If Catholics assembled the Bible, why do anti-Catholic Christians interpret every word of it literally?

Question

If you understand history, you know that Catholic leaders assembled the Bible. See

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Anf_xfo3vxQAeHX017RPkpTsy6IX?qid=20070416143455AAsTX26

or much better yet, do a Google search and look at non-partisan web sites that discuss the evolution of the Bible.

So why do some of the very same Christians who slam Catholics at every turn believe that the Bible is 100% true in every word, 100% complete, nothing missing or erroneous?

Answer 1

The funniest thing is that anti-Catholic bigots will cite Scripture that the catholic Church put together and say it shows that the Catholic Church is a false church.

I can imagine the discussion in Ephesus:

"Hmm...What John wrote in the Book of Revelation clearly shows that we are a false church. I think we should include that in the Bible."

Answer 2

Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, No (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.

Answer 3

Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God. Later in 1946, after the finding of the dead-sea scrolls, it was discovered that these 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria, even in their services. This verifies that Pope Damasus was correct. It is interesting to note that the Palestinian Jews did not accept the 7 DC books for their version of Holy Scriptures and neither did they accept any of the New Testament. Unfortunately, the Protestants base their Bible on this version which comes from a people who did not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. 1) Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only source of God's Word. (2) The first Christians "were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles" (Acts 2:42; 2 Tim 1:14) long before the New Testament was written — and centuries before we knew with certainty which books were part of the New Testament. (3) The Bible affirms that Christian teaching is "preached" (1 Pet. 1:25), that the Apostles' successors were to teach what they have "heard" (2 Tim. 2:2), and that Christian teaching is passed on both "by word of mouth [and] by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2). (4) Not everything Christ did and said is recorded in Scripture (Jn. 21:25). (5) New Testament authors availed themselves of sacred Tradition. For example, Acts 20:35 quotes a saying of Jesus that is not recorded in the Gospels. (6) Scripture needs an authoritative interpreter (Acts 8:30-31; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 3:15-16). (7) Christ left His Church with divine authority to teach in His name (Mt. 16:13-20, 18:18; Lk. 10:16). (8) The Church will last until the end of time, and the Holy Spirit protects the Church's teaching from corruption (Mt. 16:18, 28:19-20; Jn. 14:16). (9) The Church — and not the Bible alone — is the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). (10) The Bible refers to more sources of the Word of God than only Scripture. Jesus Himself is the Word (Jn. 1:1, 14), and in 1 Thess. 2:13, St. Paul's first epistle, he refers to "the Word of God which you heard from us." There St. Paul is clearly referring to oral apostolic teaching. Source(s) Catholic

Answer 4

I've gotten into numerous debates on this very topic alone, and usually it centers around the protestant denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. As a former protestant, I had a hard time understanding why I could not correctly interpret the bible on my own. It wasn't until I studied the history of the bible's origins, and especially the exegesis - science of scripture interpretation - that I learned why the Church teaches us to depend on her for the correct interpretations. The catechism covers this issue very well, explaining all the various elements that come into play when reading the bible, such as the authors that wrote it, the time period it was written in, the culture of the time, and the use of language. These elements are also taken in conjunction within the context entire Bible, and the context of the book that scripture is found in. This showed me that the catechism and translations we have today are the result of hundreds of years of study and scholarship from perhaps millions of scholars and historians that devoted their lives to correctly interpretating the bible. For someone to attempt to derive Christian doctrine on their own by private interpretation would be to ignore the work of all those that came before. It would be the same thing as a medical student trying to learn medicine all by himself and refusing to study the lessons from those doctors that came before him.

Do not be confused about the accuracy of the bible. It is the Inspired Word of God. It is to be venerated and reverenced with the highest esteem. The Church teaches this. We must simply be responsible and obedient to letting the Church assist us in our understanding of the Sacred Scriptures, drawing on the 2,000+ years of wisdom she has to share with us.

God bless.

Answer 5

We catholics do believe that the bible is true 100% in very word, sweety. We have upheld it even to the point of death in the past.

