NationStates Jolt Archive

There are many Christian organizations that take the bizarre view that the bible is literally true.

Yet, these same organizations are not of the opinion that the bible is literally true when Jesus says "This is my body, which will be broken for you." or when God says "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?"

Under what circumstances, then, do you think we should take the bible as literally true?

I think the chances of attaining a productive response from this question are about on par with one's chances of damming the Amazon River with a handful of sticks and mud.

Which organizations say the Bible is literally true and that the body of Christ is not really the body of Christ? I don’t know which sect fits that criteria.

Steps to maintaining a bad position of some sort:

Step 1: Invent a hyperbole of your opponents.

Step 2: Accuse them of something that you can prove untrue, even if its blatantly idiotic or irrelevant. Being correct about one thing, makes you correct about everything else.

Its that simple! Nobody will dare argue, lest they be accused of being the hyperbole in question. You win at life 1!1!1!!111!one!11!!12

I think the chances of attaining a productive response from this question are about on par with one's chances of damming the Amazon River with a handful of sticks and mud.

I think you were right.

There are many Christian organizations that take the bizarre view that the bible is literally true.

Yet, these same organizations are not of the opinion that the bible is literally true when Jesus says "This is my body, which will be broken for you." or when God says "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?"

Under what circumstances, then, do you think we should take the bible as literally true?

The Church teaches that the Bible isn't to be taken completely literally, there are some exceptions. The Pope has even endorsed evolution. What is taken literally, are the parts that are direct quotes, ie. the Beautitudes, the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, ST Peter being given authority as the first Pope, etc. There's probably mroe I could say...but it's late. Night and pleasant dreams, 'kay?:D

PS: i also find it wierd how certain denominations take it completely literal except for the Eucharist:confused: . I've never understood that.

I am going to post once and try to get out of here alive.

I can only speak for the Protestant explanation(s) I have heard for understanding what is and is not meant to be taken literally. Every literalist I have heard has said that there are parts of Scripture that are meant to be understood only in the context of how they were written (poetry, symbolic prophecy). I would say that it is a common misconception that all "fundamentalist Christians" or "literalists" believe every single word is to be taken literally (See Song of Solomon for example of what is obviously not meant to be taken literally)

The Church teaches that the Bible isn't to be taken completely literally, there are some exceptions. The Pope has even endorsed evolution. :D

It could be that the Pope actually bothered to read it, or some of the older texts they have access to ... and found that the bible doesn't cover evolution in almost any respect. The only involvement of church to that idea is the church's assertion itself from a few centuries back to static earth, being unchanging in the respect that it shouldn't distract the intrepid from the insipid function of disregarding all of the rest of the universe for the infantile and bloated divine comedy. Of course, there were a few text chunks hither and thither that are used to supplement the static earth position, but only to the lacksadaisical and infirm of devotion.
:(

no

The Bible has more of mitology and simbolism than any other thing. It is possible that the Middle East wars are true, but most of the Old Testament stories are that, stories, or symbols -the Snake, the Apple...-

The Church teaches that the Bible isn't to be taken completely literally, there are some exceptions. The Pope has even endorsed evolution. What is taken literally, are the parts that are direct quotes, ie. the Beautitudes, the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, ST Peter being given authority as the first Pope, etc. There's probably mroe I could say...but it's late. Night and pleasant dreams, 'kay?:D

PS: i also find it wierd how certain denominations take it completely literal except for the Eucharist:confused: . I've never understood that.
John Paul II was very much interested in science. He had an observatory built in Arizona and staffed with priests who's job was to study science.

Where does the Bible give Peter the authority of the first Pope? And is the Eucharist literal or symbolic? If literal what does human blood and flesh taste like?

John Paul II was very much interested in science. He had an observatory built in Arizona and staffed with priests who's job was to study science.

Where does the Bible give Peter the authority of the first Pope? And is the Eucharist literal or symbolic? If literal what does human blood and flesh taste like?


The Gospel of Matthew: 16: 18-19
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 16:19I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

THe CHurch that Peter built is commonly believed to be the Roman Catholic Church, and in this verse Jesus clearly gives Peter the power that the Popes have declared through out history.

