[MarkBsnr]

The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man (1902, p. 90).

Is this a general statement to inform Bible literalists that they may dispense with that idiotic notion?

[boatbums]

Is this a general statement to inform Bible literalists that they may dispense with that idiotic notion?

I agree what you said is an idiotic notion and, if you actually examined the meaning, you would have to admit that you are a literalist, too. Now, no one's saying that everything the Bible says must be taken literally, not even Literalists. So just as when Jesus uses allegories, allusion, figurative language and parables, we can know when something is or isn't to be taken literally. I hope you're not saying you are a "Figurativist" are you? Certainly, you MUST accept that at least some things are meant literally, don't you?

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says:

WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy)

Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[5] Also literalism does not necessarily lead to total and complete agreement upon one single interpretation for any given passage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

What I gather from your past posts, is you do not believe the Bible is inerrant nor that it contains literal truths. This, I think, is your loss.