No. The dictionary also supports me, as in "reproduced word for word : EXACT, VERBATIM". Assume that we have a conversation that I tape record, and you use an allegory to illustrate a point. I then go to another friend to explain this teaching. I stumble through the story that you told, so my friend asks me "what were his (your) literal words"? I play the tape and say "those were Joe's literal words". No one would then claim that the story must be taken literally.
I don't believe that any interpretation from man was needed to write the actual words of the scriptures. Interpretation comes later from the Spirit through fallible men. You must assume that God's word includes the interpretations of men (whom I call "the scribes"), which may be why you appear to have a much lower regard for scripture than Protestants.
A book CANNOT interpret itself! The Church treasured the writings of the Apostles - who had long ago died. They compiled the writings they left. Found within the Scriptures is all we need to know for salvation - BUT, it is not always clearly and explicitly laid out.
Why not, especially when you start with wonderful premises such as "God doesn't lie" and "God doesn't contradict Himself"? Within that framework, we can certainly make interpretations based on other scripture. I agree that not everything is explicitly laid out, but on some things, good Christians may disagree. I believe the core issues are not like that for most Protestants, they are reasonably clear. I suppose this means that Protestants must believe to a higher degree that Christianity is a revealed faith.
The problem, then, is that you accept the authority of Scriptures, but not the same body who wrote and collated it - identifying and verifying it, that the Bible is, INDEED, the Word of God. How can a fallible group of men determine what are infallible writings and infallibly compile them into one book? Without making ONE mistake?
Yes, exactly! How could such men do that? The answer is that they could not. Instead, God did it all. Men were used for physical labor, but contributed nothing of substance. All the glory for God's holy word goes to God, not men.
Men throughout the Church could not agree on 2 Peter, for example, and whether it was inspired. This went on past 250 AD! God made His "decision" through men. That's the way God works. If the Bible came to us like you say, it would have fell from the sky, a la Koran, and there would have been NO dispute.
Partially answered above. I only wanted to add that I dispute that there would have been no dispute. :) Wasn't Mohammed's style to say "believe this teaching, or I'll kill you"? Since we don't do that, I see it as being perfectly natural for fallible men, in different stages of sanctification, to greatly disagree on what is to be the perfect truth made into the Bible. I would expect it. That's why I believe that God took no chances and made it all happen Himself.
My brother, the Bible is not the exact, verbatim words of God...One only needs to look at the Resurrection of our Lord and the accounts of it in the Gospels. They differ! Now, if GOD HIMSELF was "dictating" the words, how did HE become so confused? No, the reason why the Gospels differ on the account of the Resurrection is because there are THEOLOGICAL issues behind the words. Each synoptic writer is appealing to different people and bringing out a different message. Religious teaching is their primary concern, not historical conventions.
Also, IF the Bible was the LITERAL Word of God, and you read it like a Muslim, then would you suggest to another that they should cut off their arm or cast out their eye because it "causes them to sin"? The LITERAL Word of God leaves no such room for interpreting these words as hyperbole! They are from the "lips" of God! Really, I can't believe that you think the Bible is LITERALLY God's Word for Word dictated to the writers!
Assume that we have a conversation that I tape record, and you use an allegory to illustrate a point. I then go to another friend to explain this teaching. I stumble through the story that you told, so my friend asks me "what were his (your) literal words"? I play the tape and say "those were Joe's literal words". No one would then claim that the story must be taken literally.
The analogy falls short, because I am not God. If God says we do something - we do it. There is no room for trying to justify our own idea of what He "really" means...And secondly, the Gospels do not record the EXACT words in Synoptic parallels. There are subtle changes that the author makes to emphasize a religious point. The Bible is not primarily a historical book, it is a religious book meant to supplement the already-held Apostolic Traditions taught orally in person by the Apostles!
You must assume that God's word includes the interpretations of men (whom I call "the scribes"), which may be why you appear to have a much lower regard for scripture than Protestants.
Ouch, that's not fair...I consider the Scripture as the Word of God. But written words are subject to interpretation. Again, our verse regarding 'cutting your hand off if it causes you to sin'. Isn't this subject to human interpretation of God's Words? Christianity has been flexible over its reading of some of the Scriptures over time because people change. Our understanding of God's Word GROWS! We take into account other's views, commentaries, and development of thought. Certainly, Scripture is viewed through the lense of our past Traditions, our views of what Scripture means. God's Actual Word, on the other hand, is unchanging. Romans 12:1 has a meaning to GOD. Perhaps many meanings finely intertwined. And man has yet to unravel its fullest meanings that HE has intended for that verse.
Within that framework, we can certainly make interpretations based on other scripture
Because Scripture seems to contradict itself sometimes. For example, Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. We KNOW that God cannot contradict Himself. So WE must figure out what God is trying to say - how are we saved? This takes human interpretation - and it should be obvious by now that we don't agree on our interpretations. IF the Bible was so clear on self-interpretation, would there be a multitude of Protestant denominations? How can man read God's "clear" Word so differently, on such important matters as salvation and Baptism??
I agree that not everything is explicitly laid out, but on some things, good Christians may disagree
I ask you to carefully think out what you are saying here. Christians can disagree on GOD'S WORDS???? If they are God's LITERAL WORDS, HOW can Christians disagree over God's meaning? It seems very obvious to me that there is some confusion going on here. Either God's Word is literal and there is no disagreement over it, no re-interpretation or spin, or God wrote the Bible through men as a supplement to an already-held interpretation of Christ's teachings.
I suppose this means that Protestants must believe to a higher degree that Christianity is a revealed faith.
Unfortunatly, many do not act like it is. A revealed faith means it is given to you. You accept the interpretation given - you don't make up your own in contradiction to what was given. However, one of the major tenants of the Reformation (that Luther himself regretted later) was that men can come to the Bible THEMSELVES and figure it out. This is NOT a revealed faith, but a faith through one's own reason and emotions. Given our fallen state, it is hopeless to come to agreement on what even core verses mean. All I have to say on this is "Eucharist". That should be clear that some Christians do not consider Christianity a revealed religion.
Instead, God did it all. Men were used for physical labor, but contributed nothing of substance. All the glory for God's holy word goes to God, not men.
I have said time and time again that the Church's infallibility is based on the Spirit, not man's own abilities... The point is that God works THROUGH men. Isn't this clear throughout Scriptures?
Wasn't Mohammed's style to say "believe this teaching, or I'll kill you"?
If you had a book that was "from God DIRECTLY" that said "kill infidels" - what the heck would you do?
Since we don't do that
Which should clearly tell us that we don't think the book is written LITERALLY by God - otherwise, there'd be a lot of people without hands or eyes.
I see it as being perfectly natural for fallible men, in different stages of sanctification, to greatly disagree on what is to be the perfect truth made into the Bible
I will close by saying - what's the point of having a book if no one can agree on what it MEANS? God didn't give us a Book to confuse man, to leave us in the dark about the TRUTH - and there can only be ONE truth. God IS truth. He isn't so non-chalant as you seem to be about "disagreement". The NT is quite against dissent and disagreement among various communities. But you say it's OK? Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears YOU are picking and choosing what the 'literal' word of God means. The Scripture clearly says "no dissent", but you say "it's OK". I am confused on your real stand regarding Scriptures.
Regards