Anyone know what % of the bible is believed by Catholics?

I've tried googling this but no luck... Religion came up in my English class yesterday and one of my Buddhist students knew quite a bit about Christianity. When I said I was technically a Catholic, he asked how much of the bible do we believe..
It turned into a fairly mad discussion where these adults are sitting there asking how do we choose what to believe. All I could do was change the conversation completely because I didn't know how to respond..

georgieporgy

the answer was easy. 100%

better read it before they ask you the next question!

Knight who says Meh

georgieporgy wrote: »

the answer was easy. 100%

better read it before they ask you the next question!

Including talking snakes?:)

Asry

I believe the entire thing, 100%. We had this conversation in work yesterday too, weirdly enough. I got some bizarre looks from people when I said that I believed the bible is completely true.

That was this guy who's actually looking forward to the gears of war 3 release though, so he clearly cannot be trusted for a rational opinion :pac:

antiskeptic

Deleted User wrote: »

I've tried googling this but no luck... Religion came up in my English class yesterday and one of my Buddhist students knew quite a bit about Christianity. When I said I was technically a Catholic, he asked how much of the bible do we believe..

..so I said I was technically a Catholic".

mdebets

Deleted User wrote: »

I've tried googling this but no luck... Religion came up in my English class yesterday and one of my Buddhist students knew quite a bit about Christianity. When I said I was technically a Catholic, he asked how much of the bible do we believe..
It turned into a fairly mad discussion where these adults are sitting there asking how do we choose what to believe. All I could do was change the conversation completely because I didn't know how to respond..

What do you mean by believe?
Believe in that everything in the Bible are records of historical events or
believe in that while some of the events in the Bible didn't necessarily happened in the way they are described in the Bible or didn't happened at all, but that the lessons from these stories are still valid?

Penn

Asry wrote: »

I believe the entire thing, 100%. We had this conversation in work yesterday too, weirdly enough. I got some bizarre looks from people when I said that I believed the bible is completely true.

That was this guy who's actually looking forward to the gears of war 3 release though, so he clearly cannot be trusted for a rational opinion :pac:

What? That's complete and utter horse****! I fail to see how anyone could believe that.

Gears of War 3 looks brilliant

Fanny Cradock

Knight who says Meh wrote: »

Including talking snakes?:)

The Bible, which was written by multiple authors over 1000's of years, contains multiple literary genres. One can believe for good reasons that the author of the Genesis creation account wanted to convey some basic truths and used figurative language to do so.

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The Bible, which was written by multiple authors over 1000's of years, contains multiple literary genres. One can believe for good reasons that the author of the Genesis creation account wanted to convey some basic truths and used figurative language to do so.

One most certainly cannot do that ! In fact one cannot even say there was one author or many authors or whether the authors belonged to the Jewish tradition or whether some Jewish author/authors simply took some older folk tradition ands simply adapted it for their own purpose.
The reality is that much of the bible is similar to the folk tales of many primitive religions from all across the bible. It simply seems to be mans instinct to invent stories to explain physical phenomena they cannot understand. Nowadays we have science to help us figure out what is what - which is probably why the Christian establishment subjected poor old Darwin to such verbal abuse.

anymore

antiskeptic wrote: »

..so I said I was technically a Catholic".

If one is born and baptised a catholic, the only way to stop technically being a catholic is to sign the Catholic Church's defection form and register it with the catholic Church. I signed as witness for a friend last year.
So I am afraid no matter how much PDN or Fanny want to label a poster as an athiest, if they were born catholic then they still are catholics unless they have defected !:D

philologos

OP - I'd say between 0 and a 100 depending on who you are talking to.

anymore: Not even sure defection does it. You were still baptised Catholic, you can't unbaptise according to the RCC.

antiskeptic

anymore wrote: »

If one is born and baptised a catholic, the only way to stop technically being a catholic is to sign the Catholic Church's defection form and register it with the catholic Church. I signed as witness for a friend last year.

Much as I dislike the Roman Church and it's Christianity, I can't say I'd be bothered lifting a finger officially 'defecting' from it. Since the world and his brother knows what it takes to become one, I seriously doubt any significance it attached to it's weight of numbers,

So I am afraid no matter how much PDN or Fanny want to label a poster as an athiest, if they were born catholic then they still are catholics unless they have defected !:D

Would a rose by any other name..

