The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
About a year or two -- on the internet.

Oh, that explains things... You'll learn

Well, not everyone who calls himself a Christian really is.

Ever heard of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

It is unfortunately a common practice for people arguing for a particular position to claim non-membership for those whose views disagree with their own, as you just did above.

There are others on this board, for instance, that claim that anyone who does not follow their particular flavor of Christianity cannot be Christian. There appears to be no single universal view of just what is required to make one a Christian or to maintain membership in good standing in the group.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Zakath
Oh, that explains things... You'll learn

I might just teach you a thing or two.

Ever heard of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

It is unfortunately a common practice for people arguing for a particular position to claim non-membership for those whose views disagree with their own, as you just did above.

I haven't claimed that anyone wasn't a Christian based on their disagreement with my position, nor have I even given my particular position. I'll thank you to retract that accusation.

There are others on this board, for instance, that claim that anyone who does not follow their particular flavor of Christianity cannot be Christian.

I've met people like that.

There appears to be no single universal view of just what is required to make one a Christian or to maintain membership in good standing in the group.

A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and is born again.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I might just teach you a thing or two.

Perhaps, we'll see.

I haven't claimed that anyone wasn't a Christian based on their disagreement with my position, nor have I even given my particular position. I'll thank you to retract that accusation.

Help me understand what you really meant to communicate...

• I stated "I can't get any ten Christians on a site like this to completely agree on any major tenet of their allegedly common faith."
  
  You replied: "Well, not everyone who calls himself a Christian really is."
  
  I commented that you were applying the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...

Are you telling me you were not implying that one or more of the hypothetical ten Christians wasn't Christian?

If not, how should I have taken your remark when you placed it after a direct quotation?

A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and is born again.

Since I have no knowledge of your religious background, it would facilitate communication if you would explain what that means to you.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Zakath
Perhaps, we'll see.

So we shall.

Help me understand what you really meant to communicate...

• I stated "I can't get any ten Christians on a site like this to completely agree on any major tenet of their allegedly common faith."
  
  You replied: "Well, not everyone who calls himself a Christian really is."
  
  I commented that you were applying the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...

Are you telling me you were not implying that one or more of the hypothetical ten Christians wasn't Christian?

I was implying they may not have been. It depends on whether or not their positions line up with what the Bible says.

If not, how should I have taken your remark when you placed it after a direct quotation?

You said I claimed someone wasn't a Christian if they disagreed with my views, but I've done no such thing.

Since I have no knowledge of your religious background, it would facilitate communication if you would explain what that means to you.

It would also facilitate communication if you'd retract your accusation as I have asked, especially now that I've had to explain to you why I didn't deserve it. I'm not going to carry on a conversation with someone if I have to defend myself from their accusations at every turn. I trust you can understand my reluctance to walk into such a trap.

But to answer your question, basically being born again means acknowledging that you're a sinner, asking for forgiveness, and repenting from your sins.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Zakath,

I can't get any ten Christians on a site like this to completely agree on any major tenet of their allegedly common faith.

The major tenets of Catholic faith can be found here ...

Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Challenge your hypothesis. Try asking a question on this forum to ten Catholic Christians and see if you get the same general answer with regard to the major tenets of their belief.

If it's complete agreement you seek, do you find that in atheism? Do you find that in science, or any human endeavor?

"In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity" -- Pope John XXIII

God bless,

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I was implying they may not have been. It depends on whether or not their positions line up with what the Bible says.

That's quite a large qualifier to leave out of your previous statements...

You said I claimed someone wasn't a Christian if they disagreed with my views, but I've done no such thing.

So, for the preceding statement to be true, you are now claiming to have correct understanding of what the Bible says?

This gets better and better...

It would also facilitate communication if you'd retract your accusation as I have asked, especially now that I've had to explain to you why I didn't deserve it.

No retraction because you're merely substituting your opinion of what the Bible says for the Scotsman's judgement of what makes a true Scotsman. It's still either a logical fallacy, or quite a case of hubris.

I'm not going to carry on a conversation with someone if I have to defend myself from their accusations at every turn. I trust you can understand my reluctance to walk into such a trap.

