[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Then there's no point in reading the so-called 'holy' texts, is there?

Boru

If someone asked what is red, I can say it's the color of rubies, of blood, and strawberries, and he can understand what red means. But this understanding isn't transferable to a blind man, whose never seen rubies, or blood, or strawberries, or colors. 

The ancient Hebrews saw a single thing, that defies any attempt at definition, like the dwellers of Plato's cave, seeing a hint of light from the sun. And that perception grows throughout their history, until it's fully realized in the person of Christ. Like the slow peeling of a blindfold, over thousands of years. There's a kernel that grows from one end to the next. But one has to see this seed in order to recognize it. No words, no matter how clearly said to you, can do that. Just like the redness of rubies can't be conveyed to the blind.

But the unsaved are in precisely the position of your blind man.  I asked you again:  If God wants everyone to be saved (and he does, it says so right there in the manual), why is the Bible intentionally ambiguous?  Surely it would be within God's power to make it clear and unambiguous to everyone. Moreover, the message in the Bible could be couched in such a manner as to make it irresistible to everyone.

And if the ancient Hebrews saw something that defies any attempt at definition, why did they take so much trouble to define it?

Boru