Perverting the language

[Zzyzx]

.
Perverting the language

It is not uncommon in these debates for Bible defenders to re-define words, stretch definitions, and/or contradict word choices by professional translators and editors who produced English language Bibles in common use.

Some examples of the above encountered in Theist defenses:

Pet = slave
Slave = free
Day = thousand years
This generation = way off in the future
Worldwide genocide = loving God
Faith in trash pickup schedule = religious faith

WHY is it necessary or desirable to use word play in defense of Bible tales?

If anything I thought true caused me to pervert the language in its defense, I would re-examine my conclusions and position – critically questioning their validity. If they were not defensible with verifiable evidence, sound reasoning and straight talk, I would search for more truthful and accurate information and would refine my position.

I would THANK those who called my attention to errors and weaknesses in my position (and have in the realm of professions, academia, business, and occasionally in debate). They have caused me to correct mistakes. It is not appealing to me to hang onto a position that is questionable or faulty no matter how much effort I might have made to get there.

I would not compromise my integrity or credibility by attempting to defend a position that required me to stretch definitions, make irrational statements,

Keeping in mind that our threads are viewed hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of times (with several at or near 150,000 according to site statistics), would it not be wise to present ideas using words as READERS use them (and dictionaries define them) rather than insisting on supplying personal or uncommon or contrived uses?

Does anyone think it is convincing to manipulate the language in order to make a point? Is that not an example of attempting to 'win the battle' while 'losing the war' (by losing credibility and respect of readers)?

[Divine Insight]

WHY is it necessary or desirable to use word play in defense of Bible tales?

I don't think it's desirable at all. But unfortunately for those who are determined to defend the Bible it does appear to be quite necessary.

When I was studying the Bible with the intent of becoming a preacher, preachers that I would go to with my questions would often suggest to me that I'm being "too hard on the Bible" and that I need to allow for more flexible interpretations of things.

But the problem I had was that I wasn't trying to convince myself that the Bible could be true if I would only bend over backwards far enough that I could place my head within my own rectum opening.

My purpose was to understand the Bible in a very crystal clear manner that could actually be taught to others.

If becoming a preacher means that I simply have to ask other people to bend over backwards far enough to end up placing their head in a blind spot, then as far as I'm concerned that already demonstrates that the Bible itself has failed miserably.

I expected to find intelligent compelling answers to ALL my questions. And should I expect this? After all we are being told that the Bible is the inspired word of some supposedly all-wise supreme being. Shouldn't it then contain compelling convincing stories? I would not only think so, I would absolutely expect as much.

And since that is clearly not the case, I simply accept that the Bible cannot be from any all-wise supremely intelligent God.

It just seems to me that this conclusion solves everything without anything left unsolved. Any attempt to continue to support the Bible only results in a lifetime of absurd apologies and linguistic shuffling that are never compelling anyway.