/lit/ - Literature

>kjv
>ever
Douay rheims, vulgate, or bust

>>17780849
No but they perfected it.

>>17644387
{cont}
>In some Christian traditions, the wilder stories from the old test are deemed to be myths and folktales and metaphors whilst other supernatural events later on in the text are taken literally. Who is deciding what happened and how passage should be read? Why make a book meant for the conversion of all humanity that requires specialists to explain?
These are faults with the early church's politics more than anything, and obviously real faults exist -- I still think the Bible is the most powerful piece of literature out there.
>do Catholics take the fall story literally? If not, how do they explain original sin?
It seems to me that this notion of Biblical literalism is a relatively new thing. There is no literal interpretaion, all readings are human, fallen, flawed in some way. We arrive at original sin in the recognition of our falibility; imperfection produces imperfection -- Genesis is a beautiful rendition of this.

I'm still learning, but there you go. Bless you.

>>16888003