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

I don't think so. At least, it desn't necessarily call Jesus a liar.

quote:

---

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

---

Jesus could just have easily been referring to the Jonas story while knowing that it was an allegory.For example, if Jesus had said something like: Just like Tom Sawyer whitewashed the fence, so shall the Son of man paint the temple white.... Or something like that, he wouldn't necessarily be saying that Tom Sawyer was a real person who really whitewashed a fence. Just because he referenced the story, doesn't mean that he is saying that the story is literally true.Make sense?

No, not at all. He was referring to something that he was going to do, and it was like the fish story in that it took 3 days. Him referencing it doesn't mean that he was saying that it really did happen, and him knowing that it really didn't happen doesn't mean that he is saying that what he is going to do isn't really going to happen either. That's rally a stretch.He could have been saying the same thing with "Just like Superman hid in his ice cave for 3 days, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."That doesn't mean that the reference to Superman is saying that Superman really does exist. Its just a reference. But that is not true, as I've just explained. He could have reference the fish story all the while knowing it didn't really happen and still not be lying.

It wasn't a lie. Do you consider the other parables that Jesus used to be lies as well? He didn't have to, but he used references all the time so why not this time too? It wasn't "false", it was just a story. You wouldn't say that "Jack and Jill went up the hill" is false. Its just a story. Jesus' parables suggest that he wasn't interested in avoiding confusion. A lot of his teachings were parables that didn't necessarily really happen. That doens't make them "false" and it doesn't make him a liar. Again, that is just not true.Had Jesus said: "Just as Jack and Jill went up the hill, I too will rise up to heaven"....He wouldn't have been lying. He was just referencing a common story that people were aware of. That doesn't mean the story had to actually have happened.But you are avoiding this point. You keep repeating your original assertion in the face of refutation. Is this going to be the same as usual where you can't admit that you were wrong?

It would not be a lie. In the story, Jack and Jill did physically go up the hill. The reference to it as a story isn't saying that it really did happen somewhere. No, he phyically went up to heaven just like Jack and Jill physically went up the hill. That they are fictional characters doesn't mean that it is a lie to refer to their fictional physical "going up the hill". In the story, they really did go up the hill. No, I'm saying that Jesus referencing the fictional story of Jonas is not Jesus saying that the story actually happened in reality. The point of the reference was that, in the fictional story, Jonas was in the belly for 3 days just like Jesus was going to be dead for 3 days. That the story of Jonas was fictional doesn't make this reference any less veracious.

That is utterly ridiculous.Pie is better than cake. Truth or lie? Well, its neither... it is an opinion. To what are you refering? Yes. However, if you said: "Just like Santa Claus's suit is red, so is this firetruck red." then you would not be lying because the fictional character Santa Claus does have a red suit. That you refered to Santa Claus is not saying that Santa Claus actually does exist.

He has a red suit IN THE STORY.If you reference Santa Claus (as a fictional character) you are not saying that he really did exist in reality. But IN THE STORY, he does have a red suit.True or Flase: Sherlock Holmes smoked a pipe?It is true. But Sherlock was never a real person. Him being a fictional character doesn't mean that it isn't true that he, as a fictional character, smoked a pipe. But Santa Claus, as a fictional character outside of my mind, does exist. He just doesn't exist in real life.The same thing goes for Jonas and Jesus' reference to him. Jesus wasn't saying that Jonas was a person in real life anymore than I am saying that Sherlock was real when I say that he smoked a pipe.

You mean like all the parables that Jesus used to express his teachings? Sure, and when you refer to those fantasies via an analogy, like the way that Jesus referred to Jonas, you are not saying that those fantasies actually occured in real life.If I told you that my pen is the same color as Santa's suit, you could easily guess the color of my pen. That doesn't mean that we are saying that Santa is real.Likewise, Jesus' reference to Jonas was not necessarily saying that Jonas actually existed. Now, he very well could have meant that Jonas really did exist, but it doesn't have to mean that. Saying that the story of Jonas didn't actually happen does not make Jesus a liar when he referenced that story.

The proverbial "you", ICANT I've already explained why this wasn't necessarily a lie.But once again you're just going to repeat your same old refuted arguments until the cows come home because of your inability to admit when you are wrong. So, good day, sir.

Because mine is based on a rational and logical argument and your's is not. Because you shouldn't base your beliefs on your inability to admit that you were wrong.

You didn't refer to it explicity, but right here:

quote:

---

Apparently, a little more educated sounding or sophisticated than some cruder rejections. But a rejection of God's word just the same.

---

You have made youself the arbiter on what is and is not God's word.So like anglagard said:

quote:

---

Under the concept of cheap grace, it is you who claims to share infallibility with God, therefore your interpretations are also infallible and not allowed to be questioned.

---

You're not a literalist nor an inerrantist?