Calling Out TNHarley: Should the 1st Eleven Chapters be Read Literally or Allegorically

[ding]

Here goes his psycho babble bullshit. He getting even more mad now

You done yet?

 

[TNHarley]

I have argued its intellectually dishonest to call something an allegory just because it is illogical.
If you have to make shit up to believe in something, why believe in it at all?

If my interpretation is illogical then you should be able to show how it is illogical, right?

Your interpretation isnt illogical, its dishonest. You are interpreting it differently BECAUSE the bible is illogical.

If it is dishonest then you should be able to show how it is dishonest.

Ive already explained it. If you arent smart enough to read, that isnt my problem.

You mean read it the way you think I should read it, right?

We both read it the same. You just imagine they mean something when there is no evidence they did. Hence, your imagination.
You can interpret however you want, but i will be there to call out your dishonesty.

We do not read it the same. You want me to read it like you do. That's what this debate is about.

If we read the same translation, we are reading the same thing, Ding. You just make up meaning to fit your narrative. I dont.

 

[ding]

I have argued its intellectually dishonest to call something an allegory just because it is illogical.
If you have to make shit up to believe in something, why believe in it at all?

If my interpretation is illogical then you should be able to show how it is illogical, right?

Your interpretation isnt illogical, its dishonest. You are interpreting it differently BECAUSE the bible is illogical.

If it is dishonest then you should be able to show how it is dishonest.

Ive already explained it. If you arent smart enough to read, that isnt my problem.

You mean read it the way you think I should read it, right?

We both read it the same. You just imagine they mean something when there is no evidence they did. Hence, your imagination.
You can interpret however you want, but i will be there to call out your dishonesty.

We do not read it the same. You want me to read it like you do. That's what this debate is about.

If we read the same translation, we are reading the same thing, Ding. You just make up meaning to fit your narrative. I dont.

We don't have the same interpretation. The question is are you allowed to make mine for me or can I make my own.

Let me know when you are done making your case.

 

[ding]

I have argued its intellectually dishonest to call something an allegory just because it is illogical.
If you have to make shit up to believe in something, why believe in it at all?

If my interpretation is illogical then you should be able to show how it is illogical, right?

Your interpretation isnt illogical, its dishonest. You are interpreting it differently BECAUSE the bible is illogical.

If it is dishonest then you should be able to show how it is dishonest.

Ive already explained it. If you arent smart enough to read, that isnt my problem.

You mean read it the way you think I should read it, right?

We both read it the same. You just imagine they mean something when there is no evidence they did. Hence, your imagination.
You can interpret however you want, but i will be there to call out your dishonesty.

We do not read it the same. You want me to read it like you do. That's what this debate is about.

If we read the same translation, we are reading the same thing, Ding. You just make up meaning to fit your narrative. I dont.

You have never challenged my interpretation on the merits of my interpretation. You have never challenged the content of my posts. You have only challenged my right to interpret it differently than you. That's dishonest. You don't want an honest debate, you want a punching bag.

 

[ding]

So besides being dishonest, that's pretty cowardly too.

 

[ding]

You just make up meaning to fit your narrative. I dont.

Yes, you do. Your narrative is that it's all a fairy tale so you read it like it's a fairy tale. What's worse is that you require others to read like it's a fairy tale too. That's dishonest. And it's dishonest for you to say you don't read Genesis to fit your narrative.

Let me know when you are done making your case and it's my turn to make my case.

 

[ding]

So besides your dishonesty in forcing others to interpret Genesis exactly like you do, and your dishonesty in arguing that you aren't reading Genesis to fit your narrative. and your cowardice in not wanting to have a fair fight, there's also your motivation for doing these dishonest and cowardly things... you are doing it to please yourself. Tell me I'm wrong, TNHarley .

 

[ding]

I have argued its intellectually dishonest to call something an allegory just because it is illogical.
If you have to make shit up to believe in something, why believe in it at all?

If my interpretation is illogical then you should be able to show how it is illogical, right?

