Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

[signalmankenneth]

If you are a Biblical literalist, as some of you may be, what I've just said most likely bothers you greatly. You believe, not only that the Bible is Divinely-dictated and error-free, but you also believe that whatever it says must be taken as literally and factually true.

Most people could care less whether it is or it isn't. If you're reading this, however, you probably care at least enough to read this.

To me, the Bible is important. It is for me the sacred story of the origins of my faith. In light of this, I could no more feel as if it were unimportant than a follower of Hinduism would feel the Bhagavad Gita is unimportant.

I do not believe, however, that the Bible is a Divinely-dictated book or a sacred text without error.

If you are a Biblical literalist, as some of you may be, what I've just said most likely bothers you greatly. You believe, not only that the Bible is Divinely-dictated and error-free, but you also believe that whatever it says must be taken as literally and factually true.

Furthermore, you feel, if the Bible is allowed to be a very human book, instead of a Divinely-dictated one...you would have to "throw the baby out with the bath water," so to speak. That, if you questioned any of it, you'd undermine all of it and the end result would not be good either for you or the future of your faith.

This also explains why you and other literalists may be among those who are concerned about the recent release of the Hollywood film Noah, starring Russell Crowe. Since the movie's creators have taken liberty to create a movie not tied to a literal reading of the story of Noah, you regard that as objectionable, even a blatant disregard, and perhaps even disrespectful, of a literalist reading of the story.

As far as I'm concerned, however, I am bothered neither by Hollywood's version of the story of Noah nor whether it conforms to a literalist reading of Genesis. If you've ever actually read the text for yourself, you will know there are actually two flood stories in Genesis, the one most familiar to people where God instructs Noah to preserve two of each species of animals (Gen. 7:15) and the other where God instructs Noah to preserve seven of each species of animals (Gen. 7:2). I am more bothered instead by such sacred stories being made into movies at all.

Why? Because these Bible stories were interpreted history, preserved for future generations, not for their factual accuracy, but their faith-generating component. When these movies are made, however, they are almost always recreated in a way resembling a literalist reading of the story. Which makes them about as believable as the movies Superman or Planet of the Apes. I can remember, for example, the first time I ever saw Cecil B. DeMille's classic story of Moses. As dramatic as cinematography would permit at that time, DeMille captured a compelling but literalist depiction of the Moses epic. Even as a child, however, I found it unbelievable.

The real Moses never wielded a staff with supernatural powers, the tip of which, when dipped into the Nile, turned the river into a cesspool of blood. Or, when dipped into the Red Sea, caused it to part so Israelites could pass to the other side on dry, not muddy, ground.

None of these Biblical stories, including the ones where Jesus is depicted as defying the laws of nature and performing miracles... as in, walking on water or giving sight to the blind or, most amazingly, raising dead people back to life were recorded as factual, or literal, eyewitness accounts. And, even if they were, they cannot be depicted as such today, if you want any of it to be believed... to be respected... or, to be read with any seriousness.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biblical-literalism_b_4966852

 

[Cypress]

I don't think anyone outside the JPP MAGA and evangelical Protestant communities think the bible is inerrant and historically factual in every detail.

The New Testament was never a stand alone book. It is a literary compilation of 27 books and epistles written independently by different authors with different perspectives and agendas. They didn't all get together and sit around a table to make sure their writings aligned and matched up.

 

[Matt Dillon]

If you are a Biblical literalist, as some of you may be, what I've just said most likely bothers you greatly. You believe, not only that the Bible is Divinely-dictated and error-free, but you also believe that whatever it says must be taken as literally and factually true.

Most people could care less whether it is or it isn't. If you're reading this, however, you probably care at least enough to read this.

To me, the Bible is important. It is for me the sacred story of the origins of my faith. In light of this, I could no more feel as if it were unimportant than a follower of Hinduism would feel the Bhagavad Gita is unimportant.

