JWeinCom said:
Esiar said:
Well that did bring one idea to my mind: That from your perspective, the Old Testament authors could have believed differently than the New Testament authors. What I was saying is that, the book of Acts (for example) is written as if the events physically happened, which doesn't make sense if it was intened to be metophorical, which suggests that the intention of the Book of Acts' author was to record events (real or fake) in a way to make it sound like it actually happened rather than a meaning behind all of it that teaches a moral lesson or something in that regard.
|
So, I get that you're saying the Bible was meant to be taken literally. I'm assuming you know the Bible better than me, so I won't argue that. My question is why do you accept that it is real? Even if it was intented to be viewed as realistic, you still need some verification that it actually did happen, if, as you originally said, there is obvious proof.
|
I'm too tired (not physically) to explain it. I am not in the mood right now.
