So is your bible an accurate and/or reliable source of information or not? In other words, is there anything in it which is meant to be taken literally? If so, how do you differentiate those parts from the non-literal bits?
Please don't misrepresent my position: I see almost as much science in religious texts as I do in Jack and the Beanstalk. Salty was relying on real-world facts when it supported his/her points, and as Min pointed out, facts remain facts. The word 'fact' has a particularly narrow definition; a fact is some detail of the universe which is actually the case. Salty expressed his acceptance of the shape of the world, a physical fact which is at odds with the picture presented in the bible that Salty holds to be "historical and divine". Clearly it is neither, at least on this point.
Please don't misrepresent my position: I see almost as much science in religious texts as I do in Jack and the Beanstalk. Salty was relying on real-world facts when it supported his/her points, and as Min pointed out, facts remain facts. The word 'fact' has a particularly narrow definition; a fact is some detail of the universe which is actually the case. Salty expressed his acceptance of the shape of the world, a physical fact which is at odds with the picture presented in the bible that Salty holds to be "historical and divine". Clearly it is neither, at least on this point.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
