Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student
-
The Church decides on how the bible should be interpreted and taught. The lay people don't.
The Church compiled the books in the bible. So it doesn't make sense if someone says that the Christians twist the words. The bible teaching belongs to them in the first place. -
Sorry for being away for so long... Tying up the loose ends first
Aiyah... the prawn issue again..... well let's look at the context of Leviticus:
U see, Moses only have influence on israelites.
Leviticus
1:1The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting. He said, 2"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When any of you brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock.
bla bla bla bla bla bla
All the other tribes r probably killed and became slaves when moses is on the journey to the promised land. (those who believe r in judaism r "israelites", and not necessary must be the citizens of Israel) In fact when Jesus address the people on the mountian, when he deliver the speech they r all, in fact, Israelites as well.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven
And from tis passage, he already clearly stated tat people who follow the old laws r to be liked by god while those who do not follow the law r least liked by him. As said before, if u felt tat the old laws r for only israelites, then all the teachings from jesus r for israelites only as well since the whole religion starts basically from judaism.unless I am an Israelite, I'd say the entire book of Leviticus is not really meant for me, doctrinally
Then why do u think it is included in the bibleLike I say I really don't care what his comments are. I like him less than John Paul. He also condemned Harry Potter
However u do agree with him on the point of homosexual isn't it ?You assume that all bigamous relation are problematic. Might not be so.
If bigamous relation r not problematic, I have no problems with it. The whole point about bigamy is really started by u. If u felt tat it is only about translation and understanding of the bible, then why do u bring tis into the picture ?
My argument is NOT on discrimation. I have specifically stated that I am against discrimination.
My argument is about translation and understanding of the Bible.Well I have already stated who Leviticus is meant for.... the Israelites and their leaders. There are so many verses in this book stating clearly who should be reading it. So can we now give the prawn issue a rest. I just had three crayfish last night....
IMO, it is meant for people of the lord, as seen in DT 27
Then Moses and the priests, who are Levites, said to all Israel, "Be silent, O Israel, and listen! You have now become the people of the LORD your God.
And it sound completely reasonable since these laws apply for u if u r a believer of god and if u r not the people of god then u don't believe. If u think the laws r for israelites only, then why r these laws part of the bible ?The Church decides on how the bible should be interpreted and taught. The lay people don't.
I thought the bible is meant to be simple and everyone can understand them if they read it. Otherwise wat is the point of the bible when it is hard to understand, no one can interprete it and it is up to the imagination of a group of people to interprete themThe Church compiled the books in the bible. So it doesn't make sense if someone says that the Christians twist the words. The bible teaching belongs to them in the first place.
Lets put it tis way. They r already one sided to just proclaim the good side of the bible while defending against the words tat speak badly about it. -
so what!!! you and I agree on somethings also what... but that does not put us on that same side.... probably Hitler loves coffee too, like me.... but what does that prove....Originally posted by stupidissmart:However u do agree with him on the point of homosexual isn't it ?
the other things???? aiyah, sian already lah... 'cos no matter how much I can state about Leviticus for Jews, you also don't want to see that point. Why is it in the Bible.... I'll check with God when I see him 
among the thousand and one things I don't understand.... of course, by that time if I find that there is no God, then I won't be around to ask whoever that's around, if any at all....
Like I said... don't work too hard. -
I thought the bible is meant to be simple and everyone can understand them if they read it. Otherwise wat is the point of the bible when it is hard to understand, no one can interprete it and it is up to the imagination of a group of people to interprete them
Non Christians saying that Christians are one-sided or claiming to be better in interpreting the bible is like.... We ordinary people with ordinary IQ telling Einstein that his theory on E=MC2 is wrong and that we understand it better than him.
Lets put it tis way. They r already one sided to just proclaim the good side of the bible while defending against the words tat speak badly about it. -
2 gays arguing and then they go make out after that... wtf...
