Two! Four! Six! Eight! JaySecrets Prevaricates!

[JaySecrets]

Geological records disagree with your bible.

The geological record is exactly what was predicted if there was a worldwide flood with lots of water, lots of heat, lots of pressure, and lots of death. What you don't have is neat layering. What you do have is heavier stuff at the bottom, lighter stuff at the top. What you do have is various kinds mingling together. What you do have is curves without breaks. What you do have is single trees upside down through several layers you say are millions of years apart, at various stages of fossilization. In other words, the record doesn't prove what you claim.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Jesus said, "I am the door", does that mean He is a literal door? Use common sense. Paul uses an idiom that was similar to our, "over and over and over again". Proverbs uses the term "give ear", almost identical to our "lend me your ears". There are countless passages in Psalms describing the beauty of nature in almost identical poetic language as we use today. In fact, use of idiom and style is so translatable and easily passed through time and cultures that the ones who penned the various Books of the Bible are easily identified by writing style. We even use the same principle today. Pablo Neruda was a Chilean poet who wrote only in Spanish. But his poetry is beautifully communicated, with it's full weight and intent, in its English (and other language) translations.

You are very much being obtuse. You refuse to apply the same common sense rules of literature and communication that you use with any other document, with your own speech, to the Bible... because you want to twist the words to find fault. You didn't say this morning, "That's a beautiful earth rotation", you said (I hope you were able to enjoy the beauty), "That was an amazing sunrise". But the sun didn't rise. You used the same kind of language the Bible does. Have you now denied science?

Ok, so now you’re saying Jesus spoke English?
No one is being obtuse here, you keep failing to understand that no one was there to hear what anyone in the Bible said and it wasn’t originally in English. It was translated and edited from other languages into English.

Which doesn’t address the issue I raised earlier, you have no way of knowing which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are metaphors. So there’s no way for you to say that a character in the Bible was using an idiom or being literal.

 

[JaySecrets]

Trying to answer your multi quotes typing on a phone and jumping between multiple pages to cite (part of the reason citing is a pain for me and makes me have to retype multiple times sometimes). So maybe, instead of multiple attacks flooding the zone. Give me time to answer your challenges before flooding the zone again.

 

[JaySecrets]

Ok, so now you’re saying Jesus spoke English?
No one is being obtuse here, you keep failing to understand that no one was there to hear what anyone in the Bible said and it wasn’t originally in English. It was translated and edited from other languages into English.

I never claimed.... Dude, you are a moron. Of course it was in Greek and Hebrew. I said the idioms translate over well because of common thought. You obtuse willful idiot.

Which doesn’t address the issue I raised earlier, you have no way of knowing which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are metaphors. So there’s no way for you to say that a character in the Bible was using an idiom or being literal.

Of course there are. As any literate person will tell you. Maybe pick up some books and start reading. Or pay attention to how humans normally talk

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Go through the credentials of the scientists at the ICR...

https://www.icr.org/article/consider-source

Or perhaps this list of uneducated idiots...

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/

Your claims have no merit

But that’s isn’t how science works. It’s one think you say it in a religious publication. It’s quite another thing to publish it in a paper that’s going to be reviewed by other scientists. For something to be scientific it has to be repeatable. So if one scientist has evidence that the universe is 6,000 years old they have to present it, other scientists repeat the experiment or review the evidence and get the same result. One would think that someone who has some college education would know this.

Do you have a link to a peer reviewed paper where a scientist presents evidence that the Earth is about 6,000 years old?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I never claimed.... Dude, you are a moron. Of course it was in Greek and Hebrew. I said the idioms translate over well because of common thought. You obtuse willful idiot.

Of course there are. As any literate person will tell you. Maybe pick up some books and start reading. Or pay attention to how humans normally talk

So just to confirm you’re agreeing with me that there’s no way to be able to tell which parts of the Bible should be taken literally and which are poetic.

