Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[LittleLambofJesus]

Because it was normal.

The bible says that the snake was considered an intelligent creature.

I suspect that the snake was actually a dragon, which every society has a reference to as being intelligent enough to communicate, and yet, calls it "worm" and "Snake".

That could be.
According to Amos 9:3, the nachash also had Gills.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Genesis 3:1 And the nachash becomes crafty/`aruwm from all of life of the field which YHWH 'Elohiym made. And he is saying to the woman: "indeed! that 'Elohiym says 'not thou shall eat from any of tree of the garden'"?.....................
13 And YHWH 'Elohiym is saying to woman "what this thou doest"? And the woman is saying: "the nachash, he deceived/beguiled/nasha me and I am eating".
14 And YHWH 'Elohiym is saying to the nachash: "that thou do this, thou [are] being cursed from every of the beast, and from all of life of the field. On belly of thee, thou shall go, and soil thou shall eat all of days of lives of thee.

Amos 9:3 And if they are hiding in summit of the Karmel, from there I shall search and I take them. And if they are concealed from before My eyes in floor of the sea, from there I shall instruct the nachash and he bites them.

 

[Assyrian]

Going back to your metaphor point, the "legless" serpent apparently attends Court with the other sons of God in Job 1, 2. He announces that he has been "walking" up and down the earth where he pleases. Do you think he was a wise guy? Does your metaphor still work? Did he find another body? Is that why dinosaurs are extinct (messing with you)?

Why would you think a metaphor needs to still literally work? Or that he would have to find another body because in a metaphor he was described as losing his legs?

The bible tells us the serpent was Satan. Not a reptile described in Genesis but a spiritual being. That means describing him as an animal in the story is a metaphor.

The Genesis account tells us God cursed the serpent to slither on its belly and eat dust all the days of its life. The fact, as you point out, that he is described 'walking about' in Job tells us the Genesis description has to be a metaphor, either that or God's curse failed.

I don't see why you would have such a problem seeing a metaphorical meaning in crawling on his belly and eating dust. Isn't being cast down into the dust a common biblical metaphor and symbol?
Psalm 44:25 For our soul is bowed down to the dust; our belly clings to the ground.
Psalm 72:9 May desert tribes bow down before him and his enemies lick the dust!
Isaiah 26:5 For he has humbled the inhabitants of the height, the lofty city. He lays it low, lays it low to the ground, casts it to the dust.
Lam 3:29 let him put his mouth in the dust-- there may yet be hope;
Amos 2:7 those who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth.

We can see another aspect of the metaphor in Ezekiel's take on the Genesis story, his description of the jewel encrusted guardian cherub of Eden being thrown from God's Holy mountain 28:16, and cast to the earth v.17. The Genesis serpent end up on its belly in the dust, the angel cast from God's mountain down to the earth. The Genesis snake is a metaphor.

 

[busterdog]

Why would you think a metaphor needs to still literally work? Or that he would have to find another body because in a metaphor he was described as losing his legs?

The bible tells us the serpent was Satan. Not a reptile described in Genesis but a spiritual being. That means describing him as an animal in the story is a metaphor.

The Genesis account tells us God cursed the serpent to slither on its belly and eat dust all the days of its life. The fact, as you point out, that he is described 'walking about' in Job tells us the Genesis description has to be a metaphor, either that or God's curse failed.

I don't see why you would have such a problem seeing a metaphorical meaning in crawling on his belly and eating dust. Isn't being cast down into the dust a common biblical metaphor and symbol?
Psalm 44:25 For our soul is bowed down to the dust; our belly clings to the ground.
Psalm 72:9 May desert tribes bow down before him and his enemies lick the dust!
Isaiah 26:5 For he has humbled the inhabitants of the height, the lofty city. He lays it low, lays it low to the ground, casts it to the dust.
Lam 3:29 let him put his mouth in the dust-- there may yet be hope;
Amos 2:7 those who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth.

We can see another aspect of the metaphor in Ezekiel's take on the Genesis story, his description of the jewel encrusted guardian cherub of Eden being thrown from God's Holy mountain 28:16, and cast to the earth v.17. The Genesis serpent end up on its belly in the dust, the angel cast from God's mountain down to the earth. The Genesis snake is a metaphor.

