You don't even have any general parameters that might apply to most cases?
Do you have "general parameters" that might apply to the novel War and Peace? The Old Man And the Sea? The American Revolution?
I'm not dumb enough to fall for the fake requirements you want to place on only the bible.
Certainly different words mean different things to different people in different places.
It isn't a buffet Jethro. The words mean what the author intended, and that meaning is gotten from context. This is true so all literature.
Have you asked them if it looked like something a loving god would do?
No one I know has ever been at war with God. But it does seem that God would be right to clobber any moron who decided to resist Him by force. God is also Justice.
No amount of evidence justifies 100% confidence.
Faith in His Glorious Majesty, King Jesus Christ does. This is an ad hoc claim of skeptics who think because they don't know, no bad me else does either. I have no reason to believe it.
Therefore, nobody has faith in abiogenesis.
I'm not dumb enough or inexperienced enough to believe that.
So, "you know it when you see it"?
I know it when I read it. Just like you do when you read all works other than the bible.
And, "if you don't know then you're an idiot"?
When you pretend you cannot know for the bible, but can know easily for all other works of literature, then yes, you're an idiot.
If you can't explain how you clearly and consistently determine which passages can be taken literally, then you are using a SUBJECTIVE STANDARD.
Stop being a fool. There is no algorithm for language. There is no "standard" for when passages can be taken literally. That is why only the human mind can do it.
Expecting a set standard is fake stupidity. There isn't one, and to prove I'm right, give me the set standard you use to figure when passages in King Lear are literal.
I find or write a book....
Only there is just one book with the record of the bible...
...with a bunch of conflicting statements and stories,
That you can never show...
...and then I convince people that it's really old and complicated and only I know the "true meaning"
The most published, best selling book in history has only one person who knows the true meaning? Do you listen to yourself?
...and if they have any questions about how any of this stuff applies to their real-life-decisions, they need to ask me.
We haven't discussed application, but your agenda requires you to slot that in right?
That's why the Catholics were so afraid of making the scriptures available in the-common-tongue
Red herring. Scripture was available 2,000 years ago, and there are records of Jesus freely reading it in the temple publicly.
OTHERWISE, "I make peace and create evil." seems like an open-and-shut case.
For your agenda driven bias, sure.
The mind-reader fallacy again.
I read your comment jed. You want no exination of the words meanings. You just want your agenda driven interpretation accepted without context or scrutiny.
You do not want to know why "peace" was used to contrast "evil".
The mind-reader fallacy again. Please tell me more about what I want.
I told you what you did not want. And I knew because you have consistently refused to consider the context.
I would be absolutely tickled pink if you could explain why "peace" was "contrasted" with "evil"
I told you. Because "evil" here is not immorality, but unwanted things from a human point of view.
Like when I tell my daughter, "I do things you think are cool, and I do things you think are evil..."
...and how that would actually make your hypothetical god "not-the-creator-of-evil".
Moral evil is not a creation. But really, you are the one saying this evil means moral evil. You have not shown it to be. Thus, I don't have to show how that would make my god "not-the-creator-of-moral-evil".
Nice at the attempt at switching the BoP.
Words have meaning jethro. Our debate is about the meaning. You keep simply saying "evil" as if the word has only one meaning.
Please explain your hypothesis.
Meaning comes from context. You may hate that, but that is language for ya. No amount of semantic trickery changes that.
What did the author mean? Not which definition do you "prefer". Read it like you read all other works of literature, like you have a functioning brain that you have turned on.
