What makes the bible true

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[Maddhattter]

i would have to agree with your rant, just was stirring it up a lil

Careful. If you stir it too much, you might bruise my e-peen.

[Maddhattter]

"....you look like him, that's what an image (i)s" is but one definition, the simplest one (no surprise there, LOL) but not the correct one. Too bad you mistakenly thought that would support your claim....yet another that's
been rebutted

Image, as in likeness. That's what an image is. For someone who claims to have been on this "side of the fence" you show an extraordinary lack of Biblical understanding. Since God as revealed in the Bible is not a physical being, there can be no way you "look like him" in the Biblical context. Thanks for attempting what became an amusing, though false, interpretation though.

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?

[The King]

i would have to agree with your rant, just was stirring it up a lil

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.

[forbes]

i would have to agree with your rant, just was stirring it up a lil

[The King]

You're correct, as long as you strip away all context. But anyone could cherry pick one point, out of context, and argue it. That's why I argue your statements in context.

Your book states that you were made in the image of God, i.e. you look like him. That's what an image s. That says nothing about any other characteristics. So, you do not have your deities characteristics, or you would be your deity. Assuming you don't believe you are, what is of consequence to God is irrelevant to whether or not you should find anything of any consequence.

What I find irrelevant, or you find irrelevant doesn't change that your equivocation is false.

"....you look like him, that's what an image is" is but one definition, the simplest one but not the correct one. Too bad you mistakenly thought that would support your claim....yet another that's been rebutted

Image, as in likeness. That's what an image is. For someone who claims to have been on this "side of the fence" you show an extraordinary lack of Biblical understanding. Since God as revealed in the Bible is not a physical being, there can be no way you "look like him" in the Biblical context. Thanks for attempting what became an amusing, though false, interpretation though.

[Maddhattter]

Oh, yea,

Woman talk, does it really matter?

Show tits!!

[Maddhattter]

just for giggles you said "Also, I lack a belief in the supernatural, i.e. god/gods, that doesn’t mean I believe in something."

but then you come back saying " I believe in demonstrable, testable, falsifiable facts."
i'm not one to say what my beliefs are... except to say i don't push them on anyone else... just thought i would keep it going for entertainment purposes[/QUOTE]

Your correct. That is what I said.

However, context is where it breaks down. In the context of the first statement;

just for giggles you said "Also, I lack a belief in the supernatural, i.e. god/gods, that doesn’t mean I believe in something."

This would be belief with no evidence to support the claim. In that regard, faith and belief are not mutually exclusive.

The second statement:

but then you come back saying " I believe in demonstrable, testable, falsifiable facts."

This would be belief with evidence to support the claim. as the facts have already been demonstrated and tested, and shown to be falsifiable.

This is the perfect example of faith and belief not being mutually exclusive, but not the same thing. It's the contextual definitions.

i'm not one to say what my beliefs are... except to say i don't push them on anyone else... just thought i would keep it going for entertainment purposes

I can be a bit of a completionist at times, so I'll address a point here. This is not in any way an argument with your statement, but the implications of your statement.

[rant]
Who believes what is independent of the truth. However, no claim to truth can be made without sufficient evidence to support the claim. This is known as the Null Hypothesis. I have and will continue to concede that The King might be right. However, until there is sufficient evidence to support his claim, he has to place calling it truth. Otherwise anyone who claims anything could run around telling the "truth" and science could not function. All the technology and science that has shaped the way we live is founded on the scientific method and peer review. This removes faith from the equation.

This is why I've not stated that god/gods/the supernatural doesn't exist. My belief, or anyone else's, one way or the other is a non-factor.

[/rant]

[forbes]

believe[/COLOR] in something.



I disagree. I believe in demonstrable, testable, falsifiable facts. Theists have faith. While they are both beliefs, they are different kinds of beliefs.



This helps keep me entertained. I don’t expect to make anyone an atheist. I’m not even arguing that god/gods don’t exist. I am arguing that in order to honestly call something truth, as The King has done, you must be able provide evidence to support your claim, which he has repeatedly refused to do.

just for giggles you said "Also, I lack a belief in the supernatural, i.e. god/gods, that doesn’t mean I believe in something."
but then you come back saying " I believe in demonstrable, testable, falsifiable facts."
i'm not one to say what my beliefs are... except to say i don't push them on anyone else... just thought i would keep it going for entertainment purposes

[Maddhattter]

Sorry to have to correct you again, but the Bible refutes your statement above. And, since I accept the Bible as true, your statement to me is false.

So, you're solipsistic? If that's the case, why even bother discussing anything, as truth is all relative to the belief of the individual. You could claim that gravity didn't work for you, and it was truth because you accept it as truth. It makes no logical sense.

Also what is irrelevant to you is only that, irrelevant to you, with no bearing on anyone else.

You're correct, as long as you strip away all context. But anyone could cherry pick one point, out of context, and argue it. That's why I argue your statements in context.

Your book states that you were made in the image of God, i.e. you look like him. That's what an image s. That says nothing about any other characteristics. So, you do not have your deities characteristics, or you would be your deity. Assuming you don't believe you are, what is of consequence to God is irrelevant to whether or not you should find anything of any consequence.

What I find irrelevant, or you find irrelevant doesn't change that your equivocation is false.

[Maddhattter]

i think both of you are really missing the facts. the fact is neither one of you can prove your statements with fact.

Correct, but holding the default position, disbelief, I'm not required to prove my position. Being as the Theist is making the positive claim, they have the burden of proof.

Human nature (not to be misrepresented by fact) is to believe in something.

If you’re going to make a positive claim, you’ve got to provide some supporting evidence. Also, I lack a belief in the supernatural, i.e. god/gods, that doesn’t mean I believe in something.

you either believe there is a higher power (god etc) or you believe there is not. bottom line is you both believe.. just in different ideas, philosophies etc.

I disagree. I believe in demonstrable, testable, falsifiable facts. Theists have faith. While they are both beliefs, they are different kinds of beliefs.

on a different note, if ya'll are just trying to keep this going to see who is the most eloquent debater (which it seems you are) continue on. I enjoy the debate

This helps keep me entertained. I don’t expect to make anyone an atheist. I’m not even arguing that god/gods don’t exist. I am arguing that in order to honestly call something truth, as The King has done, you must be able provide evidence to support your claim, which he has repeatedly refused to do.

[The King]

I have no idea what is going in here. I just think it is funny the King found someone who can banter back and forth just as much.

Ying and Yang up in here.

Works for me, my posit won't change.