I do not believe, however, that the Bible is a Divinely-dictated book or a sacred text without error.

If you are a Biblical literalist, as some of you may be, what I've just said most likely bothers you greatly. You believe, not only that the Bible is Divinely-dictated and error-free, but you also believe that whatever it says must be taken as literally and factually true.

Furthermore, you feel, if the Bible is allowed to be a very human book, instead of a Divinely-dictated one...you would have to "throw the baby out with the bath water," so to speak. That, if you questioned any of it, you'd undermine all of it and the end result would not be good either for you or the future of your faith.

This also explains why you and other literalists may be among those who are concerned about the recent release of the Hollywood film Noah, starring Russell Crowe. Since the movie's creators have taken liberty to create a movie not tied to a literal reading of the story of Noah, you regard that as objectionable, even a blatant disregard, and perhaps even disrespectful, of a literalist reading of the story.

As far as I'm concerned, however, I am bothered neither by Hollywood's version of the story of Noah nor whether it conforms to a literalist reading of Genesis. If you've ever actually read the text for yourself, you will know there are actually two flood stories in Genesis, the one most familiar to people where God instructs Noah to preserve two of each species of animals (Gen. 7:15) and the other where God instructs Noah to preserve seven of each species of animals (Gen. 7:2). I am more bothered instead by such sacred stories being made into movies at all.

Why? Because these Bible stories were interpreted history, preserved for future generations, not for their factual accuracy, but their faith-generating component. When these movies are made, however, they are almost always recreated in a way resembling a literalist reading of the story. Which makes them about as believable as the movies Superman or Planet of the Apes. I can remember, for example, the first time I ever saw Cecil B. DeMille's classic story of Moses. As dramatic as cinematography would permit at that time, DeMille captured a compelling but literalist depiction of the Moses epic. Even as a child, however, I found it unbelievable.

The real Moses never wielded a staff with supernatural powers, the tip of which, when dipped into the Nile, turned the river into a cesspool of blood. Or, when dipped into the Red Sea, caused it to part so Israelites could pass to the other side on dry, not muddy, ground.

None of these Biblical stories, including the ones where Jesus is depicted as defying the laws of nature and performing miracles... as in, walking on water or giving sight to the blind or, most amazingly, raising dead people back to life were recorded as factual, or literal, eyewitness accounts. And, even if they were, they cannot be depicted as such today, if you want any of it to be believed... to be respected... or, to be read with any seriousness.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biblical-literalism_b_4966852

What a blasphemous Easter post. You deserve everything you have coming, and it will not wait until the next world. Karma says you're gonna get some in this life for your blasphemy.

God ingrained karma into the world and it works like clockwork. You just got yourself the bad juju. Why be a shithead and do that?

Bruh, you can't just deny the nature and God of this world without consequences. It does not work like that.

Seriously, it's going to do what it's going to do, and you and your commie article writer are going to have a bad time of things.

Sucks to be you. When the bad stuff happens out of nowhere, don't forget what I told you.

God made this world and karma and everything in it and it runs like clockwork.

 

[RB 60]

What a blasphemous Easter post. You deserve everything you have coming, and it will not wait until the next world. Karma says you're gonna get some in this life for your blasphemy.

God ingrained karma into the world and it works like clockwork. You just got yourself the bad juju. Why be a shithead and do that?

Bruh, you can't just deny the nature and God of this world without consequences. It does not work like that.

Seriously, it's going to do what it's going to do, and you and your commie article writer are going to have a bad time of things.

Sucks to be you. When the bad stuff happens out of nowhere, don't forget what I told you.

God made this world and karma and everything in it and it runs like clockwork.

His "clock" should stop on pain and suffering...

 

[Into the Night]

If you are a Biblical literalist, as some of you may be, what I've just said most likely bothers you greatly.

You seem to think the Bible was originally written in English. It was not.

