Ah, I understand now. I am meaning, that when looking to the original languages, we need to be able to take it literally, else the catholic church loses the foundations on which it is based. Of course things can be lost in translation which is why I only use the NASB or NIV for English, as all others try too hard to be "readable" and lose alot of literal meaning.

I don't mind the fact that the Catholic officials believe this, but I do believe the fact that they are stating this belief as authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone of a religion has different individual beliefs as well as the commonly shared one, it's not up to the Catholic church to tell people how to believe. Though, that's what they've been doing for centuries.

nm

If you'll allow me to go 'religious' on you: The Devil has been trying to destroy the Church/Christianity for thousands of years. He hasn't succeeded yet, and he never will. Religious speel over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you'll allow me to quote: The Devil is the church's best friend. He's kept them in business all these years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What makes you three all so sure this is a good thing? Just curious. Maybe you don't believe the Bible is true, but to think it a good thing when those whose very belief system are dependent on the Bible being true declare it somewhat false, is very spiteful indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure there are some parts of the bible that are applicable to modern life, and that people should be treated with respect, and that you should remain loyal to your parents (provided they are the same to you). However, there comes a time when a 2000 year old book isn't valid anymore. Society has changed; we've had wars, revolutions, advancements ... the Bible no longer should control us, nor should it control what is meant to be the most powerful religion in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The book has been the cause of the death of millions. It has held us back scientifically. It's about time we started seeing things in perspective and realise it's not all true.

 

 

 

I'm sure there are some parts of the bible that are applicable to modern life, and that people should be treated with respect, and that you should remain loyal to your parents (provided they are the same to you). However, there comes a time when a 2000 year old book isn't valid anymore. Society has changed; we've had wars, revolutions, advancements ... the Bible no longer should control us, nor should it control what is meant to be the most powerful religion in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The book has been the cause of the death of millions. It has held us back scientifically. It's about time we started seeing things in perspective and realise it's not all true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glad we share basically the same views. :wink:

... not to take this off topic or anything, but recently I learned about Nicoli Carpathia (the anti-christ)(this doesn't mean he's a satanist just one who teach strong belief against the word of christ)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, and is a strong person...(a person in high power), and well is this a turn torwards Nicoli Carpathia?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh? If I recall correctly, Nicolae Carpathia is the the name of a character in Tim Layahe's Left Behind series. The character is the anti-Christ in the books, but Nicolae isn't an actual person.

 

 

 

 

I'm sure there are some parts of the bible that are applicable to modern life, and that people should be treated with respect, and that you should remain loyal to your parents (provided they are the same to you). However, there comes a time when a 2000 year old book isn't valid anymore. Society has changed; we've had wars, revolutions, advancements ... the Bible no longer should control us, nor should it control what is meant to be the most powerful religion in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The book has been the cause of the death of millions. It has held us back scientifically. It's about time we started seeing things in perspective and realise it's not all true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glad we share basically the same views. :wink:

 

 

 

i am very afraid to post to many of my 'views' becuase they often come out slightly off from what i mean, but ill give it my best try.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People make choices, those choices have positive and negative effects. And i really dont like you pointing your finger at the bible and blaming it on the bible. I know its not the bibles fault, becuase i have made choices that i am not proud of. All of my bad choices have been againts the bible. i know they are bad becuase i feel bad when i make those kind of choices.

Wow, Ok, this is really fascinating. I can't blieve the Catholic church actually did this, and this is a pure statement of the end of days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at the Bible. Are we all sinned just because Eve ate an apple from a forbitten tree? Don't know how good it actually is for your mental balance, but at least I don't believe that I'm sinned. What even is sin? When a baby borns sick and is going to die within few minutes, is it going to hell because it's sinned?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bible didn't specifically say APPLE but over time, it became that. It was a forbidden fruit, whcih God specifically told Adam and Eve "Never eat the fruit of this tree, the tree of good and evil". This tree was the tree which opened their eyes to their "nakedness" and they "covered up and hid for God". We were once perfect beings, but because Eve fell into the temptation of Satan, she took the forbidden fruit. The reason God made this fruit forbidden is because he needs to set boundaries. Boundaries are to test our faith, and Eve broke it, then caused Adam to do the same. They blatantly broke God's command, and this is when sin started, and we humans fell from grace. And throughout the entire old testament, we humans have never been able to get back to The Father's grace. Now in the new testament, God sent his son, Jesus, to die for our sins. And so, we once again, fall into the grace of God, but only through Jesus. So that is why, babies don't go to hell once they're born. Because the baby ha not sinned, as Jesus has now saved us from death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I already gave you an example of Lucifer. That's pretty big mistake if you ask me. The word Lucifer means lightbringer and it comes from the word Lux (=light) and Ferous (=bringer/to bring).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On another note, the reason Lucifer means lightbringer is because before he was exiled from heaven he was the most beautiful angel God created. The angel of the highest order. He was most loved by God. Then he got cocky, and thought he could overturn God. When he tried, he obviously lost and then got exiled to hell. And there were other angels who followed him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and Nicoli Carpathia is not a real person. He is portrayed as Anti-Christ in the book Left-behind (great book i would say!)