The Bible contains God talking, you’re saying God talks like a human and uses idioms?

 

[JaySecrets]

So just to confirm you’re agreeing with me that there’s no way to be able to tell which parts of the Bible should be taken literally and which are poetic.

The Bible contains God talking, you’re saying God talks like a human and uses idioms?

I am saying God used men to pen His words to men because He loves mankind that much. I am saying a loving God condescended to man because man can't reach Him. I am saying He uses language we can understand. I am saying the normal rules of metaphor and simile and literal apply to the Scriptures. I am saying anyone who bothers actually reading it honestly can tell the difference. I am saying it is written on an elementary school reading level, and children understand what you don't because you won't open the book and read. I am saying to stop quoting others attacks and extensions of them, stop being intentionally obtuse, and just read what the book says in context. Judge for yourself. Or more wisely, be judged by it.

 

[JaySecrets]

But that’s isn’t how science works. It’s one think you say it in a religious publication. It’s quite another thing to publish it in a paper that’s going to be reviewed by other scientists. For something to be scientific it has to be repeatable. So if one scientist has evidence that the universe is 6,000 years old they have to present it, other scientists repeat the experiment or review the evidence and get the same result. One would think that someone who has some college education would know this.

Do you have a link to a peer reviewed paper where a scientist presents evidence that the Earth is about 6,000 years old?

Those scientists are higher credentialed in their sciences and more accomplished than you will ever be. And many of them were the ones that defined what we know science to be today. Read the lists before you pass judgement. Always a problem for your side

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Those scientists are higher credentialed in their sciences and more accomplished than you will ever be. And many of them were the ones that defined what we know science to be today. Read the lists before you pass judgement. Always a problem for your side

Ok, so we agree those scientists have no evidence or proof that anything in the Bible is true. Thanks.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Those scientists are higher credentialed in their sciences and more accomplished than you will ever be. And many of them were the ones that defined what we know science to be today. Read the lists before you pass judgement. Always a problem for your side

We’re in agreement again. There’s no way for anyone to tell when the Bible is being literal or using a metaphor.

 

[ll74]

Try that with a traffic cop. You still end up with a ticket.

An actual ticket because of an actual law.

Correct

So show me. Show me ONE EXAMPLE of one kind changing into another kind - cat to dog, corn to apple, fish to mammal, anything, that is observable and repeatable. If it is true it should be easy. Just one example that can be observed using the scientific method.

I did. You said it didn't count.

So where did all the mass of material for the universe come from? In a vacuum, with nothing to impede the outward blast or cause deflection, how did so many particals suddenly change direction instead of either flying infinitely outward or collapsing on itself after the bang? What triggered the bang? How did life come to be? (All they can do in a lab is create the strands, they can't give life to them, and that is in a very highly controlled environment.) How is it that every law of thermodynamics can be violated at the start then somehow become viable?

No laws were violated. We don't know what came before the big bang. There are theories.

You are describing adaptation. Micro-evolution. No one denies that happens. But what you believe requires a leap to a change between kinds, and we can't even do that today in controlled cross breeding

Yes, you don't believe that evolution exists.

It does.

.

I don't, nor does any true Christian, desire hell for anyone. We do all we can to warn people from it. Even our enemies. Our God says, "Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you. Do good to them who spitefully use you and say all manner of evil against you falsely."

Sure ya don't.

And you are in a far worse state when you find out you were wrong and ignored and denied every chance and revelation of the Truth.

Your religion means nothing to me. Zero. Whether you think that's bad or good also means nothing to me.

 

[JaySecrets]

Ok, so we agree those scientists have no evidence or proof that anything in the Bible is true. Thanks.

They actually have quite the opposite. They present a LOT of evidence. I fact, the very basis of some of their discoveries began with the Bible.

 

[JaySecrets]

We’re in agreement again. There’s no way for anyone to tell when the Bible is being literal or using a metaphor.