I am eyeballing this because I don't have a clear measure of this passage from Genesis. It doesn't feel right to me. The tree of life is robust as a symbol and appropriate on many levels.

As metaphor, I am just not seeing a great fit.

Eg, this is not dust licking as you have described it:

Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Mat 4:9
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
This is rather distinct from your examples.

That is not exactly citing you chapter and verse. I don't have a great answer.

 

[gluadys]

The tree of life is robust as a symbol and appropriate on many levels.

As metaphor, I am just not seeing a great fit.

What do you see as the difference between a symbol and a metaphor?

When you say the tree of life is a symbol, my instinct is to ask, what is it a symbol of?

Do you have a similar sort of question when the word metaphor is used?

Why does this image work for you as symbol, but not as metaphor?

 

[Assyrian]

I am eyeballing this because I don't have a clear measure of this passage from Genesis. It doesn't feel right to me. The tree of life is robust as a symbol and appropriate on many levels.

As metaphor, I am just not seeing a great fit.

Is this a problem with the Genesis snake as a metaphor, as the bible tells us it is (Rev 12&20), or is it more the ingrained aversion literalists seem to have to biblical metaphors?

I think there are serious theological problems with a literal tree of life. It means there is another source of eternal life as well as Jesus. It may be locked away and guarded but a flaming sword, but it exists. Jesus is no longer the only way.

It works as a metaphor for Jesus and the everlasting life we have through him, he even used the tree metaphor (a vine) himself, and the fruit of the vine symbolised his shed blood. There is something that sends shivers down my spine in the symbol of a tree back in the beautiful garden of Eden, a tree representing the one who would give his life on a wooden cross. But then the cross was God plan all along, before the foundation of the world. Revelation tells us the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations... where does Isaiah say our healing comes from?

You can take the imagery as far as you want, it unpacks further and further, I think we have a great freedom to explore, but the basis of the imagery is that the tree is a tree that gives everlasting life and the bible tells us we get that life from Jesus and through his death on Calvary.

Eg, this is not dust licking as you have described it:

Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Mat 4:9
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
This is rather distinct from your examples.

Of course it is. This is not talking about Satan tempting mankind and being cursed, it is talking about Satan tempting Jesus. And of course it is not using the snake metaphor, it is identifying him directly. The question is, what happen at the end of the story? Is the tempter defeated? Is the curse first given in Eden fulfilled? Does he strike the seed of the woman's head? Does the seed of the woman crush his head? Is it actually a literal snake Messiah bruises? Or is Jesus' defeat of Satan at Calvary the fulfilment of a figurative prophecy?

That is not exactly citing you chapter and verse. I don't have a great answer.

That's ok. Here is something to think about. If it wasn't Jesus' victory over Satan at Calvary when did the promised saviour bruise the Eden serpent's head?

 

[busterdog]

Is this a problem with the Genesis snake as a metaphor, as the bible tells us it is (Rev 12&20), or is it more the ingrained aversion literalists seem to have to biblical metaphors?

Most things have a literal truth and a metaphorical truth. Its draining the literal truth out of the figure that is the problem.

I think there are serious theological problems with a literal tree of life. It means there is another source of eternal life as well as Jesus. It may be locked away and guarded but a flaming sword, but it exists. Jesus is no longer the only way.

Understood. If people are to confuse the way to eternal life, they will have a problem. The same thing happened with the brazen serpent, which had to be destroyed.

However, lets not confuse the way to eternal life with eternal life self. Do the redeemed need a means of redemption anymore? I doubt the cross is as prominent in worship in heaven.

But, we who are so in need of a way to redemption need to worry about our potential to worship trees.

But then the cross was God plan all along, before the foundation of the world. Revelation tells us the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations... where does Isaiah say our healing comes from?

Both the Israelites and we receive bread from heaven. We understand both the symbol of the one who is the bread of life and the literal importance of bread.

Jesus said he came to give life and life more abundantly. He is indeed present in the gifts and the gifts are real and corporeal.

