Is the Old Testament literal or God inspired?

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.
I'll just say one thing. "But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, and the God of Jacob '? "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken."". You assumption that all those who have gone on are in some way dead, is unbiblical.
 
I should have been clearer about what I disagreed on - I used a passage in a book. And I really love ya, Glomung, but tho there have been some great Catholic scholars, they did not give us our book or our canon. On the point of physical death and eternal life - we are agreed. On the point that we should pray to anyone other than God and or Christ, we don't agree.
 
"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."*
Amen, I agree with the excerpt above, there is indeed wealth of information in the details (OT).... and we can see in NT how our Teacher, Jesus Christ, focusing on the Principles, on the Spirit of the Law rather than the details/ text of the Law...


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)

Although I do not seem to understand how you see the excerpt….

I was about to ask what you meant by “allegory is not a type” I google it with a quote, and here I found:
“From this perspective, allegory is not a type of anti-mimetic deconstruction but rather realist representation par excellence

I happen to be more of a Literalist, btw, just plain conversation....or discussion : )
 
Last edited:
I was about to ask what you meant by “allegory is not a type” I google it with a quote, and here I found:
“From this perspective, allegory is not a type of anti-mimetic deconstruction but rather realist representation par excellence
Wow! That's quite a sentence. :D I can't quite get my head around it! What I meant was that just because something is type, doesn't mean it's allegory, in that much of the Old Testament narrative is an actual account of events which happened, which are also typical. On the other hand, an allegory, or parable, can be a type. For example, the Samaritan in Luke 10, really typical of Christ.
 
Wow! That's quite a sentence. :D

“From this perspective, allegory is not a type of anti-mimetic deconstruction but rather realist representation par excellence

I think I can quite agree on that description/sentence : )

Say: 2 or more real life stories of person in a country ruled by repressive government….
A hero of a writer, can be inspired to write an allegory story that can combine all those real life stories into the life of one Protagonist…that is more engaging to read, rather than all those person account... and it does not jeopardize the core of the message....

Again, just to clarify, I believe the Genesis, etc. stories are on a real account basis, rather than allegory…

Just sayin… that we are not quick to say that if Christians take a story as allegory : it still consistent that they do believe as well that the Bible is of Inerrancy and Divinely inspired.....
 
Last edited:
Just sayin… that we are not quick to say that if Christians take a story as allegory (say the Rich man and Lazarus) : it still consistent that they do believe as well that the Bible is of Inerrancy and Divinely inspired.....
Oh, yes. The two things are quite consistent, I agree!
 
  • Like
Reactions: aha
I think you may have your answer...someone posted that they think the catholic church actually compiled the OT.
Like they found all these ancient writings and put the catholic church stamp on it 'property of catholics only, all non catholics keep out'.

Unbelievable!
 
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.

It was never part of God's word. The Apocrypha is inferior with regard to accuracy about God Himself.
 
Back
Top