Callan57

anymore wrote: »

If one is born and baptised a catholic, the only way to stop technically being a catholic is to sign the Catholic Church's defection form and register it with the catholic Church. I signed as witness for a friend last year.
So I am afraid no matter how much PDN or Fanny want to label a poster as an athiest, if they were born catholic then they still are catholics unless they have defected !:D

So if you were baptised a Catholic but never told & never attended any religous service would you still be a Catholic ... technically or otherwise?

optogirl

so people actually believe all the ark & garden of eden stuff!:eek:

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

One most certainly cannot do that !

One most certainly can! And Christians have been saying as much for centuries.

For example, Oregin, writing sometime in the 3rd century, said this of the creation account.

"What person of intelligence, I ask, will consider as a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? […] I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history."

Then in the 4th century/ early 5th we have the like of Augustine arguing for a logical framework interpretation.

Of course, these guys didn't automatically assume that the writer of the Genesis account was incapable of wonderful literary subtlety and the audience incapable of understanding it.

As for the Christian response to Darwin - a matter completely off topic - you might want to read this. Now back on topic, please.

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

So I am afraid no matter how much PDN or Fanny want to label a poster as an athiest, if they were born catholic then they still are catholics unless they have defected !:D

Are you and himnextdoor the same person?

anymore

Callan57 wrote: »

So if you were baptised a Catholic but never told & never attended any religous service would you still be a Catholic ... technically or otherwise?

Very good question. Ironically my friend who defected would be able to answer that immediately ! I dont know if the ceremony of Confirmation impacts on this question, so I am not sure if Confirmation would be required strictly speaking. I imagine however if such a case arose and came to light whilst the person was still legally a minor,that the Catholic would be very quick to claim the child as a catholic. Such a case could arise where a child was orphaned when very young and was given for adoption.
Something tells me there was a very controversial case like that in Italy towards the end of the 19th century and the child was actually taken from the adopted parents who werent catholic - I will try to clarify this.

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are you and himnextdoor the same person?

No Fanny, I rather expect my opnions are too ' idiosyncratic' to be easily replicated !

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

No Fanny, I rather expect my opnions are too ' idiosyncratic' to be easily replicated !

No. No. You're both neck and neck.

anymore wrote: »

Very good question. Ironically my friend who defected would be able to answer that immediately ! I dont know if the ceremony of Confirmation impacts on this question, so I am not sure if Confirmation would be required strictly speaking. I imagine however if such a case arose and came to light whilst the person was still legally a minor,that the Catholic would be very quick to claim the child as a catholic. Such a case could arise where a child was orphaned when very young and was given for adoption.
Something tells me there was a very controversial case like that in Italy towards the end of the 19th century and the child was actually taken from the adopted parents who werent catholic - I will try to clarify this.

Keep it on topic, folks. Last warning.

Thanks

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One most certainly can! And Christians have been saying as much for centuries.

For example, Oregin, writing sometime in the 3rd century, said this of the creation account.



Then in the 4th century/ early 5th we have the like of Augustine arguing for a logical framework interpretation.

Of course, these guys didn't automatically assume that the writer of the Genesis account was incapable of wonderful literary subtlety and the audience incapable of understanding it.

As for the Christian response to Darwin - a matter completely off topic - you might want to read this. Now back on topic, please.

As you very well know the reference to scicnce and Darwin was to point at how much science has actually altered how christians and non christians alike both look at the bible and how much of the bible they take as literal truth - this is germane to the thread. Science has impacted enormously impacted on how much of the bible many people believed.
The funny thing is that science nows points towards the conclusion that there was indeed an ' Eve', or at the very least,all our genes descended from a very small group of women, possibly around 100, from central Africa ! How amazing is that - I presume you wont regard this as off thread ?
.

philologos

anymore: What Fanny Craddock is saying is that people believed in an old earth more than a thousand years before Darwin. He's right in the case of both Origen and Augustine.

Fanny Cradock

Off topic posts deleted.

georgieporgy

optogirl wrote: »

so people actually believe all the ark & garden of eden stuff!:eek:

I certainly do.

Zombrex

78.34%

Everyone knows that, silly OP

theillest

I think you have to belive the bible either 100% or not at all.
You cant just pick and choose what bits to belive and what bits not to....
Matthew,Mark,Luke and John didnt say to themselves "well they will know this is to be taken literally and this isnt"

anymore

philologos wrote: »

OP - I'd say between 0 and a 100 depending on who you are talking to.

anymore: Not even sure defection does it. You were still baptised Catholic, you can't unbaptise according to the RCC.