You can take the imagery as far as you want, it unpacks further and further, I think we have a great freedom to explore, but the basis of the imagery is that the tree is a tree that gives everlasting life and the bible tells us we get that life from Jesus and through his death on Calvary.

The cross is the "through" part. Jesus is the life. How exactly he designs heavenly trees, I can't say. But, I am promised a body in Kingdom. It will need to be fed, as I understand the book. I am not a gnostic. Jesus ascended bodily into heaven and will return the same way.

With the body so evidently a part of our eschatology, I think we need to be careful to make sure we take things literally enough.

Of course it is. This is not talking about Satan tempting mankind and being cursed, it is talking about Satan tempting Jesus. And of course it is not using the snake metaphor, it is identifying him directly. The question is, what happen at the end of the story? Is the tempter defeated? Is the curse first given in Eden fulfilled? Does he strike the seed of the woman's head? Does the seed of the woman crush his head? Is it actually a literal snake Messiah bruises? Or is Jesus' defeat of Satan at Calvary the fulfilment of a figurative prophecy?

Not sure I understand all that you suggest. The bruising was announced as future. The tempter was de-feeted, but not defeated in Eden. I guess you are asking whether a crucifixion as THE bruising is necessarily metaphorical. As noted below, there are other victories and some of them appear to be physical.

And the verb tense is also quite confusing. We have references to the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, we have Isaiah talking of stripes by which we WERE healed. If you look at Darfur, you might wonder what all the fuss about victory in Jesus at Calvary was all about.

Col 2:15
[And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Is there anyone who does not struggle with the mystery of how it could be "accomplished" and yet the victory seems yet so future and distant?

Again, I don't have a good answer.

That's ok. Here is something to think about. If it wasn't Jesus' victory over Satan at Calvary when did the promised saviour bruise the Eden serpent's head?

Well, first do me a favor. Tell your friend Fury that serpent and Satan have the identity you describe and that the latter was not invented by the freakin' Zoroastrians or whoever he was talking about. As Ezek. 28 tells us, "thou wast in Eden." Satan was not a later invention. I think Fury has an overly zealous professor there at University.

There is more than one victory over Satan. You mention the can of whoop-A opened in Rev. 20. I assume you are referring to "bruise" as a necessarily metaphorical figure.

Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.

Paul referred to a later bruising. After the cross. But, I do believe that bruising was also at the cross. Few Biblical symbols fail to resonate in more than one event. I am looking to watch a literal bruising someday. Of course, "crush" is the other word that is used here.

 

[busterdog]

What do you see as the difference between a symbol and a metaphor?

When you say the tree of life is a symbol, my instinct is to ask, what is it a symbol of?

Do you have a similar sort of question when the word metaphor is used?

Why does this image work for you as symbol, but not as metaphor?

Symbol and metaphor are roughly the same, at least as I use them.

The tree is a metaphor and combines with a number of concepts. Bread of heaven. Bread broken for you. The cross. Mana. And the trees that feed the nations in paradise. As noted below, the tree seems to have a tangible reality and metaphorical value.

 

[gluadys]

Symbol and metaphor are roughly the same, at least as I use them.

That is the way most people use the terms, though technically they are not the same thing. That is why I was interested when you distinguished between them.

Originally Posted by busterdog View Post
The tree of life is robust as a symbol and appropriate on many levels.

As metaphor, I am just not seeing a great fit.

Which takes me back to my question:

Why does this image work for you as symbol, but not as metaphor?

It is an even greater puzzle if you see symbol and metaphor as much the same thing.

So there is something in your thinking about symbol/metaphor that is not clicking with me and I am trying to tease it out.

As noted below, the tree seems to have a tangible reality and metaphorical value.

Does the presence or lack of tangible reality figure into your comments on metaphor?

 

[Assyrian]

Most things have a literal truth and a metaphorical truth. Its draining the literal truth out of the figure that is the problem.

How is it a problem if the figure was metaphorical to start with? Will we find that once in his carpentry days Jesus clung to the door frame of a sheepfold to let the sheep in and out, that he literally was the door of the sheepfold? Was the bread of life once baked in an oven with a thick golden crust? Is there going to be a literal seven headed beast to puzzle zoologists?