Your interpretation isnt illogical, its dishonest. You are interpreting it differently BECAUSE the bible is illogical.

If it is dishonest then you should be able to show how it is dishonest.

Already did. Your illiteracy isnt my problem

No. You didn't. So that's another example of your dishonesty.

But don't worry when I'm done making my case I'll share my narrative and you can run away from that too.

 

[ding]

I have argued its intellectually dishonest to call something an allegory just because it is illogical.
If you have to make shit up to believe in something, why believe in it at all?

If my interpretation is illogical then you should be able to show how it is illogical, right?

Your interpretation isnt illogical, its dishonest. You are interpreting it differently BECAUSE the bible is illogical.

If it is dishonest then you should be able to show how it is dishonest.

Already did. Your illiteracy isnt my problem

Link to it. That should decide if I am illiterate or you are a liar.

 

[TNHarley]

I have argued its intellectually dishonest to call something an allegory just because it is illogical.
If you have to make shit up to believe in something, why believe in it at all?

If my interpretation is illogical then you should be able to show how it is illogical, right?

Your interpretation isnt illogical, its dishonest. You are interpreting it differently BECAUSE the bible is illogical.

If it is dishonest then you should be able to show how it is dishonest.

Ive already explained it. If you arent smart enough to read, that isnt my problem.

You mean read it the way you think I should read it, right?

We both read it the same. You just imagine they mean something when there is no evidence they did. Hence, your imagination.
You can interpret however you want, but i will be there to call out your dishonesty.

We do not read it the same. You want me to read it like you do. That's what this debate is about.

If we read the same translation, we are reading the same thing, Ding. You just make up meaning to fit your narrative. I dont.

You have never challenged my interpretation on the merits of my interpretation. You have never challenged the content of my posts. You have only challenged my right to interpret it differently than you. That's dishonest. You don't want an honest debate, you want a punching bag.

I did challenge it. I called it illogical and dishonest. Again, your illiteracy isnt my problem

 

[TNHarley]

I understand there are many figures of speech in the bible. Like Jesus at the Last supper. "this is my body, this is my blood" Or something like that. Obviously, thats not to be taken literal.
I am referring to other things. Like the flood. Creation. The earth being flat and immobile. Etc.
That was all believed until reality flushed that shit down the drain.
Galileo got oppressed for Copernicanism. Now that is an allegory. Its convenient, ey?

Yep, and I'll cover all of that when I make my case.

Its Monday

 

[ding]

I understand there are many figures of speech in the bible. Like Jesus at the Last supper. "this is my body, this is my blood" Or something like that. Obviously, thats not to be taken literal.
I am referring to other things. Like the flood. Creation. The earth being flat and immobile. Etc.
That was all believed until reality flushed that shit down the drain.
Galileo got oppressed for Copernicanism. Now that is an allegory. Its convenient, ey?

Yep, and I'll cover all of that when I make my case.

Its Monday

So it is.

 

[TNHarley]

I understand there are many figures of speech in the bible. Like Jesus at the Last supper. "this is my body, this is my blood" Or something like that. Obviously, thats not to be taken literal.
I am referring to other things. Like the flood. Creation. The earth being flat and immobile. Etc.
That was all believed until reality flushed that shit down the drain.
Galileo got oppressed for Copernicanism. Now that is an allegory. Its convenient, ey?

Yep, and I'll cover all of that when I make my case.

Its Monday

So it is.

Already given up, ey? Cant say i blame ya...

 

[ding]

I have argued its intellectually dishonest to call something an allegory just because it is illogical.
If you have to make shit up to believe in something, why believe in it at all?

Wrong. It is intellectually dishonest to argue something you know not to be true. Which is what you do.

You didn't even know that there were different literary styles used in the Bible.

Like calling something an allegory because it doesnt make sense anymore?

No. Like calling something an allegory because it is. Makes way more sense than what you do.

Where does the bible claim that?Oh yeah, it doesnt. You just made that shit up.

The Bible was written with several different literary styles; allegorical, poetic, historical narrative, law, wisdom, prophecy, apocalyptic, etc.

