Official Bible Interpretation Thread

The Bible does not always use the term false gods, many times it just says god as opposed to the God to distinguish between true and false but usually it just uses God's name Jehovah. And so I tend to use the same conventions, so when the dope says listen to god, to me he is saying listen to the god of this system of things and so, no I do not listen to him.

 

Well that's good to know because there have been several times, like this, where you make statements that seem to indicate that you have no idea what is going on in the discussion.

Well, if you are saying that the criminal was with Jesus in paradise that very same day, then that is exactly what you are saying.

Once again, Jesus was dead for three days and after his resurrection on the third day he was once again alive, conscious and able to talk to his disciples.

 

The body was dead the spirit was not. The spirit does not remain with the body after death.

 

The sign of Jonah that Jesus referred to is the comparison made between Jonahs experience being in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights, probably to symbolize being in the 'belly' or the depths of Sheol. During those three days, Jonah was kept safe, but I do think it also represents death.

Matthew 12:40

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

The spirit is no more alive than electricity is.

Once again you show you support the lie that Satan spoke in the beginning, you will not die.

 

I can't believe you actually typed that.

 

Thanks but I'm only right in so far as I agree with what God says in his word the Bible.

 

I don't particularly find what you say disagreeable, I just find it to be untrue.

 

Another example of your display of "love"?

 

All through this thread and all the other threads that we have dis discuss these things.

 

OWB:

lol What do you think life is OWB?

What is the fruit of the earth for? Are we to drink deeply of life only to taste of death?

 

God does not need to interpret what he has said but God authored the Bible so that it has only one correct interpretation and that interpretation is what I refer to as God's interpretation.

No, as I've said many times before, my "interpretation" is only God's "interpretation" in so far as it agrees with God's "interpretation".

 

People, wrote the bible. You said yourself that moses and paul wrote several books.

What you are saying is god's only interpretation is yours. If someone disagrees with the interpretation that you learned from where ever, you say that is not what the bible says, as though you were the official mouth piece for the bible.

 

We have debated, yes. There have been no official conclusions.

 

So your method of not cross referencing and just making up a meaning for each individual scripture is more likely to give the correct interpretation and is less open to couching, than cross referencing?

Yep

Really?

Not fluently. Why do you?

It's pretty much common knowledge but a perusal of one of the ancient manuscripts show that no punctuation is used.

I'm not sure who you are talking about when you say "they" but if you are talking about the Bible canon, that is more about what books are to be in included, than about the exact wording of those books.

 

I never claimed my method omitted cross referencing. My point is that cross referencing for meaning fits the definition of interpretation. You interpret scripture

No, not so much common knowledge. Did you peruse such an original document in greek? It may be familiar to scholars that are concerned with such things. Regardless my bible has a punctuation mark.

There is still debate as to exact wording. Some authorities include some phrases that others don't. And now there are even volumes that are paraphrased.

Oh, and "they" are the translators of the bible.

 

Under inspiration of God.

I would like to believe that but I have never said that, although you seem to like to accuse me of that.

Official mouth piece for the bible? The Bible speaks for itself, I merely point what it says. I can't help it if what it says disagrees with what you say you are being taught.

 

You have debated, for the most part I've been pointing out that the Bible doesn't agree with you.

 

And yet you seem to cast it in such a bad light.

So you say.

Most of the people in this thread already know it and it is easily verifiable by looking it up on the internet, so I would say yes, it is common knowledge.

Yes, copies are not hard to come by. Again, try the internet.

Not just scholars but most who Christian who are concerned about worshiping God in spirit and truth take the time to make sure of all things.

Well, good but that does not mean that it is in the correct place.

Actually there is very little debate about what the Bible contains, now a days.

Paraphrased Bibles are not translations and should not be fully trusted.

In that case it depends on the translator(s), good ones will take into consideration the oldest available manuscripts and will compare them to eliminate scribal errors but for the most part even scribal errors are few and far between and generally affect meaning only slightly.

 

The bible has no opinions. It is an inanimate object, a book. It is you that does not agree with the interpretation I have put forth.