Why are literalists literalists?

The vary quite a bit, from only accepting the first five books and rejecting all the others, to as many as 80+ in the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon, so if the spread of five books to over eighty books is similar inspiration of the Holy Spirit then what can I say?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As Christians we obviously believe that we are created beings on a created planet in a created universe. It seems to me that an intelligence that was able to accomplish all that would be quite capable of inspiring his created beings to write a text that is literally true.I suggest that it is obvious that He could have created a literal Bible. However we have to decide for ourselves whether He did or didn’t.It is my belief that He didn't. At least not in the way that Faith thinks He did even though I would agree with her that it is quite possible.I believe that the Bible was written to convey spiritual truths and that it was never intended to be read as a newspaper or science text. I believe that the physical record, the historical record, and the bulk of Christian scholarship support that position. I find no contradiction between science and the Bible. The Bible is a record of metaphysical truths and science is a study of natural truths.As I say though, dictating a literal text doesn't seem like it would be much of a trick when you look at the wonders of His creation.IMHO
Greg

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I think that is very reasonable, but I also think it was meant to be of value to people of all times and all places and all cultures.I do not limit GOD in how She decides to speak to folk.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not everything that claims to be a canon is. Same as not everyone who claims to be a Christian is. God didn't bless all assemblies equally. However, if the fewest books are in all the canons then they are canonical. Go for the ones they all share if you want to be certain which are to be trusted. Meanwhile I'll trust the 66-book Protestant Reformation canon. It holds together remarkably well.

he could have, but it wouldn't be written by human hands or be lost if it was, at least if he cared about teaching us through this book the problem i see is he could have, but the text we have doesn't show this at all, theres too much in the book that shows cultural myth, plus cultural based teachings that do not hold up to time i would mostly agree with this, but it doesn't really show spiritual truths for this time anymore, it doesn't answer a lot of questions people have, but only a few which are universal through-out all religions.
It mostly answers spirtual truths from the times of its writings, i mean how much do you worry about babies getting burned for moloch or whether a woman teaches men? only if you already feel those things are bad, the bible just reinforces them, it doesn't help you with them all that much i disagree, maybe if he wrote it himself it wouldn't be, but god didn't write it man did and man had little understanding of nature when it was written. why do you think people complain about evolution now?
its not because they can't grow wings on a pig, but becuase they don't understand it, just like most of the bible

Neither do I. But your terms raise questions about what you mean by "spiritual truths." Many Biblical passages are clearly presented as straightforward accounting of actual events in space and time. Are they "spiritual truths" or what? Seems to me you must have to throw out quite a bit of the Bible or force it to mean something other than the direct statements of facts it purports to convey.

So is Peter Rabbit. Things that are "presented" as fact are not always actual fact.There is much more to literature than stale news.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Peter Rabbit is not presented as an accounting of actual events. It is presented as a story, a tale, and everybody knows it. The Bible is presented as history and taken as history.

Not at all. The Bible is presented as poetry, allegory, etc. and possibly even a little history. Anybody who takes all of the historical dramas as literal history has no respect for the Bible at all.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So sorry, I didn't mean ALL the Bible is presented as history, but the parts that are presented as history are history.

Then you run afoul of "the canon" again. A lot of the books that are not in your canon are presented as history too. By your own logic, some of the history is missing from your canon.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Perhaps I'm not remembering something, but of all the books I'm aware of that are left out of the Protestant canon, none reads like history.

You're relying on an entirely subjective impression of what "reads like history". The flood myth, for example, doesn't "read like history" at all. It reads like science fiction.Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I didn't mean to get into this. I really just wanted to know your opinion on how the Bible was inspired.If you are referring to the Genesis account of creation I have to ask what difference does it make whether it is literal or not. God is saying that He is the creator of all that is. He is saying that we have been given the knowledge of good and evil and the free will to choose. He is saying that He deeply loves us. He is saying that He provides for us.Does it really matter if He is telling us through a metaphor or not? Does it really matter whether He used a literal snake to explain how seductive evil can be?It is the eternal truths that are important. A talking snake is just a talking snake but the fact that we have been given the ability to know, and to choose right or wrong, love or hate etc is an eternal message that resonates through human history and from this world to the next.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Well, what can I say? Your way of reading it happens to conflict with some 3500 hundred years of majority opinion.