What makes the bible true

[The King]

Ah, silly child. An image is ocular, i.e it must be seen. Therefore, saying likeness is still only applicable in the appearance sense.

For someone who was on that side of the fence, there is no reason to attempt to interpret a holy text, in any way. As it would mean exactly what is said, as it is stated. If it was inspired, than it would have said likeness if it was meant to be read likeness. That's the thing about holy books, without interpretations, which would not be required if it was handed down by an omniscient being, they all look like bronze-age superstitions.

Or do you think that you know what the bible was supposed to say better than God, who you claim dictated it?

That's why I, and anyone else so inclined, must read the Bible for themselves and thus have no need for outside "interpretation" as you put it.

Again you are mistaken, punkin'. An image, as defined by likeness, need not be ocular. Consult your favorite online or print dictionary to educate yourself on this matter, 'hatter. Some translations of the Bible do indeed use the word likeness in Genesis 1:26, but that is of no consequence since either image or likeness can be used with the same meaning.

[forbes]

Stirring the pot doesn't work here, LOL. Try the Back Porch.

Maddhatter's doing fine in this corner of the forum. He's stated his position and arguments, and hasn't got all e-upset in the process like a few others have.

actually he has stated that no matter what you say.. he has shut you down...
not once has he taken it personal, so far he is the only one who has stated a position which comes back to something other than an interpretation of mans words of gods word...

[The King]

actually he has stated that no matter what you say.. he has shut you down...
not once has he taken it personal, so far he is the only one who has stated a position which comes back to something other than an interpretation of mans words of gods word...

He can e-state anything about anybody he wants, but that doesn't have any impact on me whatsoever. In case you failed to notice you have stirred up nothing, even just a lil.

[Maddhattter]

[QUOTE=The King;304890]That's why I, and anyone else so inclined, must read the Bible for themselves and thus have no need for outside "interpretation" as you put it.[/Quote

Reading it, and deciding for ourselves creates a new interpretation as no two people are going to interpret it the same way, as evident of the numerous Christian sects.

Again you are mistaken, punkin'. An image, as defined by likeness, need not be ocular. Consult your favorite online or print dictionary to educate yourself on this matter, 'hatter. Some translations of the Bible do indeed use the word likeness in Genesis 1:26, but that is of no consequence since either image or likeness can be used with the same meaning.

Really, sugar-pop? You sure about that?

1im·age noun \ˈi-mij\
Definition of IMAGE

1: a reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing; especially : an imitation in solid form : statue
2 a : the optical counterpart of an object produced by an optical device (as a lens or mirror) or an electronic device
b : a visual representation of something: as (1) : a likeness of an object produced on a photographic material (2) : a picture produced on an electronic display (as a television or computer screen)
3 a : exact likeness : semblance <God created man in his own image — Genesis 1:27(Revised Standard Version)>
b : a person strikingly like another person <she is the image of her mother>
4 a : a tangible or visible representation : incarnation <the image of filial devotion>
b archaic : an illusory form : apparition

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/image

There were more, but I stopped there as the relevant definition is present.

So, it lists another word as well, semblance. Now, I was nice and went ahead and looked that up for you to.

sem·blance noun \ˈsem-blən(t)s\
Definition of SEMBLANCE

1 a : outward and often specious appearance or show : form <wrapped in a semblance of composure — Harry Hervey>
b : modicum <has been struggling to get some semblance of justice for his people — Bayard Rustin>
2: aspect, countenance
3 a : a phantasmal form : apparition
b : image, likeness
4: actual or apparent resemblance <her story bears some semblance to the truth>

So, you were right. Not all definitions are ocular. all the relevant ones are.

[The King]

Relevance is subjective, kitten, and the problem therein for you is that what is relevant to you is by no means universal.

[mstng86]

Relevance is subjective, kitten, and the problem therein for you is that what is relevant to you is by no means universal.

Don't hold bag, you know you want to call him a fag.

[Parasite Eva]

You know… I came in here, prepared to delve into said topic with another lengthy post, until I noticed this:

show tits

Yea, show tits!!

Oh, yea,



Show tits!!

