(September 9, 2019 at 9:15 pm)Acrobat Wrote: ...At the same time folks like yourself, seem to suggest that you do recognize some parts of the Bible are not literal. Yet, you don't want to answer as to how you distinguish the literal from non-literal parts? Perhaps you take passages where Jesus refers to himself as a lamb, to be non-literal? If so why do you take that to be non-literal, but not passages about a tree, with a fruit of "knowledge of good and evil"?
Ok, have a go at these:
Quote:John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Quote:Matthew 10:35-27
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
Of course the first one is true, its nice. The second one is obviously not true because...
It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. Drich.
