How can we take the words of bible writers literally?

So, no history is an eyewitness account, is it?

I'm talking about any history. They are always written after the fact, not during. Any material that was written during any event was likely in a letter or journal (and even then, not written as it happened).

Yet historians often offer direct quotations of famous people. Some were recorded, yes, and some were written by the individuals involved. But the historian was not present when the event took place. Therefore ever history is a third-part account.

Your argument is weak, at best, and defeated the moment that you admit that any history (you name it) has validity.

TDs expected.

Added: That isn't to say that the Bible is perfect -- it is far from it. Copying and interpretation errors during translating have all worked toward introducing errors. Then add the fact that much of the Old Testament was written in one kind of poetic form or another and you have artistic license entering into the mix. Now add the fact that many words in our language (and in the ancient original languages of the Bible) have metaphorical meanings, and there is no way that one can accept the Bible as 100 percent literal.

Regardless, your argument is still weak and basically without merit.

The Bible was writen by 40 some people from different walks of life. Most of them did not live at the same time and many did not even have a copy of the books that some of the others wrote. The Bible was writen over a 1600 year period of time and yet all the books coincide with each other. All of them teach the same thing and are in agreement with what God's purpose is for mankind and the earth. Some of the writers did not even understand some of the prophecies they wrote about and they did not happen in the writers lifetime.

Oh good idea...read the books of Peter, like that's gonna solve anything. Bart Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, says that the New Testament book of 2 Peter was not written by the apostle Peter, and that Paul wrote only seven of the 13 letters ascribed to him.

http://ancient-tides.blogspot.com/2011/03/authorsh...

More interesting stuff at the website.

Books of Peter.

Appealing to authority fallacy: "...Bart Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, says that the New Testament book of 2 Peter was not written by the apostle Peter, and that Paul wrote only seven of the 13 letters ascribed to him." -- by Jerri--I am Malala.

Because God promised that He would preserve His word.

And the word of God is the Bible. Old and New Testament. King James Only !

All other translations are corrupt.

http://www.watchmanvideobroadcast.com/

title to watch; Which Bible (Part one and Part two and Part three)

listed under Recent Broadcasts

Buy BULL Writers...

Or Translators...

King James WAS A Self-Professed Homosexual...2 Lovers...

The Pope's Lover...Georg The Secretary...

Bunch Of Homosexuals And Pedophiles Leading Dupes Astray...

Literally is the only way one can take it,

John was not there? it is you that was not there, John and all the disciples was there and wrote what they saw.

Personally I wouldn't believe a word of it.

It's all just hearsay passed down through generations of illiterates, then written down, copied, translated into other languages etc.

A mish mash of hand me down anecdotes if you ask me.

Do you mean "how" or "who"? Because only someone with no education or just plain ignorant would actually take the bible literally.

What nonsense - John, Matthew and Mark were all eyewitnesses - and wrote their accounts..