[_ Old Earth _] Atheist Darwinism vs the Bible "for Christians"

[BobRyan]

I notice that on a thread that mentions the Bible (like this one) - the atheists and agnostics -- and almost all Darwinist Christians do not participate IF that thread stays on the subject of "the text" of the Bible. And even the Darwinist Christians that might stay with the thread - avoid exegesis at all costs.

Since our point of discussion gets down to "Reading the English" as it were - and the argument is made that Exodus 20:8-11 just might be an very interesting form of DArwinism... let's put it to ALL the Darwinists to see if that text is really as "Darwinist" as is being suggested.

This is significant given what Darwin, Dawkins and Provine have already said to the contrary on that point.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is true that once we get past "step 1" we will get to the link between Exodus 20:8-11 AND the Genesis 1-2:4 event IT summarizes - but for now I was wondering if you would bring yourself to admit to the obvious in Exodus 20 or else exegete your way out of it.

You seem reluctant to "go to the text".

Since the text appears to be a problem for you -- I have asked some other Darwinists on this board if they might be able to assist.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&start=60#p390692

I think you will find their assistance to be "instructive"

Is this post directed at me or at someone else?

Yes I meant to list you as the intended reader.

However I was hoping to easily get to "step-1".

I also believe it is 'instructive' that the title of the thread is "Atheist Darwinism VS the BIBLE - FOR Christians"... the idea in "Exegesis" is to LOOK at the Bible using something like "objectivity".

Odd that this is what is soooo difficult for Darwinists here when it comes to actually being "willing" to exegete Exodus 20:8-11.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

As noted, Bob does not accept God's word in Genesis concerning the way He created living things. Bob is what we call a "cafeteria Christian." He picks what he likes, and rejects the rest.

 

[Free]

As noted, Bob does not accept God's word in Genesis concerning the way He created living things. Bob is what we call a "cafeteria Christian." He picks what he likes, and rejects the rest.

And one could, and should, say the same to you.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed Barbarian is very anxious to avoid BOTH Genesis 1 ANd the summary of it given in Exodus 20:8-11.

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Using the Barbarian approach there is "so much Bible to avoid -- so little time"

Barbarian has no use at all for "And God said.. And God CREATED... and God MADE... and evening and morning were the Sixth Day" -- so he simply "skims over it".

But I don't see why he is so bent on trying to get the Bible to "preach darwinism".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

You happily continue to quote this passage with the air of one who has discovered an unassailable point. I have pointed out elsewhere why I think your point is, in fact, wholly assailable, but let's leave that to one side for the moment. Here's a proposition for you to consider; please let me know which points in the proposition you disagree with and any evidence you may have for supporting that disagreement.

1. We know that the author(s) of the first five books of the OT compiled those books anything from some thousands to some decades after the events they ostensibly depict occurred.

2. Specifically, we know that the author(s) compiled the Genesis account and its 'cross-reference' in Exodus several thousands of years after the Genesis events are supposed to have occurred:

...dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BC continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted,[82] although a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BC.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis

3. Do you think it a plausible suggestion that, as a teaching device intended to help a largely illiterate population understand and remember the theology of their religion more easily in terms which they could readily relate to, the author(s) deliberately used an already existing, familiar interval of time to illustrate their account? By analogy, for example, entry-level physics describes the atom as akin to a miniature solar system to help students grasp some very difficult ideas; this does not mean that the atom is just the same as a miniature solar system, but the power of the image as an introduction to learning remains.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The point I never got is how it makes sense to use the standard of the day before there actually was a day.

Or why Jesus being shown all the kingdoms of the world is not taken literal, yet the comparison to how man should work six days and rest on the sabbath, and the method of God's creation is.

Where is the distinction? It is as impossible for Genesis to be entirely literal as it is for Jesus being shown the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain.

 

[BobRyan]

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

You happily continue to quote this passage with the air of one who has discovered an unassailable point.

Well stated sir. That is exactly what I am doing -- and until someone here on the opposing side actually takes the time to "do the math" in SHOWING that my claim is in error -- I have "a winner"!!

See that is how these "silver bullet" points work. Simply hand waiving, giving them a loud harrumph! or saying "some Darwinist differs with you on this and I am sure that if you look hard enough they would SURELY have done the math on this one to show IN THE TEXT of Ex 20 that your observation on Ex 20 is in error -- I just know they woulda done it... somehere... just don't have a reference to them actually doing-the-math" - or any other smoke-and-mirror substitute for actually doing the math on this text - will not "make it go away" as some have imagined.