The Gospel of Matthew: 16: 18-19
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 16:19I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

THe CHurch that Peter built is commonly believed to be the Roman Catholic Church, and in this verse Jesus clearly gives Peter the power that the Popes have declared through out history.

Some would say that this rock was the truth Peter had just stated, i.e. that Jesus was "the Christ, the son of the living God". They would say that the whole Church (not necessarily a particular denomination) was built on this belief, rather than on the man who was named for first realising it.

This is mostly directed at Baptists, since they're the ones I was thinking of when writing my questions. As for Catholics, from what I've read and heard, the bible is considdered literally true when it is not poetic or figurative and does not disagree with overwhelming scientific evidence.

Van Normandy (or anybody else): if you decide to risk death again and venture once more into this thread, what criteria define "poetry, symbolic profecy"? From your description, one would assume that fundamentalists have the same basic rules as do, say, the Catholics, yet come to vastly different conclusions--ie, the literal truth of passages like the creation story, yet the symbology of Jesus' statements at the Last Supper.

This is mostly directed at Baptists, since they're the ones I was thinking of when writing my questions. As for Catholics, from what I've read and heard, the bible is considdered literally true when it is not poetic or figurative and does not disagree with overwhelming scientific evidence.

Van Normandy (or anybody else): if you decide to risk death again and venture once more into this thread, what criteria define "poetry, symbolic profecy"? From your description, one would assume that fundamentalists have the same basic rules as do, say, the Catholics, yet come to vastly different conclusions--ie, the literal truth of passages like the creation story, yet the symbology of Jesus' statements at the Last Supper.

I'll have a go, though this is the first time I've really thought about it (and I'm not a Baptist): If Jesus literally passed around his body and blood at the last supper, why didn't any of the disciples question him (that we know of)? Peter objected at the foot-washing thing, and when he was first told to eat unclean food. Eating human flesh and drinking any kind of blood was strictly forbidden for the Jews.

Well the Bible says it and I believe that the bible is an accurate description of history so therefore it must be true.

Lol some people actually believe in a deity too ... and they even think he "inspired" the bible to be written hahaha

I think the chances of attaining a productive response from this question are about on par with one's chances of damming the Amazon River with a handful of sticks and mud.
I will respond to this thread with a Joke that you should like:
-------------------
Two philosophers live across a narrow street from each other. One morning, they begin a philosophical debate, each talking from his second-story window to the other across the street. The argument continues and becomes more and more passionate. They begin to shout.
Finally, a pedestrian walking below on the street hears them and intervenes.

"Whoa, guys. Hold up. This argument is never going to be resolved--you're arguing from different premises!"

Well the Bible says it and I believe that the bible is an accurate description of history so therefore it must be true.


So hail is stored in warehouses in the sky, for times of war and battle?

I'll have a go, though this is the first time I've really thought about it (and I'm not a Baptist): If Jesus literally passed around his body and blood at the last supper, why didn't any of the disciples question him (that we know of)? Peter objected at the foot-washing thing, and when he was first told to eat unclean food. Eating human flesh and drinking any kind of blood was strictly forbidden for the Jews.

Ahem:
Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is the blood of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

I think the chances of attaining a productive response from this question are about on par with one's chances of damming the Amazon River with a handful of sticks and mud.
I have some beaver pals who could do it.

Well the Bible says it and I believe that the bible is an accurate description of history so therefore it must be true.
...Ugh.

...Ugh.
It's okay, they said that was what they believed. :rolleyes:

The Bible has more of mitology and simbolism than any other thing. It is possible that the Middle East wars are true, but most of the Old Testament stories are that, stories, or symbols -the Snake, the Apple...-
So, are you posing that snakes and apples are only figments of the biblical authors' collective imaginations? ;)

The Bible should be taken to be as literally true as J.R.R. Tolkien's history of Middle-Earth should be.

The Bible should be taken to be as literally true as J.R.R. Tolkien's history of Middle-Earth should be.
Good analogy.

Good analogy.

Thank you.