 

 

 

The current version of the Bible is really different to the "original" one. New translations, normal humanly mistakes and others have made the story totally different. Actually if we really go "deep" in this subject, we can say that Lucifer is actually Jesus. Hieronymus made a mistake when he translated a hebrean/old latin word "morning star, the son of the dawn" (don't know exact English names, so I gotta translate Finnish words. ) into Lucifer. By the time with new translations, Lucifer started to live his own life. This is just one example how the story has changed past the centuries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have over 5000 manuscripts of the New Testament alone (all or parts of it) with examples dating back to the 2nd century and back to the 4th century B.C. for the Old Testament. The copies we have do not look exaclty alike. But make no mistake, scribes were generally very careful, and you can rest assured that there is not textual dispute about eh vast majority of the Bible. Yet because of the differences in the copies, we need some way to trying to determine which copy is more likely to reflect the original text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enter in textual criticism. Textual criticism is a techinal discipline that compares the various copies of a biblical test in an effort to determine what was the most likely the original text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a to the point essay i found on the topic (feel free to skip over it if you really dont care as they are not my words):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are three primary methods to textual criticism. The first is the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was a manuscript of the Bible that was compiled by a man named Erasmus in the 1500's A.D. He took the limited amount of manuscripts he had access to and compiled them into what eventually became known as the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is the textual basis behind the King James Version and New King James Version. A second method is known as the Majority Text. The Majority Text takes all of the manuscripts that are available today, compares the differences, and chooses the most likely correct reading based on which reading occurs the most. For example, if 748 manuscripts read "he said" and 1429 manuscripts read "they said" - the Majority Text will go with "they said" as the most likely original reading. There are no major Bible translations that are based on the Majority Text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The third method is known as the critical or eclectic method. The eclectic method involves considering external and internal evidences for determining the most likely original text. External evidence includes: how many manuscripts does the reading occur in, what are the dates for these manuscripts, and what region of the world were these manuscripts found in? Internal evidence includes: what could have caused these varying readings, and which reading can possibly explain the origin of the other readings? The New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, and most other Bible translations use the eclectic text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which method is most accurate? That is where the debate begins. When the methods are first described to someone, the person typically picks the Majority Text as the method that should be used. It is essentially the "majority rules" and the "democratic" method. However, there is a "regional" issue to consider here. In the first few centuries of the church, the vast majority of Christians spoke and wrote in Greek. Starting in the 4th century A.D., Latin began to become the most common language, especially in the church. Starting with the Latin Vulgate, the New Testament began to be copied in Latin instead of Greek.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, in the eastern Christian world, Greek continued to be the dominant language of the church for over 1000 more years. As a result, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts are from the eastern / Byzantine region. These Byzantine manuscripts are all very similar to each other. They likely all originated in the same few Greek manuscripts. While being very similar to each other, the Byzantine manuscripts have numerous differences with the manuscripts found in the western and central regions of the church. So, it essentially boils down to this...if you started with three manuscripts, one was copied 100 times, another was copied 200 times, and the third was copied 5000 times - which group is going to have the majority rule? The third group of course. However, the third group is no more likely to have the original reading than the first or second group. It only has more copies. Therefore, the critical / eclectic method of textual criticism gives equal "weight" to the manuscripts from different regions, despite the manuscripts from the east having the overwhelming majority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How does the critical / eclectic method work in practice? Let me give you an example. If you compare John 5:1-9 in the King James Version (Textus Receptus) and the New International Version (Critical Text), you will notice that verse 4 is missing from the NIV. In the KJV, John 5:4 reads, "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." Why is this verse missing from the NIV (and the other Bible translations which use the Critical Text)? The eclectic method works as follows. (1) The text of John 5:4 does not occur in most of the oldest manuscripts. (2) The text of John 5:4 occurs in all of the Byzantine manuscripts, but not many of the non-eastern manuscripts. (3) It is more likely that a scribe would add an explanation than it is that a scribe would remove an explanation. John 5:4 makes it more clear why the crippled man wanted to get into the pool. Why would a scribe remove this verse? That does not make sense. It does make sense for a tradition of why the crippled man wanted to get into the pool would be added. As a result of these concepts, the Critical / Eclectic Text removes John 5:4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for your lucifer story, its probably true. Lucifer is called the angel of light as he was the first of all the angels in heaven before his fall. Now as for Hieronymus mistakingly translating a phrase that was ment towards jesus in favor of lucifer, it doesn't really matter in the large scheme of things. 4999 translations clearly would override that 1 translation and it would (and should) be considered and obvious error of the scribe. Errors due happen, i even heard a story about some translators in the 18th century who translated "though shalt not commit murder" and accidentally left out the "not". But yet again all we simply do is view the error as what it is, an error.