You believe, not only that the Bible is Divinely-dictated and error-free, but you also believe that whatever it says must be taken as literally and factually true.

It is literally and factually true, but it is not a fact with you.

Most people could care less whether it is or it isn't. If you're reading this, however, you probably care at least enough to read this.
I do not believe, however, that the Bible is a Divinely-dictated book or a sacred text without error.

As far as I'm concerned, however, I am bothered neither by Hollywood's version of the story of Noah nor whether it conforms to a literalist reading of Genesis.

Hollywood distorts everything they touch. Don't use them as a reference of the Bible.

If you've ever actually read the text for yourself, you will know there are actually two flood stories in Genesis, the one most familiar to people where God instructs Noah to preserve two of each species of animals (Gen. 7:15) and the other where God instructs Noah to preserve seven of each species of animals (Gen. 7:2). I am more bothered instead by such sacred stories being made into movies at all.

Go back and read Genesis 7 again. God clearly delineated which Noah were to gather seven of, and which two of.

Why? Because these Bible stories were interpreted history, preserved for future generations, not for their factual accuracy, but their faith-generating component.

No. The Bible describes literal history, not an interpretation of it. Accepting it as history, is of course, a matter of faith.

When these movies are made, however, they are almost always recreated in a way resembling a literalist reading of the story. Which makes them about as believable as the movies Superman or Planet of the Apes. I can remember, for example, the first time I ever saw Cecil B. DeMille's classic story of Moses. As dramatic as cinematography would permit at that time, DeMille captured a compelling but literalist depiction of the Moses epic. Even as a child, however, I found it unbelievable.

Why?

The real Moses never wielded a staff with supernatural powers, the tip of which, when dipped into the Nile, turned the river into a cesspool of blood. Or, when dipped into the Red Sea, caused it to part so Israelites could pass to the other side on dry, not muddy, ground.

Supernatural? No. Natural. There is nothing supernatural about any of God's laws or capabilities.
I see you never lived in the desert before either. Rivers that have flowed dry up within hours. Even while the ground is wet is easily walked upon since desert soil is often hardened with stone and sand. I grew up in the desert. I had no problem walking across ground where a river flowed just hours before.

None of these Biblical stories, including the ones where Jesus is depicted as defying the laws of nature and performing miracles...

Neither Jesus nor God defy the laws of nature. Miracles don't defy the laws of nature either. Just because YOU don't understand those laws doesn't mean God doesn't.

as in, walking on water or giving sight to the blind or, most amazingly, raising dead people back to life were recorded as factual, or literal, eyewitness accounts.

Why is walking on water unnatural? Just because YOU don't know how to?
Why is giving sight to the blind unnatural? Just because YOU don't know how to?

And, even if they were, they cannot be depicted as such today, if you want any of it to be believed... to be respected... or, to be read with any seriousness.

YOU don't get to declare what is 'serious' for everybody. You only get to declare it for you. Omniscience fallacy.

If you went to a primitive tribe that knows nothing about batteries or flashlights, and showed them a flashlight, it would be considered magick just as you are considering anything God has done as magick.

Yet the flashlight conforms to all the laws of nature, just as anything God has done conforms to the laws of nature.

Your problem is that because you don't know what they are, you want to impose your illiteracy upon God.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't think anyone outside the JPP MAGA and evangelical Protestant communities think the bible is inerrant and historically factual in every detail.

The New Testament was never a stand alone book. It is a literary compilation of 27 books and epistles written independently by different authors with different perspectives and agendas. They didn't all get together and sit around a table to make sure their writings aligned and matched up.

Yet they do. NONE of those books conflict with each other in any way.

 

[Into the Night]

What a blasphemous Easter post. You deserve everything you have coming, and it will not wait until the next world. Karma says you're gonna get some in this life for your blasphemy.

God ingrained karma into the world and it works like clockwork. You just got yourself the bad juju. Why be a shithead and do that?