-
Non Christians saying that Christians are one-sided or claiming to be better in interpreting the bible is like.... We ordinary people with ordinary IQ telling Einstein that his theory on E=MC2 is wrong and that we understand it better than him
Einstein does not start off as a graduate but he is given a chance and he proves to be much more than professors. I think tat just because someone belong to another group doesn't means he is not qualified to ask questions nor give comments on tis issue -
So you mean to say that we can be more right than Einstein in the theory that he came out with?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Einstein does not start off as a graduate but he is given a chance and he proves to be much more than professors. I think tat just because someone belong to another group doesn't means he is not qualified to ask questions nor give comments on tis issue
What I am trying to say is :
E=MC2 came from Einstein. Thus he has the most accurate understanding of the theory.
Likewise for Christians, bible came from Christians. There is no way that non Christians can be any more right than Christians in interpreting the bible. -
So you mean to say that we can be more right than Einstein in the theory that he came out with?
Comparing einstein to his theory is akin to comparing jesus to the bible.
What I am trying to say is :
E=MC2 came from Einstein. Thus he has the most accurate understanding of the theory.
Likewise for Christians, bible came from Christians. There is no way that non Christians can be any more right than Christians in interpreting the bible. The christians now r not the christian then If u ask the decendents of einstein or the school which einstein teaches before their students now r not better than the other scientific researchers -
And where do the researchers get their knowledge of the theory from? Did they understand it on their own, or did they refer to Einstein's notes? I doubt they can just look at E=MC2 and straightaway know what it means.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Comparing einstein to his theory is akin to comparing jesus to the bible. The christians now r not the christian then If u ask the decendents of einstein or the school which einstein teaches before their students now r not better than the other scientific researchers
Likewise, as a non Christian, if you pick up a bible from a bookstore, do you think you can comprehend the Book of Revelation on your own, while all the Christians have to attend bible class? -
And where do the researchers get their knowledge of the theory from? Did they understand it on their own, or did they refer to Einstein's notes? I doubt they can just look at E=MC2 and straightaway know what it means.
A lot of them understand by looking at the textbook/papers/journals. The one tat really understand the usage of his theories do not have any classes to attend. Similarly if u wana understand the bible, u just need basically the bible. U do not have to go through classes to be brainwash to see only from a side. Lets put it simply. No man can really safely say they understand the scripture perfectly. They r merely guessing when it comes to contradiction or areas where it is dubious and unclear.
Likewise, as a non Christian, if you pick up a bible from a bookstore, do you think you can comprehend the Book of Revelation on your own, while all the Christians have to attend bible class? -
And where do the textbooks/papers/journals come from?Originally posted by stupidissmart:A lot of them understand by looking at the textbook/papers/journals. The one tat really understand the usage of his theories do not have any classes to attend. Similarly if u wana understand the bible, u just need basically the bible. U do not have to go through classes to be brainwash to see only from a side. Lets put it simply. No man can really safely say they understand the scripture perfectly. They r merely guessing when it comes to contradiction or areas where it is dubious and unclear.
It is not invented by the researchers themselves. They still have to get the knowledge somewhere. My argument is Nobody can interpret Einstein's theory on his/her own just by look at "E=MC2" (no notes, no journal, just by looking at the equation) unless you can name a Scientist who is able to do that. The first time you came across this equation, did you know straightaway know this is Theory of Relativity? Or you need your teachers or lecture notes to tell you? Or has any of the researchers managed to define E better than Einstein without having read anything from this great scientist?
Likewise, you can't just hold the bible, read the text and think that you understand it. Furthermore, I doubt anyone can understand the Book of Revelation just by looking at it.No man can really safely say they understand the scripture perfectly. They r merely guessing when it comes to contradiction or areas where it is dubious and unclear.
If Christians can't understand the scripture perfectly, what makes you think that non Christians with no relevant religious background can understand better?
"They r merely guessing" -- That's your guessing.
"dubious and unclear." -- This is where nonChristians will claim that it doesn't exist or not true as they dun want to appear ignorant.
If you think you can understand the bible better than any of the Christians, don't you think your understanding is just based on mere guessing too? -
And where do the textbooks/papers/journals come from?
