[The Lumster]

I believe that you are misunderstanding the Pope's comments: he does not believe that the word of God can be altered for expedient purposes

And I believe you are making excuses for what he actually said. He stated that there is:
an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations

I'll take him at his word. He believes the Bible can and must be adapted. I disagree.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 1 Tim 3:16

[rpage3]

See my post # 6 on this thread:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1277705/posts

Is it possible that the MSM know that this is true and therefore does not care to mention it? I mean, how often do we see reports of, "the sun will rise tomorrow morning?"

[A.A. Cunningham]

And I believe you are making excuses for what he actually said. He stated that there is:

You linguistic literalists never learn. You're commenting on what Fessio says the Pope said, not on a quoted transcript of Pope Benedicts' remarks.

[mojito]

I fail to see how the Pope's comment in any way dispute your quote from Timothy; rather I think they confirm them.

[StAnDeliver]

"an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations"

"He believes the Bible can and must be adapted"

Yea, what exactly are you having the problem with, comprehension-wise?

What the Pope has said (if this is indeed reliable hearsay), is no different than any FReeper, as Constitutionalists, stating that the Second Amendment protects ownership of firearms that had not been conceived of at the time of the Constitution's creation.

This is the greatest Gospel-as-God's-Unerring-Truth Pope anyone alive will ever see in their lifetimes, and also one of the era's foremost logicians.

You may be permitting your prejudices to warp your hasty interpretation. I hope not.

[Remole]

How do you account for the fact that St. Paul, at the end of ch 15 of 1st Corinthians, deliberately uses the opposite meaning of the OT text? This text of St. Paul is a good example of how the early Church itself, and not some horrid Catholic Pope, feels free to adjust the meaning of a Bible text in service to a larger truth.