Bruh, you can't just deny the nature and God of this world without consequences. It does not work like that.

Seriously, it's going to do what it's going to do, and you and your commie article writer are going to have a bad time of things.

Sucks to be you. When the bad stuff happens out of nowhere, don't forget what I told you.

God made this world and karma and everything in it and it runs like clockwork.

He's already paid for it.

Illiteracy has a cost, and illiterates often don't even realize they are paying that cost.

Basically, he's trying to deny God; by imposing his own illiteracy upon Him.

Miracles can and do occur daily. Let's look at a few recent ones (in the last century or so).

* It was prophesied that the Israel would be re-established. This has come to pass, against all odds.
* It is prophesied that all nations (at least most) would come to stand against Israel, yet she will prevail. This has not yet come to pass, but it can certainly happen with the help of God.
* It was prophesied Europe would crack up into many little kingdoms. This was made when the Roman Empire ruled most of Europe. That empire fell, and the crack up into many little kingdoms and nations has come to pass.
* It was prophesied that Europe would once again unite, but then crack up again. This is currently coming to pass.
* It was prophesied that some would make to a 'promised land' across the sea overflowing with milk and honey. I can't think of a better way to describe America. The United States became a free nation, and a beacon to the world, against all odds against her.
* It was prophesied that in the latter days, the elements would 'melt with fervant heat'. This has already come to pass, not only in the tests conducted of the Bomb, but in it's use against two cities in Japan. Will these be the only examples? Dresden, Germany suffered horrendous firebombing, that left the streets as if paved with glass, due to the resulting firestorm.
* It was prophesied that the Gospel would spread far and wide. A pretty bold prediction considering only a few men believed in the Gospel at the time that prophesy was made. This has come to pass. Christianity can now be found around the world among many people.

Was Christ able to suffer the sins of all mankind? Yes. In the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross suffering even unto death.
His resurrection is celebrated each Easter. The greatest miracle of all. A demonstration, if nothing else, that escaping the bonds of death is possible. Yes, we will all die. Yet in Christ we all shall live again. Christ showed the way. What is to prevent Him from showing us how to do what he did?

Nothing. Nothing stands in the way of God and Jesus Christ. They have conquered all, even death, even Satan, even the bonds of the Earth.
Supernatural? No. All completely in conformance with laws of nature, even if we don't understand them all.

God violates no law, not even his own.

Happy Easter. Remember the joy of this glorious message throughout the year and all the years to come. Do not let the sins of the world or the voices of the confused blot it out.

 

[archives]

Wait a minute, you saying the earth ain’t five thousand years old and Jonah didn’t live inside that whale for three days?

 

[Into the Night]

Wait a minute, you saying the earth ain’t five thousand years old and Jonah didn’t live inside that whale for three days?

The age of the Earth is unknown.

 

[gfm7175]

Happy Easter. Remember the joy of this glorious message throughout the year and all the years to come. Do not let the sins of the world or the voices of the confused blot it out.

HE IS RISEN!!!

 

[gfm7175]

Wait a minute, you saying the earth ain’t five thousand years old

It would actually be six thousand years according to the particular line of reasoning that you're trying to reference.

This reasoning is related to the Bible verse which says that: "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8, NIV)

This reasoning also relates to the beliefs that Adam's creation occurred around 4,000 BC and that life here on Earth is playing out in "days" akin to how the Genesis creation account played out in "days". Under such reasoning, Jesus' death marked the end of the 4th day, and nowadays it is very close to the end of the 6th day (2,000 years after Jesus' death). That would conclude the "six days of work", which would then be followed by "one day of rest" (the millennium). Under such a belief system, Jesus' "second coming" is most definitely imminent.

Of course, the actual age of the Earth is unknown. It could be much older.

and Jonah didn’t live inside that whale for three days?

Jonah lived inside of "a whale" (translation) for three days. It boggles my mind as to how that could happen (as with numerous other recorded miracles), but Jesus himself even made reference to that particular event.

