If we can't see an atom or a god, how do we 'prove' or 'disprove' these things exist, and do we even need proof?

[Dante]

Laws are open to interpretation as well, jaywalking for instance. Other laws are meant for commoners, not the elitists. This will demonstrated for all to see in the 'trial' of Hunter Biden.

Not exactly, but nuance is always lost on you.

next

 

[Woodznutz]

You're stuck with using term/words that are inadequate. You need to learn to speak with authority of what you know, and stop seeking approval.

If I were 'seeking approval' I would be more detailed in what I post. I prefer that others who are curious search out these things for themselves. Self-discovery is more rewarding than being taught everything.

 

[Dante]

If I were 'seeking approval' I would be more detailed in what I post. I prefer that others who are curious search out these things for themselves. Self-discovery is more rewarding than being taught everything.

You're stuck with using term/words that are inadequate. You need to learn to speak with authority of what you know, and stop seeking approval.

 

[Woodznutz]

Not exactly, but nuance is always lost on you.

Must be as I didn't detect any.

 

[Woodznutz]

You're stuck with using term/words that are inadequate. You need to learn to speak with authority of what you know and stop seeking approval.

You're repeating yourself.

"Speaking with authority" is like leading a horse to water. I prefer tell people, "Hey, there's water over there."

 

[Blues Man]

God inspires me to seek the best meanings of certain words so certain narratives can be better understood. It's called study. If everything was 'clear' there would be no need for study.

Yeah we already have these things called dictionaries to tell us the common definitions of words.

The fact that there are so many interpretations is evidence that the writing is unclear

 

[Woodznutz]

Yeah we already have these things called dictionaries to tell us the common definitions of words.

The fact that there are so many interpretations is evidence that the writing is unclear

Admittedly, certain meanings are unclear or there are better translations of certain words. Also, God made sure we read and study the whole canon as he scattered certain meanings throughout the book; "Here a little, there a little", etc.

 

[Blues Man]

Admittedly, certain meanings are unclear or there are better translations of certain words. Also, God made sure we read and study the whole canon as he scattered certain meanings throughout the book; "Here a little, there a little", etc.

But only men wrote those words so even if you could have read the actual words written when they were written you would still be removed for the source and therefore always working from someone else's interpretation

The bible has been revised thousands of times and now is diluted with more interpretations translations and opinion

 

[Blues Man]

Admittedly, certain meanings are unclear or there are better translations of certain words. Also, God made sure we read and study the whole canon as he scattered certain meanings throughout the book; "Here a little, there a little", etc.

It's kind of what we do.

Our entire system of education is just books about other books that were just books bout other books

“Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.”​

― André Gide

 

[ReinyDays]

But only men wrote those words so even if you could have read the actual words written when they were written you would still be removed for the source and therefore always working from someone else's interpretation

The bible has been revised thousands of times and now is diluted with more interpretations translations and opinion

Very true ... King James was a massive anti-semite so we can expect the King James version to be full of anti-semantic rhetoric ... we're supposed to be mature enough to see through that and still find fundamental truths ... I do agree with King James about prohibiting incest among the English, most other cultures don't need that prohibited, it's just not done ...

We can learn Aramaic or whatever language was used 3,000 years ago ... but the Bible will still say it is evil to bear false witness ... if we want to get lost in the details, then we'll just be lost is all ... and no wiser ...

 

[Blues Man]

Very true ... King James was a massive anti-semite so we can expect the King James version to be full of anti-semantic rhetoric ... we're supposed to be mature enough to see through that and still find fundamental truths ... I do agree with King James about prohibiting incest among the English, most other cultures don't need that prohibited, it's just not done ...

We can learn Aramaic or whatever language was used 3,000 years ago ... but the Bible will still say it is evil to bear false witness ... if we want to get lost in the details, then we'll just be lost is all ... and no wiser ...

You can find that same prohibition against false testimony in older sources than the bible.

The code of Hammurabi predates the Old Testament and has in a prohibition on false accusation

 

[Woodznutz]

But only men wrote those words so even if you could have read the actual words written when they were written you would still be removed for the source and therefore always working from someone else's interpretation

The bible has been revised thousands of times and now is diluted with more interpretations translations and opinion

Those 'revisions' all basically say the same thing.

 

[Blues Man]

Those 'revisions' all basically say the same thing.

Then why make the revisions?

It's just an attempt of religion to stay relevant in a world where reason and secular humanism are winning out

 

[Woodznutz]

It's kind of what we do.

Our entire system of education is just books about other books that were just books bout other books

“Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.”​

― André Gide

The Bible is the most misunderstood book in history. Everyone has an opinion about it when it's actually not any of their business. The Bible is the history and prophecies concerning Israel and the church. Other peoples are mentioned only as they interact with Israel.

 

[Woodznutz]

Then why make the revisions?

It's just an attempt of religion to stay relevant in a world where reason and secular humanism are winning out

Revisions are made because language changes. The RSV of the KJV is the most notable case in point. However, the KJV has the original Hebrew and Greek language to refer to for study purposes whereas later versions don't.

"Reason" is always applied to Bible study by serious students.

Secular humanism is killing us as nothing compels us to act in our own best interests.

 

[Blues Man]

The Bible is the most misunderstood book in history. Everyone has an opinion about it when it's actually not any of their business. The Bible is the history and prophecies concerning Israel and the church. Other peoples are mentioned only as they interact with Israel.

Because that's how the RCC wanted it.

If the RCC published a clear and concise manual then they would have been unnecessary and would not be one of the richest and most powerful institutions in the world today

 

[Woodznutz]

Because that's how the RCC wanted it.

If the RCC published a clear and concise manual then they would have been unnecessary and would not be one of the richest and most powerful institutions in the world today

The Reformation took care of that as it provided God's written word to the descendants of Israel who it was intended for in the first place. However, the RCC is to be acknowledged for preserving many of the early church documents.

 

[Blues Man]

Revisions are made because language changes. The RSV of the KJV is the most notable case in point. However, the KJV has the original Hebrew and Greek language to fall back on for study purposes whereas later versions don't.

The Reformation took care of that as it provided God's written word to the descendants of Israel who it was intended for in the first place. However, the RCC is to be acknowledged for preserving many of the early church documents.

So they can control the message.

Why deny the ulterior motives of men , even men of the church?

 

[Woodznutz]

Very true ... King James was a massive anti-semite so we can expect the King James version to be full of anti-semantic rhetoric ... we're supposed to be mature enough to see through that and still find fundamental truths ...

Don't you mean anti-zionist narratives i.e. the words of Jesus?

 

[Woodznutz]

So they can control the message.

Why deny the ulterior motives of men , even men of the church?

The Bibles that came out of the Reformation corrected many of the errors of the RCC bible.