Why I believe in Talking Snake

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
How do you distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible in the correct way?

(Particularly within the same book, such as The Book of Revelation).

Reading and studying.

But here's the easy answer. Read and study read and study read and study.

Have you ever taken an art survey course and at the end were required to give a detailed description of a work of art? All the details of who, what, when, where and how that work of art was created, plus the added description of the piece itself? I don't want to get started on all the complexities involved in the creation of a masterpiece, except to say that the question you're asking requires an answer you probably wouldn't believe anyway.

Which brings to mind a question. Why are you asking? Do you really think I can give an answer to anyone's satisfaction given the nature of the question and the forum in which it is asked?

Originally posted by @secondson
Not by chance can/do I distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible the correct way.

You might want ask me how I distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible in the correct way.

My answer wouldn't do you much good though seeing as how you have no faith in the content of the scriptures.

See what I'm saying? Maybe? Your move.

Yes I see what you are saying but I'd be more interested in a straight answer: Is the way you distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible the correct way, by any chance?

Originally posted by @fmf
Yes I see what you are saying but I'd be more interested in a straight answer: Is the way you distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible the correct way, by any chance?

You ask God for wisdom.

Originally posted by @sonship
You ask God for wisdom.

So if everybody who says they have asked their god figure for "wisdom" comes up with their various interpretations, are they all correct?

Originally posted by @sonship
I take it as historical and with profound significance also. God, Who transcends time, is sovereign over history and has not problem at all arranging something like this. ie. A historical event with great allegorical significance.

How many hundreds of thousands of years passed after this "historical event" occurred before the account of it was written down? How did the people who finally wrote it down establish that the story was not allegorical?

Originally posted by @fmf
How many hundreds of thousands of years passed after this "historical event" occurred before the account of it was written down? How did the people who finally wrote it down establish that the story was not allegorical?

If you want good guidance in how you should read something in the Bible, I recommend that you ask God for wisdom.

Next year, the same.
In a hundred years, the same.
In a thousand, the same.

Originally posted by @sonship
If you want good guidance in how you should read something in the Bible, I recommend that you ask God for wisdom.

Next year, the same.
In a hundred years, the same.
In a thousand, the same.

You have dodged my questions.

Originally posted by @fmf
You have dodged my questions.

I will take that to mean that you do not want good guidance how to take what is written in the Bible, Your interest is something else.

So we have a divergence of interests.

Originally posted by @sonship
I will take that to mean that you do not want good guidance how to take what is written in the Bible, Your interest is something else.

So we have a divergence of interests.

Stop dodging.

You said "I take it as historical..." and you asserted it was "an historical event". So I am asking you two questions about this specific claim that you are making about its historicity.

You have made an explicit claim. These questions pertain to it:

[1] How many hundreds of thousands of years passed after this "historical event" occurred before the account of it was written down?

[2] How did the people who finally wrote it down establish that the story was not allegorical?

These questions are totally on-topic and regard a specific and explicit claim you have made with reference to your thread title and OP.

Originally posted by @secondson
Reading and studying.

But here's the easy answer. Read and study read and study read and study.

Have you ever taken an art survey course and at the end were required to give a detailed description of a work of art? All the details of who, what, when, where and how that work of art was created, plus the added description of the piece itself? I don't ...[text shortened]... er to anyone's satisfaction given the nature of the question and the forum in which it is asked?

What if 'reading and studying' leads one to the conclusion that it isn't a masterpiece at all and that the majority of it is a mishmash of contradictions and myth? Indeed, the more I look at the 'details' the more the imperfections shine through.

Claude Monet's 'Bain à la Grenouillère' is a masterpiece, every brushstroke there for a reason, a painting of beautiful and breathtaking conformity and depth. The depiction of the water is believable and without inconsistency. All great works survive closer scrutiny. Personally, for me, the Bible does not.

And 'I ask' to hear your answer. Nothing more.

Originally posted by @fmf
You have dodged my questions.

I take it you believe that you have never dodged any questions yourself?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I take it you believe that you have never dodged any questions yourself?

If you feel you have been the victim of some sort of general conversational injustice, start a thread about it.

Originally posted by @fmf
If you feel you have been the victim of some sort of general conversational injustice, start a thread about it.

If you feel that dodging questions and then calling out other people for doing so reflects well on you feel free to continue to do so.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you feel that dodging questions and then calling out other people for doing so reflects well on you feel free to continue to do so.

Like I said, start a thread about it if want to parade that chip you have on your shoulder. I can't remember "dodging" any questions of yours that I had not already addressed except when you were stalking me and asking me questions about my wife and kids and I had to ask you to desist.

I think Ghost of a Duke had to ask you to desist from doing that too. If you think he "dodged" your questions about his wife and kids, mention that in the OP of the thread you're going to start.

Meanwhile, can you predict what sonship's answers to these two on-topic questions might be: How many hundreds of thousands of years passed after this "historical event" occurred before the account of it was written down? How did the people who finally wrote it down establish that the story was not allegorical?

Trying to get to the bottom of why sonship believes in the talking snake, especially his claim that it was "an historical event".