Posted on 01/23/2022 5:59:01 AM PST by ADSUM
One of the most common questions about biblical interpretation is how much of the Bible ought to be taken “literally.” That’s a tricky question to answer, because the word literal actually has two distinct (but related) meanings.
When the Catechism of the Catholic Church talks about the literal sense of Scripture, it’s referring to “the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation” (116). It’s in this sense that the Church endorses St. Thomas Aquinas’s adage that “all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” So if we mean literal in this older sense, we should always start by taking Scripture literally. Whatever else the Bible might mean, it means what its authors intended.
The Church historically speaks of the “four senses” of Scripture (CCC 118). In addition to the literal sense, there are three spiritual senses. We can see within the biblical text an allegorical meaning (for instance, foreshadowing the coming of Christ), a moral sense (giving us instruction for today), and an anagogical sense (in which we “view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland” [CCC 117]). Among the three spiritual senses, the allegorical looks back to the life and ministry of Christ, the moral looks at our lives today, and the anagogical looks at where we’re ultimately headed.
The New American Bible (NAB), was the American bishop's official* Bible for use in America, including the edition provided by the Vatican's own web site, [2002 Copyright: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM], and continues to be approved for use by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), though the official Bible for America is now the Revised Edition (NABRE). However, the revivisons are few, with few differences that I am aware of as regards what follows here in criticism of the NAB. Both the NAB and NABRE impugn the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and by relegating numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, among other denials, along with other problems which even some Catholics complain about.
In addition, some NAB footnotes assert alleged contradictions in Scripture, and Catholics are divided on whether the Vatican Two statement in Dei Verbum (which was seen as a response to a behind-the-scenes debate at Vatican II about inerrancy), that the Bible “teaches without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation," supports the position that the Bible is only immune from error within a certain limited area, versus what Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus and Pope Benedict XV Spiritus Paraclitus state. However, the real authority for Catholics is their self-proclaimed infallible magisterium, although there is disagreement as to how many infallible statements there are, and the full meaning of these as well as multiple other non-infallible teachings can be subject to some interpretation.
I myself first became aware of the basic liberal bent in the NAB when reading the notes in the NAB, St. Joseph’s medium size, Catholic publishing co., copyright 1970, which has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur stamps of sanction. The NAB has gone through revisions, but I have found the same O. T. footnotes in “The Catholic Study Bible,” Oxford University Press, 1990, which also has the proper stamps, and uses the 1970 O.T. text and the 1986 revised N.T. And a Roman Catholic apologist using the 1992 version also lists some of the same errors described below, and is likewise critical of the liberal scholarship behind it (though he elsewhere denigrated Israel as illegally occupying Palestine), while a Roman Catholic cardinal is also crtical of the NAB on additional grounds.
The study aids therein teaches that, "The Bible is God’s word and man’s word. One must understand man’s word first in order to understand the word of God." ("A Library of Books," p. 19) and warns,
“You may hear interpreters of the Bible who are literalists or fundamentalists. They explain the Bible according to the letter: Eve really ate from the apple and Jonah was miraculously kept alive in the belly of the whale. Then there are ultra-liberal scholars who qualify the whole Bible as another book of fairly tales. Catholic Bible scholars follow the sound middle of the road.” (15. “How do you know”)
However, they are clearly driving on the left.
It “explains”, under “Literary Genres” (p. 19) that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.
It next states that the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson. After all, its understanding that “Inspiration is guidance” means that Scripture is “God’s word and man’s word.” What this means is that the NAB rejects such things as that the Bible's attribution of Divine sanction to wars of conquest, “cannot be qualified as revelation from God,” and states,
Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." (4. "Inspiration and Revelation," p. 18)
It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.” (8. “The Bible on God.”)
The Preface to Genesis in my St. Joseph's 1970 NAB edition attributes it to many authors, rather than Moses as indicated in Dt. 31:24, and the footnote to Gn. 1:5 refers to the days of creation as a “highly artificial literal structure.”
