Some Christians take the Bible literally.
Some do not - they take a heck of a lot of it, especially the old Testament as allegory.
In fact, most mainstream denomination do not - even if they are Protestant.
Apostolic denominations - Anglicans, Orthodox, and Catholics, have no problem with evolution.
Originally, the Church canonized the Bible.
This means many men over thousands of years wrote thousands of scrolls and "holy" texts in many languages, mostly later translated into Hebrew and Greek.
Then some more men, well after Christianity existed, - remember Christianity existed long before the Bible - took all these texts and scrolls, and prayed, and meditated, and discussed and decided which ones were divinely inspired.
Remember this was done by a church held later to be fallible by most protestants, but also held to have not been fallible at this particular time when they canonized the Bible. They only became fallible, afterwards in 1542.
No copy of the text originally canonized is known to exist today.
Without the Church, no one would have any idea what was in the Bible. Only the religious elite had any idea what it said. Christianity was something of a 3 legged stool. You had Scripture, the teaching of the Church, and tradition.
¡°Sola Scriptura¡± (Scripture alone) is a new idea from around the Protestant reformation. You see, once you reject the teachings of the church, your sole authority must rely completely on the Bible.
So what?
What are the problems with this? Well, we have no original copies of the Bible. And, we do have copies with errors. We know this because we can compare old remaining texts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus 4th century and Codex Vaticanus, from around 1209. They are partially incomplete and contain different versions of the same passages. These are not malicious errors, some monk simply made a few mistakes, omitting, or repeating passages as he scribed the text by hand with a quill under candlelight. Surely you can understand that even with the best intentions, mistakes were made.
Examples of errors in th Bible:
A:
Mark 16: 9 ¨C 20
The most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.
Mark ends at 16:8 Mark 16 9-20 were added later
Not inerrant
B:
1 Kings 7:26
It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.
2 Chronicles 4
It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held three thousand baths.
two thousand != three thousand?
C:
Mathew 27:9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."
Zechariah 11:12 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
Jeremiah != Zechariah
D:
Mark 15:26 The written notice of the charge against him read:
THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Matthew 27:37Above his head they placed the written charge against him:
THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Luke 23:38 There was a written notice above him, which read:|
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:
JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
These give great credence to the truth of the matter, but they are certainly not inerrant - at least 3 of them contain the wrong writing.
The Church existed before the New Testament.
Men of this Church decided which ancient scrolls were canon.
These were repeatedly copied by hand by monks and mistakes were made.
Some Churches accept the deuterocanonical texts, while others reject it:
One of them must not be inerrant.
Inerrancy is necessary neither for salvation nor spiritual guidance.
Once the teachings of the church or its guidance are rejected, as in the reformation, you are almost forced to accept biblical inerrancy, otherwise where is the authority? This dilemma is at the heart of the conflict between Christians, non-Christians, and folks who take the Bible literally or in errantly.
Some do not - they take a heck of a lot of it, especially the old Testament as allegory.
In fact, most mainstream denomination do not - even if they are Protestant.
Apostolic denominations - Anglicans, Orthodox, and Catholics, have no problem with evolution.
Originally, the Church canonized the Bible.
This means many men over thousands of years wrote thousands of scrolls and "holy" texts in many languages, mostly later translated into Hebrew and Greek.
Then some more men, well after Christianity existed, - remember Christianity existed long before the Bible - took all these texts and scrolls, and prayed, and meditated, and discussed and decided which ones were divinely inspired.
Remember this was done by a church held later to be fallible by most protestants, but also held to have not been fallible at this particular time when they canonized the Bible. They only became fallible, afterwards in 1542.
No copy of the text originally canonized is known to exist today.
Without the Church, no one would have any idea what was in the Bible. Only the religious elite had any idea what it said. Christianity was something of a 3 legged stool. You had Scripture, the teaching of the Church, and tradition.
¡°Sola Scriptura¡± (Scripture alone) is a new idea from around the Protestant reformation. You see, once you reject the teachings of the church, your sole authority must rely completely on the Bible.
So what?
What are the problems with this? Well, we have no original copies of the Bible. And, we do have copies with errors. We know this because we can compare old remaining texts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus 4th century and Codex Vaticanus, from around 1209. They are partially incomplete and contain different versions of the same passages. These are not malicious errors, some monk simply made a few mistakes, omitting, or repeating passages as he scribed the text by hand with a quill under candlelight. Surely you can understand that even with the best intentions, mistakes were made.
Examples of errors in th Bible:
A:
Mark 16: 9 ¨C 20
The most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.
Mark ends at 16:8 Mark 16 9-20 were added later
Not inerrant
B:
1 Kings 7:26
It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.
2 Chronicles 4
It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held three thousand baths.
two thousand != three thousand?
C:
Mathew 27:9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."
Zechariah 11:12 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
Jeremiah != Zechariah
D:
Mark 15:26 The written notice of the charge against him read:
THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Matthew 27:37Above his head they placed the written charge against him:
THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Luke 23:38 There was a written notice above him, which read:|
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:
JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
These give great credence to the truth of the matter, but they are certainly not inerrant - at least 3 of them contain the wrong writing.
The Church existed before the New Testament.
Men of this Church decided which ancient scrolls were canon.
These were repeatedly copied by hand by monks and mistakes were made.
Some Churches accept the deuterocanonical texts, while others reject it:
One of them must not be inerrant.
Inerrancy is necessary neither for salvation nor spiritual guidance.
Once the teachings of the church or its guidance are rejected, as in the reformation, you are almost forced to accept biblical inerrancy, otherwise where is the authority? This dilemma is at the heart of the conflict between Christians, non-Christians, and folks who take the Bible literally or in errantly.
Facebook
Twitter