I have pointed out elsewhere why I think your point is, in fact, wholly assailable,

Yes you have stated your assumptions and conclusions without even once doing-the-math in Ex 20:8-11 and SHOWING via some objective standard (like Exegesis -- or feel free to pick an even MORE objective standard if you wish) that your conclusion will hold up IN THE TEXT.

L.K
but let's leave that to one side for the moment.

Unfortunately the odd thing about "silver bullet" solutions is that they don't go away until you actually solve the problem.

L.K.
Here's a proposition for you to consider; please let me know which points in the proposition you disagree with and any evidence you may have for supporting that disagreement.

1. We know that the author(s) of the first five books of the OT compiled those books anything from some thousands to some decades after the events they ostensibly depict occurred.

2. Specifically, we know that the author(s) compiled the Genesis account and its 'cross-reference' in Exodus several thousands of years after the Genesis events are supposed to have occurred:

Yes Moses wrote the 5 books of Moses more than 2000 years after creation events being described. But not 2000 years after the Sinai event. In fact the Sinai event and the writing of the documents (Ten Commandments for example) takes place at the SAME time.

Recall that Moses was on the Mountain 40 days receiving instruction from God -- from which we get things like the book of Leviticus. When the earthly TENT sanctuary was built BOTH the tablets of stone (that is WRITTEN document) AND the books of Moses were place either INSIDE the ark of the covenant (the Ten Commandments) or just outside of it (the books of Moses).

But the wired-wired "problem" for darwinists is that this is the SAME author writing about the SAME subject with ONE set of intended readers -- i.e. those AT Sinai.

Exegesis in this case is incredibly easy and obvious.

...dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BC continues to be widely accepted

Among atheists and agnostics will "imagine" that earlier copies of those manuscripts were significantly "different" -- if only we could SEE them. But "imagination" in that case is not the same thing as "actual fact".

We know for example that one of the oldest documents found (the book of Isaiah) was in fact identical to the copy of the same book several hundred years after Christ (A.D). So "imagining" that copy errors would have created substantive difference in the versions of the text -- went out the window with the finding of the DSS.

So that get's us away from atheists and agnostics "imagining what versions that we DON't have - would say" - moves to TOWARD the objective model of exegesis where we FIRST state reliable "what the text SAYS" based on the author and the first order primary intended reader. So in this case that is Moses at around 1500 BC at Sinai and during the 40 years in the wilderness.

L.K
irrespective of the model adopted,[82] although a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BC.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis
[/quote]

If the argument is to ignore the model adopted for finding the most ancient copy of the documents -- we are back to looking at the text as the original work "no imagining a very different original work" as a substitute for what we in fact HAVE.

L.K.
3. Do you think it a plausible suggestion that, as a teaching device intended to help a largely illiterate population understand and remember the theology of their religion more easily in terms which they could readily relate to, the author(s) deliberately used an already existing, familiar interval of time to illustrate their account?

If you are arguing that the text CLEARLY DOES reference 6 days as the summary of the creation account and as the duration of the Hebrew "work week" - I agree it does.

If you are "imagining" that the REASON for using such glaringly EASY to see time frames that also blatantly do NOT fit the story-telling of darwinism is that Moses is trying to "teach darwinism in symbols" then FIRST you have to establish that "Moses was known for teaching darwinism".

Get it?

You need a substantive basis FROM THE AUTHOR showing that the author was well known for Darwinism -- you don't have it.

L.K
By analogy, for example, entry-level physics describes the atom as akin to a miniature solar system to help students grasp some very difficult ideas; this does not mean that the atom is just the same as a miniature solar system, but the power of the image as an introduction to learning remains.

No question that Moses "COULD HAVE SAID" -- "Remember to keep a 6 day work week and a 7th day of rest just as creation which took place in many eons of time can be grouped into 7 just like the week day is"

Sadly for Darwinists -- that is not what is IN the text as it reads -- you have to "insert" (eisegete) that darwinist doctrine INTO the text. The capricious nature of eisegesis is the very reason it is universally condemned by Bible scholars.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

GOD speaking at Sinai -

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The point I never got is how it makes sense to use the standard of the day before there actually was a day.

Moses is writing the text around 1500 B.C so about 2500 years after the Creation event. As it turns out Moses "knows what a day is" by that time so when he is shown the creation event he can see that it is taking "one evening and morning" for each event. (Of course - whether Moses knew it or not -- WE KNOW that One rotation of the planet in the context of a single-sided light source is precisely how we get ONE evening and morning).

Or why Jesus being shown all the kingdoms of the world is not taken literal

Why do you argue that it is not being taken literally?

, yet the comparison to how man should work six days and rest on the sabbath, and the method of God's creation is.