To elaborate:

They are both texts loaded with insights into human nature and occasionally useful philosophical undertones. To make a modern version of the Bible, one would have to:

Take a law book from any Western nation. Let's say the United States. Every volumn of them. Or, to keep things more on a Biblical level, we could just take the Constitution, replete with all the later Amendments. We would, of course, have to subtlely alter it so that it mentions that God/Allah/Vishnu commanded us to make these laws. Next step, throw in Mother Goose's Fairy Tales, the fairy tales of the Grimm brothers, The Lord of the Rings, and, say, Memoirs of a Geisha and maybe Lusty Wenches of the Caribbean or some such similar erotica (I made up the title, by the way). Of course, we'd have to establish a comittee to decide which texts to include and which to exclude. Then we'd have to translate each one into Hebrew, then into Japanese, then into German, then into Russian, and finally back into English. Then we'd bind them all together, trim off some fat, and then call it Divine Law as Interpreted by God.

And then you'd have a text that could be taken as literally as the Bible.

Thank you.

To elaborate:

They are both texts loaded with insights into human nature and occasionally useful philosophical undertones. To make a modern version of the Bible, one would have to:

Take a law book from any Western nation. Let's say the United States. Every volumn of them. Or, to keep things more on a Biblical level, we could just take the Constitution, replete with all the later Amendments. We would, of course, have to subtlely alter it so that it mentions that God/Allah/Vishnu commanded us to make these laws. Next step, throw in Mother Goose's Fairy Tales, the fairy tales of the Grimm brothers, The Lord of the Rings, and, say, Memoirs of a Geisha and maybe Lusty Wenches of the Caribbean or some such similar erotica (I made up the title, by the way). Of course, we'd have to establish a comittee to decide which texts to include and which to exclude. Then we'd have to translate each one into Hebrew, then into Japanese, then into German, then into Russian, and finally back into English. Then we'd bind them all together, trim off some fat, and then call it Divine Law as Interpreted by God.

And then you'd have a text that could be taken as literally as the Bible.

Lusty Wenches of the Caribbean
LOL - Song of Solomon, no doubt. Song of Swashbuckler (gotta depreciate the feminine aspect ...)

As well, Tolkien himself is regarded as christian-influenced in the morality of his works.

Lusty Wenches of the Caribbean
LOL - Song of Solomon, no doubt. Song of Swashbuckler (gotta depreciate the feminine aspect ...)

As well, Tolkien himself is regarded as christian-influenced in the morality of his works.

True, but the works themselves (at least those set in Middle-Earth) are definatively polytheistic in nature. It's just that none of the gods (except teh evil one) get names.

Lusty Wenches of the Caribbean
LOL - Song of Solomon, no doubt. Song of Swashbuckler (gotta depreciate the feminine aspect ...)

As well, Tolkien himself is regarded as christian-influenced in the morality of his works.


In what way, exactly?

True, but the works themselves (at least those set in Middle-Earth) are definatively polytheistic in nature.
So is much of the early part of the Bible. Jahweh is the god of the Jews, but not necessarily the only god in existence (there would have been no need for the First Commandment if there were no other gods :)).

So is much of the early part of the Bible. Jahweh is the god of the Jews, but not necessarily the only god in existence (there would have been no need for the First Commandment if there were no other gods :)).

That's also true, too, but keep in mind that this 'modern Bible' may be monotheistic, so the inclusion of the Valar would harm it's message as much as the tribal-god-ism of the Old Testament harms modern Judaism and Christianity.

Ahem:
Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is the blood of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

Right, so if he was speaking literally rather than symbolically, why no shocked objection? :confused:

So, are you posing that snakes and apples are only figments of the biblical authors' collective imaginations? ;)
Oh, story elements are much more than that. And mythological elements doubly so, because they carry a message specifically to the spirit, which is itself a "figment of imagination", and speak to it.

Right, so if he was speaking literally rather than symbolically, why no shocked objection? :confused:

They had already given their shocked objections, having heard it before the last supper:
John 6:53-69

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

I personally believe in the verbal, plenary (word for word), literal inspiration of the Bible. Some parts though, can only be understood as symbolic, and these are expressly know by context and situation. When Jesus said "I am the Bread which came down from heaven" we know that He was not literally calling Himself flour and yeast, but that He is the spiritual Bread for hungry souls. The same when He said "I am the Door". He was not literally calling Himself a piece of wood swinging on hinges, but that He is the only entrance to eternal life. So, when He said of the bread and wine "This is my body which is broken for you, this is my blood which is shed for many" He was speaking symbolically. We as Christians do not believe that our redemption took place at the table with His disciples, but on Calvary wherre He was literally broken, and literally bled for our sins.

