Adam and 4000 BC

It wasn't which Bible I had in mind. It's whether or not whatever scripture you might name is interpreted literally. By the way, I've never heard of any other book than the sacred book of the Hebrews and the sacred book of the Christians called a bible, although of course there are numerous translations.

 

No, it doesn't--not satisfactorily. You quoted the passage. When Mark says "the women" it certainly implies that he's talking about all of the women. If we can't give words and grammar their normal construction, your pretense of literalism is a hoax. Your shit eatin' grin doesn't help your case.

 

If the labels fit, wear them.

 

Okiefreak, how would a literalist treat John 6:53-58?

 

Why don't you ask our resident literalist?

 

They are your labels, I refer to him as brother.

 

:eggnog:

 

If you'll notice the Scripture says gathered in his name, not call upon his name and also that the Holy Spirit is not even mentioned.

 

Why do you want to hear it again?

 

As I say waterbrother, you said more than to just quote scripture. Are we not gathered in his name and is he not among us now?

 

You have yet to speak the truth you see about me.

 

All of what women? You keep saying what it has to mean but the Scriptures I cited show that is not what it means.

All we know for certain, from Mark's statement, was that there was a group of women who did not tell, we do not know who they were because Mark didn't name them and we don't even know for how long they did not tell.

First, you keep using this "straw man" argument of literalism, even though I have told you many times everything the Bible says is not literal, Jesus' parables are not literal for instance, but you keep insisting I'm a literalist, trying to fit what I say into some preconceived notion of what you think I'm saying. Which is pretty much what you do with what the Bible says as well.

Second, not all statements made, follow or even need to follow "normal construction". That's why you can even say "normal construction", because there are statements that don't follow "normal construction".

To me this whole discussion sounds like you trying to strain out the gnat just to gulp down the camel.

As my Mom used to say; I wouldn't have in my hand what you just had in your mouth.

 

Wow. And this is the guy who says 'nice dodge'.

 

Since you can't seem to see it, I'll spell it out for you, none of them fit.

 

I'm was curious as to why you think Catholics wouldn't qualify to be here. They not only believe in the divinity of the Christ, they read the bible also. Some might even take it literally.

 

Just guessing but I would say they would believe something like the Catholics, that the bread and wine at communion is Jesus' actual flesh and blood.

 

I guess you missed it.

 

And here I thought you said you had been reading all of our discussions.

Also I might ask why you didn't call "the dope" on the fact he as never bothered to say what truth he was talking about?

 

Bitter fruit!

 

Don't know what that has to do with all your dodging of his question.