Understood. If people are to confuse the way to eternal life, they will have a problem. The same thing happened with the brazen serpent, which had to be destroyed.

I don't think the bronze serpent had any power in itself. If people obeyed God and looked at it God healed them. If it healed people of snake bites after that, it would only have been because God chose to respond to people's faith, not because of any powers of the bronze itself.

But the tree of life was very different, in the Genesis story Adam and Eve could still have eaten the fruit after the fall and lived forever, in spite of being curse by God. They were barred from the tree because it would have given them everlasting life whether God wanted it or not. Gen 3:22 Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden... 24 and placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. This does not make sense literally. Figuratively it is simply emphasising how cut off we are from the eternal life we once had in God.

However, lets not confuse the way to eternal life with eternal life self. Do the redeemed need a means of redemption anymore? I doubt the cross is as prominent in worship in heaven.

I don't know about that, 'The Song of the Lamb' sounds a rather pointed reference. But in Genesis the tree was the way to eternal life, and if A&E had eaten it they would have had eternal life.

But, we who are so in need of a way to redemption need to worry about our potential to worship trees.

Always a danger, especially cross shaped trees with figures attached to them hanging on the wall.

Both the Israelites and we receive bread from heaven. We understand both the symbol of the one who is the bread of life and the literal importance of bread.

Jesus said he came to give life and life more abundantly. He is indeed present in the gifts and the gifts are real and corporeal.

But he never was bread.

The cross is the "through" part. Jesus is the life. How exactly he designs heavenly trees, I can't say. But, I am promised a body in Kingdom. It will need to be fed, as I understand the book. I am not a gnostic. Jesus ascended bodily into heaven and will return the same way.

With the body so evidently a part of our eschatology, I think we need to be careful to make sure we take things literally enough.

Of course. There are a lot of things the bible is very clear on, the insistence on Jesus' physical, fish munching resurrection, is one. His physical body was transformed, and our will be too, just like his. But it wasn't a spirit or phantom. There is also a danger taking thing too literally too when they were meant as metaphors. Some people think bread and wine are literally transformed in Jesus flesh and blood. They believe they are worshipping Jesus when they bow down and adore the bread and wine. Sound theology? harmless mistake? or another bronze serpent?

Not sure I understand all that you suggest. The bruising was announced as future. The tempter was de-feeted, but not defeated in Eden. I guess you are asking whether a crucifixion as THE bruising is necessarily metaphorical. As noted below, there are other victories and some of them appear to be physical.

And the verb tense is also quite confusing. We have references to the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, we have Isaiah talking of stripes by which we WERE healed. If you look at Darfur, you might wonder what all the fuss about victory in Jesus at Calvary was all about.

Col 2:15
[And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Is there anyone who does not struggle with the mystery of how it could be "accomplished" and yet the victory seems yet so future and distant?

Again, I don't have a good answer.

I am suggesting the Genesis prophecy was about the cross, Messiah's defeat of Satan. In the figurative story of Genesis, the tempter is described in terms of a snake, and the promise of a redeemer who would free us from the consequences our temptation, sin and the death that resulted, who would defeat Satan who brought mankind into bondage, is told in terms of the same metaphor Genesis is using. The seed would be born, the snake would bite him but the Seed would bruise the snake's head. There have been many battles where God has defeated the enemy, he defeated leviathan when he rescued the Israelites from Egypt. The greatest was a Calvary where he broke the power of sin. None have involved thousand year old snakes. The promise has always been about God and God's Messiah defeating the spirtual enemy.

Well, first do me a favor. Tell your friend Fury that serpent and Satan have the identity you describe and that the latter was not invented by the freakin' Zoroastrians or whoever he was talking about. As Ezek. 28 tells us, "thou wast in Eden." Satan was not a later invention. I think Fury has an overly zealous professor there at University.

I have, he agreed. You just have to realise Ezekiel does not mention Satan and wasn't thinking about Satan. There is a difference between what Ezekiel said and meant, describing the ruler of Tyre alluding to the serpent of Eden and identifying him as a fallen Cherub, with what we read in hindsight with Revelation's identification of the serpent of Eden with Satan.

