Changes

:Another clear example is the statement by Jesus himself in [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/13-32.htm Matthew 13:32] that the mustard seed is the "least" or "smallest" of seeds. [[Liberal]] critics of Christianity eagerly cite this statement to prove that Jesus is in error, since there are numerous other kinds of seeds that are much smaller than the mustard seed, some of them nearly microscopic in size. The majority of biblical exegetes understand this parabolic saying as an example of Middle Eastern hyperbole. See [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/13-32.htm multiple versions of Matthew 13:32]. There In an absolute sense it is not the "smallest of seeds", yet there is little argument against understanding the mustard seed as most probably the least important of all commercially available seeds sold for cultivation in the Middle Eastern marketplace. There is no "mustard farm".

:Some Fundamentalist Christians who believe, and teach, that the hot, molten core of the earth is the literal location of the lake of fire and hell, where the resurrected wicked sinners condemned for their unrepented evil deeds (Revelation 20:10-15) will physically spend everlasting eternity (Daniel 12:2-3), understand the core of the earth itself to be the literal meaning of the heart of the earth, where Jesus went when he lay in the tomb, and that "he went and preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19-20) where "Tartarus" or "Hell" is located ([https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Peter%202%3A4 2 Peter 2:4]). Jesus did not say that the Son of Man will only "spiritually" be in the heart of the earth, and Peter does not say that Jesus went "spiritually" or "in the spirit" to preach to the spirits in prison, but that he would "'''''be''''' three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." , and Peter does say that Jesus went "spiritually" or "alive in the spirit" to preach to the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:18-19). In the most literal reading of the Greek text of [http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/16-22.htm Luke 16:22] and [http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/16-23.htm 23], the rich man is "buried in hell", '''ἐτάφη''' ²³'''καὶ ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ'''—this is the reading of the [[Douay-Rheims|Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible 1899]], "''the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell''" [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A22&version=DRA Luke 16:22] from [[Jerome]]'s Latin Vulgate translation "'''et sepultus est in inferno'''".

:Biblical [[Exegesis|exegetes]] tell us that "''sheol, gehenna, hell''" is the grave. Thus "ashes to ashes and dust to dust" (see Genesis 3:19; 18:27) is the meaning of "the heart of the earth", as being the speaker's intended reference to the grave, the ''[[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#The literal sense of scripture|literal sense of scripture]]'', understood as [[death]]—not , the sealed tomb—not the molten core of the planet. Moreover, the core of the earth will also be destroyed when

:To truly discover and understand ''the sacred authors' intention,'' the reader must take into account the conditions of the sacred authors' particular time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current, not the meaning understood by the plain, ordinary American English-speaking 21st century reader. (See [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)]].) The reader must be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Bible, as having one supreme Author who cannot deceive or be deceived, speaking through inspired writers chosen by him to express the truth of God's revelation to man, "for he cannot deny himself". Any method of reading any text of the Bible which produces absurdities and contradictions is proven false by the very fact that it produces that result: "A tree is known by its fruit." It violates the principle set forth in Revelation 22:18-19. What has been called by Protestant scholars the "''perspicuity of scripture''" is obscured by an ignorantly literal reading of the "clear, plain and simple" surface meaning of the words of the Bible, which violates the meaning of the Bible. The reasons for this do not lie in the Scriptures themselves but in the unconscious baggage of interpretive assumptions many people bring to the Scriptures. Many denominations have creeds or statements of faith that they use as a norm to define themselves. In doing so they tend to view Scripture through the lens of their stated beliefs ([[Confirmation bias]]). In other cases some people inherit their particular interpretation of scripture from their forefathers without questioning whether it actually corresponds to the ''[[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#The literal sense of scripture|literal sense of scripture]]''. See [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Peter%203%3A14-17 2 Peter 3:14-17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2013%3A7 Hebrews 13:7] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2013%3A17 17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2013%3A1 Romans 13:1 (includes "church authorities")] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2013%3A2 13:2 (includes "church government")].

:Conservative textual critics assume ''[[a priori]]'' on principle that the scriptures are accurate and truthful, according to the apostolic tradition of the Church that their primary author is God the Holy Spirit "''who cannot lie''", and the Gospels are factual accounts provided by truthful, reliable eyewitnesses. They are guided according to the principle that apparent inconsistencies (as ''subjectively'' perceived by the reader) can be resolved by the possibility (the [[hypothesis]]) that differences in detail indicate different occasions, or separate events. It is an example of what is called '''''elegance''''' in science and mathematics, an elegant solution to an apparently difficult problem.<blockquote>"Looking at the overall picture it becomes clear that elegant proofs or theories or experiments possess most or all of the following features: they are simple, ingenious, concise and persuasive; they often have an unexpected quality, and they are very satisfying. What is more, once one has understood the argument behind the proof or theory or experiment, it can be seen at a glance, and one has no doubts about its validity. " ([https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/14/glynn Ian Glynn, author of ''Elegance in Science, the Beauty of Simplicity'', interview by Serena Golden, July 14, 2010: ''Inside Higher Ed'': Books and Publishing].)</blockquote>It is a fundamental principle that any unwillingness on the part of researchers and scholars to entertain and consider ''all'' possible hypotheses is a violation of the [[Scientific method|scientific principle]]. This applies to biblical textual criticism, which includes the hypothesis of "the historical integrity, reliability and internal consistency of the testimony of the scriptures", an hypothesis that liberal agnostic and atheistic biblical textual critics reject on the assumption ''a priori'' that it is impossible. See [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)]] and [[Philosophical naturalism]].