Seriously? There are enough boobs arguing in this thread that the forum is starting to rival New Orleans during Mardi Gras.

And then I saw this…

punkin'

sugar-pop

kitten

Oh my.

[mstng86]

See King, you should have called him a faggot..

[forbes]

He can e-state anything about anybody he wants, but that doesn't have any impact on me whatsoever. In case you failed to notice you have stirred up nothing, even just a lil.

i did if you felt the need to respond...

[Parasite Eva]

Once the Word of God becomes an important part of one's life, there is no subsequent renouncement of that importance if the person seriously accepted it as the Truth to begin with. Someone's past history or path is not of consequence to me or anyone other than that individual. It needn't be to them either unless they choose it to be.

What of those deceived by Satan’s manipulative whims? Is it impossible for someone to fully accept The Truth, and then be led astray by the Devil? Because that fully contradicts what you said earlier. How can someone be led astray if they weren’t already in the I-Love-Jesus camp to begin with? Please clarify so that I may provide a valid response to your statement.

That's why I, and anyone else so inclined, must read the Bible for themselves and thus have no need for outside "interpretation" as you put it.

If there is no need for outside interpretation, then what is the point of church? Bible study groups? Theology courses? Discussions amongst friends and family? How can there be this universal Truth you are touting, if your one true text is open to individual interpretation?

[The King]

Don't hold bag, you know you want to call him a fag.

Are we now into writing rhymes, bag boy????

Seldom have we seen such an intelligent post, LOL.

i did if you felt the need to respond...

My intent was only to get you stirred up.....obviously it worked.

Not as well as it did with little Alex, though.....it only took him three posts to get to the babbling stage (i.e., post #384), quoted as follows:

Fuck. Just fuck.

[Maddhattter]

Relevance is subjective, kitten, and the problem therein for you is that what is relevant to you is by no means universal.

Again, you are correct except when context is taken into consideration. When discussing definitions context is key. Context is what determines relevance when discussing definitions, not me and not you.

There is also the fact that when two words are used interchangeably, they must share a common definition. So, what do image, semblance, and and likeness have in common when taking definitions into account? That's right, sweetheart, visual appearance as the similarity.

[The King]

What of those deceived by Satan’s manipulative whims? Is it impossible for someone to fully accept The Truth, and then be led astray by the Devil? Because that fully contradicts what you said earlier. How can someone be led astray if they weren’t already in the I-Love-Jesus camp to begin with? Please clarify so that I may provide a valid response to your statement.

They can indeed be led astray, but sooner or later they acknowledge that and move forward, back to the Truth. One could be led astray, without being in the I-Love-Jesus camp to begin with, by summarily dismissing God and His Word as being irrelevant to their lives.

If there is no need for outside interpretation, then what is the point of church? Bible study groups? Theology courses? Discussions amongst friends and family? How can there be this universal Truth you are touting, if your one true text is open to individual interpretation?

Churches, Bible study groups, etc. can serve very well in introducing the Word of God to people in a non-hostile environment. People can explore the teachings of the Bible, and learn examples of it's applicability to historic and contemporary times. All without the noise and blather that you can, for example, see for yourself in this thread. Some like getting down in the weeds however, and I am one of those. Noise and blather just come with the territory.

God's means of delivering His Message (the Truth) to individuals is done on a personal level however, via the Holy Spirit, and that must occur on a one-on-one basis. Thus one must ultimately learn that Message on their own, uncluttered by outside interpretation.

[The King]

Again, you are correct except when context is taken into consideration. When discussing definitions context is key. Context is what determines relevance when discussing definitions, not me and not you.

There is also the fact that when two words are used interchangeably, they must share a common definition. So, what do image, semblance, and and likeness have in common when taking definitions into account? That's right, sweetheart, visual appearance as the similarity.

Context is indeed key, petunia, and in the context of Genesis 1:26, image and likeness are not defining visual appearance.

[forbes]

i have an honest question without trying to set up anything...
how does the bible really differ in teachings than any other religoin excluding the jesus part... i have read the bible and it is a great book of moral conditioning... but it really follows along the same Principes as lets say mother goose...