Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: All

To a certain extent, even the most fundamentalist Christians don't take the Bible completely literally. There are many very fundamentalist churches who don't believe in transubstantiation, a belief one would have to hold if one supported a literal translation of the bible.


85 posted on 10/04/2005 5:42:52 PM PDT by ClearAndPresent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ClearAndPresent
To a certain extent, even the most fundamentalist Christians don't take the Bible completely literally. There are many very fundamentalist churches who don't believe in transubstantiation, a belief one would have to hold if one supported a literal translation of the bible.

You make the uninformed leap that literal does not account for cultural idioms. There are countless cultural and linguistic idioms in the Bible.

Understanding the literal in ORIGINAL language and culture does not make you 'non-literal'. Quite the opposite. You read it as it was spoken, as if you were there hearing it.

The problem with what appears to be Catholics' selective 'literalism' is that they think the Bible was written in Latin, in a Roman/Western culture. The idea of transubstantiation is so pagan that a Hebrew believer of the First Century would reject such a teaching outright. On the other hand, a formerly pagan Greek, Carthaginian, or Roman would not understand the covenant language and immediately apply an inconsistent pagan 'literal' to it.

BTW, I am not a Protestant, so don't think I am Catholic bashing. I am simply interested in the development of Christianity in the Second Century and do research for that purpose.
108 posted on 10/04/2005 5:57:57 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

To: ClearAndPresent

Good point.

Like many fellow fundies, I view the Bible as being inerrant, but I consider this different from being completely literally, historically, scientifically accurate.


115 posted on 10/04/2005 6:01:05 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

To: ClearAndPresent
There are many very fundamentalist churches who don't believe in transubstantiation, a belief one would have to hold if one supported a literal translation of the bible.

Not necessarily. It is quite possible to believe in the real presence of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist without believing in the explanation of transubstantiation.

Christians believed in the real presence for hundreds of years before the doctrine of transubstantiation was developed. Orthodox Christians still believe in the real presence without accepting transubstantiation.

186 posted on 10/04/2005 7:11:25 PM PDT by Martin Tell (Red States [should act like they] Rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson