[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

Jo, the Lord gave excellent instructions in building a ship. So why would it be wrong in this case

Genesis 6
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

You can sail of a ship built to those specification Lisa if you want, but make sure you take a life jacket for when it sinks.

Anyway Lisa you are trying distract people from the main point I am trying to make, that when we look at the description of the molten lake it does not hold water, let alone a molten sea.

[Lisa H]

Re: Questions for literalists

You can sail of a ship built to those specification Lisa if you want, but make sure you take a life jacket for when it sinks.

Anyway Lisa you are trying distract people from the main point I am trying to make, that when we look at the description of the molten lake it does not hold water, let alone a molten sea.

Why would I want to distract people from making you look foolish.

You must concede you are wrong in this case. Anyway, the brim measurement could be from the inside. Did you know that when you measure a washer (nut & bolt type) the measurement is taken from the outer of the hole.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

Why would I want to distract people from making you look foolish.

You must concede you are wrong in this case. Anyway, the brim measurement could be from the inside. Did you know that when you measure a washer (nut & bolt type) the measurement is taken from the outer of the hole.

Still does not work Lisa
Internal Diameter 10 Cubits
Wall width 1 hand breadth (1/6 or 1/7 cubits)

an internal circumference of over 31 cubits
an external circumference of over 32 cubits

And it still does not say if the dimensions are internal or external so you have to put an interpretation on them, you have to choose what the KJV-CFT means.

[Lisa H]

Re: Questions for literalists

Still does not work Lisa
Internal Diameter 10 Cubits
Wall width 1 hand breadth (1/6 or 1/7 cubits)

an internal circumference of over 31 cubits
an external circumference of over 32 cubits

And it still does not say if the dimensions are internal or external so you have to put an interpretation on them, you have to choose what the KJV-CFT means.

The way in measuring of a circular object could have changed. Also have you allowed that it may not be a perfect formed circle, do not forget it was hand made. Also it says the brim was like a cup. A cup has a lip.

1 Kings 7
26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

The way in measuring of a circular object could have changed. Also have you allowed that it may not be a perfect formed circle, do not forget it was hand made.

But it does not say

23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was almost round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

You are adding the interpretation that it was not actually round.

Also it says the brim was like a cup. A cup has a lip.

1 Kings 7
26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

That still leaves the need to interpret what the measurements are referring to, but the LBC line is that the KJV-CFT does not require, and is not open to, interpretation.

Just what has a diameter of 10 cubits?

1. The inside of the vessel.
2. The outside of the vessel.
3. The inside of the brim.
4. The outside of the brim.

Just what has a circumference of 30 cubits?

1. The inside of the vessel.
2. The outside of the vessel.
3. The inside of the brim.
4. The outside of the brim.

[Lisa H]

Re: Questions for literalists

But it does not say
You are adding the interpretation that it was not actually round.

That still leaves the need to interpret what the measurements are referring to, but the LBC line is that the KJV-CFT does not require, and is not open to, interpretation.

Just what has a diameter of 10 cubits?

1. The inside of the vessel.
2. The outside of the vessel.
3. The inside of the brim.
4. The outside of the brim.

Just what has a circumference of 30 cubits?

1. The inside of the vessel.
2. The outside of the vessel.
3. The inside of the brim.
4. The outside of the brim.

Almost round would mean not perfect round. Even you would have to agree with that. Also I said, the measuring of a circular object may have changed.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

Almost round would mean not perfect round. Even you would have to agree with that.

That is the point I was making when I added the word almost, hence in bold red, if it said that I would have less of a point, but it says "it was round"

Also I said, the measuring of a circular object may have changed.

So it is you interpretation of the passage that "god" was referring to some different form of geometry to that which we know of today?

[Lisa H]

Re: Questions for literalists

That is the point I was making when I added the word almost, hence in bold red, if it said that I would have less of a point, but it says "it was round"

So it is you interpretation of the passage that "god" was referring to some different form of geometry to that which we know of today?

Is this one of your loop arguments again. I just gave you possible options that may throw out the way you are interpreting the Bible.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

Is this one of your loop arguments again. I just gave you possible options that may throw out the way you are interpreting the Bible.

Those possible options are based on making some form of interpretation. I have no argument with the possible options you give, just the fact that you need to make some form of interpretation to make the passage work.

