Creationist child abusers close doors

PostmodernProphet said:
is being vacant the same as being vacancy?......

link was to the same Hebrew interlinear as before, Genesis 1...................is a scholar reputable if he thinks something which is obviously wrong?.......curious that an atheist would consider any theological scholar reputable unless he refuted the truth of Scripture......is your reliance disingenuous?...
Click to expand...

Being vacancy? Why don't you explain the difference you think this makes?

Yes, it is the same.

Clicking om the link produces a 403 forbidden error..

So you are refuting the truth of scripture to show the scripture is uncannily accurate?

It has nothing to do with refuting the truth of scripture. It has to do with accurately representing what was intended.
 
Professor Baxter said:
So you are refuting the truth of scripture to show the scripture is uncannily accurate?
Click to expand...

not at all.....I am questioning your bizarre literalist claims, given the fact you reject it as truth in the first place......."it cannot be considered true because if you understand it literally it cannot be true and you are not allowed to consider it as anything other than literal truth"......

seems a rather circular argument to me......

sort of like criticizing Sandburg, by saying fog cannot possibly be considered to share any characteristics with cats unless it can be declawed......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
the difference between being there but untenanted and not being there.....
Click to expand...

There is no difference.

Nearly every translation, and especially the older ones, have it as vacant or uninhabited. The following passages do not make sense without the earth being there. It says he gathered the waters to let the dry land appear, but how does that work without an earth.

The Hebrews and earlier Christians were geocentric and the Bible was a major factor in their errant argument for the view.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it isn't a question of being new and imaginative.....its a question of going back to the original and looking at what is there instead of relying on assumptions......its like the image people have of angels having a pair of wings.....the only beings described anywhere in the Bible as having wings are the seraphim, who are said to have six....angels are only described in circumstances that show they are indistinguishable from humans.....
Click to expand...

Regardless, it's new and imaginative on your part at least because you are among a very few who are willing to do it. Most will reject the bulk of your interpretations and the liberalists will put them down completely. Undisputedly, you are among a ver few who are willing to look for new interpretations.

I think you are going to run into some tough problems with reconciling the bible to your modern day beliefs but you've shown for the most part to be capable of doing that so far from what I've read. There's nothing that can't be reinterpreted when the literal interpretation doesn't stand in your way.

I don't know what Baxter's motives are but it appears that he's a very angry person and he needs to argue religion even though it's out of his realm of thinking. If he would make an attempt to understand the possibilities then you two may eventually find some common ground. However, I don't think Baxter has any interest in finding any common ground and for that reason you should just play him along if you don't want to even try to convert him.
 
monty1 said:
Regardless, it's new and imaginative on your part at least because you are among a very few who are willing to do it. Most will reject the bulk of your interpretations and the liberalists will put them down completely. Undisputedly, you are among a ver few who are willing to look for new interpretations.

I think you are going to run into some tough problems with reconciling the bible to your modern day beliefs but you've shown for the most part to be capable of doing that so far from what I've read. There's nothing that can't be reinterpreted when the literal interpretation doesn't stand in your way.

I don't know what Baxter's motives are but it appears that he's a very angry person and he needs to argue religion even though it's out of his realm of thinking. If he would make an attempt to understand the possibilities then you two may eventually find some common ground. However, I don't think Baxter has any interest in finding any common ground and for that reason you should just play him along if you don't want to even try to convert him.
Click to expand...

But then what is the point in reinterpreting it? If we can do that on Genesis then we can do it it with Leviticus and all the preaching of Paul.

There is nothing here out of my realm of thinking. You continue to insult with your arrogant and completely ignorant comments. You don't get what it is pmp is after. He has told you and you are still missing it. He is not claiming to reinterpret. He wants to hit a reset switch, wipe away the history of inaccurate claims from the religion and pretend his understanding is THE original and valid one. He is cuckoo, like a holocaust denier.

My interest is in truth and since pmp is thoroughly dishonest, delusional and dumb there is no likelihood of common ground. Why do I need to find common ground with old and debunked fairy tales or reimagined and debunked fairy tales? Your are so ignorant and naive you think what he is doing is new or imaginative. It is not. His bullshit is old and tired. He is doing the same thing Ditzy did and it was old an tired then.
 
Professor Baxter said:
But then what is the point in reinterpreting it? If we can do that on Genesis then we can do it it with Leviticus and all the preaching of Paul.

There is nothing here out of my realm of thinking. You continue to insult with your arrogant and completely ignorant comments. You don't get what it is pmp is after. He has told you and you are still missing it. He is not claiming to reinterpret. He wants to hit a reset switch, wipe away the history of inaccurate claims from the religion and pretend his understanding is THE original and valid one. He is cuckoo, like a holocaust denier.

My interest is in truth and since pmp is thoroughly dishonest, delusional and dumb there is no likelihood of common ground. Why do I need to find common ground with old and debunked fairy tales or reimagined and debunked fairy tales? Your are so ignorant and naive you think what he is doing is new or imaginative. It is not. His bullshit is old and tired. He is doing the same thing Ditzy did and it was old an tired then.
Click to expand...

Interpreting rather than reinterpreting. If some modern day Christians are capable of doing that then I can respect them for it. The literal translations don't work but many people are coming to accept a God figure which is outside and separate from traditional teaching. PMP has just found his own way of doing that.

I don't think it's delusional and dumb; it's just a work in progress of trying to imagine possibilities that can align with science and 21st. century knowledge. As long as he stays with that then I think you are the one who needs to pull in your horns a bit. Your abusive profanity doesn't do anything for your reputation around here.

