Originally posted by @josephwAs I have already said, several times now, I'm not questioning what's true, what's not true, nor what conflicts or errors there are.
Either it's all true or none of it is.
All I'm interested in what you and other Christians believe is literal and what isn't literal. I'm not sure why you seem to be having difficulty with this or why you are so reticent in engaging in discussion in what you think is or isn't literal?
Josephw, do you believe that everything in the bible is literal or not? If not how do you decide which is literal which isn't, and do you have any examples?
Here's an example from me: do you think the trees of life and knowledge in the genesis account were literal trees with roots and leaves etc? And if so where are they now?
It is my belief that these trees are not literal.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29601
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @josephw'All' the bible is infallible. It therefore makes no difference if the discrepancy or contradiction is about something you view less important than the resurrection of Jesus. Infallible means infallible.
A copyist's mistake does not an error make. At least the translators had the integrity to not add or subtract from the manuscript.
Seriously, try and find a real error in the scriptures. Something important like in the area of doctrine. Like a major error that would cast real doubt on the veracity of the truth of God's Word.
Why do some people seem t ...[text shortened]... that contradicts what the Bible teaches concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ for example.
One error, no matter how insignificant you personally find it, still blows the whole infallible thing out of the water. (And there are simply hundreds of such contradictions to be found,...hundreds).
Originally posted by @divegeesterWhy are you such a disingenuous cad?
Me neither.
As I said this thread is not about mistakes, contradictions nor even about truth per-se, it's about what is literal and what isn't. The truth of your doctrine depends on it.
I've asked you a question earlier in the thread: Do you believe that everything in the bible is literal? If not, then what isn't literal and how do you decide?
Do you feel like answering this?
You're the one that said he doesn't believe the genesis account of creation is literal. Answer your own question first. Why do you think it's not literal?
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterCan you remember the verse I quoted? I applied the meaning of that verse to you because of your continuous ingratiating of yourself with unbelievers and the vitriol you spew out towards Christian posters in this forum.
But weren't you using scripture out of context when you used it to publicly call me, another Christian an "enemy of god"?
If the shoe fits, wear it. If you continue to expose yourself as an imposter publicly in this forum I will continue to call you out for your duplicity.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterWhat else do you disbelieve about the genesis account of creation?
It is my belief that these trees are not literal.
Do you believe any of it? Or just what fits in with your own interpretation and world view?
I'm beginning to wonder just how much of the Bible you believe is literally true or not. How about the tree of life? Is that just a metaphor for something else? Pray tell just what you think that is, and how does one eat of it if it's not a literal tree? Is eating the fruit of the tree of life a metaphor too? How does that work if it's not literal?
If you believe that the genesis account of creation is allegorical or metaphorical please explain the meaning of the account if it's not literal. Try to convince me it's not literal. Start with verse one.