how is it possible to take the bible literally? how do protestants

literally autism

>>1499147
By following the Word of God and murdering and enslaving all none believers.

>t. African

>>1499147
I'm sure there's some bullshit they can pull off with the phrase "sown upon the earth". perhaps they can say this is shows it was specifically seeds that people plant, or perhaps saying that "earth" is an inaccurate translation and "land" would be more accurate, so Jesus meant it is the smallest seed grown on land in this specific area

>>1499147
>how is it possible to take the bible literally?

Nice try, the official Catechism of the Church (not the individual view of a few theologians) was that the Biblical narrative was wholly literal until scientific studies in the 19th century began to show this to be idiotic. THEN the backpedaling began.

See it for yourself: the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself states that Adam and Eve were literal beings, and that the Genessi narrative with the snake trickster and the fruit also.

>>1499175
modern christians then*

The Gospel of John and the rest of the Gospels place the Temple Cleansing at two different times in Jesus' ministry and Protestants say 'he cleansed the temple twice in the exact same way lol infallibility'

>>1499267
When are the two apparent contradictions in dates?

>>1499147
cognitive dissonance and general ignorance of history and science.

>>1499175
>the Biblical narrative was wholly literal

Which one? There are at least several.

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. —II Samuel 6:23

But the king took the two sons of Rizpah…and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul. —II Samuel 21:8

>>1499308
>Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. —II Samuel 6:23But the king took the two sons of Rizpah…and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul. —II Samuel 21:8

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/did-michal-have-children-or-not/

The two phrases, “she bore to” and “she brought up,” are actually the same in the Hebrew (Yalad).

>>1499347
Fair enough but you'd think God would have somehow made it to where people didn't have to learn a foreign language to properly understand his word.

>>1499291
All of them.

>b-but how can they all be true?
It's a mystery, like the Trinity.

>>1499347
>answers in genesis

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/left-in-the-dust/

oh man the mental gymnastics they go through

>>1499354
Nothing wrong with mental gymnastics.

Mental gymnastics.. or mind "agility/exercise"

>>1499351

Gee, maybe that's a good reason why the medieval Church didn't want the laity reading the Bible.

They wouldn't be able to fucking understand it and would just confuse themselves.

>>1499353
This. How dare you heretics question the Word.

>>1499351
It is translated in English for us, so we don't have to learn any language to properly understand.

God also made a way we can learn the language to understand the words in different languages.

>>1499368
case and point

>>1499379
Gee maybe God should have written a book that people could fucking understand without needing a complicated priesthood to interpret it.

>>1499383
Except apparently you do because there's always some asshole going "ACTUALLY, if you look at the original Greek..."

>>1499147
Anyone who thinks it's possible to interpret the whole Bible one way should be castrated

>>1499387
What's wrong with mental exercise?

>>1499390

Not that anon, but you don't need a priest to interpret the Word of God for you.

>1499383 (You)
Well, if you want to learn the extra "easter eggs" you have to learn even a minimal amount of the original languages (Greek, Hebrew), but the English is just fine.

>>1499390
>God should have written a book that people could fucking understand without needing a complicated priesthood to interpret it.

Dude, God didn't write the book. It's literally just a compilation of a bunch of authors over a couple thousand years or so.

You see, the Word of God is given to us in the living flesh and blood of Christ Jesus. And everyone can know Him, no matter what language you speak.

Without the Holy Spirit leading us and instructing us, we are merely reading words.

Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the meaning of Scripture—and not man's efforts by intellectual study

and that comes only as we read with a humble spirit and an open mind.

Salvation is not in any way dependent upon literary understanding of the Bible.

Almost no one takes the Bible literally, word-for-word in their most literal sense. Some take it to be mythology. Some take many parts figuratively. The real "literalists" or people who actually take the Bible seriously are those who believe it is all true, word for word in the originals, but that each distinct type of literature or statements within are to be read according to the genre or purpose for which they've been spoken/recorded.

So, for instance, very few Christians, even Protestants, take Genesis to be a science textbook. They certainly believe that the creation account is true, but adapted to the understandings of its human audience, and also understood that it's less about the mechanical origins of everything that is as it is about the beginning of God's covenant relationship with man.