Isn't the bible similar to notes from jesus
It is not invented by the researchers themselves. They still have to get the knowledge somewhere. My argument is Nobody can interpret Einstein's theory on his/her own just by look at "E=MC2" (no notes, no journal, just by looking at the equation) unless you can name a Scientist who is able to do that. The first time you came across this equation, did you know straightaway know this is Theory of Relativity? Or you need your teachers or lecture notes to tell you? Or has any of the researchers managed to define E better than Einstein without having read anything from this great scientist? If u wanna compare classes, the u talk about classes for both of them. If u wanna compare bible, then u talk about journals/papers/note. U can't talk about taking bible classes then for your einstein examples say tat u can't even have the notes.Likewise, you can't just hold the bible, read the text and think that you understand it. Furthermore, I doubt anyone can understand the Book of Revelation just by looking at it.
Why not ? U doubt anyone can understand the book of relevation ? Doesn't tat means either the writer cannot express himself clearly or the content is really imcomprehensible ? The people who interprete it probably faces the same problems as u and they r probably just smokingIf Christians can't understand the scripture perfectly, what makes you think that non Christians with no relevant religious background can understand better?
No, but from your starting post u already said tat non-christian can't interprete the bible. Wat makes u think they can't interprete the bible when u don't even knwo them"They r merely guessing" -- That's your guessing.
If they aren't guessing, and they r confirmed right, why do they split into so many denominations
"dubious and unclear." -- This is where nonChristians will claim that it doesn't exist or not true as they dun want to appear ignorant.If you think you can understand the bible better than any of the Christians, don't you think your understanding is just based on mere guessing too?
I didn't say my understanding of the bible is better than any people. I just think tat your view tat all non-christian don't understand the bible is wrong. -
I just have 2 comments:Originally posted by Honeybunz:If Christians can't understand the scripture perfectly, what makes you think that non Christians with no relevant religious background can understand better?
"They r merely guessing" -- That's your guessing.
"dubious and unclear." -- This is where nonChristians will claim that it doesn't exist or not true as they dun want to appear ignorant.
If you think you can understand the bible better than any of the Christians, don't you think your understanding is just based on mere guessing too?
1) Even though I'm atheist, I do respect Jesus a great deal. Jesus's mission is really to bring God to the common folks. Hence, it's strange to say that a common folk won't be able to understand the Bible.
2) The Bible was written by various authors ard 2000 yrs ago. The Book of Revelation, according to BBC's ancient evidences, was written to predict the fall of Rome. The reader at that time would understand the symbology used in the Book of Revelation. However, in the modern world, without understand the historical background when the Book was written, it's hard for nowadays common folks to understand. Anyway, the documentaries were made in consultation with theologists and historians. The most interesting thing they discovered is that the devil is not denoted by the number 666, but by 616. There was a copying error (there was no printing machines back then) as they managed to find an ancient copy of that book. 616 refers to emperor nero in ancient numberology (sp?) -
Originally posted by earthlings73:
I suppose killer boss meant a deeper understanding than surface reading.
[b]1) Even though I'm atheist, I do respect Jesus a great deal. Jesus's mission is really to bring God to the common folks. Hence, it's strange to say that a common folk won't be able to understand the Bible.
And to understand the Bible, one need to be knowledgable about the rest of Scripture .. the whole thing need to be interpreted in a framework .. you can't just pick Jesus and be ignorant about Isaiah, John the Baptist, Elijah etc.
One principle of biblical hermeneutics is using Scripture to interpret Scripture. Another principle is you cannot take something that has low occurence to be the main point. In other words, if you want to argue a position (eg. unconditional election), be prepared to have verses to back it up. -
im wondering. 1st Cor is for the Romans. We aren't Romans so it doesn't apply to us, going by Chin Eng's logic.
-
Not forgetting that Chinese arent god-chosen people....
-
Jesus started this movement. But the entire movement was carried out by the rest of the first generation Christians, isn't it? Christianity, when it first started, was a movement to bring God closer to the people, isn't it? So no matter who had written the Bible, it's meant to be easily understood by the common folks. If long as one can read, one can (hope to) understand what's in the Bible.Originally posted by Icemoon:I suppose killer boss meant a deeper understanding than surface reading.