I understand, but this is a discussion board and you posted on a thread discussing atheism. Don't get offended when an atheist pops up and challenges you. If you don't like swimming with the atheists on this thread, surf over to another thread.

But to answer your question, basically being born again means acknowledging that you're a sinner, asking for forgiveness, and repenting from your sins.

That's interesting. I'd bet good ole' Dave (see post above) would claim to do that kind of thing every time he goes to confession with his priest or deacon (I think deacons can hear confession nowadays). So, following your defintion, is someone like Dave "born again" everytime he participates in the sacrament of reconciliation?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Zakath
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and is born again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since I have no knowledge of your religious background, it would facilitate communication if you would explain what that means to you.

I know, it's really simple. So simple, it's hard for you to understand it some times. But, a Christian is just that;

1. Any person who believes in Jesus Christ as their savior.

Romans 10:9
If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

2. Any person that continues in the faith.

Mt 24:13
But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

It's not about singing hymns, going to church, wearing fancy clothes, believing in religion, following laws or moral codes, giving money in the offering plate, memorizing bible verses, joining a certain denomination, watching TBN, etc., etc. But simply believing in Christ as your savior is all it takes to be saved.

You guys think you're so wise in all your scientific reasons that God has made you fools out of your wisdom through the simplicity of the gospel...

1Co 1:21
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Zakath
That's quite a large qualifier to leave out of your previous statements...

Which statements would those be?

So, for the preceding statement to be true, you are now claiming to have correct understanding of what the Bible says?

This gets better and better...

I've never claimed that my understanding was 100% correct.

No retraction<snip>

Well then, our conversation is over.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by itsjustdave1988
Zakath,
The major tenets of Catholic faith can be found here ...
Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Thanks for the reference. I prefer www.newadvent.org. I find it's more hardline conservative; and I was a former 3rd degree Knight.

Challenge your hypothesis. Try asking a question on this forum to ten Catholic Christians and see if you get the same general answer with regard to the major tenets of their belief.

Do you mean here on TOL? Do you actually think there's ten Catholic Christians reading TOL?

If it's complete agreement you seek, do you find that in atheism? Do you find that in science, or any human endeavor?

No, but I do not expect it, either. No atheists of my acquaintance lay claim to having "The Truth". That seems to be reserved for certain religionists and some narrowl-minded scientists.

Christians frequently claim to possess the "mind of Christ" and to be "led by the Holy Spirit", etc. Perhaps I'm misunderstading but all these seem to be claims indicating singleness of thought and purpose, at least with regard to the things regarding faith and morals.

 

[shima]

One Eyed Jack:
>>What evidence? I've asked this several times on this board, and have yet to get an answer.<<

Radiometric dating again and again points towards a 4.5 billion year old earth. Energy readings from the sun indicate a 5 billion year old sun.

>>The Bible makes this pretty clear. But God didn't so much write the Bible, as He inspired men to write it. I just thought I'd clear that up for you.<<

So basically, the Bible is Gods inspired Will AS INTERPRETED BY THE WRITERS? How do you KNOW that that interpretation is even accurate?

No seriously, if the Bible was actualy written down word for word by PEOPLE, then their INTERPRETATION of the events is ground into the very fabric the what the bible is. Since humans are fallible, there is no hint left of the bible being absolutely "true".

>>Sometimes people will read something and refuse to get it. That's not the fault of the Bible -- it's the fault of the reader.<<

No, its the fault of the person who wrote down that part of the bible. Since that person has an interpretation of his own, the bible is therefore based on that interpretation. Its not Gods Word, but rather some persons personal INTERPRETATION of that Word. The ones reading it are applying their interpretation on the writers interpretation of the Word.

>>All other interpretations? Did they go house to house just to make sure everyone had the same interpretation?<<

No, what they did was to write down the bible in LATIN that ordinary people couldn't read. So ordinary people had NO interpretation of the bible other than the one given in church. Those monastic orders who DID read the bible and had a DIFFERENT interpretation were massacred by the thousands. Untill the advent of Luther, very few normal people actually questioned the church's interpretation. But with Luther, this ended as he nailed down his "list of objections" to the door of the local church.