The ambiguities would not be a problem if you accept that it is a book written by a bunch of chasers a few thousand years ago, but that is not what the LBC claims the KJV-CFT to be, they claim it to be the perfect word of "god" with no ambiguities and not in need of any form of interpretation.

[Lisa H]

Re: Questions for literalists

Those possible options are based on making some form of interpretation. I have no argument with the possible options you give, just the fact that you need to make some form of interpretation to make the passage work.

The ambiguities would not be a problem if you accept that it is a book written by a bunch of chasers a few thousand years ago, but that is not what the LBC claims the KJV-CFT to be, they claim it to be the perfect word of "god" with no ambiguities and not in need of any form of interpretation.

Why don't you build a molten sea with the details given to prove them wrong.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

Why don't you build a molten sea with the details given to prove them wrong.

Oh what a compelling argument Lisa
I would still have to work out just what the dimensions are and the only way to do that is to interpret just what they are. My point is not that the passage is wrong, just that is unclear and does not give enough detail to remove the need for the reader to make some assumptions about the finer points. This goes against the teachings of your church.

Who decides which parts are literal and which parts are not? If you go to this, you are leaning on man to tell you what to believe or not to believe. Shouldn’t that faith be put in GOD? I mean, after all, HE knows what is best and within HIS divine will better than some man in a suit and tie standing behind a pulpit in some so-called namby-pamby “church.” The BIBLE was not sent here for man to make up or interpret any way that he wants to interpret it! GOD warns us about doing that very thing!
[..]

It’s easy to see that the BIBLE is not some set of fairy-tales, it is the very Word of GOD™, perfect in all ways, and to be taken literally not read in the way some man wants to interpret it. GOD did the interpreting, its up to us to do the believing and obeying. You can’t serve both the world and GOD.
[..]

I hope this explains the facts on not interpreting the BIBLE. People need to refrain from claiming we at Landover have ever interpreted a passage of scripture. We read it for what it says and we follow it, no questions asked. That’s what GOD wants, not a bunch of people squabbling over the definition to “is” like Bill Clinton trying to weasel out of telling the truth.

For passage about the molten sea to make sense you have to go against everything Bro Tempy says above.

[Lisa H]

Re: Questions for literalists

Oh what a compelling argument Lisa
I would still have to work out just what the dimensions are and the only way to do that is to interpret just what they are. My point is not that the passage is wrong, just that is unclear and does not give enough detail to remove the need for the reader to make some assumptions about the finer points. This goes against the teachings of your church.

For passage about the molten sea to make sense you have to go against everything Bro Tempy says above.

I am not the one saying it is wrong. If you look at the my first post I said the poster had not written what he claimed was in the Bible verse.

I thought you would be manly enough to build something like that.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

I am not the one saying it is wrong. If you look at the my first post I said the poster had not written what he claimed was in the Bible verse.

The poster had written what is implied by the verse under one interpretation of it, you then posted the verse they were referring to. Then we went on to discus why it was not possible to take the verse and the rest of the passage literally as the teachings of your church say we must. The theme of this topic is about how can you take the KJV-CFT literally.

I thought you would be manly enough to build something like that.

But what use would it be to me?

Don't answer that Lisa, you will only take it as a chance to derail another thread, something you have so far not done in this one.

[Lisa H]

Re: Questions for literalists

The poster had written what is implied by the verse under one interpretation of it, you then posted the verse they were referring to. Then we went on to discus why it was not possible to take the verse and the rest of the passage literally as the teachings of your church say we must. The theme of this topic is about how can you take the KJV-CFT literally.

The poster wrote

If you believe the Bible should be read literally, then do you believe that...

1. The value of pi=3 (1 Kings 7:23)?

Is this what the what the Bible verse says, no. Its says;

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

The poster has made a interpretation, and you have just followed.

But what use would it be to me?

Don't answer that Lisa, you will only take it as a chance to derail another thread, something you have so far not done in this one.

As as far as I am aware it was used for baptism. So you could get baptized into Landover.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

The poster wrote



Is this what the what the Bible verse says, no. Its says;

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

The poster has made a interpretation, and you have just followed.

As I said

The poster had written what is implied by the verse under one interpretation of it, you then posted the verse they were referring to. Then we went on to discus why it was not possible to take the verse and the rest of the passage literally as the teachings of your church say we must. The theme of this topic is about how can you take the KJV-CFT literally.

As as far as I am aware it was used for baptism. So you could get baptized into Landover.

Is that your interpretation of what is was used for or can you show me the relevant passage where it describes its use?