You didn't answer my Biblical facts that you missed, so you are great at only seeing what agrees with you.

You pretend that your translation is the only way to translate, so you are great at being the universe.

You see what you want to see. That's your call. You can even call me a hypocrite. Good on you.

But while you walk around feeling all superior, you are depending on a simplistic view of Biblical work that means you might actually be incapable of understanding what I am saying. The Bible disagrees with itself. You know that, right? Therefore, in order to have an interpretation that values the whole Bible, you have to get past the concept of Biblical Fact. What can we learn from both Nehemiah and Ruth, despite them being so inconsistent with each other, and written at more or less the same time? The multiple creation stories? The four Gospels? I'd go into further detail, but I have hashed them over and over in talks with Jeordam so many times here and at Wotmania that I doubt other people want to read them again.

We are not ignoring any part of the Bible (though, as I admitted before, I can miss parts occasionally when dashing off a Messageboard reply. Are you gonna talk about my concession on the Paul's saying or just pretend I didn't make it?) rather, we are working with the work as a whole, which is something that no self-avowed "literalist" ever does. They can't, because if they did, then they would have to call one verse "right" and the other verse "wrong".