Is a literal reading of the Bible an insult to its authors?

I wouldn't see anything one dimensional about it, rather I find myself enjoying Gods utilisation of actual history events as a (literal) literary device - similar to how a storyteller would operate when constructing fiction.Take the Exodus for example. You'll be aware of the parallels to be drawn between OT and NT blood covering. God issues the instruction to the Israelites in order to constuct the NT parallel? What's to stop him so constructing the tapestry of the total story.For if nothing to stop him, then your argument relies on:a) A denial of the miraculous (the acceptance of which is not peculiar to the literalists you are attempting to take to task)b) The historical case you make. But your historical take generally doubts Jesus existance - or if so, his having done as he is reported to have done - which means your argument, again, is not peculiar to the literalist

Jesus was an Israelite and he did much the same thing in Jerusalem. He 'asked for' and got much as you describe. Then there are the apostles who stood up on the day of Pentecost in like manner. They were accused of being drunk though - not insane. Riots followed Paul around whereever he went yet he went ...It is a feature of men of God to do precisely what you say they wouldn't. Unless you're supposing the New Testament fable too of course

I was referring to those elements of the NT where men stood up where Archers "sane men" wouldn't. If you don't want to consider the NT as history then the history of martyrs should be sufficient to demonstrate that insular point. God only knows what deal existed between God and Jonah prior to the books opening lines. Perhaps Jonah, like me, signed up to Gods service. In which case ones freewill has been signed away on the dotted line.

Whatever. Point being, Archers point on what a person will or will not stand up and do/say fails at the court of history. All those Christian martyrs don't mean God is God. At least I didn't suggest as much. Your arguing with shadows methinks..

We seem to have crossed wires. Re-compute along the lines of martyrs (of your preferred historical hue) rendering the point Archer made void.

Agreed. Onwards!

quote:

---

The Assyrians sought not just conquest, but terrorizing and humiliation of every nation around them. Their armies tortured prisoners in cruelly inventive ways and displayed the bodies on roadsides. In real life, no Israelite could sanely entertain the notion of heading straight for the Assyrian capital and accusing its people in a public square. That would be asking for someone to cut out your tongue, put a chain link through your cheek, and fasten you to a millstone to live out the rest of your days as a slave.

---

Martyrdom takes care of what an Israelite might sanely do. That the Assyrians didn't do as you would expect them to do is down to a least these options:a) the story is not historyb) the Assyrians normal actions were restrained/altered by intervention of God - his intervening light is hardly hidden under a bushel in the Bible.Your line of reasoning is similar to someone arguing against Jesus turning water into wine by stating that, in the normal course of events, water doesn't turn into wine.Edited by iano, : No reason given.