<snip>
> I think the chances of a sentence like "don't seethe a kid in its mother's
> milk" being a figure of speech are a lot higher than a couple of chapters
> of
> account in historical prose backed up also by babylonian histories and
> aboriginal tales from around the world.
>
> When we say "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" most of us know
> that no literal baby is meant. If we read in the newspaper about a woman
> who
> jettisoned her baby in a bath next to a nunnery, then we think a literal
> baby is meant. Why is that?
>
> Uncle Davey
>
>
So...what you are saying [quite clearly] is that the Bible is not to be
taken literally in its entirety...that certain passages in the Bible are
clearly poetry and should be examined for the deeper meaning rather than be
taken at face value.
If this is what you are saying....then there is no argument as to whether
the Bible is literally true....since you now say it obviously is not....at
least not completely...
The task at hand is to determine what is literal and what is poetry....what
would be your criterion for that? Please be more specific than simply to say
that it is obvious when read properly.
I would take the position that every single phrase is poetry and that none
is literal. The entire Bible should be examined to determine the deeper
meaning [with respect to our relationship with God and our fellow men/women]
than simply a literal story that bears little relevance to modern society,
and no relevance at all to modern science.
How would I know what is to be taken literally?
Ken
|
|