What are the arguments against biblical literalism?

makes sense since koine greek was like pic related

Logic

Many do but people just call them cultists. Jehovah's witnesses, Salvation Army, various charismatic groups, etc.
Also monastic life especially in Franciscan order was 100% of what you describe.

Mostly "science has now proven x, y or z, so the bible must be false."

>Also monastic life especially in Franciscan order was 100% of what you describe.

And completely worthless to the Kingdom of God.

That's your judgement, not God's. It would help if you were a little more humble with blank generalizations such as this. Have you ever met someone like that in person?

This board seems to have forgotten those.

>completely useless

Much like religion in general

No, I've never been sodomized, but thanks for caring.

It's not hard to judge that people living in the flesh, or people living by denying the flesh, are doing nothing that is of God's.

God is worshiped in the Spirit, not in the flesh.

They all point to the Creator, the Creation, and the Flood. Oh, and to the infallible Word of God, the bible.

Religion is very useful here on earth.

Jesus hated the most religious people to ever walk the earth.

In what way?

the monasteries in europe helped to preserve civilization through the dark ages. this is supposed to be a history board, ffs.

Again, this is your word against that of God. I don't know you, but I do know that you're not God.

Also, assuming that everyone you disagree with has to be a child molester is pretty offensive, and pretty judgemental if you ask me.

It's beyond retarded.

Jesus fucking Christ

>Geology
Bedrock covered with multiple layers of sedimentary rock, dried mud, sediment, from the Flood. Global. Just as in Genesis.

>Physics
The Creation of Time, Space, Matter and Energy, what the universe is made of, as set forth in Genesis.

>Biology
We are fearfully and wonderfully made, as in the Psalms and Job; and kind begets kind, always, which has always been the case throughout human history. Also, DNA is an information storage device. A coded information storage device far more complex than we can imagine.

>Archaeology
Every time an archaeologist breaks out the bible and digs where the bible says something is, they find that something. From the Hittite Empire to the City of Jericho, it's all laid out as in the bible.

>common sense
Common sense says that the Creation infers a Creator; that something does not come from nothing; that living beings do not come from non-living materials, that order does not form itself out of chaos; that systems left to their own do not gain in complexity; and that consciousness is not a property of matter.

>any ounce of skepticism
The skepticism should be towards mankind's understanding of the universe, which has always been wrong; in mankind's sciences, which have always been wrong, and toward the bible, which has always been true.

>and critical thought.
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Where did the universe come from?
Where did life come from?
Where did consciousness come from?
Why are we here?
What happens after we die?

These are the proper "critical thinking" questions that "science" lulls you to sleep believing you already know the answer.

Science, which is always wrong, and always will be.

It is, and yet you keep spouting your nonsense. It's okay. Nobody has to believe you.

>Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man
- St. Augustine

Seems like these are exacty the things the Church Fathers were warning us about.

It's not, actually, but then I would not expect you to be familiar with the bible.

Philippians 3:3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,

Romans 8:8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Whether you indulge your flesh as a glutton or drunkard, or are an ascetic punishing your flesh with plain food and water, you are living in the flesh.

And the Church Fathers were not God. It seems that you worship them, instead of God, which is a heresy

You didn't provide a single citation for any of your claims.

>Science, which is always wrong, and always will be.

But you just referred to multiple scientific disciplines and said they backed you, which is it?

Most unintelligent post of the year.

>implying Christianity didn't cause the dark ages.

You can take the same warning from Peter, if you'd like:

2 Peter 3
knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

What do you have to do to be a Darwinian scoffer?

1. Discount the Creation; and
2. Discount the Flood

What does Darwinian evolution do?

1. Discounts the Creation; and
2. Discounts the Flood.

It actually is. You don't know any of the people you judge. Also, it's not your job to judge others, that seems like God's job.

You know, for someone who loves to quote the Bible, you sure don't know a whole lot about it. You seem exactly like the scribes and Pharisees Jesus warned me about.

Are you sure you're a Christian? For instance, how would you feel if I completely out of the blue accused you of being a child molester, just because I happen to disagree with you on something?

I'm saying that science on its own is always wrong, and always will be wrong.

The things of the bible are true no matter if something that is always wrong "discovers" them.

You'll note my position of the modern sciences only includes the points at which they confirm the bible; they would hardly be accepted as broad definitions of those studies.

And yet, a purely secular study of science would indeed demonstrate that each and every generation of scientists proves the former was wrong, and each and every generation of scientists believes they now have it right.

For thousands of years.

>You'll note my position of the modern sciences only includes the points at which they confirm the bible;

But none of them do.

are you even a christian?

So because science is under constant revision, it therefore follows that there is no validity to any of it (despite everything to the contrary), and therefore, The Bible is 100% correct. What perfect logic.

And how do I know you're not one of these scoffers? You yourself seem to fit the description awfully well. Throughout this thread, you've done nothing but mock others, calling them names, and judging them, despite that you don't know any of these people.

You even judge me in your own post, despite the fact that you've never met me. How would you feel if I judged you constantly, constantly called you names for disagreeing with me, and generally being completely disrespectful to you, despite that I've never met you, don't know you and don't know your background? Would you think I'd be a good Christian, or would that make me exactly like one of these scoffers you just described?

You asked me, in general, my opinion of men who cloistered themselves away to "become more religious".

It's in direct disobedience to the Great Commission.

And they're Roman Catholics for the most part, and not Christians at all.

Please feel free to discount my opinions, but it would behoove you to stop discounting facts.

the points upon which I touched absolutely do.

I am.

"It's under constant revision" = "It's always wrong".

Strange you can't see that.

You're having a very difficult time keeping up with this conversation. The scoffers say Jesus is not coming back.

I say he could be back before I post this.

>the monasteries in europe helped to preserve civilization through the dark ages

No they didn't. Their supposed "preservation" of knowledge has been grossly overstated, and the Church was more successful in destroying knowledge than in preserving it.

Only Arisotlean philosophy was allowed to survive with approval, since it could be cast in a Christian light and interpreted in a pro-Christian fashion: other schools were either purposefully ignored and their tomes destroyed directly or by proxy (by allowing them to rot without being transcribed).

No they don't. You're just ridiculously fucking ignorant.

You have to pity the people with Jesuit educations; they are no more than blinded fools.

No they don't, you're just an idiot.

They do, actually. More and more so.

Maybe one day they'll catch up to my "bronze age sheep herders". But I doubt it.

If you don't know that dogs have puppies and cats have kittens, and that's the way it's always been, then there's really no hope for you knowing anything that matters.

What's strange how you managed to ignore the second half of my post.

>I say he could be back before I post this.

And why should I believe you? Are you God?

They didn't find Jericho?
They didn't find the Hittite Empire?

The universe is not made of time, space, matter and energy?

Which of these do you fault, again?

The global flood? The flood that is the reason animals were killed and their skeletons preserved in pressed mud hardened into sedimentary rock?

The bible is 100% true independent of anything man does.

That statement is not predicated on "science is always wrong".

It's just mean to show you that you are betting your eternal soul on science telling you that you are an evolved monkey who dies and turns into dirt, when science is always wrong, rather than a special creation made in the image of God who has an eternal destiny spread out before him.

I'm sorry, but that's not up for you to decide. You're not God, you're a mere man. As far as I know, you're just as foolish as the people you call fools, including me

As you have admitted to being a fool, and I have not, I think I'll stick with my judgment and discernment.

You have, by the way, posted exactly zero bible verses.

>They do, actually. More and more so.

Nope.

You're one of those "ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE ME" fools.

I'm telling you how that's going to turn out for you.

Not good.

Revelation 21:27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

So is your name written in the Lamb's Book of Life, or not?

Very much so, actually. You should start paying more attention to Tesla.

Everything is light.

There's no evidence with which that we can say there was ever a global flood.

>As you have admitted to being a fool, and I have not, I think I'll stick with my judgment and discernment

That makes you arrogant, and, since it's not your job to judge anyone (unless you're God, which you don't seem to act like), someone who puts himself above God, which seems a little sinful.

You should think about judging others before you make such a grave error. And yes, I'd happily admit I'm a fool. I'm a sinner, and only my Lord can save me. He saved me from arrogance, from hating others and from judging others based on things that I myself do wrong. You should try it sometimes, it really helps you, unlike using religion like a stick to beat others with. Our Lord warns against people who uses His Word as nothing more than a tool to hate and belittle others, that seems like pretty solid advice for you

Is this really the sort of reasoning you base your opinions on?

It's literally all over the bedrock.

It's literally the entire fossil record.

It's literally in the bible.

You're just another 2 Peter 3 scoffer, and your end is not good.

>and only my Lord can save me.

This is a statement that you are not saved, papist.

Send me the evidence then friend. I'd be happy to read it if it's anything credible. The bible isn't evidence.

Yes, by relying on people who know what they're talking about. Read The Electric Universe to start with. Then start wondering what the universe is made out of.

Genesis 1:3
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

>You're one of those "ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE ME" fools.

Yes, and you're not God, you're a mere man, burdened by hate and arrogance.

Also, Jesus had something to say about scribes who use His Word as nothing more than an excuse to hate others, it's very wise advice, it be most unwise for you to ignore it

Go to the RATE Group's work for radiometric dating, and go to Answers in Genesis for your questions about creation and the Flood.

Or just wonder why most fossils are small creatures that lived on the bottom of the ocean, but were found in layers of dried mud on top of mountains.

Love all the judgment you are trying to lay on me.

It won't work.

I do the work of my Father, while you do the work of yours.

No, this is more a statement that you're not God. You're a fallen man. Your hatred impresses me as much as a barking dog

You see hatred where you should see warning.

You don't know God, so you don't know who belongs to God, and who doesn't.

You don't.

First off, let's throw materialist out of the water. This way we can right away work with the fact that a spiritual plane (and our connection to it) is real.

Now let's take the story of the Tower of Babel. I know of the 3 interpretations of this story. A literal interperation, a catholic interpretation, and a Kabbalist interpretation.

