(September 7, 2019 at 12:13 am)Acrobat Wrote: Because it’s fairly implausible that the writer/s of the story intended it to be literal. If he did, it probably would have started off with how he miraculously acquired knowledge of beginnings of creation.
But how do you know this? What makes you think that it would of started of with the author of Genesis talking about how they gained the knowledge? The OT was written in a completely different time, in a different context, no? What makes you think it would be treated the same way as the gospels? How do you discern this?
(September 7, 2019 at 12:13 am)Acrobat Wrote: The virgin birth is only two of the gospels accounts, and Matthew ties it to prophecy in Isaiah, that he might have misinterpreted as indicating the messiah would be born of a virgin.
Judging that he tied it to a prophecy of the messiah, it does appear that he expected his readers to take it literally, as a fulfillment of the prophecy.
Meaning, what? How do you know that "tying it to prophecy" somehow makes it literal? How do you know there isn't a bigger metaphor in there somewhere? See, you're not really explaining anything. You're just talking out of your ass and hoping it will make me go away.
If you're frightened of dying, and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the Earth.
