[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping, winstonchurchill!

One of the points in my post 34 is that our vision and minds are limited to three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. We are “blind” to extra spatial and temporal dimensions, as well as spacelessness and timelessness even though it is known to be the initial condition of the beginning.

Later, at post 53, I posed these two questions with this blindness and the issue you raise in mind:

When we speak to our children, would we use words and concepts they cannot understand? If our children are blind, would we describe things with colors and forms?

Since in the physical realm we are clearly “anthropomorphic” by vision and mind, it follows that the Scriptures are “anthropomorphic" with regard to spatial and temporal dimensions.

My two cents…

[winstonchurchill]

When we speak to our children, would we use words and concepts they cannot understand? If our children are blind, would we describe things with colors and forms? Since in the physical realm we are clearly “anthropomorphic” by vision and mind, it follows that the Scriptures are “anthropomorphic" with regard to spatial and temporal dimensions.

The risk here is that what we really are saying is that the words used by the inspired authors are 'anthropomorphic' (which, of course, those authors could not see or understand) and can thus be essentially disregarded as to their common-sense meaning, but that we, living in more enlightened times, can see them as such and speak of such elevated concepts as 'timelessness', etc. This raises a lot of issues such as 'inerrancy' versus 'infallibility'with other, wider 'factual' errors sneaking into the inspired text, which can in turn start us on a slippery slope, looking for 'anthropomorphic' formulations (which are, so it goes, simply inaccurate).