Mr shark, you are on dangerous ground when you attempt to create false contradictions in God’s word. - You are doing exactly what the serpent did in Genesis 3.
You cannot excape this, since you have called all of us here as witnesses to your attack, and pointless argument with P-Marlowe, who has tried to give it to you straight, as far as I can see.
Do you really want to continue in this mode?
>You cannot excape this, since you have called all of us here as witnesses to your attack, and pointless argument with P-Marlowe, who has tried to give it to you straight, as far as I can see.
>
>Do you really want to continue in this mode?
Actually I was pointing out the folly of decrying that all the bible must be read in an [ultra] literal mode. There are the literary metaphor/poetry and “quote” modes. I in no way advocate taking things out of context [just the opposite], further, the “short retelling” is a common practice in ancient story-telling; it can even be seen today in multi-part Star Trek episodes where the ‘eye-catch’ sequence is the “Previously on ST:DS9...” or some-such. The reason you are not getting the “whole story” is because the emphasis is not on THAT story, but THIS story, and the two relate to each other.
(as previously stated) The bible contains quotes, of Satan, who is a liar as you yourself have noted. It would not be an accurate history if it did not present these lies, would it? But, with some word-twisting, it is perfectly legitimate to say that the bible contains lies. (Doesn’t it record Abraham lying about Sarah?)
Further, in a literal-only mode things like “being born again” make no sense, and that “faith is like a mustard seed” are quite... odd.
My point, is not trying to make the bible a liar, but to point out that it is a rich, full book containing great story-telling, excellent history, amazing prophecy, and insight into an infinite God; a literal-only interpretation prevents one from enjoying the artistic side of God, IMO. Why would Song of Soloman be included if God did not have one?