Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution)

The first sentence clearly indicates that they are not comparing like with like

quote:

---

The seven Hanukah ELSs appear within a 1,123 letter long section of text, which is somewhat smaller than the 1,584 letter long section that is crossed by all of the Isaiah 53 ELSs that are at least as significant as the Hanukah finds.

---

The Hanukah ELS's appear WITHIN 1,123 letters (i.e. the entire word or phrase is within the section). The Isaiah 53 "codes" CROSS a section of 1,584 letters (i.e. only one letter of the word need be WITHIN the 1,584 letters). The longest example has 20 characters - and a skip of 45,646 letters - so the whole thing occupies 867,275 letters (19 * 45,646 + 1). Perhaps you can explain why these results should be compared ?

quote:

---

You see, everything written in the bible has to be taken literally, which does not mean, for example, when psalms refers to trees clapping, that trees are actually behaving like humans and clapping their branches together like humans clap their hands. You would literally interpet that according to its context to be a poetic statement.

---

So we should interpret everything in the Bible literally.
But that doesn't mean interpreting it literally.
We must literally interpret it by interpreting it figuratively instead of literally.

quote:

---

Interpreting the bible literally means interpreting it AS IT IS WRITTEN!

---

That can only be true if the Bible was written entirely literally with no figurative passages at all.So which is it ? Does the Bible contain passages which should be read figuratively or should it all be read literally ? Please make your mind up and stop contradicting yourself.

I read the article and it in no way states that non-literal readings are literal. So can you please stop contradicting yourself and tell me whether the Bible should be read entirely literally or if it contains passages that should be read figuratively instead.

quote:

---

I'm obviously not getting through to you.

​

I don't see a contradiction between interpreting the bible literally
and literally interpreting a figurative verse.

---

I never said that THAT was a contradiction. In fact it is the only way to read the Bible entirely literal - to ignore the fact that some verses are clearly poetic and not intended to be read literally. The contradiction is between FIGURATIVE and LITERAL interpretation.

quote:

---

For example: Jesus is the Lamb of God.

​

To interpret that literally, one would come to the interpretation that Jesus is the sacrafice that God requires...

---

.No, literally it means that Jesus is a young sheep beloning to God [/quote] ...It is a figure of speech, but to interpret it literally would not mean Jesus has hooves and wool. So where is the confusion. [/quote]The confusion is obviously in your idea that reading it literally doesn't mean reading it literally. If you could just understand that figurative readings ARE NOT LITERAL then the confusion would go away.