 

 

 

What about the crusades? There's a part which goes something like "go and make every folk part of Jesus Christ" (again, I only have a Finnish version of the bible. Look Mt. 28: 18- 20 ). They weren't just to baptise "pagan" people. For example thousands of Baltic and Finnish people were killed. I wrote more about them at http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=294313&

 

 

 

postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

 

 

 

Crusades can be seen as a brainless following of the Bible's words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason that the crusades occured was because at the time Jerusalem and the surrounding parts where controlled by Muslims. The problem with this is that at the time, Christian pilgrims that wanted to visit Jerusalem were either slaughtered or not given access to it. The reason why there was this christian war against the saracens (the empire who held it at the time) was because it was christians who were most affected by people who held the territory. The same goes for any other war, the people fighting are usually fighting because they were the ones most affected by the reason to start the war. Now eventually, the later crusades became corrupt (such as i believe in the 4th crusade when they originally were going to attack jerusalem, they instead sacked constantinople because it was such a large city of trade and was competing with the italian cities (the ones who started this crusade)) but originally, they were ment for a good cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at the Bible. Are we all sinned just because Eve ate an apple from a forbitten tree? Don't know how good it actually is for your mental balance, but at least I don't believe that I'm sinned. What even is sin? When a baby borns sick and is going to die within few minutes, is it going to hell because it's sinned?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please read my 2nd post on page 7 on this topic for an answer to this one :?

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=321916&start=90

The reason that the crusades occured was because at the time Jerusalem and the surrounding parts where controlled by Muslims. The problem with this is that at the time, Christian pilgrims that wanted to visit Jerusalem were either slaughtered or not given access to it. The reason why there was this christian war against the saracens (the empire who held it at the time) was because it was christians who were most affected by people who held the territory. The same goes for any other war, the people fighting are usually fighting because they were the ones most affected by the reason to start the war. Now eventually, the later crusades became corrupt (such as i believe in the 4th crusade when they originally were going to attack jerusalem, they instead sacked constantinople because it was such a large city of trade and was competing with the italian cities (the ones who started this crusade)) but originally, they were ment for a good cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you even read what I had posted in that link? You probably didnt', I mainly focused what happened on other parts of Europe.

 

The reason that the crusades occured was because at the time Jerusalem and the surrounding parts where controlled by Muslims. The problem with this is that at the time, Christian pilgrims that wanted to visit Jerusalem were either slaughtered or not given access to it. The reason why there was this christian war against the saracens (the empire who held it at the time) was because it was christians who were most affected by people who held the territory. The same goes for any other war, the people fighting are usually fighting because they were the ones most affected by the reason to start the war. Now eventually, the later crusades became corrupt (such as i believe in the 4th crusade when they originally were going to attack jerusalem, they instead sacked constantinople because it was such a large city of trade and was competing with the italian cities (the ones who started this crusade)) but originally, they were ment for a good cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you even read what I had posted in that link? You probably didnt', I mainly focused what happened on other parts of Europe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope I didn't :? ......i'll check it out now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I read the last 4 pages of it....i'll try to comment on it tomorrow as its almost midnight here and i have a busy day tommorow.

im confused what it is saying?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is it saying that catholics think the bible is wrong? (if u think some of it is wrong. u think all of it is wrong. i dont care what crap u make up about cultures and what people want to believe).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or is it saying more people need to know who jesus is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

really confused, please explain it a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

since when has the Cathlic religion ever followed the bible? look, show me in the bible were you have to pray to saints, pray to Marry, confess sins to another human, give money for the forgivness of sins, your soul going to Pergatory, and many other things

 

 

 