>>The Roman Catholic Church is not the only Christian Church, nor has it ever been (contrary to popular belief).<<

Which is precisely my point. There are NO "correct" interpretations of the Bible. There are only "interpretations". How does ANYONE know that their personal interpretation of the bible is correct? Everyone claims to have the "one and only" interpretation, but you will only KNOW if you are correct after you die. I have read the bible, and I'm pretty sure that my interpretation is somewhat different than yours, me being an atheist and all.

>>What exactly do you mean by 'other interpretations?' Do you mean translations, or do you mean what individual people get from the Bible, as far as meaning goes?<<

Do you know the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism? Mormons? Jehova's Witnesses? There are many, many, many different denominations, all of which have different views of the bible. The meaning they get from the bible is different, the "literal" interpretation vs the "allegorical" interpretation. All these are different ways to look at the bible, yet all claim that they are the "one and only" correct interpretation. Now, of all these thousands different interpretations, you are willing to claim that YOUR interpretation is correct while all others are not?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
One Eyed Jack:
>>What evidence? I've asked this several times on this board, and have yet to get an answer.<<

Radiometric dating again and again points towards a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Radiometric dating isn't very reliable, as you have to assume there was no radioactive daughter-element present in the sample when it formed. Obviously, lava can harden into a rock containing both uranium-238 and lead-206, and such a rock will give inaccurate dates if tested by the uranium-lead method. Furthermore, the only 4.5 billion year old rocks I know of weren't found on Earth, but the moon.

Energy readings from the sun indicate a 5 billion year old sun.

Do you mean spectrographic analysis?

>>The Bible makes this pretty clear. But God didn't so much write the Bible, as He inspired men to write it. I just thought I'd clear that up for you.<<

So basically, the Bible is Gods inspired Will AS INTERPRETED BY THE WRITERS?

No -- the Bible is God's word as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

How do you KNOW that that interpretation is even accurate?

See above.

No seriously, if the Bible was actualy written down word for word by PEOPLE, then their INTERPRETATION of the events is ground into the very fabric the what the bible is.

What if they're simply telling events like they were?

Since humans are fallible, there is no hint left of the bible being absolutely "true".

If you understood anything about God, perhaps you wouldn't find it so hard to believe.

>>Sometimes people will read something and refuse to get it. That's not the fault of the Bible -- it's the fault of the reader.<<

No, its the fault of the person who wrote down that part of the bible.

No, it's the fault of the person refusing to understand what he's read. You're a prime example of this.

Since that person has an interpretation of his own, the bible is therefore based on that interpretation. Its not Gods Word, but rather some persons personal INTERPRETATION of that Word. The ones reading it are applying their interpretation on the writers interpretation of the Word.

I don't accept this 'everybody has their own truth' idea, so I can't really relate to what you're trying to say here.

>>All other interpretations? Did they go house to house just to make sure everyone had the same interpretation?<<

No, what they did was to write down the bible in LATIN that ordinary people couldn't read. So ordinary people had NO interpretation of the bible other than the one given in church. Those monastic orders who DID read the bible and had a DIFFERENT interpretation were massacred by the thousands. Untill the advent of Luther, very few normal people actually questioned the church's interpretation. But with Luther, this ended as he nailed down his "list of objections" to the door of the local church.

What about the people that had access to copies of the original Greek and Hebrew writings?

>>The Roman Catholic Church is not the only Christian Church, nor has it ever been (contrary to popular belief).<<

Which is precisely my point. There are NO "correct" interpretations of the Bible. There are only "interpretations". How does ANYONE know that their personal interpretation of the bible is correct?

That's why it's not a good idea to make personal interpretations.

Everyone claims to have the "one and only" interpretation, but you will only KNOW if you are correct after you die. I have read the bible, and I'm pretty sure that my interpretation is somewhat different than yours, me being an atheist and all.

I'm sure it is.

>>What exactly do you mean by 'other interpretations?' Do you mean translations, or do you mean what individual people get from the Bible, as far as meaning goes?<<

Do you know the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism? Mormons? Jehova's Witnesses? There are many, many, many different denominations, all of which have different views of the bible. The meaning they get from the bible is different, the "literal" interpretation vs the "allegorical" interpretation. All these are different ways to look at the bible, yet all claim that they are the "one and only" correct interpretation. Now, of all these thousands different interpretations, you are willing to claim that YOUR interpretation is correct while all others are not?

