How to read the Bible - Guide for beginners

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 200
#181
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen

Stephen, MISS TRADESECRET/DAVIDAZ


MISS TRADESECRET'S QUOTE THAT SHE WILL NOT PUT TO THE TEST BECAUSE SHE IS TO SCARED TO DO SO IN BEING MADE THE BIBLE FOOL AGAIN: "An example of the latter is Stephen and or the Brother.  they both make stuff up and no one else in the entire world comes to the same conclusion all by themselves."

Stephen, how can we make "stuff up" like the #1 Bible Stupid Fool Miss Tradesecret's quote above?  How many times have I had to Bible Slap her Silly®️  in bringing forth Jesus' DIRECT LITERAL WORDS, and where she had to RUN AWAY from them and went into hiding because she couldn't address them!  LOL!  

As if Miss Tradesecret's outright admittance of her being a SEXUAL DEVIANT wasn't ungodly and embarrassing enough as shown herewith: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGUEW9


Let Jesus and I give Miss Tradesecret a Christian Test, whereas she is to address the following links in behalf of her quote above to "try" and prove that I am allegedly making stuff up  in said posts shown below.


Stephen, do we see in our minds eye that Miss Tradesecret is starting to put on her Satanic RUNNING SHOES again to run from the links above in embarrassment once again in being the #1 Bible stupid fool of this Religion Forum? LOL!

.
#182
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas

TRADESECRET/DAVIDAZ wrote:  Stephen and or the Brother.  they both make stuff up

Brother, Tradsecret has no credibility at all. 


I have exposed him  for the compulsive lying narcissist that he is many times as I have his bible ignorance.  Only someone that hasn't been here long enough to know the Reverend Tradesecret will pay him the attention he craves. Attention I am sure he was used to before he blocked us both.  I said he would miss you and I  before I/we would miss him. Hence his return under a new user name.

To be perfectly  honest. I don't care two fks about the attention seeking twat. No matter how many user names he returns to this forum under.

#183
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Yes, I'd noticed that.
#184
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Weeties not my favourite Trade.
Nor mine. 

Porridge is the stuff.
Nor mine either.  

And perhaps we don't read the same dictionary, or perhaps we read the same dictionary but not in the same way.

A hypothesis in it's narrative form is objective, in so much as it is a demonstrable documentation of said hypothesis, but this in no way objectively substantiates the hypothetical content of the narrative. 

In fact, hypothetical and subjective could be said to be synonymous.
So what you are saying is that objective and subjective are the same thing.  Seriously.  I don't think a hypothesis is anything but a theory until it is proven. 

Please try and make some sense.  
#185
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
So is the Bible a proven theory Trade?

Me thinks not.

The Bible is a wholly subjective collection of subjective versions of 2000+ years old continuously subjective retelling's of exaggerated subjective hand me down folk tales. All relative to a few particular people who resided in one small corner of the Middle East.
#186
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
No, the bible is not a theory at all.  The Bible doesn't need to be proved or disproved. That doesn't stop it from being an objective tool. 

The Bible is an objective book that anyone can read if they chose to do so. It is not just a subjective feeling or unarticulated thought. 

Yes, it is a collection of stories and other bits of literature collected over 4000 years or so. Yet it all has one story. And true it commenced in one part of the world, but it speaks to people all over the world and in all parts of history.   

They are subjective stories - but now in objective form.  
#187
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, I'd noticed that.

Which part, Vic?
#188
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
The Bible is an objective book.

There you go again Trade.



I've already stated how yes, an object in itself is objective.

But as a doctrine, it is pretty useless without it's subjective content.


#189
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Where to start?


So the dusty Black Book on the back of the book shelf, is an object.

And therefore everything.


From this I am able to conclude that,

The Moon is an object,

And therefore cheese, Grommit.


Have a Grand Sunny Bromsgrovian Day.
#190
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
I see.

I thought you were replying to my comments here.>>




Have a Grand Sunny Bromsgrovian Day.

I will, Pub Day for me today.  Red Lion . Thank you
#191
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
The Bible is an objective book.

There you go again Trade.



I've already stated how yes, an object in itself is objective.

But as a doctrine, it is pretty useless without its subjective content.
You think you are so clever.

And yet you really don't know the first thing do you? 

You change the goalposts and the meaning of the words more than you do your own undies. 

yes, the bible is an object and it has stories in it and lots of other literature.  You say they are subjective. Why? Is it because they are written by people? It is written by people with their own experiences. Why is it subjective? Because what was written - was done so thousands of years ago and we can't prove who wrote what and when? 

Every book today is written by people living their own experiences. Does that make them all subjective, including the scientific and mathematical textbooks? Under your definition- yes. 

I say that a book written down which really hasn't changed very much at all over 4000 years is a pretty significant thing.  It is clearly objective thoughts and writing next to feelings and emotions.  There is subjectivity and there is subjectivity.  

What makes something objective? 

Doctrine just means teaching.   And the teaching of the bible is objective, not subjective.  In other words, people can deduce it from reading it according to a methodology that is acceptable. I don't know why I bother continuing to repeat the same old things over again. You know the truth - you just want to play devil's advocate all of the time.  
#192
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
See above.
#193
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Yep, the Bible has become a significant compilation of recounted tales concerning the lives of a collection of prominent characters from Middle Eastern History.

Now. It's patently apparent that said tales are embellished with mysticism and fantasy, which to be fair is no more than one would expect.

And for sure, there is also undoubtedly a level of factuality that forms the basis of the tales.

Hence we end up with what can be correctly defined as a Mythology.


All data, acquired, modified and reproduced by a series of self interested third parties.
#194
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4




zedvictor4: See above.

Gotcha, Vic, lad😊


#195
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
'If you want to have a proper discussion, ask a question. 
#196
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
We have been discussing.

Though nothing as yet has led me to consider that the hopeful speculative theist is actually on to something different.


#197
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
We have been discussing.

Though nothing as yet has led me to consider that the hopeful speculative theist is actually on to something different.
Nope, we have not been discussing. 

You have been rhetorising as have I.  Hence why a question might actually push the conversation on. Or do you have a reason not to? 
#198
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, you just proposed an interpretation of what might or might not constitute a discussion.

Exchange of dialogue, will do for me.


As I see it:

Basically we both accept a notion of Universal purpose.

Though your notion comes loaded with unnecessary speculation.

Picked up along the way as you thrashed about in the spiritual undergrowth looking for something that was never really there.

And although you think you found something, you have no way of showing me what it is.

Because there is nothing to see.


#199
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Basically we both accept a notion of Universal purpose.
Ok. 

Though your notion comes loaded with unnecessary speculation.
LOL at you.  My so-called speculation comes from a book that anyone can read. Yours comes from your own brain. Which is unnecessary? LOL! 

Picked up along the way as you thrashed about in the spiritual undergrowth looking for something that was never really there.
Whatever.  I never found it. It found me.  While I went looking for it, I couldn't find it. The difference between Christianity and other religions is that specific point. God came to us. We could never please him or get to him. 

And although you think you found something, you have no way of showing me what it is.
My point exactly. I don't think I found something. Until you even start to get the gist of that notion, you will continue to fumble. 

Because there is nothing to see.
Of course not. I can't show you what is invisible. But what is invisible is able to make itself visible. Even as he made himself visible to me. And to millions of other people. 
#200
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
But what doesn't exist, can be created internally. For sure.