Curious though, the sects that literally believe that the bread and wine are His body and blood, do not take the Bible 100% literally. Hrrm.

There are many Christian organizations that take the bizarre view that the bible is literally true.

Yet, these same organizations are not of the opinion that the bible is literally true when Jesus says "This is my body, which will be broken for you." or when God says "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?"

Under what circumstances, then, do you think we should take the bible as literally true?

First of all, definition:
1. In a literal manner; word for word: translated the Greek passage literally.
2. In a literal or strict sense: Don't take my remarks literally.
3. Usage Problem.
1. Really; actually: “There are people in the world who literally do not know how to boil water” (Craig Claiborne).
2. Used as an intensive before a figurative expression.

Usage Note: For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of “in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words.” In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler cited the example “The 300,000 Unionists... will be literally thrown to the wolves.” The practice does not stem from a change in the meaning of literally itselfif it did, the word would long since have come to mean “virtually” or “figuratively”but from a natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive, as in They had literally no help from the government on the project, where no contrast with the figurative sense of the words is intended.

“in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words.” is the normal sense in which the Bible is taken literally. So poetry=poetry, metaphor=metaphor, history=history, analogy=analogy, etc.

Sometimes it is easy to discern the sense of a passage, other times it takes careful exegesis ("Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text."), taking into account context, culture, and everything else one would normally use to analyze literature.

So, in that sense, the entire Bible should always be taken literally, whether you believe it or not, in order to properly understand the passage being read.

(Definitions above are taken from dictionary.com.)

Right, so if he was speaking literally rather than symbolically, why no shocked objection? :confused:

just as during Mass, the wafer doesn't suddenly turn into a meaty substance or the wine into a sanguine drink; it's transubstansiation. that means that it becomes flesh and blood, but not necessary does that change tha makeup. I guess if you had to call it anything, it's kinda like a transmutation. bread and wine could technically be an equivalent exchange for blood & flesh.

Oh, story elements are much more than that. And mythological elements doubly so, because they carry a message specifically to the spirit, which is itself a "figment of imagination", and speak to it.
:eek:
This post ought to be replicated and enlarged for many to see. It explains quite well the current nature of the "holiday"/economic season.
:eek:

In what way, exactly?
IF you're interested, i have a few sites that go into detail about it. I'm not saying the whole series was an intrepid metaphor to turn people into christians, mind you.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00001756.html

The current emphasis on Tolkien's religiosity has its more immediate origins in Joseph Pearce's 1999 book "Tolkien: Man and Myth,'' which underscores Tolkien's deeply Catholic views. Since Pearce's writing -- and, of course, the news that the "Lord of the Rings'' books were coming to movie theaters -- the theological ferment has been considerable. In April of 2000, Christianity Today ranked Tolkien's epic among the top 10 Christian books of the 20th century; the first slot went to C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity,'' which might not even have been written had Tolkien not helped Lewis to find God in 1931. More religiously-infused books on Tolkien are on the way, including Kreeft's "The Philosophy of Tolkien'' and Baylor University theology and literature professor Ralph Wood's "The Gospel According to 'The Lord of the Rings.'"

...
No one disputes that Tolkien's Catholicism influenced his writing. Indeed, he held his conservative Catholic views rather fiercely -- due in part to his conviction that his mother Mabel had been persecuted by her family for her conversion to Catholicism in 1900 (she died shortly afterward of diabetes). After serving on the Western Front in World War I, Tolkien returned to his studies of medieval literature; after becoming a professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford in 1925, he helped found an influential group of Christian philosopher-writers called "the Inklings,'' which included C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, and Charles Williams. In a 1953 letter Tolkien described "The Lord of the Rings'' as a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work.''

