[xcamel]

So.. tell us all if you also believe that a seven headed beast with 10 horns will rise from the ocean to destroy the earth... It is ‘literal’ after all.... isn’t it?

[CommerceComet]

So.. tell us all if you also believe that a seven headed beast with 10 horns will rise from the ocean to destroy the earth... It is ‘literal’ after all.... isn’t it?

I really don't have a dog in this fight but your argument is a strawman. Proponents of the particular views on the Genesis account (24-hour-days vs. epochs) would insist that they are reading Scripture naturally (as it was intended to be read) as opposed to literally. The dispute comes down to what Moses meant by "days" in the Genesis account. Both sides would recognize that the seven-headed beast with 10 horns is figurative language.

[metmom]

Only to someone who has no reading comprehension, like you.

[count-your-change]

No language and hence no writings in that language, are always, unrelentingly, literal. That includes Hebrew, the koine Greek and English.

How to tell what should be taken as figurative in whole or in part? First would be familiarity with the author's purpose in writing and style and then the context of the particular statement.

But no creationist of any persuasion has ever claimed that every single word of the Scriptures must be read in a totally, without exception, literal way. So why would they take this vision of John's as such?