The point is that linguistically - the text of Exodus 20 does not permit the eisegetical bending of the text to "Redefine "day - yom" mid-sentence" each time Darwinism "needs it". It is very direct legal writing of a code of law. We already know that hand waiving and magic smoke-and-mirror redefinition mid-sentence is not normative for a code of law.

It then becomes a "function of the language in the TEXT" to see what is being said and not simply an "exercise in story telling to save darwinism".

After the text is seen and read accurately you can then add stories about why a darwinist would not like it, would want to insert some things OR would want to claim that the text "got corrupted over the centuries".

But imagining reasons NOT to accept the text "as written" is very different from not being able to admit to what the text SAYS "as written".

Where is the distinction? It is as impossible for Genesis to be entirely literal as it is for Jesus being shown the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain.

Where are you getting the wild idea "Satan did not have the technology to show Jesus what WE coulda shown him today with the technology we have now"??

Christians don't have the doctrine "neanderthal Satan".

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, concerning Bob's selective acceptance of Scripture:
As noted, Bob does not accept God's word in Genesis concerning the way He created living things. Bob is what we call a "cafeteria Christian." He picks what he likes, and rejects the rest.

And one could, and should, say the same to you.

Actually I accept that all of it is true. Do you accept God's word that He created life from existing matter, not ex nihilo? Or do you not?

Incidentally, I would be willing to listen to Bob's (or your) argument showing that if Moses repeated an allegory, that makes it a literal history.

Go for it.

 

[Free]

Do you accept God's word that He created life from existing matter, not ex nihilo? Or do you not?

Of course I do.

Incidentally, I would be willing to listen to Bob's (or your) argument showing that if Moses repeated an allegory, that makes it a literal history.

I would first have to be shown what the allegory is and how it was determined to be an allegory before I could even answer that question.

 

[BobRyan]

To be "exact" the code of law never uses allegories -- period.

Secondly the fact that we have the same author addressing the same topic to the same readers and that we all agree that the term "yom" for the 7 day week of the Hebrews was in fact 7 literal days... makes it "impossible" to eisegete in the darwinian mythology mid-sentence in Exodus 20:8-11.

Even Darwinist-promoting Orthodox Rabbis admit this glaringly obvious fact in the case of the "language" of Exodus 20.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Barbarian, concerning Bob's selective acceptance of Scripture:

Bob concernings Barbarian's sift-and-choose approach to scripture.

1. In Genesis 1 we see each day consists of one "Evening and morning" - Barbarian avoid it.

2. In Genesis 1-2:3 we see repeatedly "God MADE" and "GOD Created" - actions in EACH of those 6 "evenings and mornings" -- Barbarian avoids.

3. It is very clear that Darwinism IS NOT framed in the words "For in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the sea aND ALL THAT IS IN THEM" -- not one Darwinist has ever used those words to PROMOTE the non-God non-ID evolutionism that they believe in.

Barbarian will advoid that point on certain threads when it suits his argument.

4. Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Huxley, Meyers ALL admit to this "glaring gap" between what we SEE in the text of scripture and what the myths and doctrines of Darwinism teach... Barbarian avoid the point.

Clearly Barbarian is not accepting God's Word in Exodus, or in Genesis or even the word of atheist Darwinists - OR EVEN the word of DARWIN on what DarwinISM IS!

while not addresssing each of these points Barbarian comes back with

As noted, Bob does not accept God's word in Genesis

Indeed - we note the rabbit trail as an effort to divert the reader from the points above.

Actually I accept that all of it is true. Do you accept God's word that He created life from existing matter, not ex nihilo? Or do you not?

Is this your effort to "directly contradict scripture" in as literal a manner as possible?

HOW did God "create"? How did He "MAKE" in each of those "evening and Morning" segments?

Well Barbarian - as you already learned in the previous posts

HE SPOKE it into existence in 7 evenings and mornings starting with “And God SAID†Gen 1-2:4 !

"For in Six Days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and ALL that is in them" Ex 20:8-11

Ps 33
6By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
7He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deeps in storehouses.
8Let all the earth fear the LORD;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
9For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.

Both OT and NT agree to this.

Heb 11

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Again - Bible facts that Barbarian skims past as they are posted on these threads.


For the dedicated Darwinist seeking to marry the Bible to the myths and doctrines of DArwinism there is simply "too much Bible to avoid and too little time to do it".

Say what you want against Darwinists like Provine, Dawkins, Huxley, Meyers, Patterson and yes even Darwin himself -- AT LEAST they all recognized the glaringly obvious fact above.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Another thread that is shaping up to be a companion thread to this one...

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33008

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

You happily continue to quote this passage with the air of one who has discovered an unassailable point.