The literalist says that some dude named nimrod really tried to build a tower to reach the heavens, and that god really came down and confused their spoken language. Every human was believed to have spoken one language up I'm tell that point and then no longer.

The catholic interpretation says that the Tower of Babel is symbolic of the type he government which is opposed to God, and that the actual tower was likely a ziggurat (which is common at that time and place)

The Kabbalist interpretation says that the tower is symbolic of religion, and how we all try to reach God in our own way. But our "language" (i.e. Method of reaching God) was confounded and now we have many different paths to reach God (although they all seek the same thing). It's symbolic of spiritual disagreements, the language meaning spiritual language which taught esoteric truths.

Now, since the Bible is a spiritual text, which interpretation seems wisest from a spiritual standpoint? I think the answer would clearly be the Kabbalist or Catholic viewpoint as opposed to the literalist viewpoint. Also understand that this type of symbolic language was far more common during the time of both the old and new testament

>and only my Lord CAN save me

That's obviously a statement that you are not saved, whether I am God or not.

And I did not claim to be God, anywhere.

I did claim, and I am, His adopted son.

That's an enormous and completely fallacious leap of reasoning based on no rational thought whatsoever.

I bet they have no vested interest whatsover and I can trust them wholeheartedly

I'm not judging you, I'm merely informing you that your type is mentioned very often in the Bible, and not in a very positive light.

Now, judgement would be if I commanded you to do something, which is what you've been doing this whole thread, but, once again, you're not God, so it doesn't really bother me.

I'm not judging you, you don't have to read my posts, you can judge and condemn and hate everyone, all day long. Condemn them for everything, condemn them for even the things you do yourself. I'm just here to remind you that you're not God, which means that your angry accusations don't mean anything to me

The literal is, as usual, true.

Most people are under the delusion that the Babylonians were foolish people and were trying to build a tower "tall enough" to go into the third heaven.

I know that the third heaven overlaps our two heavens and the earth at all times and at all places, and there's no reason to speculate that the Babylonians did not have that exact same knowledge.

Especially as they were being counseled by beings who had come from the third heaven/counterspace into our heavens and earth.

And God said, quite clearly, that if he did not intervene, the Babylonians would have found a way to trespass into the third heaven/counterspace.

The "catholic" view can just be folded into the literal view, as it is literally in the bible as such. God uses stones uncut by human hands; Babylon uses bricks made of mud and mortar that are formed into identical shapes. Same goes for people.

Again, you're not God, therefore I don't care about your judgements or opinions.

Look into it and try to disprove it.

Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

>The literal is, as usual, true

Again, you're not God, your opinion is irrelevant

You assume men attempting to be rich via their vocation are honest and trustworthy, and men attempting to shed the light of the gospel in a dark and evil world at peril of their careers not trustworthy.

How odd.

You seriously need to find out what "judging" and "judgment" mean.

You're like a Mad Libs poster at this point.

All I have to be is familiar with the English language.

Jesus has saved me from eternal hell. I am saved.

You say only Jesus can save you from eternal hell. You are not saved.

It's simple English.

There's no money in research dude, trust me.

You love being judgmental so much that you accuse people not being judgmental of being judgmental, and then condemning them for it.

While you yet remain judgmental on points that have already been clarified.

I am not God.

I am God's adopted son. One of hundreds of millions of such.

why do we have to argue about this? aren't there better things we could be doing in the name of christianity?

Again, you're not God, I don't care. What you think of me is of precisely no consequence to me

I'll pass on trusting you, thanks. Trust is earned.

Read up on flood geology and get out of your bubble friend. Literal interpretations of the bible are just wrong.

ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE ME REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I am simply pointing out that what you want, God to judge you, will end up with you in hell.

Disprove what?

>muh science even though it changes every century is always right

That Nikola Testla was wrong when he said

Everything is light.

Again, you're not God, I don't care. Your judgement means nothing to me.

>ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE ME REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>I am simply pointing out that what you want, God to judge you, will end up with you in hell.

>muh bible that says men were centuries old is ever right

You're not God. I don't care.

Science has given you just about everything you have. The fact that it can change when we learn new things isn't making it wrong. The bible is wrong in multiple places but you still accept it blindly. Science is the best lens that we have to look at the observable universe through.

Too vague, what do you mean by "light" and how is "everything" made of it?

Explain what you mean and how you are evidencing it. It's not up to me to try and 'disprove' some ten word meaningless claim made on the Internet.

>Now, since the Bible is a spiritual text, which interpretation seems wisest from a spiritual standpoint? I think the answer would clearly be the Kabbalist or Catholic viewpoint as opposed to the literalist viewpoint.
The Bible is also a historical text.

>Also understand that this type of symbolic language was far more common during the time of both the old and new testament
But people have been disregarding the literal sense only recently.

Yes, as they lived in different conditions than we do.

And mankind's lifespan will increase during the Kingdom Age.

You suffer from a horrendous normalcy bias that thinks everything was as it is now, and everything will be as it is now. It's childish.