And to understand the Bible, one need to be knowledgable about the rest of Scripture .. the whole thing need to be interpreted in a framework .. you can't just pick Jesus and be ignorant about Isaiah, John the Baptist, Elijah etc.
One principle of biblical hermeneutics is using Scripture to interpret Scripture. Another principle is you cannot take something that has low occurence to be the main point. In other words, if you want to argue a position (eg. unconditional election), be prepared to have verses to back it up.
This is a movement away from the more ancient Jewish priest practice when only certain high priest in a temple are "allowed" to speak on behalf of God.
-
Nope, God didn't say that. Besides, don't forget in the olden days, many people were illterate. And also common folks didn't have access to the bible until many centuries later.Originally posted by earthlings73:Jesus started this movement. But the entire movement was carried out by the rest of the first generation Christians, isn't it? Christianity, when it first started, was a movement to bring God closer to the people, isn't it? So no matter who had written the Bible, it's meant to be easily understood by the common folks. If long as one can read, one can (hope to) understand what's in the Bible.
This is a movement away from the more ancient Jewish priest practice when only certain high priest in a temple are "allowed" to speak on behalf of God. -
Even the Jews cannot just pick up the Torah scroll, read it and understand. That's why most Hebrew bibles come with a commentary by Rashi, and Jews study the Talmud - the Oral Tradition codified.
-
I suppose killer boss meant a deeper understanding than surface reading.
In short. the non-believers still can read the bible and understand them. Otherwise it really puzzle me on why does anyone become a believer if they don't understand the bible as they r a non-believer
And to understand the Bible, one need to be knowledgable about the rest of Scripture .. the whole thing need to be interpreted in a framework .. you can't just pick Jesus and be ignorant about Isaiah, John the Baptist, Elijah etc.
One principle of biblical hermeneutics is using Scripture to interpret Scripture. Another principle is you cannot take something that has low occurence to be the main point. In other words, if you want to argue a position (eg. unconditional election), be prepared to have verses to back it up.Nope, God didn't say that. Besides, don't forget in the olden days, many people were illterate. And also common folks didn't have access to the bible until many centuries later.
Isn't tat making the very few people having absolute power and interprete it watever they want while letting the masses bleed because they can't even have a chance to gauge themselves. Wat good can tis bible be ?Even the Jews cannot just pick up the Torah scroll, read it and understand. That's why most Hebrew bibles come with a commentary by Rashi, and Jews study the Talmud - the Oral Tradition codified.
If they can't read it and understand, then it really just show the writer can't express himself clearly or the content is dubious -
If God didn't want to get close to the common folk, why would He inspired the Bible to be written?Originally posted by Honeybunz:Nope, God didn't say that. Besides, don't forget in the olden days, many people were illterate. And also common folks didn't have access to the bible until many centuries later.
Yah, that's why I said "as long as one can read".
True, but that has to do with printing technology. But then, if the Bible is really as obsure as what you claimed, shouldn't there be a problem with interpretation as it was passed down from one generation to the other? -
and thats where the Catholic Church comes in. Like when we're conducting bible study classes in Uni... the priest or a deacon will always be present to make sure that the leaders are not taking things out of contextOriginally posted by earthlings73:If God didn't want to get close to the common folk, why would He inspired the Bible to be written?
Yah, that's why I said "as long as one can read".
True, but that has to do with printing technology. But then, if the Bible is really as obsure as what you claimed, shouldn't there be a problem with interpretation as it was passed down from one generation to the other? -
Anyone read today ST, back page, on the Vatican and RC?
-
can anyone summarise for me? i'm in aussie now... dun think i can get my hands on the STOriginally posted by laurence82:Anyone read today ST, back page, on the Vatican and RC? -
It's for the Church Teachings.Originally posted by earthlings73:If God didn't want to get close to the common folk, why would He inspired the Bible to be written?
Yah, that's why I said "as long as one can read".
True, but that has to do with printing technology. But then, if the Bible is really as obsure as what you claimed, shouldn't there be a problem with interpretation as it was passed down from one generation to the other?