Priest Dies demonstrating how to walk on water

Mindonfire wrote:

Exactly. That's why you have so many different interpretations. Another reason is because the Bible was written to exist in multiple realities. So in order to interpret it correctly you have to decipher it in accordance with the reality that you exist in.

To interpret the Hebrew Bible correctly, you must first be able to read Hebrew . Then you must be able to apply your knowledge of Hebrew to the Biblical text of the Torah.

To interpret the Bible correctly all you will need is the KJV, a dictionary and a clear understanding of Reality

Mindonfire wrote:

To interpret the Bible correctly all you will need is the KJV, a dictionary and a clear understanding of Reality

How can you interpret the bible 'correctly' when it's a purely subjective ink blot? There is no 'correctness' to subjectivity.

rosborne979 wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:

To interpret the Bible correctly all you will need is the KJV, a dictionary and a clear understanding of Reality

How can you interpret the bible 'correctly' when it's a purely subjective ink blot? There is no 'correctness' to subjectivity.

Well, because the Bible is not purely subjective. It allows you to interpret it subjectively or the way that you may feel is right, but that does not mean that your interpretation is correct. Just as if we say that, "That dog is green". You may interpret that to mean that we are talking about a dog that is colored green. But while you may think that, we are actually saying that the dog is new. This is because green also means new.

Mindonfire wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:

To interpret the Bible correctly all you will need is the KJV, a dictionary and a clear understanding of Reality

How can you interpret the bible 'correctly' when it's a purely subjective ink blot? There is no 'correctness' to subjectivity.

Well, because the Bible is not purely subjective. It allows you to interpret it subjectively or the way that you may feel is right, but that does not mean that your interpretation is correct. Just as if we say that, "That dog is green". You may interpret that to mean that we are talking about a dog that is colored green. But while you may think that, we are actually saying that the dog is new. This is because green also means new.

I think you're just talking in circles. But as long as it makes sense to you, go for it.

I think you're just talking in circles. But as long as it makes sense to you, go for it.

rosborne979 wrote:

I think you're just talking in circles. But as long as it makes sense to you, go for it.

All Mindy seems to be saying is basically what Jesus said: "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes." (Matthew 11:25)

The Bible was written to be understood by the unlettered and ordinary without the aid of a select priesthood. Understanding is as much a function of one's attitude and willingness to learn as intellectual capacity.

What baffles me is that none of his supposed congregation went in to save him!

You're not supposed to go diving into the "walk on water" miracle. You're supposed to start with the "water into wine" one, then do the "fishes feed the masses" one, THEN do the water one. He just did them out of order.

This is a bunch of people who actually wasted their time going to the shore to watch him wade out into the water. Did they actually expect anything else to happen?

"Hey Fred."
"Yep?"
"There goes the reverand."
"Yep"
"He's up to his neck, do you think he knows he's not walking on water yet?"
"Well, he's gone now."
"Yep"
"Five bucks says he comes up in three minutes"
tick tick tick
"You owe me five bucks"
"Do you think we should do something?"
"Too late now"
"Yep"
"Let's get somethin to eat"

What baffles me is that none of his supposed congregation went in to save him!

Were they as faithful as him?

Do they still go to Church?