should we take the Bible Literally?

[tokidoki_v2.0]

---

*wink* *wink* nangita dayon bikil. i just love it when hypocrites fold. wasn't there a special place for your theoretical hell for people like you, "pal"? people on my side have mountains of evidence. unfortunately, for you, you follow the "because it so" logic. so, NO, you will not be provided evidence you can find for yourself. Basically, I don't spoon feed hypocrites.

i don't find anything amusing about your self inflicted "logical fallacy", pre, coz it's always you who gets burned by your own words.

[Techfinder]

*wink* *wink* nangita dayon bikil. i just love it when hypocrites fold. wasn't there a special place for your theoretical hell for people like you, "pal"? people on my side have mountains of evidence. unfortunately, for you, you follow the "because it so" logic. so, NO, you will not be provided evidence you can find for yourself. Basically, I don't spoon feed hypocrites.

and so...Is this tantamount to saying..I give up?

Why can't you give me one?

* i don't find anything amusing about your self inflicted "logical fallacy", pre, coz it's always you who gets burned by your own words.

MERE ASSUMPTION isn't a valid argument.

I challenge you to support your claims...but you can't and so you resorted to AD HOMINEMS calling me "hypocrite". Is this your best strategy to win the argument?

ooh pal....deep flawed reasoning again.

NIce try..

[tokidoki_v2.0]

read the post again, mr. enlightened one. there's one source provided for you. Do you want me to wipe your ass with your bible as well?

FYI, that's not an assumption that's an observation. 24 posts and you're already making a fool out of yourself? Don't you know how to use the "SEARCH" button"? go back to your parish priest and cry some more.

Btw, you are in no position to make demands. If you don't like what I say tell it is whoever you pray to to strike me down or shove a lightning bolt up my a**. Hmm... nothing happened? Is that proof enough for you? That's more up-to-date evidence than 2,000yrs worth of useless cr*p. Ok, that's already 3 pieces of evidence provided. Nangluspad naka? LOL

thanks for playing. next please.

[Techfinder]

read the post again, mr. enlightened one. there's one source provided for you. Do you want me to wipe your ass with your bible as well?

This is just simply silliness.

FYI, that's not an assumption that's an observation. 24 posts and you're already making a fool out of yourself? Don't you know how to use the "SEARCH" button"? go back to your parish priest and cry some more.

You're digressing from the topic. Please do some respect to the thread starter.

Btw, you are in no position to make demands. If you don't like what I say tell it is whoever you pray to to strike me down or shove a lightning bolt up my a**. Hmm... nothing happened? Is that proof enough for you? That's more up-to-date evidence than 2,000yrs worth of useless cr*p. Ok, that's already 3 pieces of evidence provided. Nangluspad naka? LOL thanks for playing. next please.

Silly!....no need to comment.

[tokidoki_v2.0]

Good. Now we have an agreement. Now if you have no more disturbing deviations from the topic at hand kindly answer it coz it appears you're the only one who has no contribution to it except to nitpick.

A word to the wise, if you bait, I bite.

[devil@plax]

bible is holy..

[YellowSubmarine]

should we should we? watchathink?

is it possible that there is different meaning to a certain passage?
how sure are we if the meaning of the verse is really that of what they(bible pipz) say?

ang uban question nko later nalang nko i.ask.. hihihi

depende sa verse bro.. naa uban literal naa uban dili pareho anang prophecies, parables ug uban pa

[xiao-xiao]

oist guys... please don't flame this thread.

[Techfinder]

No reason to literalize the Bible on a wholesale basis.

Only some passages are to be interpreted literally (e.g. prophecies about wars, famines and pestilences, sanitary laws ).

Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) is old school.

That's the normative belief of the Early Apostolic Church (1st Century) and so we ought to follow this principle to avoid deviation from the IOrthodox teachings.

Even Catholics natagam before sa kinaraan nga paagi, giliteral man ang pagsabot sa mga texto sa Bibliya.

FYI, the Roman Catholic Church isn't Sola-Scriptura Adherent ever since its inception in the fifth century. RCC is more on Traditions rather than on the pure written words of God.

For example, the earth was believed to be the center of the Universe (The Geocentric Doctrine). Biblical basis were: 1 Chronicles 16:30 tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved. Psalms 104:5 Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.

They fall to that erroneous belief not because of SOLA SCRIPTURA DOCTRINE (since they aren't sola scripturalist) but due to the fact that this Church isn't the true one. Their POPE isn't really INFALLIABLE!

Sola Scriptura is one of those Good to know that they have learned their lessons. And glad to have learned their lessons well. Unfortunately, there are still those that are still stuck with Sola Scriptura that it created more than 23,000 "Bible-oriented" denominations today.

I don't think so.

[tokidoki_v2.0]

This leads to many mixed views. There is no gray area to this question. Depending on the church I have never received an "it depends" answer. Either they answer and absolute SYMBOLIC or LITERAL answer.