The footnote in online NABRE (http://www.usccb.org/bible/gn/1:26#01001026-1) to Gn. 1:26 states that “sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth,” thus negating this as literal, while God refers to Himself in the plural (“Us” or “Our”) 6 times in the OT. Likewise, the footnote to Ex. 10:19 (http://www.usccb.org/bible/ex/10:19#02010019-1) regarding the Red Sea informs readers regarding what the Israelites crossed over that it is literally the Reed Sea, which was “probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters! And after affirming all of the Bible is the word of of, in its preface to the Pentateuch, it asks, "How should a modern religiously minded person read the Pentateuch?," and in answering that it asserts (consistent with the aforementioned discredited liberal JEDP theory, which holds the Pentateuch was not written mainly by Moses, but was the work of later writers, editors and redactors as late as the sixth century BC), "The story had to be reinterpreted, and the Priestly editor is often credited with doing so. A preface (Gn 1) was added, emphasizing God’s intent that human beings continue in existence through their progeny and possess their own land. Good news, surely, to a devastated people wondering whether they would survive and repossess their ancestral land. The ending of the old story was changed to depict Israel at the threshold of the promised land (the plains of Moab) rather than in it." (http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?src=_intros/pentateuch-intro.htm) The NABRE footnote (http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/6#01006001-1) in regards to Gn. 6 and the sons of heaven having relations with the daughters of men explains it as “apparently alluding to an old legend.” and explains away the flood as a story that “ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood.” Its teaching also imagines the story as being a composite account with discrepancies. The 1970 footnote on Gen. 6:1-4 states, “This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology.” Such prevails after almost 50 years even on the Vatican web site. It goes on to explain the “sons of heaven” are “the celestial beings of mythology.” In addition, the NAB notes even the ages of the patriarchs after the flood are deemed to be “artificial and devoid of historical value.” (Genesis 11:10-26) The NABRE note here (http://www.usccb.org/bible/gn/11:10#01011010) on the pre-flood life spans basically impugns them as literal by saying, "It may be an attempt to show that the pre-flood generations were extraordinary and more vital than post-flood human beings." Such rejection of historical accounts aqs literal is consistent with the American bishops attack on "biblical fundamentalism" (which imagines such thing as that it teaches the Bible has all the direct answers for living), and in which they assert, "We do not look upon the Bible as an authority for science or history." (https://stmchapelhill.org/documents/2016/10/Pastoral%20Statement%20For%20Catholics%20On%20Biblical%20Fundamentalism.pdf) The NABRE still fosters a non-historical understanding of certain stories which the NT treats as literal historical accounts, such as saying of the book of Jonah, "As to genre, it has been classified in various ways, such as parable or satire" without mentioning the classic (and correct) literal view. All of which impugns the overall literal nature the O.T. historical accounts, and as Scripture interprets Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit refers to such stories as being literal historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac, Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14). Indeed “the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and if such an account as that of Jonah and the whale is rejected as literally true, then so can the resurrection which the Lord likened to the story of Jonah: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40) And Israel's history is always and inclusively treated as literal. The NABRE (Nihil Obstat; Imprimatur) carries on this liberal tradition, stating such things as Many of the biblical stories are shaped according to traditional literary or mythic patterns that make their reliability suspect. For example, the common Near Eastern myth popularly known as the conflict myth, one that describes a young warrior-god’s rise to kingship by defeating an old god or force who poses a threat to the order and stability of the world, is transformed by the biblical writers into a literary pattern that shapes the stories of the Exodus, Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, and Saul’s election as king. Many other stories utilize such literary patterns. The traditional motif of the barren mother of an important person, for example, is used in the stories of Sarai and Isaac, Rachel and Joseph, and Hannah and Samuel. The biblical writers’ use of traditional literary and mythic patterns to tell their stories of Israel calls into question not only the narrative of the events but also the historical value of many details of the stories. This particular style of the biblical writers does not necessarily mean that no actual events lie beneath the narrative, but at the very least it indicates that the presentation