But Tolkien's views -- on both religion and fiction -- were complex. In another letter, Tolkien outlined his aspiration to create a new mythology for England, describing the existing body of Arthurian legend as inadequate for the role because it "explicitly contains the Christian religion.'' (He added, "That seems to me fatal.'') References to real-world belief systems, Tolkien thought, would detract from the beguiling timelessness he hoped to convey. Tolkien's characters inhabit a pre-Christian version of our own world; they don't worship, carry on religious rituals, or talk about faith. Commentators have noted similarities between Tolkien's trilogy and Wagner's "Ring Cycle,' which also put Europe's pagan heritage in the service of national myth-making.
-
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/134/52.0.html
Lewis seems to have had the more forceful personality of the two. Yet you show that Tolkien had a deep influence on Lewis. What did he teach Lewis?

Lewis, although he used a very rational, knock-down technique in his rhetorical approach to philosophical questions, was a deeply imaginative man who regarded his imaginative self as his most basic self. Before he met Tolkien, he became friends with Owen Barfield, and the two of them had long conversations about the imagination.

But as a brilliant young man who had decided that the Christian faith of his up-bringing was intellectually untenable, Lewis had no way of bringing together that imaginative side of his nature with his rational side. His rational side told him that while stories might serve to amuse, they couldn't very well teach you about the things that really mattered.

What Tolkien did was help Lewis see how the two sides, reason and imagination, could be integrated. During the two men's night conversation on the Addison Walk in the grounds of Magdalen College, Tolkien showed Lewis how the two sides could be reconciled in the Gospel narratives. The Gospels had all the qualities of great human storytelling. But they portrayed a true event—God the storyteller entered his own story, in the flesh, and brought a joyous conclusion from a tragic situation. Suddenly Lewis could see that the nourishment he had always received from great myths and fantasy stories was a taste of that greatest, truest story—of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

So Tolkien brought the imagination right into the center of Lewis's life. And then, through a gradual process, with the example of Tolkien's Silmarillion tales and Lord of the Rings before him, Lewis learned how to communicate Christian faith in imaginative writing. The results were Narnia, the space trilogy, The Great Divorce, and so forth.
----
http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/wood-classic.html
Despite the eucharistic hint, Tolkien's work is not self-evidently Christian. As C. S. Lewis observed upon its first publication, the Ring epic is imbued with "a profound melancholy." The ending is tearfully sad. Frodo is exhausted by his long quest to destroy the Ring of coercive power that had been fashioned by the monster Sauron. Though the victory has been won, Frodo cannot enjoy its fruits. And so he sails away to the elven realm, leaving his companions behind. Sauron and his minions of evil may have been defeated, but the triumph is only temporary. Evil will reconstitute itself in some alarming new form, and the free creatures of Middle Earth will have to fight it yet again.

The word "doom" -- in its Anglo-Saxon meaning of damning judgment as well as final fate in ruin and death -- pulses like a funereal drumbeat throughout the entire work. Toward the end of Volume I, the elf Legolas offers a doom-centered vision of the world. It sounds very much like an elvish and Heraclitean version of entropy. "To find and lose," says Legolas, is the destiny "of those whose boat is on the running stream.... The passing seasons are but ripples in the long long stream. Yet beneath the Sun all things must wear to an end at last." Though elves are so long-lived that they seem immortal to humans and hobbits, the tides of time will sweep even them away. A deeply pagan pessimism thus pervades all three of the Ring books.

Yet it is a mistake, I believe, to read Tolkien's work as sub-Christian. Not by happenstance was Tolkien the finest Beowulf scholar of his day. His thesis about the Anglo-Saxon epic may also be applied to his own fiction. Beowulf is a pagan work, Tolkien argued, exalting the great Northern and heathen virtue of unyielding, indomitable will in the face of sure and hopeless defeat. Yet it was probably written by a Christian, Tolkien contended, who infused it with Christian concerns: "The author of Beowulf showed forth the permanent value of that pietas which treasures the memory of man's struggles in the dark past, man fallen and not yet saved, disgraced but not dethroned." So does The Lord of the Rings recount a pre-biblical period of the earth's ancient history -- where there are no Chosen People, no Incarnation, no religion at all -- yet from a point of view that is distinctively Christian.
---

just as during Mass, the wafer doesn't suddenly turn into a meaty substance or the wine into a sanguine drink; it's transubstansiation. that means that it becomes flesh and blood, but not necessary does that change tha makeup. I guess if you had to call it anything, it's kinda like a transmutation. bread and wine could technically be an equivalent exchange for blood & flesh.
Transubstantiation is another word for pretend.
It suits some functions very well.

