Am I to understand that you ARE a bible literalist?
Pretty much. I thought that was pretty clear.
It may have been, and I overlooked it somewhere along the line.
That doesn't mean I abandon the rules of context, and it doesn't mean I ignore the various literary devices used throughout the bible.
Ah yes, this again. Context and subjectivity play a role, but it's still literal truth.
The parts of the bible which I believe are meant to be taken literally, I believe.
How can you tell which parts are meant to be taken literally, and which are not? You personally, not christians in general - how do YOU decide which parts are supposed to be taken literally and which are not? And how do you reconcile the parts which (if I understand the reply from you earlier) do not make sense if you read what the words say in context? Do you seriously just hand wave them away and call it an error of editing?
Example - Cain was cursed by God Himself,
and in spite of that, ended up having what reads like a pretty frickin' good life - he got married (so far, I'm not buying the sister for a wife bs precisely because that is NOT what the bible says), had a son, and built a city. Are you sticking to skep's answer that he married and procreated with his sister, even though the bible describes the order of events in a way that makes that IMPOSSIBLE?
****************************************I've got to bail on this topic to go take a biology final, be back to follow up later. Next semester I'm taking a class exclusively on human origins, you might want to read up a bit cause I'm betting I'll have a LOT of questions for theists after the semester break. Actually, I've been meaning to make this point to you for a while - I haven't been in a science classroom in almost 30 years and had to learn a shit load of new information that has been figured out since my last formal science education in order to be successful in this class. Part of what often gets theists with a normal education in trouble related to science is failure to keep up on new information. skep is a prime example - he doesn't even remotely understand the science he's trying to argue against.