Do the words in the bible have the same meaning......

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You’re a fraud.  And I don’t care if I get banned for saying so.

I hope nothing happens for you saying so.  I'm not offended in the slightest.

regardless if anything happens to me for saying so, you still will not address the points I made in the other thread, for you have no answer for them.  You will continue to duck the mountain of evidence presented.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You’re a fraud.  And I don’t care if I get banned for saying so.

I hope nothing happens for you saying so.  I'm not offended in the slightest.

regardless if anything happens to me for saying so, you still will not address the points I made in the other thread, for you have no answer for them.  You will continue to duck the mountain of evidence presented.

I don't see how you can deny that even the most sincerely religious people have different interpretations of different words/passages, and will only accept that your interpretation is correct.  It's simply futile and we could go on for eternity.

I asked a simple question in this thread......and I think the answer to the initial question is clearly, no.

And, I've never claimed to be a religious scholar.....there is so much I don't know it's unreal.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, you don't get banned for calling someone a fraudulent Christian. If this spirals into name-calling I will lock the thread, but I hope it won't, you both being grown men and all.

Jmfcst, I know you think you have proven that you were right on the submission thing. I'm not saying you're not, but I think whatever could be said on this thread that was germane to that issue has pretty much been said.

Basically, if Gramps isn't going to debate you on this you're only allowed so many bait/gloat posts before you will have to content yourself with feeling victorious.

[John Dibble]

“red sea- sea of reeds”
I don’t understand the point here as many languages have different names for the same geographical spot.  The point of the story was that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea into the Sinai.  The theological point is that they passed through water (symbolizing baptism) in order to get to the Promised Land (symbolizing the Kingdom of God)….and that theological point is NOT lost regardless of the name of the body of water.

Just FYI many believe that it does not refer to the same geographical body of water. It's something of debate among Biblical scholars. The point of the story may or may not change, but it is a change to the story nonetheless.

The point being there is ZERO impact on doctrine whether or not the original text meant the Red Sea, or the Mediterranean, or Indian Ocean, or BodyOfWaterX. In other words, there is no theological point pivoting (based) off of the identification of the body of water they passed through.

Yeah, I kind of mentioned that, so I don't know why you're lecturing me on it.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Basically, if Gramps isn't going to debate you on this you're only allowed so many bait/gloat posts before you will have to content yourself with feeling victorious.

First off, I haven't even engaged in arguing.  I genuinely created this thread to learn.

[Gustaf]

Basically, if Gramps isn't going to debate you on this you're only allowed so many bait/gloat posts before you will have to content yourself with feeling victorious.

First off, I haven't even engaged in arguing.  I genuinely created this thread to learn.

Yes, I'm not really taking issue with you in this thread. I'm trying not to take a side on this, but I've been in the position myself where I feel that I've won a debate and the other person runs away from it. I've also been in the position of ignoring someone because I don't see debating them as worthwhile anymore.

I'm not judging who is "right" in this instance merely pointing out how to act assuming that you're right.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Basically, if Gramps isn't going to debate you on this you're only allowed so many bait/gloat posts before you will have to content yourself with feeling victorious.

First off, I haven't even engaged in arguing.  I genuinely created this thread to learn.

Yes, I'm not really taking issue with you in this thread. I'm trying not to take a side on this, but I've been in the position myself where I feel that I've won a debate and the other person runs away from it. I've also been in the position of ignoring someone because I don't see debating them as worthwhile anymore.

I'm not judging who is "right" in this instance merely pointing out how to act assuming that you're right.

Agreed.......I applaud your patience with me

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, I'm not really taking issue with you in this thread. I'm trying not to take a side on this, but I've been in the position myself where I feel that I've won a debate and the other person runs away from it. I've also been in the position of ignoring someone because I don't see debating them as worthwhile anymore.

I'm not judging who is "right" in this instance merely pointing out how to act assuming that you're right.

Gustaf,

You have missed the whole point.  I’m not calling Gramps out on a single issue, I couldn’t care less what he thinks about submission, rather I am saying he is a FRAUD because his whole APPROACH is fraudulent. 

He refuses to take into account any and all witnesses regarding: context, translation, multitude of parallel passages, similar opinions of different writers, similar doctrines across the covenants, etc, etc, etc.  If anyone cared about arriving at a unbiased interpretation, then they would automatically consider these things, not duck and hide and ignore them

Now, you yourself may find such approaches legit, but I find them to be a load of trash.  . If I attempted such deception, I would immediately be crucified on this forum, but I happen to care about honesty and integrity.  So I am not going to consider separate threads created about the “meaning of words” in a religious context to be intended to be an honest discussion when the poster’s whole “interpretational” approach is the antithesis of honesty and impartiality.

