RE: Literal and Not Literal
November 1, 2019 at 3:31 pm
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2019 at 3:32 pm by mordant.)
(October 28, 2019 at 2:53 am)Belacqua Wrote:(October 28, 2019 at 2:29 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: First, he's not a priest but bishop of Oxford.
Second, Paul did interpret Genesis literally, for instance he was known of saying stuff like that he doesn't permit women to teach or to have authority over a man because Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory
Even pretty strict literalists will concede an allegory or metaphor here and there. Or adhere to a "dual interpretation". It is clear that Abraham is presented as a historic person and his story is supposed to be literally true. Paul here is doing a "dual interpretation", a literal one with a symbolic one superimposed on it.
All this means is that even a literalist / inerrantist can make the scriptures say whatever they please. Just deploy confirmation bias to fanciful patterns. "Coincidence? I think not!!"