I personally believe in the verbal, plenary (word for word), literal inspiration of the Bible. Some parts though, can only be understood as symbolic, and these are expressly know by context and situation. When Jesus said "I am the Bread which came down from heaven" we know that He was not literally calling Himself flour and yeast, but that He is the spiritual Bread for hungry souls. The same when He said "I am the Door". He was not literally calling Himself a piece of wood swinging on hinges, but that He is the only entrance to eternal life. So, when He said of the bread and wine "This is my body which is broken for you, this is my blood which is shed for many" He was speaking symbolically. We as Christians do not believe that our redemption took place at the table with His disciples, but on Calvary wherre He was literally broken, and literally bled for our sins.

Curious though, the sects that literally believe that the bread and wine are His body and blood, do not take the Bible 100% literally. Hrrm.
As a literalist, then, i would like to know TWO things:
One, which bible are you using for your veracity?
And two, what exactly do you make of this excerpt?

"The Lord was with Judah; And he drove
out the inhabitants of the mountains; but could not drive out the
inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." (Judges 1:19).

EDIT: The KJ and NRSV is as above.
The NIV and Living versions are so below.

Judges 1:19

NIV: The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.


Living Bible: The LORD helped the tribe of Judah exterminate the people of the hill country, though they failed in their attempt to conquer the people of the valley, who had iron chariots.
---------

Interesting twist in active subject. Possibly political in nature?

The Gospel of Matthew: 16: 18-19
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 16:19I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

THe CHurch that Peter built is commonly believed to be the Roman Catholic Church, and in this verse Jesus clearly gives Peter the power that the Popes have declared through out history.
Yet, I disagree.

His church was the Church of Jesus Christ: for is you name your church about something other than Christ or God it isn't Christs.

If it is Moses church than it is Moses not Christs.

Peter gave power to a archduke (I think that was title I forget exact name), but that archduke was slain when another took power and became Pope calling the other a sinner and a Anti-christ.

The Pope who rules the Catholic church hasn't held the Keys ever. I have no doubt he has Arronic Preisthood (because how else would he have became a archduke originally). But he has no the authority from Peter.

Else why would John get the revelation called Book of Revelation if the authority and power was given to the Pope. Either he was below John in authority or never given it.

Transubstantiation is another word for pretend.
It suits some functions very well.

Really? What thesaurus did you use? Was it Websters' or Rogents'? Perhaps a publication I'm unfamiliar with?

douche

*kidding^_^

Really? What thesaurus did you use? Was it Websters' or Rogents'? Perhaps a publication I'm unfamiliar with?

douche

*kidding^_^
Douche? That's a catch phrase from another poster.
Are you Brady Bunch Perm?
Interesting since that guy seems a little meaner than you. And dumber. But posts can be deceiving.

Douche? That's a catch phrase from another poster.
Are you Brady Bunch Perm?
Interesting since that guy seems a little meaner than you. And dumber. But posts can be deceiving.

didn't you notice the asterisk:headbang: ? geez, some people can't take a little jibe:p . if you hadn't noticed, the whole post was sarcastic.^_^

I am unfamiliar with this person you speak of. It was not my knowledge that this person used that as a catchphrase, but thank you for informing me so I can be more mindful in the future. Please forgive me if I misspoke or overstepped any boundary, it was meant only as a friendly derogation and was not meant as a personal or serious insult. Since I have apologised thus, let us act as if it never happened, agreed?:D

didn't you notice the asterisk:headbang: ? geez, some people can't take a little jibe:p . if you hadn't noticed, the whole post was sarcastic.^_^

I am unfamiliar with this person you speak of. It was not my knowledge that this person used that as a catchphrase, but thank you for informing me so I can be more mindful in the future. Please forgive me if I misspoke or overstepped any boundary, it was meant only as a friendly derogation and was not meant as a personal or serious insult. Since I have apologised thus, let us act as if it never happened, agreed?:D
Ha!
Don't worry about it! I was just having you on.
Don't worry about my feelings, i've found it's not good to have any here. It's bad for the complexion.
Besides, if i took umbrage to your post, i probably would just shut it away in the dark recesses of my perforated soul and just kinda cram it there until i'm ready to deal with it. No biggie.