Not really. They can all be right about something or other, but obviously not everything, especially when certain doctrines contradict one another. That's why I don't have much use for denominations, even though technically I'm a Baptist.

 

[shima]

One Eyed Jack:
>>Radiometric dating isn't very reliable, as you have to assume there was no radioactive daughter-element present in the sample when it formed. Obviously, lava can harden into a rock containing both uranium-238 and lead-206, and such a rock will give inaccurate dates if tested by the uranium-lead method. Furthermore, the only 4.5 billion year old rocks I know of weren't found on Earth, but the moon.<<

Radiometric dating does haev some problems yes. The problems with different isotopes is well known and the samples with contaminating isotopes are usually not dating using this method. Also, rocks dating 4.5 billion years old were found on earth as well, indicating that the moon rock is about the same age as the earth rocks.

>>No -- the Bible is God's word as revealed by the Holy Spirit.<<

Revealed to WHOM exactly? The persons to whom it was revealed most liekly used their own INTERPRETATION of the Word, not the Word itself. They were after all human, and humans cannot interact with the world without using interpretation.

>>What if they're simply telling events like they were?<<

Which is quite impossible, since the person who wrote down Genesis wasn't there himself to witness it. All these authors used their own interpretation of the events and wrote that down.

>>If you understood anything about God, perhaps you wouldn't find it so hard to believe.<<

If you understood anything about people, perhaps you would find it hard to believe.

>>No, it's the fault of the person refusing to understand what he's read. You're a prime example of this.<<

As I explained before, the bible can be interpreted in multiple ways from different angles. When I read it, I was trying to keep an open mind about it. However, I very soon realised that the stories were to me UNBELIEVABLE. I therefore questioned the existence of God, and as such quickly discovered that the stories were very different when viewed from that angle. They became political in orientation, justifying the attrocities committed in the name of God. Only with the coming of Jezus did the bible change its nature, and became a story about morals rather than conquest and war.

>>I don't accept this 'everybody has their own truth' idea, so I can't really relate to what you're trying to say here.<<

Ofcourse you don't. Everyone has their own interpretation of this world, and these interpretations are often quite different from person to person. Your interpretation if this world is that God exists and that absolute truth exists. Mine is that God doesn't exists and that absolute truth doesn't exists either. My viewpoint has a lot of science to back it up, yours has just a book.

>>What about the people that had access to copies of the original Greek and Hebrew writings?<<

The original Greek and Hebrew writings are ALSO written by people, and thus they write down their INTERPRETATION of the events. If that interpretation includes belief in a God then they naturally interpret the world through that means. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't any other interpretations or that their interpretation corresponds to reality.

>>That's why it's not a good idea to make personal interpretations. <<

What interpretation do you expect to use then? The interpretation of the church? The interpretation given to you by your best friend?

>>I'm sure it is.<<

So, which of us has the correct interpretation, if there even is such a thing?

>>That's why I don't have much use for denominations, even though technically I'm a Baptist.<<

However, they all claim to have the "correct" interpretation of the Word of God. I claim that they don't. Even if God exists, then I'm sure that his mind and will are way to great and complicated to comprehend by humans. Therefore, to claim that you KNOW the word of God would be the highest form of arrogance on this planet for any christian.

 

[PureX]

Shima,

It's very hard, maybe impossible, for some people to let go of the illusion of their own understanding of reality being the one and only true reality. For them to let go of this illusion would mean they could not be sure anymore of what's going on around them, or of how they "should" respond to it. For people who have lived with this absolutist structure all their lives, it's like having the solid ground beneath their feet suddenly begin to shift, and become liquid. It's very frightening for them.

I have had friends who lived in this illusion of the "absolute truth" and have seen the panic on their faces as the reality of relativism began to dawn on them. And I have seen them recoil in fear, and hurry back the solid ground of their imagined absolutes again. That's just how it is for them.

Revelations can be frightening. In fact I suspect that they often are, and some folks just won't accept them. They just won't. Maybe they can't. I don't know. Some levels of awareness take courage to obtain. Not everyone wants to attain them.

 

[Gerald]

Okay, One-Eyed Jack...

