...I acknowledge the use of figurative language in the Bible. There are clearly identified types, allegories, parables, etc. My objection is to heretofore unknown figurative language which, oh by the way, just happens to support the assumptions/presuppositions of the person who conveniently found the "figure of speech." I gave an example of this type of convenient figurative language. A certain recently moved controversial theology group erroneously assumes that the "stick of Joseph" in Ezekiel 7:19 refers to the founder of their group and the book on which the group based. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });
All you really do is offer parrotlike excuses for unbelief DA. You're not defending something noble, you're attacking something you refuse to understand or even consider.
In another thread I patiently posted logical arguments with significant Scriptural proof as a foundation for warranted belief different than yours which borrows heavily from figurative meaning in Scripture not identifiable by literalist rules. You stated that you refused to even read it. You refuse to even consider evidence! To this day, all you do here is pound on those who believe differently than you with your tired, trite sayings and avalanches of copy-n-paste quotations of those who think as you do as "support".
Your example above is trivial. Throwing out extreme or obvious representations is weak evidence for any case. Further, your objection to interpretations that
"support the assumptions/presuppositions of the person who conveniently found the 'figure of speech'" is a wonderful model of superficial logic. If a deeper understanding from Scripture is granted "A" from God, "A" naturally tries to fit what was shown him into his existing belief system to find coherence and congruity. When "A" then attempts to share the modification of his system with someone ("B") with a closed mind, "B" will only be willing to see the episode as an attempt by to justify
what "A" wants to believe instead of
what "A" was led to believe. "B" thus, by virtue of his unwillingness to consider any system outside his own, automatically deems the testimony of "A" (or anyone with similar claims) be contrived or corrupt. I.e., "B" has no method in place to either falsify or affirm the belief system of another because according to the belief system of "B" all other belief systems not in agreement with it are automatically wrong.
I've pointed out the apparent circularity of your attacks as a natural byproduct of grammatical-historical literalism several times. You've never once replied to this specific charge. If you haven't yet replied because you're still working on a well reasoned response, then my suspicion that you are unwilling or unable to engage in intellectually honest discussion is unfounded. If you haven't responded because the circularity of your method is true and you are hoping the subject will be dropped, then how close a friend are you to truth? Are you as intellectually honest in your posts as you claim to be DA?
