Originally posted by @gswilmGood post. Sad that it appears thus far it has gone unnoticed.Is "the Bible is the inerrant Word of God" a major tenet of the Christian faith?
There may be an ultra-conservative school of thought of Inerrancy which would deny copyist errors among the thousands of extent copies of the OT and NT Scriptures. I have never been of that opinion.
I learned the subject from a book [b]"A General Introd ...[text shortened]... Dr. Bart Erhman and Dr. James White on this ? Its worth your while IMO.
[b] - sonship [/b]
Originally posted by @gswilmOK I'll defer to Dive's focus on the question of literalism, instead of a focus on copyists' typos.Is "the Bible is the inerrant Word of God" a major tenet of the Christian faith?
There may be an ultra-conservative school of thought of Inerrancy which would deny copyist errors among the thousands of extent copies of the OT and NT Scriptures. I have never been of that opinion.
I learned the subject from a book [b]"A General Introd ...[text shortened]... Dr. Bart Erhman and Dr. James White on this ? Its worth your while IMO.
[b] - sonship [/b]
Is a major tenet of Christianity that Bible passages that can be taken to heart as allegories, should instead or in addition, be taken as reporting historic fact? I am thinking of talking serpents and the like.
-Removed-Of course it's literal.
Even where it is allegorical, metaphorical, figurative or parable.
Are you sure you understand what literal means as it relates to the narrative of God's Word?
Don't try to decide for the purpose of picking and choosing which parts to believe or not. Allow it to speak to you, and then listen. God has preserved His Word. Trust your Bible. Jesus said five times, four in Matthew and once in Luke, that there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth".
No metaphorical language there. It's literal.
Originally posted by @josephwThe writing implement for literally writing stuff that you believe will literally be written in "the book". If there's no writing implement, then do you believe the idea that there will be stuff 'written in a book' is just allegorical?
What writing implement are you referring to? Oh, I see, the one from your imagination you threw into the mix.
Originally posted by @josephwYou seem to think that "literal" and "allegorical", "metaphorical", and "figurative" are all synonymous. They are not. On top of that, you seem to think that "literal" and "believable" are synonyms. But they are not.
Of course it's literal.
Even where it is allegorical, metaphorical, figurative or parable.
Are you sure you understand what literal means as it relates to the narrative of God's Word?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerHumans' "sinful" nature and the "fall of man" can be depicted and explained - and has been very successfully - using an allegory featuring two humans, a garden, a tree, a serpent, and an apple. This does not mean humans' "sinful" nature and the "fall of man" are not literally true.
How do you explain our sinful nature if the fall of man was not literal?
Originally posted by @fmfWell, maybe you're right. Since angels are ministering spirits, I'm assuming their the ones doing the writing, and since we know they are really big dudes I think it's safe to assume that they probably use #2 lead pencils the size of redwood trees. Real trees. Not allegorical ones.
The writing implement for literally writing stuff that you believe will literally be written in "the book". If there's no writing implement, then do you believe the idea that there will be stuff 'written in a book' is just allegorical?