[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, the Bible says God has wants, and one of these is that everyone be saved.  Is this another reason not to read the Bible, that it can't be trusted?

I guess thats better than saying God wants some people to be saved, and others not to be?

The Bible says a lot of things, that God has regrets, that God is jealous, that God has wants. Yet pretty much all believers, Christian or otherwise, acknowledge God as an eternal and unchanging being. So what would it mean for biblical writers who share such view to says things like this? That they're similes, the limit of finite language to express the infinite.

The Hebrews didn't try to define that undefinable something?  Then what's the OT all about? And if it's written for those who already see it, what's the point of writing about it?

Not about defining the given. It's written for believers in something, not written for believers in nothing, to convince them of something.

It helps those who see it, to see it more clearly. It's one generations attempt to chip away at that perception, to pass along to the next generation to chip away even further, until it's seen more clearly. It's to take whats partially realized to being fully realized.

It's not for those who can see nothing in the Bible, but a series of wannabe/pseudo scientific and historic facts. Who look at the world and their lives, and see nothing except that.

Well, the Bible DOES in fact say that God wants some to be saved and not others.  How would you address this contradiction?

I hate to keep hammering on this fact, but if people view God differently that how the Bible describes God, what use is the Bible?  If I were so inclined, I could get as much spiritual guidance from 'The Tempest' or 'Moby Dick'.

Thank you for reinforcing my position that theists go to surprising lengths to demonstrate that the Bible doesn't mean what it says.

If the Bible is not written for unbelievers, what is the point of its constant threatening of unbelief?

Boru