Well I discussed the implications of this with my ' defected friend' and he maintains that he is no longer a catholic and the catholic church may no longer regard him as a member but that the consequence of being baptised is that he still remains ' baptised' in Jesus as you suggest.
No doubt theologans and cannon lawyers love this kind of question but, says I, what has it got to do with Jesus ?:)

homer911

optogirl wrote: »

so people actually believe all the ark & garden of eden stuff!:eek:

There are plenty of people out there who dont believe the holocaust ever happened - Christian belief in the ark and the garden of Eden is a lot more plausible than unbelief in the holocaust

anymore

I suppose given the nature of the question, that it is catholics who should be answering and to be honest, I think most of us never give the subject a thought !

Asry

Asry wrote: »

I believe the entire thing, 100%. We had this conversation in work yesterday too, weirdly enough. I got some bizarre looks from people when I said that I believed the bible is completely true.

That was this guy who's actually looking forward to the gears of war 3 release though, so he clearly cannot be trusted for a rational opinion :pac:

Again, to believe 100% isn't Catholic? I mean the parables etc. aren't meant to be believed. Walking on water etc.

This is the sort of thing I want a percentage on.

Wicknight wrote: »

78.34%

Everyone knows that, silly OP

There should be a number that accurate shouldn't there...? I'm actually really interested in knowing since he asked.

Keylem

Deleted User wrote: »

I've tried googling this but no luck... Religion came up in my English class yesterday and one of my Buddhist students knew quite a bit about Christianity. When I said I was technically a Catholic, he asked how much of the bible do we believe..
It turned into a fairly mad discussion where these adults are sitting there asking how do we choose what to believe. All I could do was change the conversation completely because I didn't know how to respond..

I'm wondering what kind of Catholic are you?

Devout Catholic
Lukewarm Catholic
Cafeteria Catholic (cherry pick what to believe)

The Catholic Church gave the world the Holy Bible, so we belive it all 100 percent!

Holy Bible

BTW I'm 100 percent Catholic!

georgieporgy

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, to believe 100% isn't Catholic? I mean the parables etc. aren't meant to be believed. Walking on water etc.

This is the sort of thing I want a percentage on.


There should be a number that accurate shouldn't there...? I'm actually really interested in knowing since he asked.

What do you mean ''the parables aren't to be believed''? The parables are stories Jesus told in order to clarify a point for his listeners. So we believe that Jesus told those stories. Are you suggesting that we may think the stories actually happened? If we thought that then we would not be ''believing the bible''.
As for Jesus walking on water, that was not a parable. That was a fact.

Keylem

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, to believe 100% isn't Catholic? I mean the parables etc. aren't meant to be believed. Walking on water etc.

This is the sort of thing I want a percentage on.


There should be a number that accurate shouldn't there...? I'm actually really interested in knowing since he asked.

Are you kidding??? Jesus IS God, and he did walk on water and performed many miracles etc. - I'm surprised that you being Catholic/Christian doesn't know your religion, have you actually read the bible??

Keylem

Keylem wrote: »

I'm wondering what kind of Catholic are you?

Devout Catholic
Lukewarm Catholic
Cafeteria Catholic (cherry pick what to believe)

The Catholic Church gave the world the Holy Bible, so we belive it all 100 percent!

Holy Bible

BTW I'm 100 percent Catholic!

I'm a Catholic on paper but that's it.. It doesn't stop me from knowing/learning alot about the religion cause I find it very interesting.

I didn't realise Catholics were meant to believe the bible 100%. If Catholics believe in Adam and Eve, how's that different to Creationists? Or is the same thing with a different name?

georgieporgy wrote: »

What do you mean ''the parables aren't to be believed''? The parables are stories Jesus told in order to clarify a point for his listeners. So we believe that Jesus told those stories. Are you suggesting that we may think the stories actually happened? If we thought that then we would not be ''believing the bible''.
As for Jesus walking on water, that was not a parable. That was a fact.

I mean how much of the bible is believed to be just stories etc.
As in, 17% of the bible is parables. Therefore, we believe 83% of the bible happened. You get what I mean?
Again, I didn't realise Catholics believed Jesus walked on water..

Keylem wrote: »

Are you kidding??? Jesus IS God, and he did walk on water and performed many miracles etc. - I'm surprised that you being Catholic/Christian doesn't know your religion, have you actually read the bible??

I'm considering reading it out of pure interest.. Supposed to be some mad stuff in it.

So here's a different question.. What percentage of Catholics believe everything in the bible?

Zombrex

I think it would probably be helpful to distinguish too concepts, the infallibility of the Bible (ie is anything wrong or in error) and the literality of the Bible, how much of it is supposed to be taken as literal history.

I've certainly met Christians who did not believe the Bible was completely infallible but they seemed to be in the small minority.

On the other hand a lot of Christians, including Catholics, do not take all the passages literally including passages that some would argue are not clear cut cases for them not to be taken literally (Noah's flood for example, or the ages of the people in Genesis).

