• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is The Bible Open To Interpretation?

KingLeo said:
The bible is all about interpretation.
Hence the reason there are so many different religions who view the bible in multiple different ways.
Click to expand...
The Bible is about understanding...hence the reason there are so many different religions who view the Bible in multiple different ways...

"but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are," 1 Corinthians 1:27,28
 
Crunchtime said:
You need to read the Bible. It's main topic/theme/purpose is redemption. Questions will only bring you to the need for faith. That is, believing in God, and trusting that He knows what He's doing. Your questions require personal investigation. No one can answer all the questions for you. They can only assist you in finding faith in God.
Click to expand...
I have read the Bible, and the Bagghavad Gita, the Iliad & the Odyssey, the prose and poetic Eddas, the Tao te Ching, though I’ve never made it through the Koran or Book of Morman.

But sticking to the Christian Bible, Adam and Eve didn’t know it was wrong to disobey God. God told them they’d die that day if they ate the fruit, the serpent said they wouldn’t. They ate the fruit and the serpent was right. In order to punish them for doing wrong when He didn’t want them to know it was wrong, He chooses to punish billions of people in the future.

Then God gets upset that people are breaking rules He never explained so he kills everyone including most animals, except for one family, who break the rules as soon as the flood is over.

After that, God decided not to be God of everyone, just the descendants of Abraham. But he still doesn’t explain any rules until Moses.

From that point, there are very strict rules for living, but only for the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. God didn’t require anything from anyone else and called for the genocide of some rival groups.

but apparently, God then decided to be God of everyone again, but also decided that everyone was still unworthy and the only way to make them worthy would be to impregnate a woman, have the child grow up to preach about God and get killed for it, and then those who believed that actually happened would be forgiven.

Is there anything blatantly wrong with that simplistic summary?
 
Elvira said:
The Bible is about understanding...hence the reason there are so many different religions who view the Bible in multiple different ways...

"but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are," 1 Corinthians 1:27,28
Click to expand...
Understanding is not the same thing as interpretation?
I say it is
Your 'understanding' of the bible as a Baptist, for example, is certainly different than the 'understanding' of the bible of a Jehovah Witness?
 
KingLeo said:
Understanding is not the same thing as interpretation?
I say it is
Your 'understanding' of the bible as a Baptist, for example, is certainly different than the 'understanding' of the bible of a Jehovah Witness?
Click to expand...
No, one can interpret in the wrong way...as proven by the many denominations of Christendom
 
Elvira said:
No, one can interpret in the wrong way...as proven by the many denominations of Christendom
Click to expand...
Sorry but the long history of Christianity proves you wrong
 
pinqy said:
I have read the Bible, and the Bagghavad Gita, the Iliad & the Odyssey, the prose and poetic Eddas, the Tao te Ching, though I’ve never made it through the Koran or Book of Morman.

But sticking to the Christian Bible, Adam and Eve didn’t know it was wrong to disobey God. God told them they’d die that day if they ate the fruit, the serpent said they wouldn’t. They ate the fruit and the serpent was right. In order to punish them for doing wrong when He didn’t want them to know it was wrong, He chooses to punish billions of people in the future.

Then God gets upset that people are breaking rules He never explained so he kills everyone including most animals, except for one family, who break the rules as soon as the flood is over.

After that, God decided not to be God of everyone, just the descendants of Abraham. But he still doesn’t explain any rules until Moses.

From that point, there are very strict rules for living, but only for the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. God didn’t require anything from anyone else and called for the genocide of some rival groups.

but apparently, God then decided to be God of everyone again, but also decided that everyone was still unworthy and the only way to make them worthy would be to impregnate a woman, have the child grow up to preach about God and get killed for it, and then those who believed that actually happened would be forgiven.

Is there anything blatantly wrong with that simplistic summary?
Click to expand...
To begin with your statement that Adam and Eve didn’t know it was wrong to disobey….

Rethink that statement.

Your second statement is that Adam and Eve didn’t die. They died as far as God was concerned. God is a Spirit. They died spiritually.

The serpent, the devil is a liar, and he lied to Eve. Because they disobeyed God He evicted them from the garden, that is from His presence. That is spiritual death.

Many times the N Testament is a commentary for the Old. It explains the spiritual significance. Read 1Cor. 15. The whole chapter, but especially verses 21 and 22.
 
Crunchtime said:
You said your copy and paste quotation was from him. If that's not using something for an example, what is? Why bother? Find something else, or better yet, express yourself on the matter.
Click to expand...
Yes like I said. The sentence reminded me of that quote. I apologize for leaving the link off.

How is that using him as an example?

An example of what?

If we were talking about college football and I said "this game is going to come down to the difference of three yards in a cloud of dust, and we're going to win that fight"......am I using Woody Hays as an example?

An Example of what?

Or am I just saying your comment reminds me of this quote?

Come on dude.

Like the quote or not. It is what is.

It isnt an example of anything but a quote.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Yes like I said. The sentence reminded me of that quote. I apologize for leaving the link off.

How is that using him as an example?

An example of what?

If we were talking about college football and I said "this game is going to come down to the difference of three yards in a cloud of dust, and we're going to win that fight"......am I using Woody Hays as an example?

An Example of what?

Or am I just saying your comment reminds me of this quote?

Come on dude.

Like the quote or not. It is what is.

It isnt an example of anything but a quote.
Click to expand...
So then, the quote doesn't represent your views? You just threw it up on the board because what I said reminded you of something Nietzsche said?
 
Crunchtime said:
So then, the quote doesn't represent your views? You just threw it up on the board because what I said reminded you of something Nietzsche said?
Click to expand...
Like I said.

The sentence I was referring to reminded me of that quote.

Yes I agree with Nietzche that Christianity "...... is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?".

That doesn't mean I am holding Nietzsche, the man, up as an example of anything.

The point was what he said, not who he was.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Like I said.

The sentence I was referring to reminded me of that quote.

Yes I agree with Nietzche that Christianity "...... is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?".

That doesn't mean I am holding Nietzsche, the man, up as an example of anything.

The point was what he said, not who he was.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to take the time to point out the inaccuracies of his statements. That is, what he may have thought was true but isn't. His thoughts are devilish, but no surprise since he lost his mind. And because he was an avowed atheist before that happened.
 
Crunchtime said:
I'm not going to take the time to point out the inaccuracies of his statements. That is, what he may have thought was true but isn't. His thoughts are devilish, but no surprise since he lost his mind. And because he was an avowed atheist before that happened.
Click to expand...
I am not going to take the time to point out the inaccuracies in the Bible, but what Nietsche said was a more accurate take on Christianity then the Bible itself is.

His thoughts, as expressed in that quote, are rational and accurate.

Why do you keep pointing out that he was an atheist?

I thought everyone knew that. It isn't news.

And what is wrong with atheism? You say it as if it was a slur.

Please explain.
 
Elvira said:
Only if you believe in the trinity, the immortal soul and hellfire... :sneaky:
Click to expand...

Lol - you of all people doesn't have any credibility claiming anything as regards to the BIBLE.
Your NWT isn't THE Bible.


Let me re-post my response at another thread:


I understand your position. But as I am pointing out, Elvira isn't coming from exactly where I am.
For one thing, she's merely drawing from one source - the NWT, which has been "doctored" by the JW in the first place.


As an example: Just so to push their own non-Trinitarian "interpretation," the NWT version of Genesis 1 had changed
the phrase, "Spirit of God" to "God's active force."

All mainstream Bibles, including the Scriptures used by Jews use the phrase, "Spirit of God."



Genesis 1 (NWT)
2 Now the earth was formless and desolate,* and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep,*b
and God’s active force*c was moving about over the surface of the waters.


https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/genesis/1/



Genesis 1 (Chabad)
Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep,
and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.


https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/jewish/Chapter-1.htm


Genesis 1 (KJV)
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.



Furthermore, not only does Elvira uses a severely corrupted version of the Bible, but she tends to take verses out of context when she uses them as
so-called "evidence(s)" to support her views!
Lol - a corrupted version for a source - and she further corrupts it by taking it out of context!
So, it's a double whammy! :)


My point:
something taken from a corrupted source cannot be considered as an interpretation of a book - be it the Scriptures
or a book of any subject! She's claiming to give an "interpretation" of the Bible by using a source that has changed the Book!
It can be an opinion, but not an interpretation of THE Book.


That's why you're getting whacked by contradictions with your so-called "interpretations!" You guys have changed wordings to suit your narrayive - which of course, makes it inconsistent with the Scriptures. You always run away when you can't refute anything. That's your only recourse! :)
 
Last edited:
Elvira said:
Only if you believe in the trinity, the immortal soul and hellfire... :sneaky:
Click to expand...

Let's see if you can explain this:


Genesis 1 (NWT)
2 Now the earth was formless and desolate,* and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep,*b and God’s active force*c
was moving about over the surface of the waters.d



And yet, when you click the footnote (the asterisk after "force"), it shows this:

Footnotes ​


Or “God’s spirit.”




Lol - can you explain how you guys came up with this "GOD'S ACTIVE FORCE?" instead of using what is explicitly written?
WHY DO YOU HAVE TO CHANGE IT?

Because..........calling it exactly the way it is written, "SPIRIT," does not jive with JW's non-Trinitarian view! Right?


Or....

JW is saying there's a better description to what the CREATOR had used.
"Active force" is better than "Spirit?"

JW knows more than the CREATOR.................................................................................. right?
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
I repeat, therenis not one universal message in the bible. If there is, please use evidence to show what exactly that one universal message is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is, you just dont know what it is.
 
Elvira said:
Christendom and Christianity are 2 separate things...
Click to expand...

"Christendom" is a pejorative that JWs highjacked as a term for genuine Christianity. Years ago "Christianity" and "Christendom" were the same thing.
 
NolanVoyd said:
I am not going to take the time to point out the inaccuracies in the Bible, but what Nietsche said was a more accurate take on Christianity then the Bible itself is.

His thoughts, as expressed in that quote, are rational and accurate.

Why do you keep pointing out that he was an atheist?

I thought everyone knew that. It isn't news.

And what is wrong with atheism? You say it as if it was a slur.

Please explain.
Click to expand...
His thoughts are not rational and accurate. They are secular and formed in the mind of a demon possessed man. He was a liar.

To deny the existence of God is unpardonable. Do you understand that? Call it a slur or whatever you want, but to reject Christ and what He offers in the way of saving grace; for that there is no remedy.
 
Crunchtime said:
His thoughts are not rational and accurate. They are secular and formed in the mind of a demon possessed man. He was a liar.

To deny the existence of God is unpardonable. Do you understand that? Call it a slur or whatever you want, but to reject Christ and what He offers in the way of saving grace; for that there is no remedy.
Click to expand...
Lol.

I deny the existence of God.

Will your God punish me for that?
 
Overitall said:
Four basic ones.
1. Right in the verse when it's meaning is clear.
2. The verse and/or verses must be understood in its/their context
3. The word(s) must be understood according to its previous usage or in the way by which they were understood when written.
4. To whom the passages, or books were addressed to. Not everything is addressed to everyone. They are addressed to the Jews, Gentiles, or Church of God. If you read something that isn't addressed to you then the interpretation will be wrong.

This is just the basics but without adhering to them an interpretation is opened to misinterpretation.
Click to expand...

Let's try it out.

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." 1 Samuel 15:3

1 - Yahweh, Lord of Host is ordering the genocide of the Amalekite people. He takes care to specify not to let any adorable little children or infants live.
2 - The context is that the prophet Samuel is telling Saul of God's command to commit genocide against the Amalekite people in revenge for something their ancestors did over 300 years prior.
3 - 'Attack' from the Hebrew לִתְקוֹף, which means to initiate a violent assault. 'Put to death' from the Hebrew להוציא להורג, which means to violently end a life. 'Children' from the Hebrew יְלָדִים, which means innocent little nascent humans who definitely didn't do anything to warrant a death sentence.
4 - The books were addressed to future generations who might be interested in the genocidal commands issued by Yahweh, Lord of Hosts, the early iron age God of War.

Saul got in big trouble for not being bloodthirsty enough for Yahweh's tastes with regard to the Amalekite genocide.
 
AConcernedCitizen said:
Let's try it out.

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." 1 Samuel 15:3

1 - Yahweh, Lord of Host is ordering the genocide of the Amalekite people. He takes care to specify not to let any adorable little children or infants live.
2 - The context is that the prophet Samuel is telling Saul of God's command to commit genocide against the Amalekite people in revenge for something their ancestors did over 300 years prior.
3 - 'Attack' from the Hebrew לִתְקוֹף, which means to initiate a violent assault. 'Put to death' from the Hebrew להוציא להורג, which means to violently end a life. 'Children' from the Hebrew יְלָדִים, which means innocent little nascent humans who definitely didn't do anything to warrant a death sentence.
4 - The books were addressed to future generations who might be interested in the genocidal commands issued by Yahweh, Lord of Hosts, the early iron age God of War.

Saul got in big trouble for not being bloodthirsty enough for Yahweh's tastes with regard to the Amalekite genocide.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation seems right. Your understanding might need some help though. Simple question. What do you know about blood oaths in relationship to revenge? The reason I ask is even if the orphans managed to survive on their own (which might have involved a very cruel existence) the mindset of those surviving would seek revenge when they grew up. Even if the Israelis adopted them this threat would still be hanging over their heads. What would you suggest they did with the children knowing they might end up butchering your family down the road?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom