There is one little simple question atheism can't answer...

I am also curious about your motivation to debate on OT, LJ, since you said there's no constructive debating happening here.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="KeitekeTokage"]

You responded to me saying many things in the bible were meant to be symbolic by saying "OT NOT NT MIRACLES." What do you mean it has nothing to do with the bible? You have got to be the most dishonest Christian/Creationist I've ever engaged with. Luckily everyone else can see you weasel around and get a good laugh with me.

GreySeal9

Why exactly do you make the distinction between OT and NT miracles?

I am also curious about your motivation to debate on OT, LJ, since you said there's no constructive debating happening here.

Teenaged

And is Wiki on Jewish symbolism which would be of import to the OT.LJS9502_basic

So what parts of that support your argument exactly?

I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, but what is it you're trying to communicate with this link?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I am also curious about your motivation to debate on OT, LJ, since you said there's no constructive debating happening here.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yes long form Old Testament....not New Testament miracles which was the leap you made so I clarifyed. And I've done so again.

LJS9502_basic

Why exactly do you make the distinction between OT and NT miracles?

But what do you think makes NT miracles symbolic while OT miracles are? What characteristics make the NT miracles non-symbolic while OT miracles are?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And is Wiki on Jewish symbolism which would be of import to the OT.GreySeal9

So what parts of that support your argument exactly?

I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, but what is it you're trying to communicate with this link?

But what do you think makes NT miracles symbolic while OT miracles are? What characteristics make the NT miracles non-symbolic while OT miracles are?

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Hey, Teenaged. Can you try re-linking the same site? I can't access it for some reason.

GreySeal9

There was simply a missing "h" at the "http" part. :P

Thanks.

I'm reading the article and it seems kind of like an opinion peice.

LJ, is there any pertinent passages that might shed light on a non-editorial basis of when to interpret literally and when to not?

I'm reading the article and it seems kind of like an opinion peice.

LJ, is there any pertinent passages that might shed light on a non-editorial basis of when to interpret literally and when to not?

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But what do you think makes NT miracles symbolic while OT miracles are? What characteristics make the NT miracles non-symbolic while OT miracles are?

LJS9502_basic

I didn't say you said they were symbolic. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I merely asked why you make a distinction between the NT and OT as far as the degree of literalness.

But anyway, you say that the NT miracles are not symbolic, but how do you know this? What is the basis of this claim?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But what do you think makes NT miracles symbolic while OT miracles are? What characteristics make the NT miracles non-symbolic while OT miracles are?

GreySeal9

I didn't say you said they were symbolic. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I merely asked why you make a distinction between the NT and OT as far as the degree of literalness.

But anyway, you say that the NT miracles are not symbolic, but how do you know this? What is the basis of this claim?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm reading the article and it seems kind of like an opinion peice.

LJ, is there any pertinent passages that might shed light on a non-editorial basis of when to interpret literally and when to not?

LJS9502_basic

I didn't reject them. I just said that it seems like an opinion piece. And there's no rule saying I have to "accept" your sources in the way you want me to. This is a debate, so I am allowed to challenge your sources.

I'm just asking for some direction. What part of that source do you think is pertinent to the question of when to interpret literally and when not to?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I just said the NT miracles are not symbolic. The books are different. The OT is a story about the relationship between God and the Jewish people. It is told in story perspective with liberal use of Jewish symbolism. The NT is a narrative about Jesus and His teachings. His stories...ie parables...are metaphors but the events are intended as historical. So not symbolism. Why do you keep saying I said NT miracles are symbolic? That was the other dude....

LJS9502_basic

I didn't say you said they were symbolic. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I merely asked why you make a distinction between the NT and OT as far as the degree of literalness.

But anyway, you say that the NT miracles are not symbolic, but how do you know this? What is the basis of this claim?

Why am I required to accept what you say? Like I said, this is a debate. It is perfectly valid for me to challenge your responses.

You ask what more do I want? I want more than just a vague description. I want an expalantion as to how you know how each book is intended. How do you know that the NT are intended as historical and the OT is not. Simply saying it is not enough because then you're asking me to take your word for it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm reading the article and it seems kind of like an opinion peice.