For example how many Christians literally believe Noah was 950 years old when he died, whether they think the flood was local or not? Very few I would imagine. A more interesting debate is whether they think that passage is to be taken literally or not.

(before PDN gets his panties in a twist, I'm not a Christian)

Keylem

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it would probably be helpful to distinguish too concepts, the infallibility of the Bible (ie is anything wrong or in error) and the literality of the Bible, how much of it is supposed to be taken as literal history.

I've certainly met Christians who did not believe the Bible was completely infallible but they seemed to be in the small minority.

On the other hand a lot of Christians, including Catholics, do not take all the passages literally including passages that some would argue are not clear cut cases for them not to be taken literally (Noah's flood for example, or the ages of the people in Genesis).

For example how many Christians literally believe Noah was 950 years old when he died, whether they think the flood was local or not? Very few I would imagine. A more interesting debate is whether they think that passage is to be taken literally or not.

(before PDN gets his panties in a twist, I'm not a Christian)

It would be impossible for the Catholic Church to err, it uses the following 3 Pillars of Truth handed down by the Apostles.

(1) Sacred Scripture (The Holy Bible)
(2) Sacred Tradition
(3) Magisterium

It would make sense that after the flood, God allowed mankind to live longer to re-populate the earth.

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

It would be impossible for the Catholic Church to err, it uses the following 3 Pillars of Truth handed down by the Apostles.

(1) Sacred Scripture (The Holy Bible)
(2) Sacred Tradition
(3) Magisterium

I didn't say anything about the Catholic Church, I'm talking about the Bible.

Keylem wrote: »

It would make sense that after the flood, God allowed mankind to live longer to re-populate the earth.

That isn't really relevant to the question though, I would doubt that many Christians believe Noah lived that long to begin with. The question then becomes do they see this an error or as something non-literal.

Why God would allow it if he had lived that long is a different issue, one I'm not all that interested in as it really just comes down to speculation.

philologos

Oh and OP, having done the TEFL course a few years ago aren't two of the topics you're not meant to discuss religion and politics? Apparently :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean how much of the bible is believed to be just stories etc.
As in, 17% of the bible is parables. Therefore, we believe 83% of the bible happened. You get what I mean?

I think you miss the point of parables. Unless a particular member of the audience was thunderously dim the they would not have understood a parable as factual accounts. So, for example, the parable of the sower wasn't about agricultural practices.

When reading the Bible you should be looking to understand what message author intended to convey to his his audience, and what literary methods he employed to convey this message.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, I didn't realise Catholics believed Jesus walked on water..

Not just Catholics.

Deleted User wrote: »

So here's a different question.. What percentage of Catholics believe everything in the bible?

Your question is deeply flawed, I'm afraid.

Keylem

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't say anything about the Catholic Church, I'm talking about the Bible.



That isn't really relevant to the question though, I would doubt that many Christians believe Noah lived that long to begin with. The question then becomes do they see this an error or as something non-literal.

Why God would allow it if he had lived that long is a different issue, one I'm not all that interested in as it really just comes down to speculation.

Sorry Wick, that post was for the benefit of the OP as per the CC, I apologise for offending you, which was not my intention.

anymore

Keylem wrote: »

I'm wondering what kind of Catholic are you?

Devout Catholic
Lukewarm Catholic
Cafeteria Catholic (cherry pick what to believe)

The Catholic Church gave the world the Holy Bible, so we belive it all 100 percent!

Holy Bible

BTW I'm 100 percent Catholic!

Keylem, you missed one of the most popular categories of Catholic and that is ' a la carte' catholic ! Ask David quinn of the Iona Institue and Irish Independent fame !

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

Sorry Wick, that post was for the benefit of the OP as per the CC, I apologise for offending you, which was not my intention.

Ah right, sorry yes that makes more sense

anymore

An interesting questing that could be asked alongside this question is how many catholics actually think the Pope is Infallible or has the capacity to be infallible. I suggest the numbers in both cases are now pretty small - if there is doubt about that I suggest people ask themselves how may Catholics use contraceptives of one kind of another ?
The modern young irish catholic is very flexible in thier interpretation of religous matters of one kind or another. Religion is now not that big an issue for them.

Keylem

anymore wrote: »

Keylem, you missed one of the most popular categories of Catholic and that is ' a la carte' catholic ! Ask David quinn of the Iona Institue and Irish Independent fame !

I thought 'Cafeteria Catholic' covered that one!

antiskeptic

Keylem wrote: »

It would be impossible for the Catholic Church to err, it uses the following 3 Pillars of Truth handed down by the Apostles.