You believe that the Bible was always meant to be read literally and that the only reason it wasn't was because of science.

Yeah yeah. It was meant literally until science. Just like most of the bible.

Then most Christians are fucked, as they created the "allegory" nonsense, to keep up with reality.

Allegories is something the religious cling to when science provers their hand-me-down, cherry picked fables written by desert savages, are proven wrong.

The account of Genesis wasn't read allegorically because of science. The account of Genesis is read literally because that' how it was intended to be read.

Origen

, in his Treatise on First Principles, recommends for the Old and New Testaments to be interpreted allegorically at three levels, the "flesh," the "soul," and the "spirit." He states that many of the events recounted in the Scriptures, if they are interpreted in the literal, or fleshly, sense, are impossible or nonsensical. They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. Some passages have parts that are literally true and parts that are literally impossible. Then, "the reader must endeavor to grasp the entire meaning, connecting by an intellectual process the account of what is literally impossible with the parts that are not impossible but historically true, these being interpreted allegorically in common with the part which, so far as the letter goes, did not happen at all."[7]

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Medieval scholars believed the Old Testament to serve as an allegory of New Testament events, such as the story of Jonah and the whale, which represents Jesus' death and resurrection.[8] According to the Old Testament Book of Jonah, a prophet spent three days in the belly of a fish. Medieval scholars believed this was an allegory (using the typological interpretation) of Jesus' death and his being in the tomb for three days before he rose from the dead.

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible is an interpretive method (exegesis) that assumes that the Bible has various levels of meaning and tends to focus on the spiritual sense, which includes the allegorical sense, the moral (or tropological) sense, and the anagogical sense, as opposed to the literal sense. It is sometimes referred to as the quadriga, a reference to the Roman chariot that was drawn by four horses. Allegorical interpretation has its origins in both Greek thought and the rabbinical schools of Judaism. In the Middle Ages, it was used by Bible commentators of Christianity.[1]

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The assertion that the account of Genesis was originally intended to be read literally and was only changed to allegorically is categorically false. From the writings of the Church Fathers, this has been pondered since the beginning.

Crusading for Peace Through Truth | Saint Dominic's Media

The Saint Dominic’s Media Book Collection Compendium of the Catholic Catechism on Freemasonry (10-Pack) $40.00 Buy now Catholic, Traditional & Black: In Anthology and Discourse $12.35 – $22.95 Buy now The Father $12.50 Buy now The Catholic Catechism on Freemasonry $14.95 – $29.95 Buy now The...

www.saintdominicsmedia.com

 

[TNHarley]

You didn't even know that there were different literary styles used in the Bible.

A lie of course.

 

[TNHarley]

The account of Genesis is read literally because that' how it was intended to be read.

So god made plants before the sun?

 

[ding]

You didn't even know that there were different literary styles used in the Bible.

A lie of course.

If it were a lie we wouldn't be having this discussion because you would have already have known that legal and history literary styles were the only types to be literally.

 

[TNHarley]

Medieval scholars believed the Old Testament to serve as an allegory of New Testament events, such as the story of Jonah and the whale, which represents Jesus' death and resurrection
Christians love taking over the Jewish faith

 

[ding]

The account of Genesis is read literally because that' how it was intended to be read.

So god made plants before the sun?

So now you want to argue the content? And read it literally still?

That's a new debate. This debate has proven that the literal interpretation of Genesis was not changed to an allegorical interpretation because of science.

 

[TNHarley]

You didn't even know that there were different literary styles used in the Bible.

A lie of course.

If it were a lie we wouldn't be having this discussion because you would have already have known that legal and history literary styles were the only types to be literally.

There are metaphors and all kinds of figure of speech. Hek, a whole book is in poems. Everyone knows this. You guys call everything an allegory that doesnt make sense.
You lie like the good little Christian you are.
They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood.
But before, they made sense. When reality bit them in the ass, their tunes changed.
Hek, people STILL believe the Earth is flat and immobile