Well stated sir. That is exactly what I am doing -- and until someone here on the opposing side actually takes the time to "do the math" in SHOWING that my claim is in error -- I have "a winner"!!

And you, sir, continue to miss the point. I repeat this again, exegesis PRESUMES an attempt to view the text objectively, it does not GUARANTEE that that attempt will be objective. You do not have "a winner" (!!), you have a subjective conclusion based on a subjective interpretation. You may be right in your interpretation, but you may also be wrong. That you do not understand this crucial point is fundamental to this entire discussion. Perhaps you do not understand the crucial difference between objective and subjective; you certainly don't seem to.

That you do not accept that other biblical scholars understand that the days of creation in Genesis need not be interpreted as actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them is more than enough reason for me to decline to accept the certainty with which you trumpet the unassailability of your point.

[quote:8dd13]L.K.
3. Do you think it a plausible suggestion that, as a teaching device intended to help a largely illiterate population understand and remember the theology of their religion more easily in terms which they could readily relate to, the author(s) deliberately used an already existing, familiar interval of time to illustrate their account?

If you are arguing that the text CLEARLY DOES reference 6 days as the summary of the creation account and as the duration of the Hebrew "work week" - I agree it does.[/quote:8dd13]
I certainly do not argue any such thing. If you believe I am here doing so, this is wishful thinking on your part.

If you are "imagining" that the REASON for using such glaringly EASY to see time frames that also blatantly do NOT fit the story-telling of darwinism is that Moses is trying to "teach darwinism in symbols" then FIRST you have to establish that "Moses was known for teaching darwinism".

Get it?

All I get from this is an apparently knee-jerk response by you to any request for you to think outside the narrow terms of reference you set for yourself as some sort of conspiracy to promote evolutionary theory.

You need a substantive basis FROM THE AUTHOR showing that the author was well known for Darwinism -- you don't have it.

My question has absolutely no relevance to evolutionary theory at all. It addresses subjective interpretation of a subjective text.

No question that Moses "COULD HAVE SAID" -- "Remember to keep a 6 day work week and a 7th day of rest just as creation which took place in many eons of time can be grouped into 7 just like the week day is"

Sadly for Darwinists -- that is not what is IN the text as it reads -- you have to "insert" (eisegete) that darwinist doctrine INTO the text. The capricious nature of eisegesis is the very reason it is universally condemned by Bible scholars.

And yet again, this is not about your certainty as to what Moses wrote, or that Moses did indeed write it; it is about a reasonable question that has nothing to do with evolutionary theory and concerns only subjective interpretation of subjective text.

 

[DavidLee]

...you have a subjective conclusion based on a subjective interpretation. You may be right in your interpretation, but you may also be wrong.

I read something yesterday about hermeneutical subjectivism... The notion that there is no objective meaning in any writing (except mine). :D

People expect what they write to be taken literally but they reject the notion for writings of others. I suppose it afflicts us all to a degree.

 

[lordkalvan]

...you have a subjective conclusion based on a subjective interpretation. You may be right in your interpretation, but you may also be wrong.

I read something yesterday about hermeneutical subjectivism... The notion that there is no objective meaning in any writing (except mine). :D

People expect what they write to be taken literally but they reject the notion for writings of others. I suppose it afflicts us all to a degree.

This goes to the heart of the understanding of any piece of writing. As writing is itself a subjective exercise on the part of the writer, as words can have multiple meanings and shades of meanings, as interpretation of text is a subjective exercise by the reviewer, so confidence in the exact meaning of text can be rendered uncertain. This is doubly so where the text under analysis has been translated from a language those who attempt analysis of it are not native speakers of.

 

[DavidLee]

...you have a subjective conclusion based on a subjective interpretation. You may be right in your interpretation, but you may also be wrong.

I read something yesterday about hermeneutical subjectivism... The notion that there is no objective meaning in any writing (except mine). :D

People expect what they write to be taken literally but they reject the notion for writings of others. I suppose it afflicts us all to a degree.

This goes to the heart of the understanding of any piece of writing. As writing is itself a subjective exercise on the part of the writer, as words can have multiple meanings and shades of meanings, as interpretation of text is a subjective exercise by the reviewer, so confidence in the exact meaning of text can be rendered uncertain. This is doubly so where the text under analysis has been translated from a language those who attempt analysis of it are not native speakers of.

I would say that when we read something that contradicts our own thoughts of what or why, we are inclined to decide the writer meant something closer to what we want them to have said. Usually, the writer means what is plainly written. Most writers (I can't think of any) do not write one thing while meaning to convey another (contradictory) idea.

