Can Atheists Correctly Interpret the Meaning of Scripture?

duplicate post.

 

The bulk of scripture is pretty "straight forward", however there will always be things, that we may never truly understand. To me that speaks of the divine nature of it. If you could understand the "mind" of God completely, then you've either brought God down to your level, or elevated yourself to His level. Even Peter stated that Paul's writings were hard to understand, so not understanding scripture completely, puts you in some pretty good company. And Paul talked about the "mysteries of God", some revealed and some not.

 

He asked a valid question. If you have an answer share it.

 

Go figure, a book attempting to convince people that a God exists claims that everyone knows that God exists...

It also claims that rabbits chew the cud and bats are birds, so why should anyone trust it when it claims everyone knows God exists?

 

Can Christians and Atheists correctly interpret the meanings of the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita?

I 'spect so.

 

The Lion of Judah is the one we await for that very task.


Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

 

The Hebrew word translated as "Rabbit" by the English doesn't mean rabbit nor hare.

The ancient world used Locomotion as the means of classifying animals, so birds, flying insects, bats, and winged squirrels, etc are referred to as a classification.

 

7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

 

Of course it can be be traced back to that.

I think this may help you to understand what I mean by „Church Tradition“ (ecclesial tradition):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_tradition

Within its own system it wouldn't be much of a problem for the Catholic Church to get rid of celibacy if it wanted to.

Sorry, I didn’t study theology for long, but I studied it long enough to know that you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. Theology can’t possibly teach faith, because faith is not teachable. Amongst other things theology teaches “Dogmatics” and “Systematic Theology” and “Church law”. But you can know all about dogmatics , how doctrines were derived, what their history is and how they can be interpreted without believing in any of their contents: Just as you can learn about Karl Barth’s view on dogmatics without subscribing to any of his teachings when studying Theology , you can learn about what Marx’s ideas on economics were without turning communist when studying sociology or politics or what Foucault meant by “discourse” without becoming a post-structuralist when studying philosophy.

What you presumably see as “science based” has been/is developed and taught at (accredited) Theological Faculties, for example methods and of textual criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism) and historical-critical exegesis (http://users.wfu.edu/horton/r102/hc-method.html) . The curriculum usually also contains comparative religious studies by the way.

Seriously: the best way to make your average bible-belt evangelical question articles of his literalist faith would be to send him to theological seminaries such as in Oxford or Princeton.

 

Yes, well, once you have proof for your assertion, I'll listen.

This kind of response is useless to me. If you're claiming that I'm starting from a deceitful position, then we have nothing further to discuss. If you have any reason for me to trust the veracity of Romans 1, I'm all ears.

 

GP, your suppose to buy it because it came from the Bible. Haven't you heard?

 

I stand corrected.
I still maintain that your time in prayer is better served elsewhere.

thanks.

 

Where did you hear that lie?

 

From Christians who claim that the Bible is inerrant.

 

Well it is my belief that, it must be inerrant, because no one has irrefutably proven it to be in error. A lot of people who oppose the Bible make all sorts of opinions and state all sorts of things that they call evidence, but the amazing part is that none of the opinions, claims, or alleged evidence will ever amount to irrefutable proof that the Bible is in error.

 

that's like arguing for or against inerrancy in Star Wars, or The Princess Bride. who the F cares. it's entertainment (in the bible's case, dull entertainment)!

 

But you still cannot irrefutably prove the Bible to be in error. Enjoy the entertainment.

 

here's how that sounds to someone outside the bubble:

you cannot irrefutably prove that the holy tomes passed down to us from the Father of the Sticks and Bells are in error. therefore .... "Morris Dancing wins!"

 

No! What it really sounds like is that you are still inside the bubble because you are still responding to the words that are inside the bubble.

 

You have to work that out for yourself. I do not have a problem with it. John 3:16-21.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. Because it is a belief system based on the flesh, not the spirit.

 

You are starting from a decieved position, not a deceitful position.

That is a fair question. The principle passage is Romans 1: 18 -23. The problem in understanding these truths is unbelief. If you do not accept that God will deal with us personally with wrath for not believeing in his son Jesus Christ, then it is a unbridgable chasim. Vs 20 says that God's invisable attributes and his eternal power and divine nature are clearly percieved. But you and other unbelievers do not or will not acknowledge that. I suspect that is the same case in the garden, when God's clear command was known by man, yet when decieved, they disobeyed when they actively did not honor God or give thanks to him and in futility questioned God's purpose and his soverignty, so they were self righteous fools with out excuse, and God being true to his word, introduced death into the human experience as well as strife and toil and pain and sickness. Again, only the Spirit of the Living God can ignite understanding from the dead coals of unbelief. I really can not say what Romans 1 says better than Romans 1 itself. I sincerely hope that helps you, I will try to answer all your questions as best I can.

 

Ad ignorantiam. Also, an argument from a deceitful position.

Because, once again, Incorporeal, such irrefutable proof is impossible.

 

Oh my goodness.. Did I commit a logical fallacy???? Did you ever find that code, rule, regulation, statute, law, TOS that mandates all persons to justify their beliefs? No? Oh Well... try again.

Then you admit that you cannot show irrefutable proof that "the Bible is in error"? Good.

 

Is it the bible inspired by santa claus to which you refer? Then I could agree.

 

Actually I don't know of a Bible that was inspired by santa claus. Is it available on the open market? Where can I obtain a copy or at least more information about it?