Define literal vs non-literal.

Theodoric, You're demanding hard outside evidence that the written event literally happened. The thread is about how one determines what is to be taken literally and what isn't. Method, not proof.This is a Bible Study thread and the path you're taking is more along the lines of Accuracy and Inerrancy and fits more with the Evidence for the Biblical Record Thread.I feel your discussion with Peg is better served in that thread.If killinghurts disagrees with me, he can let me know. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.Thank you
AdminPD

quote:

---

Note the topic of this thread. As Purpledawn has stressed regarding Genesis 1, we are not considering here whether or not the Gospel accounts are actually true or whether Jesus actually was a literal person, but whether or not the accounts portray Him as a literal person.

---

The OP really isn't that difficult. The method is the issue. Quite frankly, I think everyone needs to stop using the word literal.I stress, that this is not an accuracy and inerrancy thread. No arguing over existence or nonexistence. Keep to the method and reason behind an interpretation.

Apparently it has become difficult to stay on topic in this thread.The originator has clarified his thoughts in Message 267.I'm closing this thread and will only reopen it if a request is made in Thread Reopen Requests 2 and participants can keep to the topic which deals with method.Thanks
AdminPD

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate