22 May '05 05:45>2 edits
Originally posted by Colettiif you take the verse at face value and interpret it strictly literally, then the verse is making the same fallacious argument as the rock question. which just means that the verse is literal nonsense. and yes, as you say, if one were to claim that the verse is literally correct, then his claim would likewise be nonsense.
To asse(r)t that the verse means that to God all things are possible including the impossible is to make the same fallacious argument as the rock question.
i think this does not necessarily invalidate the bible or the message it is trying to get across -- as you say, the verse arguably makes sense if we relax our interpretation. but it shows that any person who claims that the bible is literally inerrant is wrong.