of such events has been shaped to conform to a traditional interpretive framework... The story of the Israelites’ ancestors in Genesis is composed of numerous, originally independent folk tales.... some aspects of the story [of Exodus] cannot be historical." Likewise Job is a "reworked folktale." Regarding the Gospels, the teaching of my 1970 NAB speculates that some of the miracle stories of Jesus in the New Testament (the fulfillment of of the Hebrew Bible) may be “adaptations” of similar ones in the Old Testament, and that the Lord may not have actually been involved in the debates the gospel writers record He was in, and thinks that most of which Jesus is recorded as saying was probably “theological elaboration” by the writers. Going beyond the Holy Spirit condensing or expanding the words of Christ, as seen by duplicate accounts, it states under "Reading the Gospels, “The Church was so firmly convinced that the risen Lord who is Jesus of history lived in her, and taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus’ sayings. The words are not Jesus but from the Church.” “Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus, as for example those put together by Matthew in chapter 5, 1-12” It does allow that the slaughter of the innocents by King Herod, was “extremely probable,” and that people leaving Bethlehem to escape the massacre, is equally probable, but outside the historical background to this tradition, “the rest is interpretation.” This means is taught as justified due to the authors intent. It additionally conveys such things as that Matthew placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel, and may have only represented Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, to show that Jesus wa the s like Moses who received the law on Mount Sinai. (St. Joseph edition, 1970; How to read your Bible, "The Gospels," 13e, f, g. and i) It is a slippery slope when historical statements are made out to be literary devices, and Muslims have taken advantage of the NAB's liberal hermeneutic to impugn the veracity of the Bible, http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/nab.htm. The NAB study Bible also espouses a “Conditioned thought patterns” (7) hermeneutic which paves the way for the specious argumentation of feminists who seek to negate the headship of the man as being due to condescension to culture, a very dangerous hermeneutic, and unwarranted when dealing with such texts as 1Cor. 11:3. In addition, the NAB as well as the slghtly revised version, the NABRE, will not use render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as simply rendering the words for fornication/fornicator as "immorality" or "immoral persons" among the many occurrences of the words for sexual immorality. (Matthew 5:32 Matthew 15:19 Matthew 19:9 Mark 7:21 John 8:41 Acts 15:20 Acts 15:29 Acts 21:25 Romans 1:29 1 Corinthians 5:1 1 Corinthians 5:9 1 Corinthians 5:10 1 Corinthians 5:11 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Corinthians 6:13 1 Corinthians 6:18 1 Corinthians 5:9 ,10,11; 7:2; 6:9; 1 Corinthians 10:8 2 Corinthians 12:21 Galatians 5:19 Ephesians 5:3 Colossians 3:5 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Hebrews 12:16 Jude 7 Revelation 2:14,20,21; 9:21; 14:8;17:2,4; 18:3,9; 19:2) even though in most cases it is in a sexual context. And in addition to not calling fornication just that, is the preference for gender-neutral language being the norm. A RC reviewer says of the NABRE: ...with the NABRE, the U.S. Bishops have used inclusive language more extensively than ever before. Masculine references are obscured or neutered. But of course all feminine references are retained. The use of the Biblical phrase ‘sons of Israel’, indicating the Israelites as a group led by men, which is thoroughly attested to in manuscripts, is utterly rejected. References using the term ‘man’ and to mankind using the term ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ are also rephrased. The only exception seems to be in the Psalms, which allows some traditional phrasings, such as ‘Blessed is the man’ and ‘the son of man’. However, even the Psalms have substantial use of inclusive language in many places. However, one difference amid the many revisions (4) of the NAB is that the 1970 NAB has “justice” (which perhaps the social gospel Catholics preferred) over “righteousness' in such places as Rom 4:5,6, and that David “celebrates” the man..., while the online NAB has “But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the unGodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works”. On the other hand there are Catholics who only sanction the Douay-Rheims Bible (which is not approved for reading by the American bishops (http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/index.cfm)), yet Roman Catholic apologists criticize it as well. Faced with the problem of advocating the need for the teaching office of their church, which is supposed to provide sure guidance in to all Truth, and the reality that the teaching office is leading souls into error, some Catholics attempt to dismiss the note in their Bible as not being commissioned or sanctioned under their church. However, these note are actually required, and are sanctioned to be published by the magisterial oversight. The Constitution of Leo XIII, Officiorum ac Munerum, (January 25, 1897) expressly prohibits the publication of a vernacular translation of Holy Writ without “annotations drawn from the Holy Fathers of the Church and from learned Catholic writers:” “Since experience teaches that if the Holy Bible is indistinctly permitted in the vernacular it derives from it, because of the imprudence of men, more harm than utility; consequently all the versions in the vernacular, even published by Catholic people, are absolutely forbidden, unless they are approved by the Holy See, or published under the supervision of the Bishops with notes taken from the Holy Fathers of the Church and learned Catholic writers.” (https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_l-xiii_apc_18970125_officiorum-ac-munerum.html) The 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 1391 includes Catholic writers as such commentators. The revised code of 1983, canon 825 regarding this, simply requires such to be provided with "necessary and sufficient annotations." And it additionally states that books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations. (The American Ecclesiastical Review; edited by Herman Joseph Heuser, Volume 58, p. 437; http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM; http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM) The NAB itself is a result of from Pope Pius XII who in 1943 issued an encyclical letter (the Divino afflante Spiritu) in which he encouraged Roman Catholic scholars to make translations of the Bible from the original languages rather than only from the Latin Vulgate. Likewise regarding notes, Pope Pius XII stated, "Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books—legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical—there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised , so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church." (Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pius XII, 30 September 1943, Section 47 And the publication of the corrupt "New American Bible" that resulted was after it obtained the necessary approvals from the Bishops and the Vatican, under the supposedly "watchful" eye of Pope Paul VI in 1970 and the Catholic magisterium which Catholics would have us trust and submit to as the supreme authority on Truth, over that of Scripture. (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=45541857&CFTOKEN=30609021) * Statements regarding the progression of the NAB before the NABRE replaced it. Another revision is expected around 2025. Catholic sources stated: There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.” http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm The New American Bible (1970) was adopted by the US bishops for use in the Lectionary. However, the revised Lectionary in use in US churches today incorporates RNAB texts, and it required correction before it could be approved for use in the liturgy. (http://www.adoremus.org/0705ChoosingBible.html) The lectionary readings are based upon the 1970 Old Testament including Psalter and 1986 New Testament, but with revisions for liturgical use, mainly replacing pronouns with their antecedents and supplying brief introductory titles. Presently (as of 2013), the only English text of the Lectionary approved for use in the latin-rite Dioceses of the United States of America is the Lectionary based on the NAB with Revised New Testament (sometimes unofficially referred to as the RNAB). The NABRE is expected be incorporated, but which is expected to be a decade or more away. (Mary Elizabeth Sperry, Associate Director, Permissions and Bible Utilization, USCCB Publishing) The original version of the New American Bible (NAB) was published in 1970. The translation of the New Testament was revised and published in 1986. The translation of the Book of Psalms (the Psalter) was revised in 1991. A revision of the translation of the Old Testament, including the Psalter, was published in March 2011...[Mass] readings are typically read from a Lectionary, not a Bible, though the Lectionary is taken from the Bible. -http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/faq.cfm The U.S. bishops state that “any translation of the Sacred Scriptures that has received proper ecclesiastical approval ‒ namely, by the Apostolic See or a local ordinary prior to 1983, or by the Apostolic See or an episcopal conference following 1983 ‒ may be used by the Catholic faithful for private prayer and study.” After 1983 only the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences have authority to approve Bible translations. The USCCB (American bishops) owns the copyright for the NAB and its revisions including the NABRE.
And unlike as I just showed in my post above, you quote Catholic Answers - a propagandist - but where is their Nihil Obstat + Imprimatur? Or does that no matter anymore in your org?
I’ve always felt literalism was a bad word choice here. The Bible is replete with parables and metaphors that are not literal in the regular understanding of what literal means.
It’s a barrier when we have to say hat the Bible is literal, but not literal in the way that the dictionary defines literal.
Oh man, I was sure the answer was “Read it in Hebrew, like G-d spoke it.”
