Bible Literalists Please Explain . . .

[Audie]

First a person has to understand, Man was here on earth, Way before Adam and Eve came to be on earth But sin it's self, didn't come into this world until Adam and Eve.

This is why we can find fossil's of dinosaur's bones, because man was there. But not human mankind of flesh and blood.
Man of flesh and blood didn't come about until male and female of flesh and blood were created.

We understand judt fine that this is made up nonsense.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I think one interpretation is that Man has a soul and that is what is meant by "God's image". Another (weaker) version of the same idea would be that Man has an intellect enabling him to respond to God personally. More modern theology would not deny that Man arose from the other animals via evolution (i.e. differential reproduction, which involves death) and that the death spoken of in Genesis is spiritual rather than physical.

Ok, but what about man that was with God, before God created man of the flesh and blood?

 

[Faithofchristian]

We understand judt fine that this is made up nonsense.

That's only because some people do not know what the bible/scriptures does say or comfrim's. When it's as easy as 2+2=4.

 

[Audie]

That's only because some people do not know what the bible/scriptures does say or comfrim's. When it's as easy as 2+2=4.

Hard for you is to know the difference between "easy" and "facile".

 

[IsaiahX]

If physical death entered the world through the sins of Adam then there shouldn’t be fossils of dead creatures older than the first humans. And yet there clearly are, so why do people take such an unscientific interpretation of the Bible to be true? Beats me...

It seems likely that the claim refers to spiritual death. Adam did not immediately die when he ate of the tree, so it was likely spiritual. Assuming the tree and Adam are literal at all.

 

[David T]

If physical death entered the world through the sins of Adam then there shouldn’t be fossils of dead creatures older than the first humans. And yet there clearly are, so why do people take such an unscientific interpretation of the Bible to be true? Beats me...

Literalism is a scientific interpretation, its called reductionism and mathmatical realism in science. So here we see the stupidity of reductonism and linguistic realism on full display in young earth creationism intelligent design should cause us to ponder the absurdity of the intellect. But it doesnt.

 

[David T]

.

. . . where you get the impression that the Bible is to be taken literally. Is there some passage that clearly instructs the reader to take every word, idea, and account literally?

.

Cult of linguistic realism. Bit like asking any cult member why are they in a cult. They tend to clash with the cult of mathmatical realism!!! I mean you can ask someone why they lack any self awareness but good luck getting any clear answer back due to lack of self awareness and the world around them.

Scientific american said as much about science itself a couple of years ago. An article stated "the deepest mysteries in science today is the universe and the human brain".

Stated more clearly "the two things we understand the least are ourselves and the world around us". Hell thats honest and accurate! By accident.

 

[exchemist]

Ok, but what about man that was with God, before God created man of the flesh and blood?

I am not familiar with that idea, so you will need to explain where you get it from in order for me to comment on it.

 

[Milton Platt]

Well, first of all, since man was created last where is the logic in your statement?

Edited To Add: I should also point out that animals were never meant to live forever, only humans, due to their being created in God's image.

Not relevant. In terms of geologic time, whether the earth was created in 6 days or 6 to 10 thousand years (depending on which Christian you are talking to) there are animal bones tens of millions of years older than any human bones discovered.

If god created humans to live forever, he evidently failed, by the way.

 

[Milton Platt]

First a person has to understand, Man was here on earth, Way before Adam and Eve came to be on earth But sin it's self, didn't come into this world until Adam and Eve.

This is why we can find fossil's of dinosaur's bones, because man was there. But not human mankind of flesh and blood.
Man of flesh and blood didn't come about until male and female of flesh and blood were created.

Can you list some credible scientific sources for these assertions?

 

[Earthling]

Not relevant. In terms of geologic time, whether the earth was created in 6 days or 6 to 10 thousand years (depending on which Christian you are talking to) there are animal bones tens of millions of years older than any human bones discovered.

If god created humans to live forever, he evidently failed, by the way.

Nowhere in the Bible can there be any date for the creation of the heavens and earth established. It simply doesn't say. So, the Bible doesn't disagree with any of the changing estimations of the past, present or future on the subject. Science is free to change the estimation as often and as much as they like, with never any conflict with the Bible.

So why do you uninformed Bible critics keep bringing it up in the name of science, instead of having come to the sensible conclusion that any faction of Creationism that stated otherwise was wrong?

 

[Salvador]

.

. . . where you get the impression that the Bible is to be taken literally. Is there some passage that clearly instructs the reader to take every word, idea, and account literally?

.

Neither Christian nor anybody else in his/her right mind thinks a snake lacking vocal chords critter could actually speak; thereby, the talking snake in Genesis ought not to be taken literally as a snake vocalizing words . If one part of the bible ought not be taken literally, then more likely than not, many other parts of holy scripture aren't meant to be taken literally. Right?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Neither Christian nor anybody else in his/her right mind thinks a snake lacking vocal chords critter could actually speak; thereby, the talking snake in Genesis ought not to be taken literally as a snake vocalizing words . If one part of the bible ought not be taken literally, then more likely than not, many other parts of holy scripture aren't meant to be taken literally. Right?

Unfortunately that sensibility stops with Acts 1:9

 

[Salvador]

First a person has to understand, Man was here on earth, Way before Adam and Eve came to be on earth But sin it's self, didn't come into this world until Adam and Eve.

This is why we can find fossil's of dinosaur's bones, because man was there. But not human mankind of flesh and blood.
Man of flesh and blood didn't come about until male and female of flesh and blood were created.

Archaeologists have uncovered an approximately 430,000 year-old hominin apparent murder victim whose skull was examined to have multiple unhealed head wounds apparently inflicted by repeated blunt force trauma from a wooden spear or stone hand axe.