And kriste knows, if you're a libertarian then we have to take anything you say with a grain of salt anyway. Your fucking crazy trumps the Christians any day.

Relax, there's nothing in it for you other than proving you are a closed minded prick. And that's something consistent with your libertarian nonsense too!
 
Jews that I know believe Noah's Ark to be a child's story, not an epic historical account. I'm sure there are some out there somewhere that believe every ounce of the Torah, but I don't know them.
 
monty1 said:
Interpreting rather than reinterpreting. If some modern day Christians are capable of doing that then I can respect them for it. The literal translations don't work but many people are coming to accept a God figure which is outside and separate from traditional teaching. PMP has just found his own way of doing that.

I don't think it's delusional and dumb; it's just a work in progress of trying to imagine possibilities that can align with science and 21st. century knowledge. As long as he stays with that then I think you are the one who needs to pull in your horns a bit. Your abusive profanity doesn't do anything for your reputation around here.

And kriste knows, if you're a libertarian then we have to take anything you say with a grain of salt anyway. Your fucking crazy trumps the Christians any day.

Relax, there's nothing in it for you other than proving you are a closed minded prick. And that's something consistent with your libertarian nonsense too!
Click to expand...

No, he is REinterpreting from translations. The Hebrews held a geocentric view of cosmology as did early Christians. That is well know and an incontrovertible fact, not a matter of theological perspective.

You don't know pmp or understand his position. He has told you just that. He supports an extremely conservative interpretation of the Bible, except when it is untenable or does not suit him, in which case he turns to reinterpretations that will allow him to hold on to his own dogmatism and insistence on conformity.

Again, fuck you, you arrogant and ignorant little brat.

What is your example of my crazy? It's obviously based upon some close minded view you have of what you think libertarianism but I am guessing you understand it about as well as you do pmp.
 
Professor Baxter said:
But then what is the point in reinterpreting it?
Click to expand...

obviously, recognizing that the previous interpretation is wrong should be point enough in itself.....

He supports an extremely conservative interpretation of the Bible
Click to expand...

actually, it's less conservative than the one you put forward....

he turns to reinterpretations that will allow him to hold on to his own dogmatism and insistence on conformity
Click to expand...

I will admit to preferring interpretations that conform to observed reality.....that would appear to be my "dogmatism".....however, I would never challenge the original text.....I only challenge the assumptions people have about what the original text actually says.....

for example, I frequently hear atheists complain that the Bible says God created light on the first day but didn't create the sun that gives it until day four.....yet simply looking at the text shows the Bible doesn't say he created light on the first day....he created day and night......reality over assumption.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously, recognizing that the previous interpretation is wrong should be point enough in itself.....



actually, it's less conservative than the one you put forward....
Click to expand...

The previous interpretation was not "wrong" as it is what the authors intended. Their cosmology was uncannily inaccurate. Your reinterpretation still does not make any sense and you have failed to deal with the points I raised about how it does not fit with the passages that follow.

But, okay, whatever, you lying little snake. That opens the previous interpretation of other scriptures up, as well.
 
once upon a time, before the earth even existed, there was nothing but darkness.....the spirit of God was there......and when he spoke, time began......it was the first day and it was good.....

what DID the authors intend?......apparently they told you....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
once upon a time, before the earth even existed, there was nothing but darkness.....the spirit of God was there......and when he spoke, time began......it was the first day and it was good.....

what DID the authors intend?......apparently they told you....
Click to expand...

How stupid do you have to be that you are not getting this yet?

It's pretty clear, they intended to depict a geocentric and grossly inaccurate cosmology. You cant deal with the fact that it was wrong and so you have tried to change their meaning.
 
Professor Baxter said:
How stupid do you have to be that you are not getting this yet?

It's pretty clear, they intended to depict a geocentric and grossly inaccurate cosmology. You cant deal with the fact that it was wrong and so you have tried to change their meaning.
Click to expand...

/shrugs......I think its pretty clear you intend to shape them into a grossly inaccurate cosmology because you couldn't deal with a Bible that wasn't what you want it to appear....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs......I think its pretty clear you intend to shape them into a grossly inaccurate cosmology because you couldn't deal with a Bible that wasn't what you want it to appear....
Click to expand...

Bullshit. I am referencing what it has always been understood to mean. You are using "new and imaginative" interpretations because you are too stupid to acknowledge its errors.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Bullshit. I am referencing what it has always been understood to mean. You are using "new and imaginative" interpretations because you are too stupid to acknowledge its errors.
Click to expand...

lol.....so its in error but we aren't allowed to examine and correct those errors?.......we used to think Obamacare was a good thing, we cannot change it because we used to think it was good.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously, recognizing that the previous interpretation is wrong should be point enough in itself.....



actually, it's less conservative than the one you put forward....
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that's true. Baxter wants to cling to interpretations that just don't work while you are more intent on finding interpretations that do work. I think it's a part of his libertarian mindset that also doesn't work and can't work.


I will admit to preferring interpretations that conform to observed reality.....that would appear to be my "dogmatism".....however, I would never challenge the original text.....I only challenge the assumptions people have about what the original text actually says.....
Click to expand...

Obviously the 21st. century has proven the old interpretations wrong in so many ways. Good for you for looking deeper.

for example, I frequently hear atheists complain that the Bible says God created light on the first day but didn't create the sun that gives it until day four.....yet simply looking at the text shows the Bible doesn't say he created light on the first day....he created day and night......reality over assumption.....
Click to expand...

That works for me but of course nothing is going to work for Baxter, and you shouldn't worry about ever convincing him of anything. Being a libertarian, fiction, contrariness, and dogma are his very soul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top