Okay, One-Eyed Jack...

Riddle me this, One-Eyed Jack: is the following statement true or false?

"There exist volitional entities, undetectable by human senses or instrumentation, who, interact with reality in a repeatable and verifiable fashion."

If your answer is yes, then please show irrefutable contemporary documentation demonstrating that such entities exist.

 

[shima]

PureX: I know that people who believe in their absolute "true" image have trouble letting go. However, a friend of mine did just that about 2.5 years ago. She stopped believing, and while it was definitely scary for her in the beginning, she was discovering each day that she was right in doing so. And then she stopped looking back and started living again.

One of the best days of my life was that.

 

[shima]

So, One Eyed Jack, take the chance at be a Born-Again Atheist (tm).

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
One Eyed Jack:
>>Radiometric dating isn't very reliable, as you have to assume there was no radioactive daughter-element present in the sample when it formed. Obviously, lava can harden into a rock containing both uranium-238 and lead-206, and such a rock will give inaccurate dates if tested by the uranium-lead method. Furthermore, the only 4.5 billion year old rocks I know of weren't found on Earth, but the moon.<<

Radiometric dating does haev some problems yes. The problems with different isotopes is well known and the samples with contaminating isotopes are usually not dating using this method. Also, rocks dating 4.5 billion years old were found on earth as well, indicating that the moon rock is about the same age as the earth rocks.

I'm not aware of any Earth-rocks dating that old. Well -- they did find some crystals that dated at around 6 billion years, but they discarded those dates as erroneous since it was older than the Earth was supposed to be.

>>No -- the Bible is God's word as revealed by the Holy Spirit.<<

Revealed to WHOM exactly?

The people who wrote the books in the Bible, as well as the people that read them.

The persons to whom it was revealed most liekly used their own INTERPRETATION of the Word, not the Word itself. They were after all human, and humans cannot interact with the world without using interpretation.

Does a secretary use interpretation when taking dictation?

>>What if they're simply telling events like they were?<<

Which is quite impossible, since the person who wrote down Genesis wasn't there himself to witness it.

God was there to witness it, and He told it to Moses who either wrote or compiled Genesis.

All these authors used their own interpretation of the events and wrote that down.

I think you're a little too hung up on interpretation. If all the Bible authors relied totally on their own interpretations, I'm sure they'd have cast themselves in a better light. The fact that they record the good and the bad leads me to believe they're giving a true account.

>>If you understood anything about God, perhaps you wouldn't find it so hard to believe.<<

If you understood anything about people, perhaps you would find it hard to believe.

I do understand people, and I still don't find it that hard to believe. It's not as if people can't possibly get anything right.

>>No, it's the fault of the person refusing to understand what he's read. You're a prime example of this.<<

As I explained before, the bible can be interpreted in multiple ways from different angles. When I read it, I was trying to keep an open mind about it. However, I very soon realised that the stories were to me UNBELIEVABLE. I therefore questioned the existence of God, and as such quickly discovered that the stories were very different when viewed from that angle. They became political in orientation, justifying the attrocities committed in the name of God. Only with the coming of Jezus did the bible change its nature, and became a story about morals rather than conquest and war.

Like I said -- you're a prime example of someone who reads something and comes away with a totally different understanding than the one it intended to convey.

>>I don't accept this 'everybody has their own truth' idea, so I can't really relate to what you're trying to say here.<<

Ofcourse you don't. Everyone has their own interpretation of this world, and these interpretations are often quite different from person to person. Your interpretation if this world is that God exists and that absolute truth exists. Mine is that God doesn't exists and that absolute truth doesn't exists either. My viewpoint has a lot of science to back it up, yours has just a book.

Tell me some of the scientific disciplines that back up your viewpoint.

>>What about the people that had access to copies of the original Greek and Hebrew writings?<<

The original Greek and Hebrew writings are ALSO written by people, and thus they write down their INTERPRETATION of the events. If that interpretation includes belief in a God then they naturally interpret the world through that means. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't any other interpretations or that their interpretation corresponds to reality.

That doesn't answer my question, but I'm getting used to that from you.

>>That's why it's not a good idea to make personal interpretations. <<

What interpretation do you expect to use then? The interpretation of the church? The interpretation given to you by your best friend?