 

[IBDaMann]

Under such a belief system, Jesus' "second coming" is most definitely imminent.

So what kind of "bribe"do we atheists need to get on Jesus' good side if we should see that you Christians were actually correct and, to our surprise, Jesus makes his second appearance? Would a large meat-lovers pizza fit the bill? Perhaps a Macy's gift card? I mean, what do you get for the man who already has everything? A tie? Don't attack me for asking, but is there a possibility that Jesus, after having been pent-up in heaven for centuries (I presume without any chicks or single-malt whiskey), do you think he might really be looking for someone to help him "paint the town red"? I could do that.

If all of this is, as you say, imminent, I need to know my options.

Of course, the actual age of the Earth is unknown. It could be much older.

I have no idea why nobody speaks in terms of the upper limit of the earth's age. Obviously the earth's age is unknown, so why does everyone pretend to know it to within zero margin of error?

Jonah lived inside of "a whale" (translation) for three days.

I'm guessing the whale/great fish had some serious indigestion during that time.

 

[Into the Night]

So what kind of "bribe"do we atheists need to get on Jesus' good side if we should see that you Christians were actually correct and, to our surprise, Jesus makes his second appearance? Would a large meat-lovers pizza fit the bill? Perhaps a Macy's gift card? I mean, what do you get for the man who already has everything? A tie? Don't attack me for asking, but is there a possibility that Jesus, after having been pent-up in heaven for centuries (I presume without any chicks or single-malt whiskey), do you think he might really be looking for someone to help him "paint the town red"? I could do that.

If all of this is, as you say, imminent, I need to know my options.

No bribery needed. No gift needed. You can't buy your way to the favor of Jesus.

I have no idea why nobody speaks in terms of the upper limit of the earth's age. Obviously the earth's age is unknown, so why does everyone pretend to know it to within zero margin of error?

Probably for the same reason people claim to know Earth's temperature to a zero margin of error...to thound thmart.

I'm guessing the whale/great fish had some serious indigestion during that time.

Probably wasn't very pleasant for Jonah either.

 

[ZenMode]

I don't think anyone outside the JPP MAGA and evangelical Protestant communities think the bible is inerrant and historically factual in every detail.

The New Testament was never a stand alone book. It is a literary compilation of 27 books and epistles written independently by different authors with different perspectives and agendas. They didn't all get together and sit around a table to make sure their writings aligned and matched up.

The Bible was written by men and likely none of the writers (NT) were people who ever met Jesus. It's not divinely inspired. Jesus didn't write anything in the Bible and neither did God. The Biblical writers can't even agree on what day Jesus died, so it's impossible to say it's inerrant.

 

[Cypress]

The Bible was written by men and likely none of the writers (NT) were people who ever met Jesus. It's not divinely inspired. Jesus didn't write anything in the Bible and neither did God. The Biblical writers can't even agree on what day Jesus died, so it's impossible to say it's inerrant.

Biblical inerrancy and biblical literalism is a Protestant tradition. These days, most likely a fundamentalist Protestant tradition.

Fundamentalist Protestants are only a minority of world Christianity.

Whether or not the bible is divinely inspired is the realm of opinion. I don't think a guy in a white robe was telling Luke what to write.

Disagreement on the day Jesus died seems pretty minor to me. All the authors in the NT seem to convey a Jesus who preached universal love, mercy, and stood on the side of the poor and oppressed. That essence seems authentic, given that multiple independent sources convey it.

Very little ancient literature that survives records events in real time as events unfolded. The lives and teachings of Confucius and Bhudda were written down centuries after they died. The Histories of Herodotus were written decades after the Greco-Persian wars. Are historical sources for the Mauryan Empire of India post-date the empire by centuries. No writings of the Greek Ionian philosophers survive. We only know about them by the writings of Athenian Greeks more than a century later.