Imagine if the bank teller decided you meant ten instead of twenty (because of your generosity, real or imagined) and put half of your money into their pocket instead of your hand. Could you overlook their error (if indeed it was an error)? What if they were also a linguistic expert and could prove that you meant to donate half your money by examining all the possible meanings of your words?

The words must be part of a sentence to have any meaning and the passage must give evidence of the word, especially if the word is common. A plain reading will always be best. We must not imagine what word the writer would have used to prove our point and then pretend that word was used, or that that was what the writer meant to convey.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Imagine if the bank teller decided you meant ten instead of twenty (because of your generosity, real or imagined) and put half of your money into their pocket instead of your hand. Could you overlook their error (if indeed it was an error)? What if they were also a linguistic expert and could prove that you meant to donate half your money by examining all the possible meanings of your words?

False comparison.

Numbers are objective. If I write 20,000 there can be no other meaning taken from that than 20,000. There is no context needed.

Now, the noun that follows that can be very subjective (Give me 20,000 bucks, and the store owner gives him 20,000 male deers. Give me 20,000 georges, and the teller gives you a list of people 20,000 long whos first name is Georges. Give me 20,000 smack-a-roos, and you get kissed 20,000 times. etc.)

Now, if I wrote on the refrigerator, "We went to grab a bite to eat.", when you saw that, you would likely assume we went to a resturaunt to grab some food. That would be what I meant.

Now lets say that note somehow manages to survive for 4,000 years, and someone found it. They could interpret wrong. They could think we meant we were going to go steal a bite of food, since grab can be used in that context. "He grabbed the money from the register." "They ran into the jewlery store, grabbing everything they could get."

Or, they could interpret that we were getting a very small portion of food, since a literal "bite" is not much. Even though it would be likely we were going for a big dinner.

Now, even further, what if that note had been translated a few times over those 4,000 years. It carries the baggage of mistranslation with it each time.

Also, much of the torah was an oral tradition right? Being passed through words, and then finally written down. Ever play the telephone game where you whisper something to a person on your right and they then do the same, continuing down a few times. Usually you come up with something very different than what was said.

Imagine that note being treated the same way.

You can not write off what LK is saying as people reading what they want to read. His point is very valid, and any objective person will see that.

The only way you can hold to your interpretation of that is to say that the NIV or KJ Bible is the inerrant word of God and at all times must be taken literal. Are you prepared to do that?

 

[DavidLee]

Imagine if the bank teller decided you meant ten instead of twenty (because of your generosity, real or imagined) and put half of your money into their pocket instead of your hand. Could you overlook their error (if indeed it was an error)? What if they were also a linguistic expert and could prove that you meant to donate half your money by examining all the possible meanings of your words?

False comparison.

You are proving my point.

You are ignoring the point of my example to argue about the errancy of my comparison.
You seem (I shouldn't use that word, I know) to be saying that I could not believe (and thus convey) I meant to say what I did, because I don't really understand the nature of numbers. My example was about the comparison of objective and subjective meanings, not numbers.

Now, even further, what if that note had been translated a few times over those 4,000 years. It carries the baggage of mistranslation with it each time.

I would submit that if it had been translated from one language to another a few times the original meaning of a word could be lost, but the context would give us a clue. That is not the case here. The original has been copied by hand many (thousands?) of times. The scribes were not running copies through a fax machine over and over. If anything has been lost in transcription (I don't think anything has been) it is gone, so how would we know? As for translation, what can be said in one language that cannot be said in any other (given enough space on a page)?

Imagine that note being treated the same way.

Again, you prove my point. If my imagination causes me to believe that what is written is not what is meant then I am engaging in hermeneutical subjectivism.

You can not write off what LK is saying as people reading what they want to read. His point is very valid, and any objective person will see that.

What makes you think I'm "writing off" what Lordkalvan is writing?

The only way you can hold to your interpretation of that is to say that the NIV or KJ Bible is the inerrant word of God and at all times must be taken literal. Are you prepared to do that?

Are you prepared to believe that anything written by anyone is literal?
Are you prepared to accept that truth is not determined by each of us, but by being true?
I know you're familiar with numbers... If I decide that 2 + 2 = 5, what's to make me wrong? Let me answer my own question: Those who know that the truth is 2 + 2 = 4 are what makes me wrong. If a group of people all disagree about the sum then who is right? Their opinion does not make truth. The one who can count is who makes them wrong. In order to count something you have to see it. As long as no one ever sees you counting in public you can think 2 + 2 = anything you like.

I believe that the bible is trustworthy and self-correcting without having to imagine what the writer had meant to convey. I trust the army of well-educated translators who have worked to provide me with a copy of the bible in my own language.