Faith and other YEC: why even bother taking part in the discussion?

All texts have to be interpreted. That's how we read. It's due to the slippery meanings of words.

Even whether a particular interpretation of a given passage is literal or not is subject to interpretation. Every single phrase of the Bible is subject to interpretation: "In the beginning . . ." What does this mean? God's beginning? The beginning of the universe?

We have to interpret it. Presumably we are not "inspired.""We sinned in Adam."What does this mean?

In what sense were we in him? Obviously, not literally.

That's a very loose definition of "literal.""We" refers to a group of individual souls. A lot of souls were not present "in" Adam--literally. Souls are not equivalent to genetic lineage.The word "literal" is a slippery term.

"Literal" to me means the opposite of figurative but perhaps you have a different definition.

It seems to me that there is some inconsistency in the method of some literalists. Of course, there are cases in which the author or speaker intended the passage to be figurative--an obvious case is Jesus' parables. But there are many passages in which it is by no means clear if we are meant to interpret something literally or figuratively. The story of Jonah and the whale strikes me as a fable, illustrating that we cannnot escape from God's will--but who knows what the author had in mind?More importantly, there have been those who affirmed that the coming of Christ is "prefigured" in the Old Testament, and then they proceed to interpret some passage in the OT figuratively, whilst elsewhere espousing literalism.

This attitude is remindful of some literary critic who has a pet theory about an author beforehand. So every work by that author he examines, he just happens to find references to it, because he is a "believer."Given a text such as the Bible, we find what we want to find. One approaches the Bible with some belief, such as that Christ is prefigured in the OT, and lo, we find it, literally or figuratively, by hook or by crook.Such is the minefield of "interpretation."The situation is like the jealous husband who "believes" his wife is being unfaithful, and so he finds hints and symbols everywhere--in her every action, every word.This appears to be the state of mind that you exalt as religious.

Sorry. I didn't realize it was insulting.

I don't think it is that that Faith was insulted by.I think it was the tone of my remarks. Very harsh.

You are back to your own fiery self, Faith. Thank God.Let's go back and pick up the threads of this discussion. I was talking about what the word "literal" meant, if you recall.And what you told me is that you have to "believe" before you can know what to take literally and what to take figuratively. If I don't believe, then I can't read the Bible properly.That's what you said. Now, it seems to me that we are getting the cart before the horse here. Take somebody like me, for example. I pick up the Bible and start reading it, but according to you I do not understand it properly because I don't believe beforehand.But if you have these beliefs beforehand, you will naturally find in a complex text what you want to find, like that jealous husband I mentioned. It's not a matter of following some rule like "literalism"--it's a matter of finding what you want to find, either literally or figuratively.If you want to find references to Christ in the OT, you will find it--figuratively.But if you want to interpret things in a literal fashion you can do that too.But I think you can see that this will not do. Going by that method, I can find anything.