Saint Paul knew at least two of Jesus' disciples, Peter and Jesus' brother James. Some people think Mark was Peter's companion and Mark's Gospel in a summary of what Peter told him. That is open to debate. As far as surviving ancient sources though, that is pretty decent at getting back to original sources.

 

[Yakuda]

If you are a Biblical literalist, as some of you may be, what I've just said most likely bothers you greatly. You believe, not only that the Bible is Divinely-dictated and error-free, but you also believe that whatever it says must be taken as literally and factually true.

Most people could care less whether it is or it isn't. If you're reading this, however, you probably care at least enough to read this.

To me, the Bible is important. It is for me the sacred story of the origins of my faith. In light of this, I could no more feel as if it were unimportant than a follower of Hinduism would feel the Bhagavad Gita is unimportant.

I do not believe, however, that the Bible is a Divinely-dictated book or a sacred text without error.

If you are a Biblical literalist, as some of you may be, what I've just said most likely bothers you greatly. You believe, not only that the Bible is Divinely-dictated and error-free, but you also believe that whatever it says must be taken as literally and factually true.

Furthermore, you feel, if the Bible is allowed to be a very human book, instead of a Divinely-dictated one...you would have to "throw the baby out with the bath water," so to speak. That, if you questioned any of it, you'd undermine all of it and the end result would not be good either for you or the future of your faith.

This also explains why you and other literalists may be among those who are concerned about the recent release of the Hollywood film Noah, starring Russell Crowe. Since the movie's creators have taken liberty to create a movie not tied to a literal reading of the story of Noah, you regard that as objectionable, even a blatant disregard, and perhaps even disrespectful, of a literalist reading of the story.

As far as I'm concerned, however, I am bothered neither by Hollywood's version of the story of Noah nor whether it conforms to a literalist reading of Genesis. If you've ever actually read the text for yourself, you will know there are actually two flood stories in Genesis, the one most familiar to people where God instructs Noah to preserve two of each species of animals (Gen. 7:15) and the other where God instructs Noah to preserve seven of each species of animals (Gen. 7:2). I am more bothered instead by such sacred stories being made into movies at all.

Why? Because these Bible stories were interpreted history, preserved for future generations, not for their factual accuracy, but their faith-generating component. When these movies are made, however, they are almost always recreated in a way resembling a literalist reading of the story. Which makes them about as believable as the movies Superman or Planet of the Apes. I can remember, for example, the first time I ever saw Cecil B. DeMille's classic story of Moses. As dramatic as cinematography would permit at that time, DeMille captured a compelling but literalist depiction of the Moses epic. Even as a child, however, I found it unbelievable.

The real Moses never wielded a staff with supernatural powers, the tip of which, when dipped into the Nile, turned the river into a cesspool of blood. Or, when dipped into the Red Sea, caused it to part so Israelites could pass to the other side on dry, not muddy, ground.

None of these Biblical stories, including the ones where Jesus is depicted as defying the laws of nature and performing miracles... as in, walking on water or giving sight to the blind or, most amazingly, raising dead people back to life were recorded as factual, or literal, eyewitness accounts. And, even if they were, they cannot be depicted as such today, if you want any of it to be believed... to be respected... or, to be read with any seriousness.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biblical-literalism_b_4966852

Parts of the Bible are literal and some arent. So what? They've written books about multiverses which is literally a made up story. So what?

 

[Cypress]

Parts of the Bible are literal and some arent. So what? They've written books about multiverses which is literally a made up story. So what?

There are no legitimate scientists who claim the multiverse is literally true. It's just speculation.

There are plenty of fundamentalists who claim the bible is inerrant and factually true in every respect.

 

[gfm7175]

So what kind of "bribe"do we atheists need to get on Jesus' good side if we should see that you Christians were actually correct and, to our surprise, Jesus makes his second appearance? Would a large meat-lovers pizza fit the bill? Perhaps a Macy's gift card? I mean, what do you get for the man who already has everything? A tie?