Meaning as taught (source: Vatican.va) in your notes (which are required) just to be begin with:
[Genesis 6:4] "They were the heroes of old, the men of renown." "The heroes of old: the legendary worthies of ancient mythology."
[Genesis 6:5] "The story of the great flood here recorded is a composite narrative based on two separate sources ...Both biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic."
[Joshua 10:13] "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,... The sun halted in the middle of the sky; not for a whole day did it resume its swift course" "The sun halted: though it is widely supposed that this passage describes in popular language and according to external appearances a miraculous lengthening of the day, it is equally probable that Joshua's prayer was rather for an abrupt obscuration of the sun, which would impede his enemies in their flight homeward and also prevent them from rallying their forces; this request would have been answered by the hailstorm (cf ⇒ Sirach 46:5) and by a darkness relieved only twenty-four hours later, well into the next day."
And those are just for starters. So much for the literal sense of historical acounts.
Isn't it amazing how threatened Catholics are by Adam and Eve, Noah, and Jonah's fish? You'd think they all ran abortion clinics or something.
PS: This is where Francis came from. Just keep it up.
Your comment: “Please. The RCC is not the source to recommend on how to understand the Bible.”
I disagree. Jesus authorized his Catholic Church to infallibly interpret the Bible.
Jesus guarantees that the Church’s definitive decisions would be backed up by the authority of heaven itself. So radical is this authority that he would also say of his Church, “If they receive you they receive me; if they reject you, they reject me” (Matt. 10:40; cf. Luke 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 3:10; 4:11-15, etc.). This does not mean just some kind of authority, but an infallible authority, i.e., the authority of Christ himself.
Your reputation as an anti-Catholic is apparent, perhaps if you used fewer words and explained your objections to the article with clarity more people would understand your comments.
Whatever else the Bible might mean, it means what its authors intended.
Did God write the Bible or did man?
Different individuals wrote the books of the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church.
It was not until the Synod of Rome under Pope Damasus in A.D. 382, followed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, that the Catholic Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn’t.
During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.
Different individuals wrote the books of the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church.
It was not until the Synod of Rome under Pope Damasus in A.D. 382, followed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, that the Catholic Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn’t.
During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.
Different individuals wrote the books of the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Who did he write it to?
Where does this literally say this in the Bible? The word "Catholic" is not in the Bible. Neither is Pope come to think of it. And none of the Apostles were Catholic either. They were Judaeo-Christian (Jews who believed in Jesus as the Christ). They worshiped on the Sabbath as did Jesus. They had no central leader (Pope). And not one of them claimed "infallibility". So, I disagree with your disagreement.
Many Protestant or non-denominational churches claim that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible. Actually, Protestant churches either took these books out of the Bible or downplayed their authority. This is easily verifiable, and anyone who does not know this (whether they are for or against it) might be questionable on other things they assert about the Bible. The Orthodox also recognize these books (with some slight changes). Anglicans use these seven books to some extent, as do some Lutherans.
All who want eternal life. The world was the intended receptor but the world knew Him not.
The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible either. The Trinity is true, but it took years to kind of get a handle on it, not that we can perfectly understand it. Also, there was a church long before there was a Bible as we know it. It took years for what books would be in the New Testament to be finalized. I guess one could be stubborn and assert that this was just an accident and God didn’t have a hand in it...
The Holy spirit inspired, but it was written by men for all of us so that we may know God and join Him in Heaven.
God inspires all of us in our hearts and conscience to seek God and God’s Truth.
God will answer our prayer to know that he exists. Just ask “Who is there .... is anyone there?” By asking that question, sincerely and humbly, we are opening the door to God. John 10:9
A fine example of when NOT to take the bible literally is when the spies searched the land and brought back a bad report of the people being so tall “We were as grasshoppers before them!”
Scared men hiding in the brush seeing maybe 6-6.5 ft tall warriors walking by showed their fear by exaggerating their height.
This has not kept some bible studies for kids from showing 200 ft tall men and the Israelites as small as grasshoppers before them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.