When to be literal?

quote:

---

So we see the Bible makes all of the above claims about itself and how it is not to be modified.

---

Book curses and document curses were not uncommon in ancient days.The curses deal with the specific writing, not the entire Bible.Psalms 12:6-7 is a song. Songs use literary devices. This song has nothing to do with not modifying the Bible. The them in verse 7 refers to the oppressed in verse 5.

quote:

---

So by ignoring one thing in the Bible, the Bible tells us we have offended Yahweh.

---

None of the verses you've shared support that conclusion. The curses are basically against editing what the writer had written.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I had no thought of that: it makes it even hard for me to see how one can tell what is really, really, really cannon and what is metaphor.

---

How are you using the word metaphor and metaphorical?A canon is nothing more than an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture.
Metaphor is a literary device.
Bible literalism is a type of interpretation.Several literary techniques were employed by the Bible writers.
Several types of interpretation techniques are used by Christians to understand the Bible.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What I mean is that (presumably) Christians take the ressurection of Jesus as 'actual factual'.

​

Why is this not a metaphor for a religion experiencing a boost when the cult leader dies?

---

So you don't wish to clarify. Sorry for bothering you.

quote:

---

Dawn, you can be a real pain in the arse, sometimes.

---

As can people who use words incorrectly. BTW, my name is purpledawn or PD.

quote:

---

When I say metaphor I mean something that is not literally true. I mean not exactly as described. I mean not literal.

​

What more clarification do you (of all people, need?).

---

I've seen members chastised on the science side because they don't use terms correctly or seem to have their own meaning for terms.It is difficult to have a debate with someone who doesn't use the right terms or uses them incorrectly.Notice that metaphor does not fall under the antonyms or even near antonyms for literal. Notice the synonym for metaphor is metaphor. No antonyms listed. Here is why equating metaphors with fiction or nonfactual can cause problems.The following sentence can be part of a factual story or a fictional story. The metaphor does not tell us whether the person was real or not or whether the battle was real or not. If Henry fought valiantly and bravely on the battle field, the statement is true even if it isn't literally true.

quote:

---

But if you just want to play you usual semantic games, I'm not interested.

---

I'm amazed you didn't get the hint that you were using the word incorrectly just from jar's posts and mine.After Message 18, maybe you need to pay a little attention to the meaning. Maybe that one should go in my signature block. When one can't tell what is canon and what is metaphor, it is time to address meaning.If you don't want to learn, that's up to you.

quote:

---

What part of message 28 did you not understand?

---

I understood what you asked in Message 28, but it wasn't an answer to my question. It also wasn't consistent with your opening post. Quite frankly since you supposedly understood what jar was saying in Message 26, I was surprised that you even asked that question. It showed me you still didn't understand.You also don't seem to understand the literal Biblical method of interpretation. This obviously doesn't include people who just "do their own thing" as you are. Biblical LiteralismThere are two types of literal interpretation: Letterism and the historical-grammatical method. As jar pointed out in Message 35, Christianity didn't really get a boost after Jesus died.Until after the destruction of the temple, Christianity was still a sect of Judaism.Reading if you're interested:
Early Christian Writings
The Spread of Christianity
Spread of Christianity
Rome and ChristianityNeedless to say your question in Message 28, is not based on the Biblical text. According to your opening post, you want to look at the text. So pardon my confusion, when your discussion flow is not consistent.
Pardon me for trying to give you better tools to work with and means to a better understanding.Flounder on!

quote:

---

I disagree. The verse I had in my head was Deuteronomy 4:2. This seems pretty specific.

---

You disagree with what?Yes, Deuteronomy 4:2 is specific, but it doesn't speak for other writings in the Bible. Not sure why you brought this back up considering you agreed with the comment jar made in Message 7 and now he's restated it in Message 39. Most of what I'm saying falls under that idea.