LJ, is there any pertinent passages that might shed light on a non-editorial basis of when to interpret literally and when to not?

GreySeal9

I didn't reject them. I just said that it seems like an opinion piece. And there's no rule saying I have to "accept" your sources in the way you want me to. This is a debate, so I am allowed to challenge your sources.

I'm just asking for some direction. What part of that source do you think is pertinent to the question of when to interpret literally and when not to?

Is anyone going to answer my question that I made in the previous page or so?alexside1

Is anyone going to answer my question that I made in the previous page or so?alexside1

No.

You can use this answer for either question... You're welcome.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] *sigh* You asked for sources mentioning symbolism in the Bible yet when given you don't want to accept them. I said symbolism exists....you asked for links...you have some.

LJS9502_basic

I didn't reject them. I just said that it seems like an opinion piece. And there's no rule saying I have to "accept" your sources in the way you want me to. This is a debate, so I am allowed to challenge your sources.

I'm just asking for some direction. What part of that source do you think is pertinent to the question of when to interpret literally and when not to?

I didn't say the Wiki article is religious. I'm asking, "How does the Wiki article support your argument? What parts of it support what you are saying?"

Perhaps going to the source is neccesary. But you're not explaining what the article does to further your point. You keep just dropping all kind of vague stuff, refusing to explain your sources and how they support your argument.

It's really hard to debate vague stuff like you "you gotta study it".

Is anyone going to answer my question that I made in the previous page or so?alexside1

Why should somebody summarize the thread for you when you can just go back a few pages and read it?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I didn't reject them. I just said that it seems like an opinion piece. And there's no rule saying I have to "accept" your sources in the way you want me to. This is a debate, so I am allowed to challenge your sources.

I'm just asking for some direction. What part of that source do you think is pertinent to the question of when to interpret literally and when not to?

GreySeal9

I didn't say the Wiki article is religious. I'm asking, "How does the Wiki article support your argument? What parts of it support what you are saying?"

Perhaps going to the source is neccesary. But you're not explaining what the article does to further your point. You keep just dropping all kind of vague stuff, refusing to explain your sources and how they support your argument.

It's really hard to debate vague stuff like you "you gotta study it".

[QUOTE="alexside1"]Is anyone going to answer my question that I made in the previous page or so?GreySeal9

Why should somebody summarize the thread for you when you can just go back a few pages and read it?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The Wiki article wasn't particularly religious...but I'm curious. Jewish symbols would be a part of the Jewish...ie religious discipline. So to understand them....would you not have to go to the source?LJS9502_basic

I didn't say the Wiki article is religious. I'm asking, "How does the Wiki article support your argument? What parts of it support what you are saying?"

Perhaps going to the source is neccesary. But you're not explaining what the article does to further your point. You keep just dropping all kind of vague stuff, refusing to explain your sources and how they support your argument.

It's really hard to debate vague stuff like you "you gotta study it".

[QUOTE="alexside1"]Is anyone going to answer my question that I made in the previous page or so?GreySeal9

Why should somebody summarize the thread for you when you can just go back a few pages and read it?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The Wiki article wasn't particularly religious...but I'm curious. Jewish symbols would be a part of the Jewish...ie religious discipline. So to understand them....would you not have to go to the source?LJS9502_basic

I didn't say the Wiki article is religious. I'm asking, "How does the Wiki article support your argument? What parts of it support what you are saying?"

Perhaps going to the source is neccesary. But you're not explaining what the article does to further your point. You keep just dropping all kind of vague stuff, refusing to explain your sources and how they support your argument.

It's really hard to debate vague stuff like you "you gotta study it".

I know that is your argument, but you seem to think that there is some disctinction between the NT and the OT as far as sybolism and literalness is concerned. So why does this distinction exist? How do you know it exists? What dictates what is symbolic and what is literal?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I didn't say the Wiki article is religious. I'm asking, "How does the Wiki article support your argument? What parts of it support what you are saying?"

Perhaps going to the source is neccesary. But you're not explaining what the article does to further your point. You keep just dropping all kind of vague stuff, refusing to explain your sources and how they support your argument.

It's really hard to debate vague stuff like you "you gotta study it".

xaos

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I didn't say the Wiki article is religious. I'm asking, "How does the Wiki article support your argument? What parts of it support what you are saying?"

Perhaps going to the source is neccesary. But you're not explaining what the article does to further your point. You keep just dropping all kind of vague stuff, refusing to explain your sources and how they support your argument.

It's really hard to debate vague stuff like you "you gotta study it".

GreySeal9

I know that is your argument, but you seem to think that there is some disctinction between the NT and the OT as far as sybolism and literalness is concerned. So what is the distinction? What dictates what is symbolic and what is literal?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"]Is anyone going to answer my question that I made in the previous page or so?alexside1

Why should somebody summarize the thread for you when you can just go back a few pages and read it?

We're arguing about the literalness of the Bible.

My old debate prof would have a heart attack if she read this thread.

My old debate prof would have a heart attack if she read this thread.

cybrcatter

My old debate prof would have a heart attack if she read this thread.

cybrcatter

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Let me ask you this....what exactly do you think my argument is? Because it's been that symbolism was used in the OT. LJS9502_basic

I know that is your argument, but you seem to think that there is some disctinction between the NT and the OT as far as sybolism and literalness is concerned. So what is the distinction? What dictates what is symbolic and what is literal?

But you're not supporting what you're saying (i.e. telling me how you know). You're simply saying it and expecting me to take your word for it.

My old debate prof would have a heart attack if she read this thread.

cybrcatter

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

My old debate prof would have a heart attack if she read this thread.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Why should somebody summarize the thread for you when you can just go back a few pages and read it?

GreySeal9

We're arguing about the literalness of the Bible.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"]Is anyone going to answer my question that I made in the previous page or so?Jandurin

Why should somebody summarize the thread for you when you can just go back a few pages and read it?

Yeah, I guess I shouldn't since I'm pretty lazy this summer. 8)

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"] Too lazy, just sum it up in a sentice. :palexside1

We're arguing about the literalness of the Bible.

Well, I'm not trying to prove it's literal. I just want to know how people make the distinction between literal events and non-literal events.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I know that is your argument, but you seem to think that there is some disctinction between the NT and the OT as far as sybolism and literalness is concerned. So what is the distinction? What dictates what is symbolic and what is literal?

GreySeal9

But you're not supporting what you're saying (i.e. telling me how you know). You're simply saying it and expecting me to take your word for it.

And that would be : How was the very first essence, ( or the thing that started it all ) was created? It's a scientific fact that every material, every substance needs a source, cause, something to be made from it. seriously all of this can't be made from nothingness, that's not logical and not scientifical either. ( Before you mention it, God himself as theists know him ( it ) , doesn't need cause , because he ( it ) is not made of substance. ) I personally believe in Big Bang Theory . But that theory explains how the universe was expanded, not how it was originally created. And also there's still this question remained : where all the material that makes up the universe came from? even if we find an answer for this, we can still ask the same question about that answer and so on. Sign-Number-Two

The thing not made of substance doesn't have to be a god. You shouldn't even try to answer the question right now since no one knows anything about it

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Did you read above where I gave you the differences in the two books? I'm not sure why you keep asking me to say the same thing.LJS9502_basic

But you're not supporting what you're saying (i.e. telling me how you know). You're simply saying it and expecting me to take your word for it.

You talk about how it's taught, but you do realize that it's taught differently by different people right? And also, how does how it's taught say anything about its original intent? People can teach it how they want, but unless there's historical evidence for their way of teaching, then that in itself doesn't say anything.

I'm not saying that it's absolutely literal. I'm asking how one can know if it's supposed to be literal/symbolic? What academic processes can one go through to make a determination?

As for the bolded, you don't know this. I can accept a point despite not being religious, but that point has to be more than someone's own opinion and has to have support beyond that person's assertion. If you want to me to think you're right about something, you have to prove you're right and not simply insist that you are without providing support.

You keep saying "you have to study the book," but that is no reason why you can't actually explain how you come to your conclusions in a way that is not circular or overly vague. Seriously, if you're going to engage in a debate, it's going to involve some explaining and some typing. If you insist on vague stuff, you'll just be bombarded with questions and requests to elaborate or support or provide sources as debate involves supporting one's conclusions.

If you're not willing to put in some work to build your argument, what is the point of continuing to debate?

You talk about how it's taught, but you do realize that it's taught differently by different people right? And also, how does how it's taught say anything about its original intent? People can teach it how they want, but unless there's historical evidence for their way of teaching, then that in itself doesn't say anything.

I'm not saying that it's absolutely literal. I'm asking how one can know if it's supposed to be literal/symbolic? What academic processes can one go through to make a determination?

As for the bolded, you don't know this. I can accept a point despite not being religious, but that point has to be more than someone's own opinion and has to have support beyond that person's assertion. If you want to me to think you're right about something, you have to prove you're right and not simply insist that you are without providing support.

You keep saying "you have to study the book," but that is no reason why you can't actually explain how you come to your conclusions in a way that is not circular or overly vague. Seriously, if you're going to engage in a debate, it's going to involve some explaining and some typing. If you insist on vague stuff, you'll just be bombarded with questions and requests to elaborate or support or provide sources as debate involves supporting one's conclusions.

If you're not willing to put in some work to build your argument, what is the point of continuing to debate?

GreySeal9

The bolded was not directed at anyone in particular but more a general statement of what I've seen here.

I have given you how I came to my conclusions. You don't accpet them....but they've been given. And as I stated earlier...through the years I have read different sources about this subject. No...I don't remember names and publications. But again I wasn't planning on entering a discussion some day down the line on a forum I didn't yet know existed.

I said before this is not a debate. If it were...would you not have to provide source material as well? And not just you but others here that call it a debate. A proper rebuttal is not that one doesn't agree.

The mere basis of my discussion I did prove. And that was that the Jewish people used symbolism. You have not refuted that. No one in this thread has refuted the symbolism in the OT. I gave a link. No counter links were presented. So as far as debating goes....I provided a source. You did not.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You talk about how it's taught, but you do realize that it's taught differently by different people right? And also, how does how it's taught say anything about its original intent? People can teach it how they want, but unless there's historical evidence for their way of teaching, then that in itself doesn't say anything.

I'm not saying that it's absolutely literal. I'm asking how one can know if it's supposed to be literal/symbolic? What academic processes can one go through to make a determination?

As for the bolded, you don't know this. I can accept a point despite not being religious, but that point has to be more than someone's own opinion and has to have support beyond that person's assertion. If you want to me to think you're right about something, you have to prove you're right and not simply insist that you are without providing support.

You keep saying "you have to study the book," but that is no reason why you can't actually explain how you come to your conclusions in a way that is not circular or overly vague. Seriously, if you're going to engage in a debate, it's going to involve some explaining and some typing. If you insist on vague stuff, you'll just be bombarded with questions and requests to elaborate or support or provide sources as debate involves supporting one's conclusions.

If you're not willing to put in some work to build your argument, what is the point of continuing to debate?

LJS9502_basic

The bolded was not directed at anyone in particular but more a general statement of what I've seen here.

I have given you how I came to my conclusions. You don't accpet them....but they've been given. And as I stated earlier...through the years I have read different sources about this subject. No...I don't remember names and publications. But again I wasn't planning on entering a discussion some day down the line on a forum I didn't yet know existed.

I said before this is not a debate. If it were...would you not have to provide source material as well? And not just you but others here that call it a debate. A proper rebuttal is not that one doesn't agree.

The mere basis of my discussion I did prove. And that was that the Jewish people used symbolism. You have not refuted that. No one in this thread has refuted the symbolism in the OT. I gave a link. No counter links were presented. So as far as debating goes....I provided a source. You did not.

I didn't provide a source because I didn't make a claim. I don't have a position as to whether it's sybolic or figurative. I simply want to know how you make the distinction of what to interpret literally and what to interpret figurativelly. You have not explained this at all, but have only provided the vaguest statements possible.

