In
this thread we have been discussing the definition of literal vs non-literal passages in the bible, namely what the difference is between the two.
The general consensus from believers (excluding Y.E.Cs) is, in cases where the true meaning is not the literal one (like the Earth was created in 6 days), one must take the context in which the passage was made in order to interpret the true meaning of the passage.
Taking the 6 day example, the following question could be postulated:
How does a teacher of religion know (and they should know because they *are* teaching this as the truth to people) that the non-literal interpretation of creation is actually what God meant and not just what the teacher *thinks* God *meant* to say?
Sure you can cross-reference, and that's what we saw in the 6 Day example in the other thread (cross references to both ancient language and modern science), but how do you know you are cross-referencing the correct material/evidence?
Edited by killinghurts, : punctuation