If he honestly cared at all about the “meaning of words”, he would change his approach.  But, since he hasn’t changed his approach or shown any remorse for ignoring all evidence that would lead to a proper interpretation of the meaning of words, I can only conclude this whole thread is simply a search for an excuse for him to continue to practice the trade of deception.

Now, please tell me where I am being unfair and unjustified in my remarks.

[Gustaf]

Yes, I'm not really taking issue with you in this thread. I'm trying not to take a side on this, but I've been in the position myself where I feel that I've won a debate and the other person runs away from it. I've also been in the position of ignoring someone because I don't see debating them as worthwhile anymore.

I'm not judging who is "right" in this instance merely pointing out how to act assuming that you're right.

Gustaf,

You have missed the whole point.  I’m not calling Gramps out on a single issue, I couldn’t care less what he thinks about submission, rather I am saying he is a FRAUD because his whole APPROACH is fraudulent. 

He refuses to take into account any and all witnesses regarding: context, translation, multitude of parallel passages, similar opinions of different writers, similar doctrines across the covenants, etc, etc, etc.  If anyone cared about arriving at a unbiased interpretation, then they would automatically consider these things, not duck and hide and ignore them

Now, you yourself may find such approaches legit, but I find them to be a load of trash.  . If I attempted such deception, I would immediately be crucified on this forum, but I happen to care about honesty and integrity.  So I am not going to consider separate threads created about the “meaning of words” in a religious context to be intended to be an honest discussion when the poster’s whole “interpretational” approach is the antithesis of honesty and impartiality.

If he honestly cared at all about the “meaning of words”, he would change his approach.  But, since he hasn’t changed his approach or shown any remorse for ignoring all evidence that would lead to a proper interpretation of the meaning of words, I can only conclude this whole thread is simply a search for an excuse for him to continue to practice the trade of deception.

Now, please tell me where I am being unfair and unjustified in my remarks.

I don't think you understand me at all here. I'm not saying that you are unfair or unjustified. My job as a moderator is not to judge that. I don't really think there is much wrong in a moderator-sense with your last posts, apart from the small edit I made in one of them.

I'm making a couple of points -

1. This is a thread about general interpretation. You made a point on how you think that was not the honest motive behind it. Gramps has denied it, but that's really the end of the line for that argument. I'm not saying you are wrong (how on Earth could I know) nor am I saying you were not entitled to claim that in this thread. However, other people, myself included, might be interested in this topic and if you want to continue the sumbission feud you should take it back to that thread.

2. In general, if the other person doesn't engage in a debate you will have to let it go at some point. Even if you're right and all.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Gustaf,

I understand as a moderator you have to unplug your brain and simply make sure the conversation is kept cordial, but sometimes your best friend is the one who is willing to hold a mirror up to your face, and the veracity of my critique is not to be compared with vindictive and slanderous name calling that happens on a regular basis on this forum. 

Obviously, I can’t force him to take an inventory of his integrity, but my objections are not beyond the norm as any reasonable person understands you can’t ignore all the surrounding evidence and come to an honest and reasonable interpretation since we are all taught from early age to interpret based on the surrounding evidence.  And we practice it every single time we observe anything and especially when we read even if we are just reading the sports page.  It is simply part of our cognitive skillset.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

I understand as a moderator you have to unplug your brain and simply make sure the conversation is kept cordial, but sometimes your best friend is the one who is willing to hold a mirror up to your face, and the veracity of my critique is not to be compared with vindictive and slanderous name calling that happens on a regular basis on this forum. 

Obviously, I can’t force him to take an inventory of his integrity, but my objections are not beyond the norm as any reasonable person understands you can’t ignore all the surrounding evidence and come to an honest and reasonable interpretation since we are all taught from early age to interpret based on the surrounding evidence.  And we practice it every single time we observe anything and especially when we read even if we are just reading the sports page.  It is simply part of our cognitive skillset.

I feel as if we're talking past each other now...just to be clear, I do not think that any of your posts in this thread so far are over the line. I'm just trying to be pro-active, to make sure that it doesn't descend into animosity.

Also, as I've stated, I will attempt to uphold a somewhat stricter standard on this board than on the other boards.

[Derek]

words then were different from what they are now. it changes the entire point of some stories. however, the point of the stories should mostly be the same. I have several papers and thesis papers that I've written and would be happy to post or email to those interested in such topics as these.