Define literal vs non-literal.

But how can you have a morning without an evening.
The jewish day starts with evening.
So looking at in context with the people that originally held these beliefs, one would have to say that the day began with the evening and then the sun came up and it was morning. Then the day ended when the sun went down, thus beginning a new day.Maybe you have a cultural block, that forces you to be unable to conceive that the day does not begin with the sunrise(morning). It is quite obvious that the Jewish day begins with sunset. Therefore the first day started in darkness before the sun arose approx 12 hours later(depending of course on the time of the year).
Personally, I would have made Eden closer to the equator. Eliminating the need to calculate length of day and night, with the tilt of the axis and all that.I mean is it really that hard to conceive that the day began in darkness. Everyday of your life begins in darkness. Unless of course you live at one of the poles, then at times there might be some light at midnight. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You are trying to reconcile science with myth.Either you read the book as it says, or you try to read modern understanding into it, in which case you would have a different book all together. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

As is being discussed in another thread, you can show no corroborating evidence for this. Therefore, I and others would question strongly whether this is literal.I don't think you can effectively assert that this is literal without, some sort of corroboration. Can you give any reason why this should be accepted as literal other than the passages in the bible? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Sorry to respond twice to the same post, but something else caught my eye. The first gospel was written post 70 CE. The last probably ca 120 CE. Paul never met a physical Jesus, as a matter of fact he didn't write about a physical earthly Jesus. he wrote about a transcendent, nonphysical, non-earthly Jesus. We do not see a earthly Jesus or the 12 until a post gospel era.There is no corroborating evidence for a literal interpretation. So the aliens and belief systems of the Heavens Gate people was true? Why else would they allow themselves to die in the name of their religion? Just because people are willing to die for something doesn't make it true or correct. I am sure we can come up with millions of people that died for things that were not true.
Also, just because people believe something is real does not make it real. Joan of Arc had visions that God wanted her to expel the English from France. She died convinced of the truth of he visions. Does anyone truly believe that God took sides in that conflict. Muhammad had visions from god too. Why are his beliefs less valid?Finally, even if there were these apostles, we have no idea how they died.The only apostle deaths recounted in the New Testament are that of James, the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2) and Judas (Matthew 27:0, Acts 1:18). There is a tradition that Peter died in Rome(no evidence), but there is nothing on the rest of the apostles except folklore.Your beliefs on this are not based on anything literal. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Why do christians celebrate Christmas day as the birth of Jesus? Historical, if there was a Jesus Christ, we have no way of knowing his birthdate? It is solely a tradition. Why is this 2010? It is not based on any confirmed dating of anyone's birth.

quote:

---

The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus,

---

quote:

---

According to Doggett, "Although scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before AD 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive dating"[8]. According to Matthew 2:1[9] and Matthew 2:16[10], King Herod the Great was alive when Jesus was born, and ordered the Massacre of the Innocents in response to his birth. Blackburn and Holford-Strevens fix King Herod's death shortly before Passover in 4 BC[2]:770, and say that those who accept the story of the Massacre of the Innocents sometimes associate the star that led the Biblical Magi with the planetary conjunction of 15 September 7 BC or Halley's comet of 12 BC (less likely since comets were usually considered bad omens); even historians who do not accept the Massacre accept the birth under Herod as a tradition older than the written gospels.[2]:776

​

The Gospel of Luke states that Jesus was born during the reign of the Emperor Augustus and while Cyrenius (or Quirinius) was the governor of Syria (2:1—2). Blackburn and Holford-Strevens[2]:770 indicate Cyrenius/Quirinius' governorship of Syria began in AD 6, which is incompatible with conception in 4 BC, and say that "St. Luke raises greater difficulty ...Most critics therefore discard Luke". Some scholars rely on John 8:57[11]: "thou are not yet fifty years old", to place Christ's birth in circa 18 BC.[2]:776

---

SourcePick a date, any date.Your argument is ridiculous to an extreme. Just because people celebrate something does not make it true. People believe many false things. Do I need to list them. You need some sort of evidence that agrees with the myths and stories you mention. Without corroborating evidence they remain myths. Edited by Theodoric, : changed subtitleEdited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

What do you have as evidence for any of these assertions? You have tradition and the bible itself. I venture to posit that you have nothing else. I'd love to see some sort of evidence that the gospels are literal and based on real verifiable events.This is your faith, this is not evidence. Edited by Theodoric, : changed subtitleEdited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Maybe AdminPD will let this line of argument fly now. The writings of Paul do not portray him as a literal person. He makes no mention of the happenings in the gospels(primarily because they did not exist in his time). He talks about a Jesus that existed in another realm. The writings of Paul are classic representations of the mystery cult, platonic beliefs of that time. He is writing about the other worldly Son of Man. He is not writing as if he believed jesus was a real historical figure.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Please show this. What historical events? That is a pretty big assumption. Paul no where talks about the happenings of the Gospels. There is a reference to a last supper but ther is no historical info or info that Not a physical resurrection on this earth and not a physical appearance to disciples.

As this line seems to be off topic I will not be responding to posts here.
You might want to look at
JESUS: NEITHER GOD NOR MANIt is a well researched book on the case for a mythical Jesus. Since this is not the topic I will not be discussing it further in this thread.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I agree I have stated I will not be responding to responses in this thread because it has been deemed out of topic by you.