Re: Literal Bible Translations are specious

fencingsax wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noctiluca) wrote in message news:
>>
>> This contention amounts to little more than an "argument from
>> authority." It is immaterial, in any case, what Galileo believed, or
>> what you or I believe.
>> What is important is that there are those who believe that the Bible
>> *can*, at least in part, be taken literally. These opinions will not
>> be overturned by decree. They must be drawn out, respectfully
>> evaluated and, if unsupportable, refuted by logic and evidence.
>> The beneficiaries of this approach may not always be those with whom
>> you deal directly.
>>
>> robert
>
> I try to be as respectful as possible, but when people use the Bible
> as direct evidence it annoys me.  The Church itself has admitted
> (partly because of the obvious corectness of Galileo's views) that
> while the Bible can't be wrong, the INTERPRETATIONS can, because the
> interpreters are human.  Since the Pope has admitted it is possible
> for them to be wrong, I want more solid evidence than "the Bible says
> so".

Sheesh.  You're talking about biblical literalists here.  THEY all know the
pope isn't a true scots^H^H christian.

Chris