(July 21, 2012 at 4:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I have no concern with your age Raph. All I address is what you present. A person of 80 can act like a child. I aspire to treat everyone as an equal in conversations.

My spin on all of those wild misinterpretations is the accepted interpretation. I don't need to explain the default view, as that is very easy to find for anyone. Your indefensible, absurd & twisted POV is what needs proving. All any reasonable person could conclude is that they are indeed, indefensible, absurd, and twisted. But I wish you the best of luck with that.

Repeat. Risnse.

What is this accepted interpretation of the Bible passages that talks about abrahams daughters getting him drunk specifically to get pregnant? What is the accepted interpretation of the priest and the concubine?

If you don't explain yourself you're just talking nonsense and AGAIN with the insulting retreat. Don't you get the fact you're not going to get out of this that easily? That shit doesn't work with me.

Its simple, I'll spell it out for you:
What is your interpretation, in your words the "accepted interpretation", of both of those stories in the Bible?
Thats the question, answer it or retreat. Its your choice.

Ok let me explain it in single syllables for you. Go to google, put in the bible passage you'd like to see the correct interpretation of. Usually you put it in as it's written. ie John 3:16

Look at the results from biblegateway and bible.cc

You will see concordances (that's standard interpretations off all of the verses in the bible, bar none), which will explain the accepted meanings.

Don't expect me to do that very basic leg work for you. It's pointless. If you have questions after seeing the standard answer, then ask away. Rest assured, my initial answer will be the same as the one presented there.

Understanding the bible as a whole and in perspective, if you're interested in doing that, requires an equal amout of study as you want to get out of it. To get you started on the first part of the bible, and from an unbiased perspective, I'd recommend John H. Walton "The Lost world of Genesis One".

It appears that you have already retreated from my question to you, which you have consistentloy done to every question I've asked you. Seems hypocrysy is strong with you.

(July 21, 2012 at 4:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Ok let me explain it in single syllables for you. Go to google, put in the bible passage you'd like to see the correct interpretation of. Usually you put it in as it's written. ie John 3:16

Look at the results from biblegateway and bible.cc

You will see concordances (that's standard interpretations off all of the verses in the bible, bar none), which will explain the accepted meanings.

Don't expect me to do that very basic leg work for you. It's pointless. If you have questions after seeing the standard answer, then ask away. Rest assured, my initial answer will be the same as the one presented there.

Understanding the bible as a whole and in perspective, if you're interested in doing that, requires an equal amout of study as you want to get out of it. To get you started on the first part of the bible, and from an unbiased perspective, I'd recommend John H. Walton "The Lost world of Genesis One".

It appears that you have already retreated from my question to you, which you have consistentloy done to every question I've asked you. Seems hypocrysy is strong with you.

Not gonna wash fr0d0. You know theres many, many interpretations of the Bible out there all radically different. I want what you consider to be the "accepted interpretation". You're not going to sidetrack me with your usual bullshit.
Will you stop running away, be a man and answer the questions:
"What is this accepted interpretation of the Bible passages that talks about Lots daughters getting him drunk specifically to get pregnant? What is the accepted interpretation of the priest and the concubine?"

It is within your power to answer these questions, so answer them. Or retreat.
Your choice.

(July 21, 2012 at 4:56 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Not gonna wash fr0d0. You know theres many, many interpretations of the Bible out there all radically different. I want what you consider to be the "accepted interpretation".

Yet the evidence right there in front of you says the opposite.

I've given you source. Please show me where that source contradicts itself and we have a game.

(July 21, 2012 at 5:03 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 21, 2012 at 4:56 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Not gonna wash fr0d0. You know theres many, many interpretations of the Bible out there all radically different. I want what you consider to be the "accepted interpretation".

Yet the evidence right there in front of you says the opposite.

I've given you source. Please show me where that source contradicts itself and we have a game.

I want *your* answer, I want *your* interpretation which you consider to be the correct one. You claim to have this information at your disposal so there should be nothing holding you back. Give me the enlightening explanation that could only be given by someone who has engaged in the intense study you spoke of, I assume you've engaged in it otherwise you'd have no business attempting to lecture me on it. Frank Turek didn't get to post websites to Christopher Hitchens and leave him to read through all of them mid-debate for the answer Turek most approved of. Why the hell should you? Do I look like your secretary? If you are truly incapable of an answer of your own you should know how to copy and paste the answer you most approve of.