Ha!
Don't worry about it! I was just having you on.
Don't worry about my feelings, i've found it's not good to have any here. It's bad for the complexion.
Besides, if i took umbrage to your post, i probably would just shut it away in the dark recesses of my perforated soul and just kinda cram it there until i'm ready to deal with it. No biggie.

Haven't we come to blows in the past on another topic? Your name seems familiar.:confused:

Haven't we come to blows in the past on another topic? Your name seems familiar.:confused:
Maybe it was running through your dreams all night. :D
Well, if we had, feel free to sucker punch me. It's all good.

EDIT: BTW, i'm known to agree with people on one thread whom i would lambast on another. Like i said about skin.
There's only a few people who, no matter WHAT topic they're on, are complete f*ckin' retards of the philosophical/mental/emotional/psychological kind. Your name ain't on "the list". :)

Maybe it was running through your dreams all night. :D
Well, if we had, feel free to sucker punch me. It's all good.

nah, no big. :D let's see if we can fill up a whole page w/o mentioning the topic. ~_^

nah, no big. :D let's see if we can fill up a whole page w/o mentioning the topic. ~_^
So long as neither of us posts more than three times consecutively, i think it's good.
So did you see Narnia? I read two of the books in 3rd grade but i've since forgotten most of the plot, except that i liked the current movie.

If literal what does human blood and flesh taste like?
Strangely, an awful lot like bread and wine.

Strangely, an awful lot like bread and wine.
Season to taste



8I

*implores "Have a Day" smilie*

Strangely, an awful lot like bread and wine.

did you not read the above posts?!

no big. guess we'll try again on page 5:D

did you not read the above posts?!

no big. guess we'll try again on page 5 :D
Done deal!

We, uhm, haven't made it to page 5 yet.
:(

The Church teaches that the Bible isn't to be taken completely literally, there are some exceptions. The Pope has even endorsed evolution. What is taken literally, are the parts that are direct quotes, ie. the Beautitudes, the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, ST Peter being given authority as the first Pope, etc. There's probably mroe I could say...but it's late. Night and pleasant dreams, 'kay?:D

PS: i also find it wierd how certain denominations take it completely literal except for the Eucharist:confused: . I've never understood that.

Some parts are some arent'. What Christ said, is well what Christ said and is complete truth. The part about evolution, Genisis was written during the Jewish Captivity when Jews were converting to the pagan religion of Bablyon. Genisis was written only to tell the people of Israel that there was only one God, and that he had created all, it was never meant to be infallable. (Much like Historical Fictions, some events are real and happened, some aren't.)

Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

-DV 11 [Dei Verbum, the Catholic Churches Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation]

This is the actual Catholic Church stance on the inspiration of Scripture, for anyone who is interested...

I'd reply, but I'm afraid i'd start the fifth page. in case i don't, keep that in mind. ~_^

I'd reply, but I'm afraid i'd start the fifth page. in case i don't, keep that in mind. ~_^
I'm not afraid of change!!





And although Monty Python says, "Five is right OUT", i say ...
bring it on!!!!

*takes another swig, staggers around triumphantly*

This is the actual Catholic Church stance on the inspiration of Scripture, for anyone who is interested...
Well, that suffices to say that the issue of fallability is equitable on both party's counts.
...and balance was restored...

The Bible cannot be literally true. It's physically impossible.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

If the Bible was literally true, then every word, phrase, sentance and story in the Bible must be literally true. Now look at that above link. There exist numerous situations in which, if the bible were literally true, a contradiction would exist. Therefore the Bible cannot be literally true.

