http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literal%5B1%5D
Main Entry: lit·er·al (adjective)
1 a: according with the letter of the scriptures
b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual {liberty in the literal sense is impossible — B. N. Cardozo}
c: free from exaggeration or embellishment {the literal truth}
d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts {a very literal man} 2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters 3: reproduced word for word : exact , verbatim {a literal translation}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/true
Main Entry: 2true Function:adverb
2 a (1): being in accordance with the actual state of affairs
Main Entry: 2true Function:adverb
1: in accordance with fact or reality
Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God. It is free from exaggeration or embellishment {the literal truth}; it is reproduced word for word as God gave it.
I believe that the Word of God is true as well.
Accepting that the Bible is the “literal Truth” is not the same as interpreting everything in it literally and demanding that it be followed as such.
Only someone not interested in honest debate would demand that people violate common sense rules of literary reading. Poetry is poetry, song is song, allegory, metaphor, analogy, are all literary devices that are legitimately used in Scripture.
Anyone who is incapable of recognizing those differences shows an appalling lack of understanding of English. Anyone unwilling to recognize those differences is not debating honestly.
It’s alarming that science is in the hands of people so uneducated that they are unable to recognize the distinct differences in literary forms; or so biased that they are unwilling to recognize those differences. I certainly would not trust someone with that much of a lack of basic education to write any kind of reliable paper.
For someone who prides themselves on objectivity, for those who call themselves scientists who stoop to such unethical tactics, calls into question their judgment on virtually any other matter. They have clearly shown that they are not able to keep their personal biases out of any reasoning process. If they can’t do that in one area, then I see no reason to expect them to do it in others and it makes everything they say suspect.
So, since evos demand that Scripture be taken “literally” and interpreted as such, what do they have to say about the latest scientific pronouncements? Are we to take them literally?
So is it punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?
Are origins part of evolution or not?
Is it the pre-Cambrium explosion or that life evolved slowly from simpler forms?
Did life arise from non-living matter or is spontaneous generation is impossible?
So, are you a scientist, LeGrande? What field is your degree in? What scientific endeavors have you participated in?
Which Bible? We have already had a discussion of the merits of the English version and its inadequacies. Not my word but the word of one of the anti-evolutionists posting here.
I think you have that backwards. I have no problem with interpreting the Bible. I have problems with people that say that the Bible must be taken literally word for word but then saying that it must be interpreted. For example, when the Bible says that God observed that man was alone and needed a help-meet then God made the animals does not mean (when properly interpreted) that man was alone and did not create the animals after God realized Adam needed a help-meet.
What a bizarre rant. How can you say that "evos" demand Scripture be taken literally? Obviously, the evolutionary model doesn't describe a world in which there is a man and cattle but no woman. Evolution demands a different (some would say deeper) understanding of Scripture than that it's a simple narrative of events.
But we're told time and again here that evolution can't be true because it conflicts with that simple narrative. The people saying that have to go through all kinds of contortions to make the narrative consistent--oh, this verb must be in the pluperfect even though Hebrew doesn't have a pluperfect, and you have to believe the six days part but ignore that part about the world being a circle, and on and on. But they do, because they demand that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. Meanwhile, plenty of "evos" explain how they take the Bible to be the "literal Truth" without being literally true.
And then you come along and claim exactly the opposite. Very bizarre.
Accepting that the Bible is the “literal Truth” is not the same as interpreting everything in it literally and demanding that it be followed as such.
I agree with you that not everything in the Bible needs to be interpreted literally, like the Song of Solomon for example, breasts aren't literally bunches of grapes : ) But when Joshua lifts his arms and stops the Sun and Moon in the sky, is that to be interpreted literally or figuratively? Or the story of the Creation, or Noahs story, or the story of Israels deliverance from Egypt, or the Elisha where his bones cause the dead to live again? Those stories are the where the distinction between literal and figurative beliefs are important. Do you literally believe that Elisha's bones caused a dead man to live again?
So is it punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?
Both.
Are origins part of evolution or not?
Not.
Is it the pre-Cambrium explosion or that life evolved slowly from simpler forms?
Both.
Did life arise from non-living matter or is spontaneous generation is impossible?
We don't know.
So, are you a scientist, LeGrande? What field is your degree in? What scientific endeavors have you participated in?
The nice thing about science is that appeals to authority are not necessary : ) Whether Darwin or I are authorities on evolution is not important. What is important is the evidence that anyone can find and see. Science is based on falsification. All you have to do is find any evidence at all that Darwin was wrong and you will have falsified the whole TOE. It happens all the time in science. Einstein falsified all of Newtons theories. The history of science is basically a winnowing process where only the best and most accurate theories survive.
Believe it or not, I don't think that the TOE (in its present form) will survive much longer : ) There is starting to be good evidence that cells are capable of self modification in response to external stimuli, and the evidence of lateral gene transfer is indisputable. Like the old Chinese curse, we live in exciting times : )
Can’t come up with a way that “origins” fits into evolution, so we’ll just ignore it.
See? Now evolution explains everything... well, except for that over there.
Exclude that and NOW evolution explains everything...