Clouseau

Please say exactly what you mean, after you have carefully read my posts in this thread- assuming you still want to.

spin

Note at this stage, you attempted to sidestep your epistemological problem. I then attempted to hold your hand, so you could see it:
At this stage you then tried to disown the original context of the communication, still unable to deal with the epistemology of your initial statement of allegorical intent:
And then I pointed out:
to which you tried to shift the burden of your original statements:
Naturally still no attempt to justify your original claims.

I tried to show that your last attempt was only a smokescreen:
So far I would have thought you'd heard the issue and could have attempted to clarify it by explaining how you knew that the items were allegory. Instead you tried to pull a runner, still apparently unable to see what you needed to do:
Given your apparent state of confusion about the issue and what you had and had not done, I attempted again to hold your hand:
The authorial intention here of course is your claim that certain passages were intended as allegory -- a claim you still have not dealt with.

The apparent confusion continues:
By this stage you had covered up the fact that you didn't know what was going on. I basically gave up with you when you claimed to have dealt with the issue thus: "Now see about #17." This of course overlooked the comment you were responding to, so you entered the not-worth-the-effort category.

You then totally ignored Amaleq13's attempt to clarify the dialogue for you. Not strange though. It was a little hard to duck and weave with. So, for some reason, five days later, when mojuang revisited the issue, you, still not having explained how you knew that the two cases were intended as allegory as you claimed, ever so righteously and brazenly said:
You've had several days to explain how you knew what you claimed to know. That has always been the issue of this part of the thread. Unfortunately, your posts have been "carefully" read by at least three people who have commented on your performance here. Your posts still have not said how you know that the talking serpent and Noah's loaded ark are, as you claimed, intended as allegory. There is nothing particularly difficult in understanding what your task is. The difficulty is finding something meaningful to help you say how you know it was intended as allegory.


spin

Sven

Spin: Clouseau plays similar games in the other thread. Witty-sounding non-answers, and no obvious attempt at real communication, coupled with a refusal to concede even the simplest point and at the same time asking for support for well-known facts.

Amaleq13

I asked you three questions in this post that will, if you choose to answer them, adequately address all the concerns that have been expressed with regard to your position.

Clouseau

Because that would have been miraculous, and the point of the story is not to show a miracle, but the ordinary. This story contrasts with that of Balaam and his donkey, which spoke as a supernatural rebuke to Balaam.

Because if sin was introduced by magic, it could be cured with a magic antidote, which is not in agreement with the rest of the Bible.

Because he could not have used these 'events', and more, without understanding the arguments above.

Sven

I see. Trees of knowledge are nothing miraculous.

:rolling:
A resurrection does qualify quite well as a "magical antidote".

Amaleq13

A story that includes the miraculous creation of all living species and miraculous trees is about the ordinary? That's plainly ridiculous.

That aside, the author's description of the snake gives no suggestion that he considered it particularly miraculous.

Do you have a credible response to my question?

I don't understand how this connects to the tree that magically bestows knowledge of good and evil.

Why should anyone assume that this story must be in agreement with the rest of the stories in the collection?

Your arguments above appear to be flawed so you'll have to try again.

What clues from the text inform you that the author did not intend his story to be taken literally?

Clouseau

[QUOTE=Amaleq13;4498305]This story comes after the creation story.

Indeed.

Is there one?

No-one should assume that.

spin

What benefit is it to you that you deliberately avoid issues? You are doing nothing useful this way. You don't answer the question that Amaleq13 asks you:

Do you have a credible response to my question?

On "the tree that magically bestows knowledge of good and evil"
The text says there is one. Would you like to claim that that is also allegorical? If so, just add that to the list of things you need to explain how you know them.

You were asked:

What clues from the text inform you that the author did not intend his story to be taken literally?

We are still waiting for your answer.

Amaleq13

What makes you think it should be considered a separate story?

Even accepting your seemingly arbitrary separation, you still have magical trees in your alleged story about the ordinary so your explanation continues to lack credibility.

So you do understand that your explanation lacks credibility. Good. Do you have one that does or are you just wasting everybody's time?

If you have any interest in offering a credible defense of your position, there should be.

I agree but that assumption was clearly central to your defense so you aren't helping yourself with this admission. :huh: