I agree what you said is an idiotic notion and, if you actually examined the meaning, you would have to admit that you are a literalist, too. Now, no one's saying that everything the Bible says must be taken literally, not even Literalists. So just as when Jesus uses allegories, allusion, figurative language and parables, we can know when something is or isn't to be taken literally. I hope you're not saying you are a "Figurativist" are you? Certainly, you MUST accept that at least some things are meant literally, don't you?
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says:
WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy)
Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[5] Also literalism does not necessarily lead to total and complete agreement upon one single interpretation for any given passage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
What I gather from your past posts, is you do not believe the Bible is inerrant nor that it contains literal truths. This, I think, is your loss.
I for the life of me cannot see what the problem is. In Genesis 2 there is no specific chronological order given. Genesis 1 specifically states on which day each thing was created. Genesis 2 simply reiterates what was done and gives a more specific description of the Garden of Eden. There are no contradictions.
Of course Catholics are Bible literalists. When it suits them.
Or their doctrine.
Pardon?
What I gather from your past posts, is you do not believe the Bible is inerrant nor that it contains literal truths. This, I think, is your loss.
I think that the Bible is infallible Revelation of God written down by fallible men. Until Protestants accept that, they will continue to invent increasing novelties and try to substitute them for Christianity.
What I gather from your past posts, is you do not believe the Bible is inerrant nor that it contains literal truths. This, I think, is your loss.Here is a truth for you to follow then:
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “You do go to confession regularly, right?