I'm sure there are some parts of the bible that are applicable to modern life, and that people should be treated with respect, and that you should remain loyal to your parents (provided they are the same to you). However, there comes a time when a 2000 year old book isn't valid anymore. Society has changed; we've had wars, revolutions, advancements ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since when does time invalidate something? I'm sorry, this is illogical. There comes a *time* when a *2000 year old book* isn't valid anymore? Not only is that an oxymoron, it was proofless, unexplained, and you didn't even tell us why we should believe it. Sure, society is changed, but that's because we've strayed from it's teachings, not because it's no longer applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Bible no longer should control us, nor should it control what is meant to be the most powerful religion in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It shouldn't control the religion that bases everything it believes in it? That's absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, that's like saying a scientist shouldn't be governed by the laws of science. Hahah, that's actually really funny :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The book has been the cause of the death of millions. It has held us back scientifically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incorrect. It's people using the book the justify their wrongs that has held us back. Application vs. Principle. My goodness people, when will you ever learn that because something is APPLIED wrong, doesn't make the PRINCIPLE less true. It's the most basic logical thought ever, yet no one ever gets it.

 

 

 

 

I'm sure there are some parts of the bible that are applicable to modern life, and that people should be treated with respect, and that you should remain loyal to your parents (provided they are the same to you). However, there comes a time when a 2000 year old book isn't valid anymore. Society has changed; we've had wars, revolutions, advancements ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since when does time invalidate something? I'm sorry, this is illogical. There comes a *time* when a *2000 year old book* isn't valid anymore? Not only is that an oxymoron, it was proofless, unexplained, and you didn't even tell us why we should believe it. Sure, society is changed, but that's because we've strayed from it's teachings, not because it's no longer applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution and revolution. Do you think making fire with rocks is applicable now? Not very. I doubt you're going to agree to me but as far as I'm concerned it means little to nothing now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What proof do I need to give? Things have changed from then. It's common sense! If you can't accept that the bible is not 100% applicable, I really do pity you. It may have some validity now, but honestly, do I need to spell it out?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Bible no longer should control us, nor should it control what is meant to be the most powerful religion in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It shouldn't control the religion that bases everything it believes in it? That's absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, that's like saying a scientist shouldn't be governed by the laws of science. Hahah, that's actually really funny :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't quite understand what I'm getting at. Okay, the bible should of course have some power over Christianity. But we need to apply it realistically to modern society. We can't apply it to life the way people did 1900 years ago; not even 500 years ago. We've changed, and the interpretation and use of the bible has to change to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The book has been the cause of the death of millions. It has held us back scientifically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incorrect. It's people using the book the justify their wrongs that has held us back. Application vs. Principle. My goodness people, when will you ever learn that because something is APPLIED wrong, doesn't make the PRINCIPLE less true. It's the most basic logical thought ever, yet no one ever gets it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, you got me there. However, no matter what you say, the bible is indirectly responsible for that. That indirectness doesn't mean all that much, of course, but when religious leaders who are meant to be acting through the bible condemn such behaviour, there is a problem.

Whoop De Doo. Took them what? 1500 years to own up to a storybook?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but I just dont belive a VIRGIN gave birth to a lovely baby son. Not just that, there are several disrespectancies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats just my view, if you're christian, respect my view as i respect yours.

 

im confused what it is saying?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is it saying that catholics think the bible is wrong? (if u think some of it is wrong. u think all of it is wrong. i dont care what crap u make up about cultures and what people want to believe).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or is it saying more people need to know who jesus is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

really confused, please explain it a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

since when has the Cathlic religion ever followed the bible? look, show me in the bible were you have to pray to saints, pray to Marry, confess sins to another human, give money for the forgivness of sins, your soul going to Pergatory, and many other things

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DING DING DING!!! Nowhere. That's why i think catholics are somewhat shams (although i do know a few catholics who don't pray to saints and have protestant beliefs. Only they're called catholics!).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whoop De Doo. Took them what? 1500 years to own up to a storybook?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but I just dont belive a VIRGIN gave birth to a lovely baby son. Not just that, there are several disrespectancies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats just my view, if you're christian, respect my view as i respect yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's nothing much to say except this is one of the miracles God had done. I can't make you believe it. But if you have faith, you 'll see evrything is possible through Christ. And yea, i do respect your views!

 

 

 

:wink:

Whoop De Doo. Took them what? 1500 years to own up to a storybook?