Also, you didn't prove anything. The Jewish people used symbolism is not proof of anything. To prove something with it, you have to explain why that premise supports your conclusion and how it supports that conclusion.

You provided sources, but you did not explain how they support your conclusion. Why can't you just select some passages and talk about how they support your conclusion? That's easy.

You're basically half-assing the discussion and trying to pretend that you're acting proving something.

I didn't provide a source because I didn't make a claim. I don't have a position. I simply want to know how you make the distinction of what to interpret literally and what to interpret figurativelly. You have not explained this at all.

Also, you didn't prove anything. The Jewish people used symbolism is not proof of anything. To prove something with it, you have to explain why that premise supports your conclusion and how it supports that conclusion.

You provided sources, but you did not explain how they support your conclusion.

You're basically half-assing the discussion and trying to pretend that you're acting proving something.

GreySeal9

Actually my stance was that the OT used symbolism. Which I gave a link to back up. It did. My conclusion was that the OT used symbolism. How was that not proven? You seem to be attributing a different argument to me which I did not make. And you made no counterpoint still. Saying you made no claim is not correct because you are arguing my use of symbolism in the OT. So you can either agree and it ends....or provide documentation that symbolism is not present in the OT.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I didn't provide a source because I didn't make a claim. I don't have a position. I simply want to know how you make the distinction of what to interpret literally and what to interpret figurativelly. You have not explained this at all.

Also, you didn't prove anything. The Jewish people used symbolism is not proof of anything. To prove something with it, you have to explain why that premise supports your conclusion and how it supports that conclusion.

You provided sources, but you did not explain how they support your conclusion.

You're basically half-assing the discussion and trying to pretend that you're acting proving something.

LJS9502_basic

Actually my stance was that the OT used symbolism. Which I gave a link to back up. It did. My conclusion was that the OT used symbolism. How was that not proven? You seem to be attributing a different argument to me which I did not make. And you made no counterpoint still. Saying you made no claim is not correct because you are arguing my use of symbolism in the OT. So you can either agree and it ends....or provide documentation that symbolism is not present in the OT.

I didn't say that there is no symbolism. Why can't you actually get my positions right for a change? Don't you realize how rude it is to continually misinterpret positions? It makes one think you don't put any effort into reading one's posts correctly and this happens in every thread you're involved in.

You never explained how your link backs up your position. You simply posted them. Don't ask me to say why it wasn't proven when you just posted links. Explain how your links prove your position. You're still trying to half-ass this. I have no idea why.

I am debating. I'm debating the notion that there is a distinction between the literalness of the OT and the NT. I think it is perfect possible that they are both symbolic and I'm asking you how you know that the NT is supposed to be literal while the OT is different. You have not provided any explanation of that, but simply asserted your position over and over again with explaining how you know.

Half-assing the discussion and dodging is simply not going to work. People do notice.

That's my predicament too TC, according to everything we know today, there must be something living in order to create anything non-living. Living things do not come from nothing, and non-living things do not create living things. So in order for the universe to be created, there must have been a living thing that was there in the first place. I told that to my teacher, and she told me that we don't know that yet, and it's only based off of what we know so far, so it's not necessarily true. Doesn't that render everything untrue since all we know of the world is everything we know so far? We have lots of theories, and you never know, there may be some discovery that happens which changes our entire view of the world.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I didn't provide a source because I didn't make a claim. I don't have a position. I simply want to know how you make the distinction of what to interpret literally and what to interpret figurativelly. You have not explained this at all.

Also, you didn't prove anything. The Jewish people used symbolism is not proof of anything. To prove something with it, you have to explain why that premise supports your conclusion and how it supports that conclusion.

You provided sources, but you did not explain how they support your conclusion.

You're basically half-assing the discussion and trying to pretend that you're acting proving something.

