Like I said, I see no value trading Scriptures with someone who after making multiple allusions to explanations and Scriptures never presented and then finally offers to which do nothing but enforce a post Fall view of women that men of NT era were happy to promote. So before we talk about "all" I have done, perhaps we should first address the frivolous position of my accuser.
Somone willing to not give others the same right they take in denying parts of the Creation story are literal is hardly in a position to then declare they have shown anything.
I already addressed the two verses someone apparently thinks they "addressed numerous" times when it was only offered once after claiming numerous times that it was "explained" already. If one wants to think that subjugating women supports what one takes pride in not taking literal in Genesis, then by my guest. Am not sure how that helps the case of claiming people not taking something literally are denying the Bible when one's view does the same thing.
What question?
Changing the subject does not help the case.
I would imagine it similar to those holding to a Creationist view that do not agree this detail has to be believed as literal in order to believe God made the first two humans. I understand that some, maybe many, Creationist want to believe that taking this detail more literally blocks the idea that any evolutionary explanation is possible. In fact I know this is the motivation behind wanting to take that rib thing literally because many have gone so far as to suggests men/women have different numbers of ribs for this reason (which has never been true).
Or to literally view God as big yellow chicken, like Big Bird (Luke 13:34, Matt 23:37)
Of course it does, from a worldly understanding. However, from a spiritual understanding; Genesis one rings true, as a guide for holy scripture throughout the remainder of the KJV Bible.