There is more than one victory over Satan. You mention the can of whoop-A opened in Rev. 20. I assume you are referring to "bruise" as a necessarily metaphorical figure.

Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.

Paul referred to a later bruising. After the cross. But, I do believe that bruising was also at the cross. Few Biblical symbols fail to resonate in more than one event. I am looking to watch a literal bruising someday. Of course, "crush" is the other word that is used here.

Thank you. That is a phrase that has been puzzling me. Every time I think of the Genesis promise I think of crushing the serpents head, but Genesis says bruise, I didn't know where I got 'crush' from. It is Paul's paraphrase.

Yes these promised resonate through history as you say and when the Roman believers crushed Satan's head it was by the blood of the lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death Rev 12:11.

But however you interpret bruise, it has never been about stepping on a snake.

 

[GryphonSaint]

It could have been a snake spirit. Spirits take the form of animals and they can talk. Back before they fell Adam and Eve had fully functioning spirits and there's no reason to belive they couldn't talk to a spirit. Why there's an eagle in Revelations that talks and it's probably a spirit since it seems to know what's going on.

Rev 8:13 "Then I looked up. And I heard a single eagle crying loudly as it flew through the air, 'Terror, terror, terror to all who belong to this world because of what will happen when the last three angels blow their trumpets.' " -New Living Translation

 

[Assyrian]

Or the eagle is an allegorical picture like so much the book of Revelation... But who knows, maybe God is calling gryphons to preach the gospel to the world.

Anyway, yes there are spiritual beings described in animal terms in the bible, cherubim, like the lion, ox and eagle headed beings in Ezekiel. Probably the same being we find in Rev 4. There is even a spiritual being described as a snake, and Revelation tells us Satan was "that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world" Rev 12:9 & 20:2.

I think there are few problems with the Satan in the form of a serpent explanation. You have snakes being punished for something they have no part in, which seems a bit unnecessary and unfair. While the actual culprit escapes unharmed, and we find him described later, as busterdog pointed out, "going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it" Job 1:7 & 2:2. That is why I much prefer to see the account as a parable. Satan was the one tempted mankind and Satan was punished, and it is described metaphorically in the Genesis account, as is the promise of a Redeemer who will bruise the serpent's head. Jesus didn't step on any snakes that I know of. He did defeat Satan on Calvary though.

 

[shernren]

Plus, y'know, snakes don't even eat dust, literally speaking. And I bet even the ancient Jews knew that.

 

[busterdog]

Why does this image work for you as symbol, but not as metaphor?

* * *

Does the presence or lack of tangible reality figure into your comments on metaphor?

It works so well that the distinction between symbol and metaphor just slows me down.

As a literary device, it ties the many books together.
It reveals a consistency of grace intended by its author.
Its counterpart, the cross is similarly impactful.

One reason the literary labels are not satisfying is that there is a consistency in the design of reality. People with bodies needing fruit and needing forgiveness to live and then to live again.

A consistency of design in a blueprint, is that a symbol or a metaphor? It is neither, but what the architect builds is real.

 

[gluadys]

One reason the literary labels are not satisfying is that there is a consistency in the design of reality. People with bodies needing fruit and needing forgiveness to live and then to live again.

A consistency of design in a blueprint, is that a symbol or a metaphor? It is neither, but what the architect builds is real.

Hmm. I am still not seeing why "metaphor" doesn't work for you. I get the feeling that the unspoken assumption is that your understanding of "metaphor" includes "not really true"..

To me, the power of a metaphor is that it does express a consistency of design in reality.

btw, a blueprint is a symbol or at least a sign. It stands for or represents the reality of the construction without being the thing constructed.

 

[busterdog]

Hmm. I am still not seeing why "metaphor" doesn't work for you. I get the feeling that the unspoken assumption is that your understanding of "metaphor" includes "not really true"..

To me, the power of a metaphor is that it does express a consistency of design in reality.

btw, a blueprint is a symbol or at least a sign. It stands for or represents the reality of the construction without being the thing constructed.