CYRANO

Lightly I toss my hat away,Languidly over my arm let fallThe cloak that covers my bright array—Then out swords, and to work withal!A Launcelot, in his Lady's hall...A Spartacus, at the Hippodrome!...I dally awhile with you, dear jackal,Then, as I end the refrain, thrust home!(The swords cross—the fight is on.)Where shall I skewer my peacock?... Nay,Better for you to have shunned this brawl!—Here, in the heart, thro' your ribbons gay?—In the belly, under your silken shawl?Hark, how the steel rings musical!Mark how my point floats, light as the foam,Ready to drive you back to the wall,Then, as I end the refrain, thrust home!Ho, for a rime!... You are white as whey—You break, you cower, you cringe, you... crawl!Tac!—and I parry your last essay:So may the turn of a hand forstallLife with its honey, death with its gall;So may the turn of my fancy roamFree, for a time, till the rimes recall,Then, as I end the refrain, thrust home!Refrain: Prince! Pray God, that is Lord of all,Pardon your soul, for your time has come!Beat—pass—fling you aslant, asprawl—Then, as I end the refrain...(He lunges; Valvert staggers back and fall into the arms of his friends. Cyrano recovers, and salutes.)—Thrust home!

Can you tell what is metaphor and what is literal in this text? Of course you can. Because the literal and the metaphor, while intermingled, are clear. The same is true of any text, including Scripture. That you say it can't be distinguished by the same common sense rules is disingenuous at best, and proves you have not read the actual text in context for yourself.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

CYRANO

Can you tell what is metaphor and what is literal in this text? Of course you can. Because the literal and the metaphor, while intermingled, are clear. The same is true of any text, including Scripture. That you say it can't be distinguished by the same common sense rules is disingenuous at best, and proves you have not read the actual text in context for yourself.

Because this is a play, not a religious text.
It’s odd that someone who attended some college wouldn’t know the difference.

 

[Rightguide]

CYRANO

Can you tell what is metaphor and what is literal in this text? Of course you can. Because the literal and the metaphor, while intermingled, are clear. The same is true of any text, including Scripture. That you say it can't be distinguished by the same common sense rules is disingenuous at best, and proves you have not read the actual text in context for yourself.

The person you just asked will have to look up the word metaphor, just sayin'.

 

[JaySecrets]

Because this is a play, not a religious text.
It’s odd that someone who attended some college wouldn’t know the difference.

The rules of textual interpretation don't change. Literature is literature from an interpretation standpoint.

 

[ll74]

The rules of textual interpretation don't change. Literature is literature from an interpretation standpoint.

Interpretation is a key word there. Your interpretation is not the same as anyone else's. Interpretation is completely subjective. That would be why there are hundreds of different sects of Christianity in the world.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The rules of textual interpretation don't change. Literature is literature from an interpretation standpoint.

Actually they do because a person reads a play differently than they read an instruction manual.
One would think someone who attended some college or has ever read different types of texts would know this.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Interpretation is a key word there. Your interpretation is not the same as anyone else's. Interpretation is completely subjective. That would be why there are hundreds of different sects of Christianity in the world.

And different versions of the Bible.

 

[JaySecrets]

Actually they do because a person reads a play differently than they read an instruction manual.
One would think someone who attended some college or has ever read different types of texts would know this.