The Bible cannot be literally true. It's physically impossible.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

If the Bible was literally true, then every word, phrase, sentance and story in the Bible must be literally true. Now look at that above link. There exist numerous situations in which, if the bible were literally true, a contradiction would exist. Therefore the Bible cannot be literally true.
There are many, MANY more instances of contradiction.
I invite you to visit the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, where everything is arranged quite nicely. Also i invite you to check out

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html

I've already cross-ref'd a few of the issues there w/all FOUR of my different versions of the Bible, and they usually check out.
Funnily enough, the very issue of different versions means just that, DIFFERENT VERSIONS.

Some parts are some arent'. What Christ said, is well what Christ said and is complete truth.

I'm sure he said it in English, too.

I'm sure he said it in English, too.
Sure. He, Mithra, and Horus all got together and pow-wowed, and the audience was taken aback with shock and awe.

Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

-DV 11 [Dei Verbum, the Catholic Churches Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation]
This is the actual Catholic Church stance on the inspiration of Scripture, for anyone who is interested...
Aye; and it does NOT say the Bible should be taken literally (thank Brad).

Aye; and it does NOT say the Bible should be taken literally (thank Brad).
Amen to that!!! *bows*

Bible literalists can only take the bible literally if they take it ALL literally.
If they dont, they are not bible literalists and are as stupid and ignoble as the crusaders, who simply use religion as an excuse, and if they DO take all the bible literally they wont be around for long anyway.

Bible literalists can only take the bible literally if they take it ALL literally.
If they dont, they are not bible literalists and are as stupid and ignoble as the crusaders, who simply use religion as an excuse, and if they DO take all the bible literally they wont be around for long anyway.
so it's take the whole thing literally or don't pay attention to any of it?

interesting, that there is nothing in between, so like when you are reading a novel you don't pay attention to metaphors? that stuff just really happened?

or what about if there are facts in a fictional book like for example the people live in New York City and go to the Macy's day parade, if you accept that New York City is real and that there is a Macy's parade then you have to take the whole book as true, or if you can't say that the whole book is true then all of the sudden NYC doesn't exist anymore??

so it's take the whole thing literally or don't pay attention to any of it?

interesting, that there is nothing in between, so like when you are reading a novel you don't pay attention to metaphors? that stuff just really happened?

or what about if there are facts in a fictional book like for example the people live in New York City and go to the Macy's day parade, if you accept that New York City is real and that there is a Macy's parade then you have to take the whole book as true, or if you can't say that the whole book is true then all of the sudden NYC doesn't exist anymore??

Blimey you can tell this ones conservative... Right. I dont read works of fiction and say "AND LO! WE MUST STRIKE ALL GOBLINS DEAD, BUT ORCS ARE OKAY!" no. i think not. silly. Bible literalists attempt to change the workigns of society and as such it cannot be treatd as a work of fiction, although it is. :D Sooo with respect kindly do not post anything like that again unless you want me to prove it wrong AGAIn.

Blimey you can tell this ones conservative... Right. I dont read works of fiction and say "AND LO! WE MUST STRIKE ALL GOBLINS DEAD, BUT ORCS ARE OKAY!" no. i think not. silly. Bible literalists attempt to change the workigns of society and as such it cannot be treatd as a work of fiction, although it is. :D Sooo with respect kindly do not post anything like that again unless you want me to prove it wrong AGAIn.
again? when was the first time?

again? when was the first time?

Im trying to say in terms all people can understand, you are wrong because there is no connection. Okay? The bible is considered true. Therefore you have to ignore it or take it literally, all of it. You cant pick and choose if your going to use a Righteous Sevant Of God arguement

Im trying to say in terms all people can understand, you are wrong because there is no connection. Okay? The bible is considered true. Therefore you have to ignore it or take it literally, all of it. You cant pick and choose if your going to use a Righteous Sevant Of God arguement
so, because I realize that some of the Bible is not literally true, but metaphors then I can't believe that any of it is true? Since Jesus taught in parables that weren't literally true then the whole Bible is false?

what you said was
Bible literalists can only take the bible literally if they take it ALL literally.
that isn't true. If Jesus speaks in metaphors, then we aren't really supposed to believe that there was a shepard with 100 sheep that goes looking for the one that is lost, or even a literal prodigal son. We are supposed to see the point of the story.
If they dont, they are not bible literalists and are as stupid
so people that can tell metaphor from fact are stupid? I don't really think so.