to sooth the very poor example of the bible.

As a Parable, it kinda works-- and as a human, we can excuse the Jesus character for not knowing any better.

But as a God-Incarnate? It's a pretty big fail. It is as if this "god" was kinda clueless with respect to the possibilities of the planet it supposedly created.