What other denominations don't accept from the Catholic Church is the authority of the Hierarchy to interpret the scriptures, Protestants claim that the Bible itself is enough for anybody, so you can interpret the books as you understand them without any appeal to any authority. Which is self-refuting because YES It was the magisterium of the Church that decided which books were supposed to be inspired and what books not, and yeah, the deposit of the faith was entrusted to the apostles, from which athe bishops have received their authority, especially the Bishop of Rome, successot of St peter to whom Christ gave the keys, and who He named the rock, and on whom the gates of hell would not prevail.

What protestants claim is the "sola scriptura" but the thing is that nowenere in the bible does it say that the bible alone is sufficient. This is the crux of the problem;
Luther, Calvin and Zwingly broke up with Rome, deniying to the Church the authority to decide on a document that the same church was both the depository and the guardian, the ones who put it together.

And this, my friends, is the TRUTH.

But The catholic church wants reconciliation and all christians to be one. God is mercy and love and wants all christians to be united in love and mercy. And that is what i want
I love all Christians, all men, christian or not. This is the fundament of our faith: LOVE, MERCY< SALVATION FOR ALL SOULS.

God bless you

Answer 6

Because the Protestants follow man-made traditions and man-made theology and not the teachings of Jesus.

The living Jesus is the historical Jesus. It's yet another man-made myth that they would differ.

Answer 7

because they have removed some of the books from the catholic bible, and they pick and choose which verses are to be taken literaly. by themselves.

Answer 8

Because they have been brainwashed to believe that the bible is the actual word of god, and is as infallible as they believe their god to be. You get the same gobledygook from Catholics and Christians alike when you bring into question the accuracy of their bible. For example:


The jesus of history is completely different than the jesus of religion. The true jesus of history lived in a time where jerusalem was occupied by the Roman Empire. Just before his birth multiple military campaigns were held by the jews to attempt to crush the roman occupation and drive them out. They did have some limmited sucess but the Romans always came back with greater numbers and stomped out the uprising or insurgents. Jesus was born into this time. The majority of jews at this time were violently apposed to the roman occupation and were waiting for 2 men that were prophesied to be born to lead the jews and regain indepencance. One "Messiah" was to be king of the jews pollitically, and he would be from the blood line of David. The other "Messian" was to be king of the jews spiritually and from the blood line of Aaron and the Levite priests. The militant Jewish leaders at this time set up a marrige between Joseph,(who was from the bloodline of David) and Mary (who was from the bloodline of Aaron) in order to concieve one child from both bloodlines and having one man complete both messiah prophecies. Jesus was raised for one purpose, to lead the jews and destroy the Romans. He purposely went about fulfilling old testament prophecy in order to demonstrate to the people that he was their king (including riding into Jerusalem just before his death at passover on a donkey). The historical Jesus was a militant Jew, an insurgent in an occupied country if you will, who was betrayed by the jews that trained and followed him because jesus's stance on the Roman tax that was hated by the jews and that the militant group he belonged to refused to pay. He publicly stated to give to ceasar what is ceasars and to god what is gods. This so enraged the militant jew community that he was supposed to be leading that they betrayed him and arranged for his crucifiction by the Romans. Crucifiction was a political execution. No Roman crucifiction has ever been recorded for religious infractions, only for seditious political acts. Jesus was just a guy who was born and raised to be a leader, an insurgent. The Romans would have viewed him and the militant jewish community that he was a part of and eventually led as terrorists. The same way the US (who occupy Iraq) view the insurgents as terrorists. But the vatican has completely erased the historical jesus from popular knowledge and replaced him with the miracle working, peace loving biblical jesus. At no time in the original biblical scrolls was there ever mention of a virgin birth, or even mention of the divinity of Jesus. These were man made concepts decided to be enacted at the council of nicea by the then pope and his bishops (along with creating the concept of the holy trinity). The vatican and the catholic church serve their own agenda. The jesus of history is nothing like the biblical Jesus.


Note: Wow Iraq51 I guess you couldn't scrape up the brain power to comment on my answer so you had to relly on a personal attack. I wouldn't expect anything less from an Amerinazi. Go cry yourself to sleep praying to your false gods while I enjoy the peace and quiet of Canada while relying on science instead.

Answer 9

Ah yes. Thar be the rub, eh?

More proof that "sola scriptura" is wrong.

Answer 10

sorry this is not officially an nswer becuase i too have wondered the same thing! thanks for asking and i can't wait to see the asnwers!