430,000-Year-Old Murder Victim Discovered

Murder is a sin...Right? So now you realize the "sinful " nature of earthbound humans existed way before the alleged 76th generation before Christ spawned by Adam, are you still gonna believe sin didn't enter this world until Adam?

 

[Kenny]

.

. . . where you get the impression that the Bible is to be taken literally. Is there some passage that clearly instructs the reader to take every word, idea, and account literally?

.

I challenge you to find ONE Christian that says you should take the parables as literal!

 

[Skwim]

Neither Christian nor anybody else in his/her right mind thinks a snake lacking vocal chords critter could actually speak; thereby, the talking snake in Genesis ought not to be taken literally as a snake vocalizing words . If one part of the bible ought not be taken literally, then more likely than not, many other parts of holy scripture aren't meant to be taken literally. Right?

Well, you have a point about not being in there right mind, which may explain why some do think the snake could talk.

The Bible characterizes Satan’s tactics as “machinations,” or “crafty acts,” and this incident helps to prove the point. (Ephesians 6:11; footnote) What we see in Eden is no fable about a talking animal; it is a chilling example of clever strategy designed to lure people away from God. In what way?

Satan chose his target carefully. Eve was the youngest intelligent creature in the universe. Taking advantage of her inexperience, he set out to trick and seduce her. By hiding behind a serpent, a very cautious creature, Satan shrewdly concealed his own bold and ambitious aims. (Genesis 3:1) Consider, too, what he accomplished by making the serpent appear to speak.

First, Satan caught and riveted Eve’s attention. She knew that snakes do not talk; her husband had named all the animals, including this one, likely after careful study. (Genesis 2:19) No doubt Eve too had observed this cautious creature. So Satan’s ploy roused Eve’s curiosity; it got her to focus on the one thing in all the garden that was forbidden to her. Second, if the serpent was lurking in the limbs of the forbidden tree, what conclusion was Eve likely to draw? Might she not have reasoned that this lowly, dumb creature had itself eaten from that fruit and had thereafter been able to speak? If the fruit could do so much for a serpent, what might it do for her? We cannot know for sure what Eve thought or whether the snake had taken a bite of the fruit, but we do know that when the serpent told Eve that the fruit would make her “like God,” she was prepared to believe the lie."
source: Watchtower online library​

AND

Because there is no other place in Scripture that reveals Satan or demons can cause animals to speak, it makes more sense that the serpent could make the sounds capable of speech and Satan used this to his advantage. In essence, Satan likely used this feature that the original serpent had and caused it to say what he wanted.
source: Answers In Genesis

.​

 

[Salvador]

Well, you have a point about not being in there right mind, which may explain why some do think the snake could talk.

The Bible characterizes Satan’s tactics as “machinations,” or “crafty acts,” and this incident helps to prove the point. (Ephesians 6:11; footnote) What we see in Eden is no fable about a talking animal; it is a chilling example of clever strategy designed to lure people away from God. In what way?

Satan chose his target carefully. Eve was the youngest intelligent creature in the universe. Taking advantage of her inexperience, he set out to trick and seduce her. By hiding behind a serpent, a very cautious creature, Satan shrewdly concealed his own bold and ambitious aims. (Genesis 3:1) Consider, too, what he accomplished by making the serpent appear to speak.

First, Satan caught and riveted Eve’s attention. She knew that snakes do not talk; her husband had named all the animals, including this one, likely after careful study. (Genesis 2:19) No doubt Eve too had observed this cautious creature. So Satan’s ploy roused Eve’s curiosity; it got her to focus on the one thing in all the garden that was forbidden to her. Second, if the serpent was lurking in the limbs of the forbidden tree, what conclusion was Eve likely to draw? Might she not have reasoned that this lowly, dumb creature had itself eaten from that fruit and had thereafter been able to speak? If the fruit could do so much for a serpent, what might it do for her? We cannot know for sure what Eve thought or whether the snake had taken a bite of the fruit, but we do know that when the serpent told Eve that the fruit would make her “like God,” she was prepared to believe the lie."
source: Watchtower online library​

AND

Because there is no other place in Scripture that reveals Satan or demons can cause animals to speak, it makes more sense that the serpent could make the sounds capable of speech and Satan used this to his advantage. In essence, Satan likely used this feature that the original serpent had and caused it to say what he wanted.
source: Answers In Genesis

.
If ​

If God didn't want neither Adam nor Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, then why was the tree from where this fruit came placed in an easily accessible place accompanied as well by a deceitful tempter. For example, I'd feel really bad if I placed a sharp knife on a table within easy reach of my naturally curious 4-year-old nephew and told him not to play with it. And then leaving him alone near the knife, only to return near the scene of the knife and there see him seriously injured by this knife. In this scenario, I couldn't help but feel at least party responsible for what happened. Right? Of course, the story of Adam and Eve's disobedience of God in the Garden of Eden is purely fictional, because no benevolent omniscient being would have created such a scene knowing there's a good chance somebody could get hurt. Right?

 

[Skwim]

I challenge you to find ONE Christian that says you should take the parables as literal!

Well, my question obviously wouldn't include parables ("simple stories used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels."), an exception that could be included in the category of "raining cats and dogs," as explained by this Bible literalist.

Question: "Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?"

Answer: Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)
source​

.
​

 

[Kenny]

Well, my question obviously wouldn't include parables ("simple stories used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels."), an exception that could be included in the category of "raining cats and dogs," as explained by this Bible literalist.

Question: "Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?"

Answer: Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)
source​

.
​

So apparently your question was already answer before you even asked?

 

[Kenny]

Not relevant.
If god created humans to live forever, he evidently failed, by the way.

That would be like saying since A=B and C=D, then A must equal D.

Sound confusing? EXACTLY!