Bible

jesusisGod777

Yes.

Comparitive analysis of history between extra-biblical sources confirm the bibles history is the exact same historical account of the actual history of mankind.

Should make sense why.

Bible prophecies predated all historical periods of time.

Each prophecy stated a historical event years before it happened.

Recorded extra-biblical history( secular sources) state that historically everything was indicated prior in biblical proophecy took place as the Bible stated it would.

Jesus is God, Jesus is Lord.

Romans 10:9

An interesting fact, the summerian Steele indicates the earliest generations of Kings.

Each kings reign is indicated roughly around 1000 years.

Jesus is Lord.

So much proof in the world God created for the bible. Because it is the Christian God's creation.

jesusisGod777

Also the bibles not defined as religion based on the definition of religion.

The bibles based on events.

There's a reason why religion doesn't record actual events, because religions not based on actual knowledge of God's existence of the universe or people.

Jesus is Lord.

Plaffelvohfen

Well, if we assume the Bible to be the very own "words of God" (an Almighty, omnipotent, omniscient being) then there should be no place for interpretations and it should be taken literally... 

Saying the actual "words of god" need to be interpreted is a blow to the credibility of the whole concept, either they are the words of god or they're not, if that god is unable to be perfectly clear with words, then it questions his "divine" attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, etc) in my opinion...

And of course, if one doesn't accept the idea of a god then it's irrelevant to begin with...

jesusisGod777

@Plaffelvohfen

20  Knowing G1097 this G5124 firstG4412, that G3754 no G3756 G3956prophecy G4394 of the scriptureG1124 is G1096 of any private G2398interpretation G1955.

This is why denominational practice is fallacy as

God Yahweh Jesus states man shall have no interpretation of his word.

G1955

Original: ἐπίλυσις

Transliteration: epilusis

Phonetic: ep-il'-oo-sis

Thayer Definition:

1. a loosening, unloosing
2. metaphorically interpretation

Origin: from G1956

TDNT entry: 09:37,5

Part(s) of speech: Noun Feminine

Strong's Definition: From G1956; explanation, that is, application: - interpretation.

«Deuteronomy 3

Deuteronomy 4(NASB)

Deuteronomy 5»

Deuteronomy 4:2 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 12:32 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 32 “[a]Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it. Proverbs 30:6 Verse Concepts Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a . Matthew 22:29 Verse Concepts But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. Mark 7:13 Verse Concepts thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." Genesis 3:1-4 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"read more. Matthew 24:24 Verse Concepts "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Jesus Christ is Lord.

Neopesdom

>>Should we take Bible literally?

That really depends on which part or aspect of the Bible you are looking at. Some parts are to be taken literally while other parts are not. For instance Jesus says, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. (John 6:35). Jesus of course is not literally bread and He's not talking about literal physical thirst.

The Bible employs many types of literary devices in order to get its point across from metaphors, symbolism, metonomy, synecdoche, merism, idiom, personification, anthropomorphism, apostrophe, allusion, type, word play, hyperbole, paradox, alliteration, onomastics, and more.

For example some false teachings believe that "communion" bread and wine literally turns into the body and blood of Christ. Some call it  transubstantiation, while others use the term consubstantiation. Whatever word is used, actual literal change is believed to be taking place.

Let us look at the contextual interpretation of this bread and wine in the light of Scripture. It is very clear, Jesus is not physical bread, He is speaking symbolically, He is speaking of spiritual life. “God says man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” Jesus is the living Word of God; and is talking about His teachings.

When He says, “You will live forever,” He means spiritually. You want to have eternal life with God?  Then you must believe in Jesus. It’s very clear, when He said, “You eat of me—that means you believe in me.”  So, he says, “The bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world.”  Now, we can’t take it literally, it can’t be His literal flesh because He’s not literally a loaf of bread and it is not bread and flesh at the same time. That’s not literal and it’s not physical life that He is talking about, obviously, but spiritual life. So, it can’t be that He means you must eat my flesh. There is word for that, cannibalism.

The only way you could eat his flesh would be through transubstantiation or "change".  Someone is going to have to change a wafer, a piece of bread, into the body and blood of Christ. Never does it say that, never once is there a hint that anyone has the power to transform bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. Now, at the Last Supper, Jesus is sitting there in his physical body, He is holding the bread in his hands, He says, “Take, eat this, this is my body.”  I don’t believe any disciple there thought that the bread, had turned into Christ’s physical body, He was in his physical body, or that the wine had turned into His physical blood. It’s obviously a symbol. This is symbolic;  “when you take this you are doing this in remembrance of me". In John 6:52, “The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”  That’s after His statement; “…the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world.”  Obviously, they don’t understand what he is saying; they are taking Him literally.

Day after day every priest stands to minister and to offer again and again the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this Priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God. (Heb 10:11-12)

There really is no mystery going on here, other than certain so called 'churches' taking literally what clearly is symbolic. When it says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven:”, are you going to take this literally or is it figurative?  I take it literally when things are literal, when it should be taken literally, though there are places where it is obvious that it is not to be taken literally. Now, let’s take this verse literally.  “I am the living bread which came down from heaven”, then Jesus is a loaf of bread:  if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever, how often do you have to eat of this bread?  It just says, if anyone eats, so just take one bite and swallow it you will never die. Now, if this is literal we are talking about physical death, this is physical bread, it must be physical life.  So, if the Coptic/Catholic/ Orthodox/Lutherans and other groups say this is the Eucharist, you should then only need to go once.  You’ve eaten of Jesus, you will never physically die, and you don’t need to eat of him again. And yet they all say we’ve got to go back again, and again, and again to get another installment of His literal flesh and blood (oh and by the way bring your wallet, " “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings another soul from purgatory springs” - Johann Tetzel).

Unlike the other high priests, He does not need to offer daily sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people; He sacrificed for sin once for all when He offered up Himself (Heb. 7:27).

Let examine a little closer why Jesus would use this type of language when describing how people need to follow his teachings.There is only one reason why he is emphasizing it; He is the sacrifice for our sins. He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifices. In the Old Testament, the priest had to eat of the sacrifice, so He is teaching us the preset of all believers, number one, every person must "eat" of this sacrifice. Number two, he is telling us that He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifices. But he has made it very clear, “He that cometh to me and believeth on me has everlasting life.”  So, he is saying you’ve got to believe that I am a real physical man, I became a flesh and blood man, I’m not just a spirit, but God literally became a man. Jesus is the only begotten, he is the one and only God/man and we’ve got to believe that.

It would of been strange for the Jews to hear Jesus saying that they must drink his blood, because it was against the law for Jews to drink blood. Then it is obvious, it would be obvious to the Jews you would think, that he is not speaking physically, or He is leading them into deliberate disregard of and disobedience of the law where this is a very strong statement from God and it’s one of the elements of kosher.  And to this day Jews do not take blood. So, obviously it cannot be literal. 

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)