Read what I said. "Textual interpretation". Whether it is poetry or textbooks, sermons or sonnets, the rules remain the same. Obviously then, you look at context. A play or a poem gives you context to tell which is metaphor and which is literal. Beyond simile ("My love is like a red, red rose..."), metaphor becomes obvious ("Come fly to me, my turtle dove, my dearest love..." - turtle dove is obviously metaphor, dearest love is not) set against the literal. Normal usage tells you which is which. Clearly an instruction manual, by its very context, isn't using a lot of metaphor. It may make use of simile to clarify ("the spotting should look like a dalmatian..." obviously not saying it should look like a dog but the dog's coloration) but rarely if ever the other. But notice, the same rules apply. The Bible is a Book with histories, poetry, songs, legal language, prophecies in both literal and poetic forms, theology, and more. The same rules of textual study apply. Nothing changes. The immediate context, the context of the book or passage, and the comparison to other similar passages or teachings in the Book make the meaning, and the literal vs simile vs metaphor obvious. But you should already know this if you are any kind of student of words.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Read what I said. "Textual interpretation". Whether it is poetry or textbooks, sermons or sonnets, the rules remain the same. Obviously then, you look at context. A play or a poem gives you context to tell which is metaphor and which is literal. Beyond simile ("My love is like a red, red rose..."), metaphor becomes obvious ("Come fly to me, my turtle dove, my dearest love..." - turtle dove is obviously metaphor, dearest love is not) set against the literal. Normal usage tells you which is which. Clearly an instruction manual, by its very context, isn't using a lot of metaphor. It may make use of simile to clarify ("the spotting should look like a dalmatian..." obviously not saying it should look like a dog but the dog's coloration) but rarely if ever the other. But notice, the same rules apply. The Bible is a Book with histories, poetry, songs, legal language, prophecies in both literal and poetic forms, theology, and more. The same rules of textual study apply. Nothing changes. The immediate context, the context of the book or passage, and the comparison to other similar passages or teachings in the Book make the meaning, and the literal vs simile vs metaphor obvious. But you should already know this if you are any kind of student of words.

And again, no they don’t. People don’t read poetry the same way they read a manual.

 

[JaySecrets]

And different versions of the Bible.

Every word for word translation (version is a poor choice of word) says essentially the same things, is consistent with the original text, and does not contradict. I actually use the KJV and NASB, along with Greek and Hebrew tools to study. The phrase for phrase and concept for concept "translations" (think NIV for example) are poor translations because they leave room for the translator's bias instead of a word-for-word, it says what it says translation.

 

[ll74]

Every word for word translation (version is a poor choice of word) says essentially the same things, is consistent with the original text, and does not contradict. I actually use the KJV and NASB, along with Greek and Hebrew tools to study. The phrase for phrase and concept for concept "translations" (think NIV for example) are poor translations because they leave room for the translator's bias instead of a word-for-word, it says what it says translation.

Which is why some Christians support lgbtq+ and some support a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. And some don't.

(Can't wait for the "they aren't real Christians" response)

Same book

 

[JaySecrets]

And again, no they don’t. People don’t read poetry the same way they read a manual.

Wrong. They don't normally read a manual AS poetry, but they apply the same textual interpretation rules. In fact, it's those very rules that tell you that you're reading a literal manual as opposed to poetic metaphor. Not reading it in the same way does not change the interpretation rules; those rules dictate how each is read and understood.

 

[JaySecrets]

Which is why some Christians support lgbtq+ and some support a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. And some don't.

(Can't wait for the "they aren't real Christians" response)

Same book

Some so called Christians call themselves that, but not based on any Biblical definition, which is the only legitimate definition, just as the Koran defines what Islam is.

A true Christian, according to the Bible, is one who has put their faith and trust in Christ and Christ alone as their Lord and their Savior. They don't put their trust in their own works to get them to God. They don't trust their own merit to keep them with God. And they treat seriously the Word that God put forth as His. Because of this, any true Christian is going to have to take certain stances because the Book takes certain stances. If you don't believe the Book, then you have no basis to call yourself a Christian by very definition. It would be like me going out and slaughtering a bunch of people in the name of the great white buffalo and being labeled a native American murderer. What I did had nothing to do with what I claimed.

The Bible actually warns against those who would claim to be Christians and are not and would go around denying by their actions the very Faith they claim. So those who would be for abortion or would support homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle, those very same people deny the legitimacy of the Scripture that is the very basis of their so-called faith.