I don't use anybody's interpretation. I just read it.

>>I'm sure it is.<<

So, which of us has the correct interpretation, if there even is such a thing?

Obviously, if I thought you were right, I wouldn't believe in God.

>>That's why I don't have much use for denominations, even though technically I'm a Baptist.<<

However, they all claim to have the "correct" interpretation of the Word of God.

Have you ever considered that a lot of them use the same interpretation?

I claim that they don't. Even if God exists, then I'm sure that his mind and will are way to great and complicated to comprehend by humans. Therefore, to claim that you KNOW the word of God would be the highest form of arrogance on this planet for any christian.

I'm not aware of anybody that's claiming to completely understand the mind of God.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Okay, One-Eyed Jack...

Re: Okay, One-Eyed Jack...

Originally posted by Gerald
Riddle me this, One-Eyed Jack: is the following statement true or false?

"There exist volitional entities, undetectable by human senses or instrumentation, who, interact with reality in a repeatable and verifiable fashion."

If your answer is yes, then please show irrefutable contemporary documentation demonstrating that such entities exist.

How can they interact with reality in a repeatable and verifiable fashion if they're undetectable by human senses or instrumentation?

 

[Gerald]

Hoo Hah! Jack's a sharp one!

Hoo Hah! Jack's a sharp one!

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
How can they interact with reality in a repeatable and verifiable fashion if they're undetectable by human senses or instrumentation?

Spoken like a true sceptic!

Angels, demons, spirits, etc. are alleged to do this all the time. Just ask Freak...

This is the primary speed bump that the supernaturalist is faced with.

 

[shima]

One Eyed Jack
>>Does a secretary use interpretation when taking dictation?<<

Yes.

>>God was there to witness it, and He told it to Moses who either wrote or compiled Genesis.<<

So, how accurate is Mozes account of Genesis? Since he hasn't seen it himself, he most likely filled in any blanks himself.

>>I think you're a little too hung up on interpretation. If all the Bible authors relied totally on their own interpretations, I'm sure they'd have cast themselves in a better light. The fact that they record the good and the bad leads me to believe they're giving a true account.<<

Wow, same facts, different conclusion. Yes, they did record both the good and the bad, but only from their viewpoint. You may have noticed that their political enemies are always described in the "evil" light. This is a very old political trick, and was only recently used by Bush to describe Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

>>It's not as if people can't possibly get anything right.<<

Well, they may get something right, but usually not without errors. Considdering the length and size of the book its UNBELIEVABLE that all these people would NOT have made a single mistake. You don't really believe that they were flawless in their work do you?

>>Like I said -- you're a prime example of someone who reads something and comes away with a totally different understanding than the one it intended to convey.<<

And exactly HOW would you know what meaning it was INTENDED to convey? Can you read Gods mind? Are YOU God? If not, and if you are indeed human and capable of error, then you can you KNOW that your understanding (ie interpretation whihc is the same thing) is the one that was "intended" instead of the billions of possible "misunderstandings"?

>>Tell me some of the scientific disciplines that back up your viewpoint. <<

Alright, I got carried away. There's no science to back up either claim of viewpoint. Sorry, you are correct in questioning that.

>>That doesn't answer my question, but I'm getting used to that from you.<<

Then what precisely was your question? "What about the people that had access to copies of the original Greek and Hebrew writing?" In exactly what kind of direction were you interrested? Be a little more specific.

>>I don't use anybody's interpretation. I just read it.<<

So you use your own interpretation. Just like everyone else, your interpretation of this world and everything in it is your own.

>>Obviously, if I thought you were right, I wouldn't believe in God.<<

Obviously. However, you have nothing more than FAITH that your interpretation is correct.

>>Have you ever considered that a lot of them use the same interpretation?<<

That isn't true, because for example Catholicism and Protestantism differ fundamentally in their interpretation of the bible such as the nature of "sin".

>>I'm not aware of anybody that's claiming to completely understand the mind of God.<<

Good, since its not possible according to the nature of God. So, since the "complete" meaning is not possible, how can you know that your "understanding" of the bible is complete? Now, if you do NOT fully understand the bible, then in what way would that understanding be a "misunderstanding"?