(1) Sacred Scripture (The Holy Bible)
(2) Sacred Tradition
(3) Magisterium

If the RC church needs to stand on the three pillars of truth in order to be sure it is not erring, how does it know that the three pillars were handed down from the apostles in the first place. Know without error that is?

anymore

Keylem wrote: »

I thought 'Cafeteria Catholic' covered that one!

Yes you are probably one - David quinnn doesnt use that phrase !

Keylem

anymore wrote: »

An interesting questing that could be asked alongside this question is how many catholics actually think the Pope is Infallible or has the capacity to be infallible.

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

Papal Infallibility



[QUOTE=anymore;72328233]I suggest the numbers in both cases are now pretty small - if there is doubt about that I suggest people ask themselves how may Catholics use contraceptives of one kind of another ?
The modern young irish catholic is very flexible in thier interpretation of religous matters of one kind or another. Religion is now not that big an issue for them.[/QUOTE]

Cafeteria Catholics. :eek:

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One most certainly can! And Christians have been saying as much for centuries.

For example, Oregin, writing sometime in the 3rd century, said this of the creation account.



Then in the 4th century/ early 5th we have the like of Augustine arguing for a logical framework interpretation.

Of course, these guys didn't automatically assume that the writer of the Genesis account was incapable of wonderful literary subtlety and the audience incapable of understanding it.

As for the Christian response to Darwin - a matter completely off topic - you might want to read this. Now back on topic, please.

Unfortunately, if one does so one establishes a hermeneutic that validates similar treatment of other seemingly historical narrative parts of the Bible, parts one must hold in the historical narrative sense if one is to called a Christian. The bodily resurrection of Christ, for example.

Some of the early commentators, Origen especially, wandered far from the truth in their allegorising.

Even Augustine erred here, though he did hold to a young earth creation (c.4000BC).

But to the OP point: all who hold the Bible to be God's word are bound to believe it all. Both historic Catholicism and historic Protestantism do so. Many in those groups have rejected the historic position, however, and view the Bible, at best, as a mixture of God's truth and men's error.

NB. I'm not saying those who interpret the Bible to mean an old earth are not believing the Bible. They are simply mistaken as to what it says. It is the liberals who are guilty of denying the Word.

****************************************************************************
2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

DeadParrot

theillest wrote: »

I think you have to belive the bible either 100% or not at all.
You cant just pick and choose what bits to belive and what bits not to....
Matthew,Mark,Luke and John didnt say to themselves "well they will know this is to be taken literally and this isnt"

Given this you also have to consider books of the bible that were not included as canon. Also the apocryphal books of the Old Testement.
These desicions were made by man. Albeit some were discovered much later
Book of Thomas,Daniel,the hypothetical Q book (which Luke and Mark are said to draw heavily from).

anymore

Keylem wrote: »

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

Papal Infallibility





Cafeteria Catholics. :eek:

Frankly the more I have heard of the sex lives of some priests, then I suggest the more I believe it is a case of 'a la carte priests' !

wolfsbane

philologos wrote: »

anymore: What Fanny Craddock is saying is that people believed in an old earth more than a thousand years before Darwin. He's right in the case of both Origen and Augustine.

To be more accurate, both Origen and Augustine held to some symbolism in the Genesis 1 account. Augustine ( I'm not sure about Origen) believed in a young earth, created in a moment rather than 6 days, about 6000 years ago.

*******************************************************************************
2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

Quo Vadis

Deleted User wrote: »

I've tried googling this but no luck... Religion came up in my English class yesterday and one of my Buddhist students knew quite a bit about Christianity. When I said I was technically a Catholic, he asked how much of the bible do we believe..
It turned into a fairly mad discussion where these adults are sitting there asking how do we choose what to believe. All I could do was change the conversation completely because I didn't know how to respond..

Bear in mind far from everything in the bible is literal.

The Bible is actually a library of many books written using many different literary styles e.g. narrative, law, Genealogies, poetry, proverbs, prophecy, letters, all using a combination of literal and figurative language and metaphors. There are 73 Books in the Catholic Bible and 66 in the Protestant. Thousands of Catholic and Protestant theologians throughout history have spent lifetimes studying and interpreting the bible.




Catholics believe 100 % in the bible, and all Catholic teaching is 100% consistent with the bible. Protestants will of course beg to differ on many details and interpretations, that’s why they are called Protestants, and they believe they can interpret the bible individually. That's why there are 30,000 plus Protestant denominations worldwide all with varying beliefs ranging from extremely literal interpretations to the extremely figurative.