|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Define literal vs non-literal. | ||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
When reading the bible, what are the rules around what is to be taken literally, and what is not? Dude, I have no idea. I've been trying to figure it out but there's no concensus. I figure it would mean that the words' literal definitions are to be used. But I've been told that's not the case. You have to interpret it... and somehow still be literal  I don't get it. ABE: Quick google search say that reading literally is reading it as what the authors intended it to say. But there's no rules or anything on how to actually go about doing that. And it changes from interpretation to interpretation. I don't think reading the Bible literally is just one thing, but actually a catch all term for people who want to hold it up high as something more than a book. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It is completely inconceviable that the universe came into existence in total darkness. Especially if it was the millions of degrees Kevin that is put forth by science.. I think that would have been a light period that was very long before it became dark. But I could be mistaken. It took a bit before photons could exists and there could actually be 'light'. Take a look at this, especially parts 4 and 5:
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
