Biblical Literalism: Can it be true yet symbolic?

There's no physical way that muscle tissue can store that much energy; there's no physical way that a cow's skeleton could survive an acceleration of that magnitude.So, logic checks out, as near as I can tell. The prediction is three days and three nights, yes? (From Matthew, as I recall.) Friday evening - Saturday evening - Sunday morning is less than two days. Not yet three even if you figure he died before the Sabbath on Friday. Mark is even more clear: "after three days."But to answer your question - what are the odds? Pretty good, when the predictions are being written down after it happened by people who weren't there. Anybody can "predict" after the fact.Somehow I suspect you won't like my answer.

And I'm saying it's not a logical possibility. Logically, muscle can't store that much energy; logically, bone can't withstand that stress. These are simply not properties that, logically, muscle and bone possess.Now, you could have a cow with a non-existent super-elastic material for muscles, and a skeleton made out of an unbreakable material that doesn't exist (Wolverine's adamantium bones, if you will), but then, logically, you wouldn't have a cow anymore.So I don't see how it's even logically possible, unless you're operating from a radically different definition of "logic" than I am. Starting from the relevant premises, there's no way to deduct that it's possible for a cow to accomplish that feat.

I doubt it; logic is an area that I've studied pretty extensively, both formally and privately. No, logic is deduction from premises according to valid rules of transformation.Cows have certain properties; muscles and bones do as well. Reasoning from those premises, we deduce that cows are not capable of the feats you describe.It's really very simple logic. I have no idea where you got the idea that "logic" means you can simply assert any old nonsense that you choose. Perhaps you can show me how you deduce your position, and from what premises you do so?

Sure; but so are statements like "X has the Y characteristic."

Yes; it's false.That's what's wrong with it. The logical construct "cow" isn't capable of the feat you describe, even if the muscles and desire were present.

I still don't see it. "Cow" implies certain characteristics; the object that has the necessesary characteristics to circumnavigate Earth's moon and return to the surface is not a cow, by definition.So, like I said, show me the logic. Start with your premises and show a valid derivation to "cows jumping over the moon", or just give up and admit that you don't really seem to understand how logic works. I don't find that progression significant. Certainly its not as far from protozoa to metazoa as it is from "cow" to what you propose. Cheetahs and E. coli are made out of the same stuff. The cow you're proposing is made out of materials that don't even exist.

Logic isn't a framework to validate nonsense. It's deductive reasoning from assumed premises.Because we're talking about objects in the real world, the premises that we assume are the physical constraints that govern real world objects. In that context, "physically impossible" and "logically impossible" are the same thing. It's entirely appropriate to argue what I'm arguing; it doesn't make any sense to say that this is "logically possible", because it isn't.It's possible, too, that this simply isn't a question of logic; but in that case it doesn't make any sense to say "logically possible" either. The question is logically nonsensical in that case.