> > Depends on the religious folks you're talking about. There are plenty of people out there who will tell you in no uncertain terms that the word-for-word language in their English-language Bible is exactly what God intended, in no uncertain terms. Witness, for example, the right-wing Christians who latch onto the word "abomination" in Leviticus in regard to homosexuality, and use that as their justification for anti-gay attacks, never mind that that isn't a proper translation/ interpretation of the line.
> >
> > This is why it's important for people to understand, whether or not they choose to use the Bible for religious guidance, that the Bible *is* a work that has come to us through many editors and translations over much time.
> >
> > -- Trip
>
>
> I've recently seen some differences in the way that different sects interpret the bible.
> The Catholics (although probably not all) tend to have a more literal translation compared to the Uniting Church who have a more abstract interpretation.
>
> Unfortunately, as I do not study the bible, I can not remember any examples of this but it shouldn't be hard to find one.
>
> ladada(not literal)dada

Actually, Catholics don't really interpret the Bible all that literally when compared with the spectrum of a lot of Protestant faiths. The Catholic Church, while it has no official position on exactly how the Bible was inspired, does reject a few theories, among them the one that states that God dictated the entire Bible word-for-word. As a consequence, the CC can't really claim that the Bible is 100% literally true, leading some to claim that Catholics aren't Bible-believing. (And to claim other things that are rather nasty)

Bal "Not to mention that the Bible used by Catholics is considered invalid or worse by some Christians" anthalus