[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Acrobat]

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?

Because all interpretation of language, whether in the Bible, or in real life, in novels, book, etc... require an assumption of intent. What it is that Ego is trying to communicate to me above. If the author of Genesis had a vision from God, I would expect him to have indicated that, because I don't see any reason why he wouldn't. Why would that be omitted? The fact that this omission seems quite incomprehensible to me, is why I hold the assumption that I do.

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.

What bigger metaphor? Some unknown bigger metaphor?

I don't deal with unknown interpretations. Just like I don't withhold belief in the theory of evolution, because of the possibility of some unknown theory that might one day replace it, and prove it false.

I deal with known, or given interpretations, and see which one fits that information better.