Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
In cases like the ones you have just pointed out a literal interpretation of these passages would be less meaning full - if not outright pointless - then a non literal interpretation of symbolism.
In any case, even those who regard themselves as biblical literalists are more open to this concept then they care to admit. In several debates now I have asked literalists if they interpret the passages from the bible where it says the earth rests on pillars and is immobile is literal or not. In every case they go on the defensive showing how those passages are ment to be interpreted (not literally of course) but are still true none the less (and rebuking me for questioning the veracity of the bible - which I wasn't doing). Unwittingly, they demonstrate that much of the bible is open to non literal interpretation. It's all a matter of where you draw the line/
In any case, even those who regard themselves as biblical literalists are more open to this concept then they care to admit. In several debates now I have asked literalists if they interpret the passages from the bible where it says the earth rests on pillars and is immobile is literal or not. In every case they go on the defensive showing how those passages are ment to be interpreted (not literally of course) but are still true none the less (and rebuking me for questioning the veracity of the bible - which I wasn't doing). Unwittingly, they demonstrate that much of the bible is open to non literal interpretation. It's all a matter of where you draw the line/
Upvote
0