Is the Old Testament literal or God inspired?

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by ASUK, Jul 8, 2015.

  1. I read the statement below on another forum. Is this true? I am not trying to start anything negative here just trying to understand. Please don't turn this into an argument but rather a civilized discussion.
  2. The Old Testament is literal. In most of the Bible, God tells the writers what to write, and that is why is it inspired by God. I say most because some narrative books are written by eye witness account, such as the book of Acts and I believe the book of Joshua. This thread wouldn't turn into an argument because most of us here believe that (I hope).
    Major likes this.
  3. I didn't want an argument to start with anyone that is Catholic. I am interested in knowing if the Catholic Church teaches that the OT is mostly allegory and not to be taken literally.
  4. Now honestly. Do you really belive that this kind of question will not be argumenitive????

    Do you think that throwing gasoline on a fire will cause it to explode????

    For me personally, ALL of the Bible is God's inspired Word.

    Hebrews 1:1........
    "God who in different times and different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by His prophets".

    2 Tim. 3:16........
    "ALL of Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness".
    Grant Melville, Cturtle and Juk says Amen and like this.
  5. There are basically two conflicting views on this issue.
    The view held by most Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants is that the Bible is completely true and inerrant, essentially authored by God Himself using the human authors as proxies.

    The other view, held by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, (and essentially everyone else) is that the Bible is inerrant
    as far as salvation is concerned, but need not be accurate as far as science and history are concerned.
    boltardy likes this.
  6. Um. Couldnt you ask that to the OP that posted that statement on that forum?
    Why ask us?
    I have come across a catholic bible and read the little intro to it, and they do say it can be read allegorically or naturally. seems to me that some may believe this cos they have another book that interprets the Bible called the magisterum. Plus the catechism which is ten times fatter than the actual bible. It has all their rules what you are obligated to believe as a catholic.

    But you might want to ask an actual catholic about this, if they dont get mad at your for questioning them.
  7. Lanolin, that's real cute, you have SO MANY misconceptions about the Catholic faith I hardly know where to begin.
    But, then again, why shouldn't you? BTW, there is no such thing as a "Catholic Bible", but if you like the Bible, thank the Roman Catholic Church.
    They are the ones that compiled it for you.
  8. No they didnt. The OT was compiled waay before the catholic church even existed.

    You think the Jewish ppl thank the catholic church for the tanankh?
    As for NT you are forgetting the orthodox church had scriptures too. Also, the one i read, the KJV was translated from the original languages, not the latin, so, am not thanking the catholicchurch for that translation, since they actively opposed it being translated into English.
  9. There are Catholics on this forum. I wanted a different perspective. Each forum has is own atmosphere and I wanted to learn from this crowd. I certainly didn't mean to irritate you by asking it.
  10. Oh no I'm not mad at all, its just those who are catholic are probably mad at me for answering. I dont get it either.

    Be careful asking these sorts of questions on forums, cos theres a lot of pride within the whole catholic church. Anyone who answers thats not catholic will get shot down.
  11. I do not believe that person was speaking for Catholicism. Although they are not sola scriptura, they would not be advocating that the Old or New Testaments did not contain literal history nor, of course that is was not God-inspired.
  12. Well...if that is the case, that is very disappointing.
  13. There is a Catholic bible. It contains the Apocrypha.
    Major likes this.
  14. the second we say that the old testament is not historically, scientifically, and 100% true is the same second we disregard the authority of the bible. We automatically say that man is higher than God and that God's word is fallible.

    It is heresy and it is wrong in every way.
    Major, Cturtle, Fish Catcher Jim and 1 other person say Amen and like this.
  15. That's why I can't understand why some people basically dismiss or disregard the OT. If you say it is not true then you are saying that none of the Bible is true.
    Major and Grant Melville say Amen and like this.
  16. This is true. The important thing for these people to know is that nothing in the OT has ever been proven to be inaccurate.
    Major and Grant Melville say Amen and like this.
  17. Sorry - I don't agree.

    It is important to understand that during the first step in that process, beatification, the papal authorities allegedly supernaturally endow the dead person with the capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in his or her name. The papists believe they have jurisdiction over the dead and regularly communicate with the dead. Although its roots go back further, the doctrine of transubstantiation was officially proclaimed as dogma by Pope Innocent III in 1215 and we will handle it thoroughly shortly. But it is important to note that as the Romanists promulgated these unbiblical practices, in an effort to squash dissent, they increasingly concealed God’s revealed Word from the common man. Of course, one of the most transparent offenses occurred when the Bible was actually banned in the vernacular language. For instance, the Synod of Toulouse dictated in 1229, “We forbid lay persons to have books of the Old and New Testament.”[430] Pope Sixtus V is infamous for dogmatizing a grossly errant translation due to his own incompetence. After his demise, this poorly translated version of the Vulgate was an error his predecessors attempted to cover up with a revised version, blaming the voluminous mistakes on the printer.[431] While the pope was at liberty to botch the job, great men of God like William Tyndale were burned at the stake for translating the Bible into the vernacular. If one thinks back to the medieval period, the priests had a virtual stranglehold on biblical truth. Before heroic men like Huss, Erasmus, Luther, Wycliffe, and Tyndale began to translate, and before Gutenberg’s celebrated Bible was mass-produced, it was simply not possible for a peasant in a hinterland village to read and study God’s word. Peasants were largely illiterate, but even if they could read, they likely had no comprehension of Latin, much less Hebrew and Greek. According to a source on occultism, “Books were viewed with suspicion or superstition. The Bible, as the physical manifestation of the word of God, was held in awe and reverence, like some kind of icon or talisman.”[432] Ordinary people were necessarily at the complete mercy of the priests.
    Horn, Thomas; Putnam, Cris D. (2012-04-15). Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope Is Here (Kindle Locations 5755-5774). Defender Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
    Grant Melville and Euphemia say Amen and like this.
  18. Allegory = Symbolism = Parable is not saying True or Not True is not a question of True or No True story.

    It's function is to address the core = essential = principle = what is more important, of a story.

    Just sayin… avoid wrong conclusions….
  19. It's quite a coincidence, but I just read the following a few minutes earlier:

    "It is important to bear in mind that whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning. They were not written for those who lived at the time. The things recorded happened to them as examples, but the record of them is for us. Therefore we go back to these things and take them up as types. We get now the anti-type, that is the reality. We get a great deal of typical teaching in the Old Testament. We often find in the Old Testament the detail of things; in the New we have the principles and facts. In the Old Testament you get the sacrifice of Christ in detail; in the New, the fact."*

    If we regard the Old Testament as either not inspired, only partially inspired, or allegorical in any way, we lose out on this wealth of typical teaching, "the detail of things". These aren't insignificant details either, these are things concerning the Lord Jesus Himself. It should be noted as well that an allegory is not a type.

    * 'Readings and Addresses in U.S.A. and Canada with F.E.R. 1898, page 15: 'Provision for the Wilderness - Priesthood and the Water of Purification' (Quebec, Tuesday Evening, October 4, 1898)
    Euphemia, Abdicate, Major and 1 other person say Amen and like this.
  20. The Apocrypha used to be part of all Bibles. And still is part of Bibles used by the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Thomasine and
    some Protestants groups (you know, most all Christians). You are implying that the Bible used by most Catholics is in some way different or inferior
    than the one used by Fundies. That is not the case.

Share This Page