Why does the Bible get misinterpreted so often????

Lash wrote:

I mean--do you want the Donner's map to San Francisco--or Mapquest's?

Are you implying that the God-breathed and God-inspried bible had to have an upgrade due to lack of usable data?

0 Replies

He added on. Impressively.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I mean--do you want the Donner's map to San Francisco--or Mapquest's?

Lash, even though I'm not a big fan of Mapquest, I do like that quote.

0 Replies

You and your son are of the same lineage Donner and Mapquest are competitors. By your logic then Islam supercedes both Judaism and Christianity.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

In the case of the Old Testament and New Testament, the Bible tells us what is primary.

Actually, it doesn't even hint at what is more important, or if any should be considered over the other. It makes statements, rather, Paul makes statements about what should be accepted and what should be discarded due to his desire to spread the word to the Gentiles.

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
If you will go to that link I posted it explains about that.

So what that interpretation means is superior to what the words say, and most specifically with reference to 5 Matthew 17 et seq? Look up the word "sophistry".

I haven't read the link in question, nor do I make any claim as to the accuracy of what is found there, but it seems to me that you are implying you have a greater understanding of the text than the author of this "interpretation".

Why is your interpretation more reliable than the alternate interpretation in question?

I

Not interpreting a damned thing here, Implicator, just taking the words of the canon as written as the words of the canon as intended to be read. The notion that God's Revealed Word To Man requires an interpreter is ridiculous; either God speaking through the Biblical authors both inspired the Bible and meant what he said, or the whole deal is off.

0 Replies

No, talk. You should give it up. You can't lay your rigid template down on this.

My son and I are different human beings.

The Old Testament was (for those inclined to believe) a collection of books about a certain time, when certain realities existed. Pre-Christ.

The New Testament focused on a different set of realities---without throwing out the Old.

Gustav-- <smiles> Glad you liked it.

Re Islam, talk....good try, but it would depend on a person's beliefs. I could make the same case for Mormanism. I just don't believe Mohammad or Brigham Young. Many do--by your logic.

0 Replies

Questioner,

The Old Testament foretold of Christ's coming. And yes, the Bible does tell us what is important. Read my signature. It can't be much clearer than that. THAT is what is important.

0 Replies

The Gospels have authority over the secondary documentsas it contains Christ's words while the others are lower down the authority pole.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Questioner,

The Old Testament foretold of Christ's coming. And yes, the Bible does tell us what is important. Read my signature. It can't be much clearer than that. THAT is what is important.

When in doubt, toss out a slogan.

MA, nothing I've read thus far points to your conclusion. It's entirely possible that I'm missing some nugget of info that you've found, but I can't see any way to substantiate what you claim based upon the text in the bible.

0 Replies

Iam religious so I don't give a hoot. The Bible is Jewish folk lore and mythology. I am just arguing on logic.

0 Replies

Each person is led to the passages in the Bible, which are primary for them, by the authority of the Spirit.

Talk may choose for him/herself. Not for anyone else.

0 Replies

Questioner,

Ok, you lost me. Exactly what claim are you talking about?

0 Replies

Quote:

In the case of the Old Testament and New Testament, the Bible tells us what is primary.

0 Replies

Oops, I meant NOT religious.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Implicator wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
If you will go to that link I posted it explains about that.

So what that interpretation means is superior to what the words say, and most specifically with reference to 5 Matthew 17 et seq? Look up the word "sophistry".

I haven't read the link in question, nor do I make any claim as to the accuracy of what is found there, but it seems to me that you are implying you have a greater understanding of the text than the author of this "interpretation".

Why is your interpretation more reliable than the alternate interpretation in question?

I

Not interpreting a damned thing here, Implicator, just taking the words of the canon as written as the words of the canon as intended to be read. The notion that God's Revealed Word To Man requires an interpreter is ridiculous; either God speaking through the Biblical authors both inspired the Bible and meant what he said, or the whole deal is off.

Intended to be read? How do you know how the words of the Canon are "intended to be read". That sounds very much to me like a claim to have objective knowledge of the intention of the author. Is that what you are claiming?

More to the point - how would you respond if the other of this "other interpretation" made the same claim as you - that he was just reading the words of the Canon as they were intended to be read?

I

0 Replies

You don't find anything to substantiate that? If Christ was foretold in the Old Testament and the New Testament says what you need to do to have eternal life, how can that not substantiate it?

Why does the Bible get misinterpreted so often????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know