"What is this accepted interpretation of the Bible passages that talks about Lots daughters getting him drunk specifically to get pregnant? What is the accepted interpretation of the priest and the concubine?"
Once again, answer the questions or retreat fr0d0.

---

This is looking more and more like a retreat fr0d0... or a desperate search through wikipedia.
It was Lots daughters by the way. Not Abrahams. Lot is son of Abraham, easy but slightly embarrassing mistake which I should of picked up on. The point still stands though. Rather surprised you didn't notice it really but then I suspect most of your knowledge of the Bible comes from what you've been told and the internet.
Are you going to answer the question by the way? Or have you admitted defeat?

(July 21, 2012 at 3:22 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Hey Cato
If you wish to discuss a subject, you better be prepared to address that subject. Christianity claims nothing more that what the bible states. Either man up to that or put your blindfold back on.

The message is very simple and clear. Children can understand it.

Blindfold off...

Jesus strolled into town on one ass or two? Your book, not mine. Man up? Does a child not understand the difference between one or two? Before you back into your, childish apology, understand that the word 'them' necessarily connotates at least 'two'.

Was the world flooded to the peak of Mt. Everest or not? Your book says so, rational beings on this planet know different. Will you man up or put a blindfold on?

Matthew said a bunch of dead Jews came to life, the other three Gospels said nothing about this. Either Matthew was making shit up or you have to believe that a bunch of dead people walking around (witnessed by many) was so trivial that the others just left it out of their rendition.

Three days in the belly of a fish. Did it happen, or didn't it? Most people marvel at the impossibility of the fact that a man could survive for three days in the belly of a fish (or a whale as apologists like to claim, this is one dimensional thinking in that it only accomodate the size). I am more impressed that the fish had the wherewhithal to swim close to shore so that when it puked up Jonah that he didn't drown. Never considered that, did you? Don't fucking lie; otherwise, God would hate you. Oh, I forgot, as long as you believe in Jesus you can do what ever the hell you want...including make up big fish stories.

I actually have a better story...
Let's say that I die. In the immediate geographical location there are a couple of horny girls. The spirit of horny comes upon them and they are able to draw seed from me. For argument's sake let's say there is only one life sucking being. The Bible now tells me that the necropheliac sperm ingesting being is my daughter. Oh, how I love happy endings.

Ooooh. Better be prepaired for what the bible says, read the bible, bible prepares, says bible, bible prepair...all that shit man.

Hey Rap ;-)

I don't have an interpretation. Thank you for the complimentary Rabbi status though, I'm suitably flattered. I already told you, this is the widely held view of Christians publicised profusely accross the web. Nothing mysterious or hidden. I'll get back to you on your inability to use the internet later. Busy having a life here. I hope that you understand.

Hey Cato. I came up with a new religious categoty that you and Rapster could use as your religious views: Atheiotard

Like it?

(July 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Hey Rap ;-)

I don't have an interpretation. Thank you for the complimentary Rabbi status though, I'm suitably flattered. I already told you, this is the widely held view of Christians publicised profusely accross the web. Nothing mysterious or hidden. I'll get back to you on your inability to use the internet later. Busy having a life here. I hope that you understand.

Hey Cato. I came up with a new religious categoty that you and Rapster could use as your religious views: Atheiotard

Like it?

So I ask you to explain your views and you're dodging the question and retreating, again? Pathetic. Why do you even bother? You're horrible at debating. It really speaks volumes that your so ashamed of your ridiculous views you'd rather risk looking like a running little bitch then voice them.
Guess I'll just add another trophy to my signature.

Read, you cannot RaphielDrake

(July 21, 2012 at 1:17 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Read, you cannot RaphielDrake

Sending a link with someone elses answer is not a adequate retort. I specifically said I wanted to hear *your* answer in *your* words and you failed to give any such thing.
We're done here. I think when people read this they'll judge for themselves the level of your dishonesty and incompetence.