I think that, with this question, you have already answered your own question.

Don't attack me for asking,

No worries. I'm not a Democrat (nor a warmizombie).

but is there a possibility that Jesus, after having been pent-up in heaven for centuries (I presume without any chicks or single-malt whiskey), do you think he might really be looking for someone to help him "paint the town red"? I could do that.

If all of this is, as you say, imminent, I need to know my options.

You've definitely been blessed with an imaginative mind and a great sense of humor!

As far as The Bible goes, readers of it are told that Jesus is currently busy "preparing a place for [all believers]". [John 14:1-4]

There are some interesting parallels between how an "ancient Jewish" wedding was conducted and how The Bible describes the relationship between Jesus and "His Bride" (which is most commonly understood to be synonymous with the terms 'The Church' and 'The Body of Christ', although there's a minority viewpoint that exists that 'The Bride' and 'The Church' / 'The Body of Christ' might actually be very similar but separate things, meaning that 'The Bride' might actually be "taken from" 'The Body of Christ' in the same manner that Eve (Adam's bride) was "taken from" the body of Adam).

First, there needs to be "mutual commitment". Of course, this is also an important part of current weddings of all sorts. Without mutual commitment, there isn't the existence of "two bodies becoming one flesh" (as one body would be at odds with the other body). You could think of this as an "arranged wedding gone bad" in which the Bride is not at all attracted to the Groom (IOW, she doesn't love him and doesn't want to be with him). The same is true with Jesus and His Bride. If you wish to have a relationship with Jesus, then you have to come to him willingly and faithfully (through the guidance of the Holy Spirit). This includes baptism (as Jesus was also baptized).

Then, there's the betrothal period. Here is where a binding contract gets established (with vows). This period typically lasted around a year. During this period, the bride and groom didn't live together because the groom was to prepare a place for his bride while the bride focused on her personal preparations. She knew that he was coming back for her in about a year's worth of time, but she didn't know the exact day or hour in which he would be arriving for her. The groom's father would be the one to give the groom final approval to go collect his bride. The bride would keep her oil lamps ready (in case the groom would arrive in the night). This all sounds quite similar to how The Bible describes Jesus' relation with his bride, doesn't it? In the same manner, Jesus has gone up to heaven to prepare a place for her. She is likewise aware of the general time in which Jesus is coming back for her, but she does not know the exact day or hour (thus the need for her to always be "imminently prepared for him to arrive").

Then, there's the marriage itself. The groom comes back for his bride and lifts her up and carries her away to be with him. In likewise manner, Jesus is coming back for his bride and will carry her away to be with him.

With regard to "being aware of the general time", there are several signs that can be pointed to that point towards Jesus' second coming as happening "imminently soon". One very important sign of this is the re-formation of Israel as a nation.

I have no idea why nobody speaks in terms of the upper limit of the earth's age. Obviously the earth's age is unknown, so why does everyone pretend to know it to within zero margin of error?

I suppose that people think they thound "thmarter" that way.

I'm guessing the whale/great fish had some serious indigestion during that time.

Quite plausible! I imagine that it wasn't a very pleasant experience in any event.

 

[Yakuda]

There are no legitimate scientists who claim the multiverse is literally true. It's just speculation.

There are plenty of fundamentalists who claim the bible is inerrant and factually true in every respect.

So nothing written in a book about multiverse is true? What I posted said nothing about whether or not the Bible was inerrant or factually true.

 

[Into the Night]

The Bible was written by men and likely none of the writers (NT) were people who ever met Jesus. It's not divinely inspired. Jesus didn't write anything in the Bible and neither did God. The Biblical writers can't even agree on what day Jesus died, so it's impossible to say it's inerrant.

Chanted like a member of the Church of No God.
Someday you should read the Bible and find out how wrong you are with these statements.