GreySeal9

Actually my stance was that the OT used symbolism. Which I gave a link to back up. It did. My conclusion was that the OT used symbolism. How was that not proven? You seem to be attributing a different argument to me which I did not make. And you made no counterpoint still. Saying you made no claim is not correct because you are arguing my use of symbolism in the OT. So you can either agree and it ends....or provide documentation that symbolism is not present in the OT.

I didn't say that there is no symbolism. Why can't you actually get my positions right for a change? Don't you realize how rude it is to continually misinterpret positions? It makes one think you don't put any effort into reading one's posts correctly and this happens in every thread you're involved in.

You never explained how your link backs up your position. You simply posted them. Don't ask me to say why it wasn't proven when you just posted links. Explain how your links prove your position. You're still trying to half-ass this. I have no idea why.

I am debating. I'm debating the notion that there is a distinction between the literalness of the OT and the NT. I think it is perfect possible that they are both symbolic and I'm asking you how you know that the NT is supposed to be literal while the OT is different. You have not provided any explanation of that, but simply asserted your position over and over again with explaining how you know.

Half-assing the discussion and dodging is simply not going to work. People do notice.

It's not that hard to see that a link showing symbolism of the Jewish people is in the OT...you know their book of their history and relationship with God. In fact that link mentions usage of the symbols in the Torah...which is what the Jewish people call the OT.

Okay...then give me your sources for your statements in regard to the OT and NT. Don't present an argument and then dodge from any evidence. I presented evidence for my statement about the OT. You now say you aren't disagreeing with it. So then why all the ad hominmens and attempts to say I've presented evidence for my stance when I did and you are not disagreeing with it?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Woah there. Then you weren't debating. You do have to offer a rebuttal if you are debating. And a rebuttal requires proof.

Actually my stance was that the OT used symbolism. Which I gave a link to back up. It did. My conclusion was that the OT used symbolism. How was that not proven? You seem to be attributing a different argument to me which I did not make. And you made no counterpoint still. Saying you made no claim is not correct because you are arguing my use of symbolism in the OT. So you can either agree and it ends....or provide documentation that symbolism is not present in the OT.

LJS9502_basic

I didn't say that there is no symbolism. Why can't you actually get my positions right for a change? Don't you realize how rude it is to continually misinterpret positions? It makes one think you don't put any effort into reading one's posts correctly and this happens in every thread you're involved in.

You never explained how your link backs up your position. You simply posted them. Don't ask me to say why it wasn't proven when you just posted links. Explain how your links prove your position. You're still trying to half-ass this. I have no idea why.

I am debating. I'm debating the notion that there is a distinction between the literalness of the OT and the NT. I think it is perfect possible that they are both symbolic and I'm asking you how you know that the NT is supposed to be literal while the OT is different. You have not provided any explanation of that, but simply asserted your position over and over again with explaining how you know.

Half-assing the discussion and dodging is simply not going to work. People do notice.

It's not that hard to see that a link showing symbolism of the Jewish people is in the OT...you know their book of their history and relationship with God. In fact that link mentions usage of the symbols in the Torah...which is what the Jewish people call the OT.

Okay...then give me your sources for your statements in regard to the OT and NT. Don't present an argument and then dodge from any evidence. I presented evidence for my statement about the OT. You now say you aren't disagreeing with it. So then why all the ad hominmens and attempts to say I've presented evidence for my stance when I did and you are not disagreeing with it?

Oh God, don't try to accuse me of dodging just because your own dodging is so evident. That's childish.

I didn't use ad hominems. Show me a single ad hominem I've used. And don't just skip over this part of the post like you always do. Demonstrate that I've used ad homines.

I disagree with the notion that there's a difference between the OT and NT as far as literalness and figurativeness is concerned. I simply asked you how you can know that one is figurative and one is literal and you're unable to give any kind of explanation aside for your own insistence. It's like you expect people to simply take your word for it.

I am not making claims, so I don't need to provide sources. I am merely asking questions, questions that you can't answer.

You haven't shown that the NT is any less symbolic. You've simply given your unsupported opinion.

And also, I don't have to disagree with everything you're saying to question/challenge certain parts of your posts.

When I think of the emergence of life and god's involvement, I can't help but wonder does he have a beard or not?