 

 

 

Thats just my view, if you're christian, respect my view as i respect yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....lol, you certainly showed us alot of respect there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution and revolution. Do you think making fire with rocks is applicable now? Not very. I doubt you're going to agree to me but as far as I'm concerned it means little to nothing now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, I see where we're differing here - it's in our premises. I'm assuming the Bible is truth, describing an objective, absolute morality, whereas I beleive you are thinking morality is subjective, progressive. Assuming subjective morality, yes, you are 100% correct - but assuming my idea of absolute morality, given to us through the Bible, then I am correct. However, I am not going to get into the absolute/relative argument here, that would take us on a huge tangent >_> But yeah, kind of weird how premises can do that to arguments, and make them both look valid, but you never really know how to counter them, and then you realized it's just a premise difference....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't quite understand what I'm getting at. Okay, the bible should of course have some power over Christianity. But we need to apply it realistically to modern society. We can't apply it to life the way people did 1900 years ago; not even 500 years ago. We've changed, and the interpretation and use of the bible has to change to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, that difference in our premises...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, you got me there. However, no matter what you say, the bible is indirectly responsible for that. That indirectness doesn't mean all that much, of course, but when religious leaders who are meant to be acting through the bible condemn such behaviour, there is a problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By condemn do you mean promote? Because I would think a religious leader condemning the crusades would have been very refreshing for the time the crusades were happening (and probably was existent, just kept out of the majority).

 

 

 

Okay, you got me there. However, no matter what you say, the bible is indirectly responsible for that. That indirectness doesn't mean all that much, of course, but when religious leaders who are meant to be acting through the bible condemn such behaviour, there is a problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By condemn do you mean promote? Because I would think a religious leader condemning the crusades would have been very refreshing for the time the crusades were happening (and probably was existent, just kept out of the majority).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Woops. I meant to say condone. I got the two mixed up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, to my knowledge and recent study in RE classes, the church turned a blind eye during the crusades. I get the feeling that now, just under 500 hundred years since Martin Luther's reforms, the church is once again heading down the wrong track. Due to freedom of speech, there is a lot criticism of the church -- which I think is good. But I still feel we'll need another reformer to abolish such absurdity (in my opinion) such as contraception and homosexual prejudice.

Woops. I meant to say condone. I got the two mixed up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, to my knowledge and recent study in RE classes, the church turned a blind eye during the crusades. I get the feeling that now, just under 500 hundred years since Martin Luther's reforms, the church is once again heading down the wrong track. Due to freedom of speech, there is a lot criticism of the church -- which I think is good. But I still feel we'll need another reformer to abolish such absurdity (in my opinion) such as contraception and homosexual prejudice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totally agree. :) Wow... did I just say that? :P

Right. So I've searched the website, scanned through all of the Gift of Scripture off the official website, and I can't find any of the sentences quoted by these newsmagazines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, these are all statements by the Catholic Church of England and Scotland. Ratzinger would hang himself before stating the bible is not true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, insane, they're saying exactly what you're accusing them of not understand. They warn against taking certain symbolic texts literally, because they find that is happening increasingly and is fueling hate between different religions. They do acknowledge these symbolics. Blogs and populist newssites are pulling this way out of proportion (sensationalism, anyone?).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If anyone does find any official documents which contain these quotes, I'd be very interested. I have a feeling they're taken very much out of context.

Yea, I wasn't disagreeing with them calling things possibly symbolic (again, they cannot be *proven* to be symbolic), I'm just very unsettled with them taking the authority upon themselves to decide which verses are "true" and "untrue"... seems realllly dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also I'm with you on that article, the new pope is extremely conservative - I can't see any of this happening with his full knowledge.

They seem to be doing well keeping this news out of mainstream press however. Shouls be FP stuff. This is quite incredible to say that parts of the bible are untrue. So if this really is the case who decides whats true and whats not? the pope?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is: Most of the bibles contents are to be read between the lines, the words behind the words...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its not to be taken literally... If you read it literally, theres probably ALOT thats wrong.

The thing is: Most of the bibles contents are to be read between the lines, the words behind the words...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its not to be taken literally... If you read it literally, theres probably ALOT thats wrong.

 

 

 

Thats whats the response you get from regular Christians when you challenege what it says but there are an incredible number of people who belive in the literal bible. Especially in America where there is currently a huge debate on the mandatory teaching of crationism in schools.

 

They seem to be doing well keeping this news out of mainstream press however. Shouls be FP stuff. This is quite incredible to say that parts of the bible are untrue. So if this really is the case who decides whats true and whats not? the pope?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is: Most of the bibles contents are to be read between the lines, the words behind the words...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its not to be taken literally... If you read it literally, theres probably ALOT thats wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But then it's too subjective. For the bible to be taught efficiently, and for people to do their best in informing the clergy, congregation, or those not a part of the religious hierarchy, there needs to be as much objectivity as humanly possible.