Well, its not confined to symbol/metaphor. So, "neither" was the wrong word. I get a headache trying to think about the difference.

 

[busterdog]

How is it a problem if the figure was metaphorical to start with? Will we find that once in his carpentry days Jesus clung to the door frame of a sheepfold to let the sheep in and out, that he literally was the door of the sheepfold?

The thing is that you guys apply this reason in one direction only.

There is literal narrative in scripture. You accept that. So why not assume its all literal? (I don't of course) Metaphor in one place requires nothing elsewhere.

As for the literal door thing, that is a very interesting question.

I recently heard a teacher speaking about this passage. He indicated that lacking doors in some places, shepherds actually would sleep in the opening to the pen. THey were in fact the door.

Thus, my caution in dealing with questions like yours. Because I ground my very reality in scripture, I give it a wider berth than you do and anticipate answers that I don't have.

 

[juvenissun]

Plus, y'know, snakes don't even eat dust, literally speaking. And I bet even the ancient Jews knew that.

http://newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/001-099/nb036.htm

I can see that a snake has to eat dust for all its life.
Wonderful. I am not a biologist. Otherwise, it would be my another Science in Bible entry.

 

[Assyrian]

And you think he worked as a shepherd too when he was being a door?

You see here is the problem I see with literalism, it just doesn't get how Jesus loved to teach using metaphor and parable.

The thing is that you guys apply this reason in one direction only.

If you insist on literalism how many directions are there to go? Perhaps you need to take more of the bible literally?

There is literal narrative in scripture. You accept that. So why not assume its all literal? (I don't of course) Metaphor in one place requires nothing elsewhere.

Metaphor in one place mean a literalist need to revise his view of God and how God speaks.
Metaphor in one place means God does use metaphor.
If God speaks in metaphors it means there may be other metaphors in the bible.
Metaphor in one place means speaking in metaphor is not lying.
Metaphor in one place means a metaphorical interpretation is not necessarily wrong and may be the correct way to interpret a passage.

 

[busterdog]

And you think he worked as a shepherd too when he was being a door?

Now you are being ridiculous.

Don't pretend I am denying the use of metaphor. I am emphasizing that you are washing the literalness out of many an expression that contains metaphor. I demonstrated your ability to miss content in what Jesus had to say because you got hung up in an attempt to reduce the expression to an absurdity.

You see here is the problem I see with literalism, it just doesn't get how Jesus loved to teach using metaphor and parable.

Funny. I see literal truth and parables.

The thing about parables is that he tells you when it is a parable. WHen he says "This is my blood" that is an entirely different use of language.

If you insist on literalism how many directions are there to go? Perhaps you need to take more of the bible literally?

It is indeed difficult to take it literally enough, but I try.

Metaphor in one place mean a literalist need to revise his view of God and how God speaks.

Thank you know. I already know how to properly apply metaphor and distinguish it from narrative.

Metaphor in one place means God does use metaphor.
If God speaks in metaphors it means there may be other metaphors in the bible.
Metaphor in one place means speaking in metaphor is not lying.
Metaphor in one place means a metaphorical interpretation is not necessarily wrong and may be the correct way to interpret a passage.

Find me one YEC who will deny any of this.

 

[busterdog]

Hmm. I am still not seeing why "metaphor" doesn't work for you. I get the feeling that the unspoken assumption is that your understanding of "metaphor" includes "not really true"..

To me, the power of a metaphor is that it does express a consistency of design in reality.

btw, a blueprint is a symbol or at least a sign. It stands for or represents the reality of the construction without being the thing constructed.

THen lets go right to the biggies:

1. The resurrection is a metaphor for overcoming obstacles in life. That is true, but much less true than literal resurrection. It is more true when we speak of a man returning from the dead.

I am not challenging you personally, I am just showing an example where it does make a big difference and where a literal truth is "more true." There is a logical difference. I understand the perspective. Again, its a choice between worldviews.

2. Creation is six days. Counting six days is much more true than saying "six days" means some uncertain amount of time.

3. The trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptibe .... As much as I would like more hair, I will take the bald unit over a mere fond memory any day.