Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Times (UK) ^ | October 05, 2005 | Ruth Gledhill

[MeanWestTexan]

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

[SouthernFreebird]

There seem to be plenty of people here who still believe every word is literally true. It's a bit scary...

The sad thing is that they just make themselves look foolish and they make Christianity look foolish as its representatives. The media plays on these stereotypes for all it's worth.

I never realized my belief in God and his word was an embarrassment to Christianity. Somehow tho, I don't think that Jesus is embarrassed that I believe the word of God is truth.

However I believe some people may be confounded by their pride in being more enlightened than the ignorant masses who actually believe in the Bible.

[etlib]

 There is absolutely nothing new here.  The Church has never taught that the entirety of the bible is a literal description of actual events.  It has always taught that the bible is a compendium of different literary types, including myths and works of fiction whose purpose is to teach a truth.  This article attempts to make much over nothing. Look at the more complete quotes: “We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” and  “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.  I fail to see how either of these is in any way controversial.

Was everything Jesus said true?  What about His parables?

[k2blader]

The point the Catholic Church is trying to make is that the factual differences between these passages are not terribly important.

I think your summation is an accurate one. It's nice to agree with them on this. :o)

[WKB]

All the more reason to be a Southern Baptist

[ClearAndPresent]

One thing I've never understood about Genesis is how there could be morning and evening if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. For that matter, how could there be days before the sun was created, since a day is one revolution of the earth around the sun? This is one of the reasons I don't think it could be six literal days.

[TXBubba]

What about the Jews?

What about them? Ask them. Can they keep all the laws perfectly? I doubt any of them say they can. In fact, how many modern day Jews do you actually see keeping the OT laws of sacrifice. Talk about a PETA event for that one!

[safisoft]

To a certain extent, even the most fundamentalist Christians don't take the Bible completely literally. There are many very fundamentalist churches who don't believe in transubstantiation, a belief one would have to hold if one supported a literal translation of the bible.

You make the uninformed leap that literal does not account for cultural idioms. There are countless cultural and linguistic idioms in the Bible.

Understanding the literal in ORIGINAL language and culture does not make you 'non-literal'. Quite the opposite. You read it as it was spoken, as if you were there hearing it.

The problem with what appears to be Catholics' selective 'literalism' is that they think the Bible was written in Latin, in a Roman/Western culture. The idea of transubstantiation is so pagan that a Hebrew believer of the First Century would reject such a teaching outright. On the other hand, a formerly pagan Greek, Carthaginian, or Roman would not understand the covenant language and immediately apply an inconsistent pagan 'literal' to it.

BTW, I am not a Protestant, so don't think I am Catholic bashing. I am simply interested in the development of Christianity in the Second Century and do research for that purpose.

[patriot_wes]

"THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible."

Nuff said!

[ClaireSolt]

You are right. Catholic teaching through art and liturgy was based on the spoken, not read word in ages of illiteracy. However, if you take any of it, liturgy or law it stems from the Bible. The mass is all Biblical. The catechism cites Bible first and then gives the history.

This is a red herring, but it is a very old one.

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

that is true. the documents that comprise the the Christian Holy Scriptures were compiled and canonized into the Bible by the Catholic Church.

[ClearAndPresent]

I'm an idiot. A day isn't a revolution around the sun. Nevermind.

[safisoft]

Of course not. But it did exist before the Bible, which was the original statement.

Which Bible? In case you haven't looked recently, the front 3/4ths of the Catholic Bible was written in Hebrew - and completed about 600 years before there was ever a Roman Catholic church.

It really is insulting for Catholics to keep claiming that they gave the world the Bible, when in case they have missed it, the biggest part was given to the world by JEWS. (ahh, I think I just figured it out).

[servantboy777]

A day to the Lord is like a thousand years.

[k2blader]

Good point.

Like many fellow fundies, I view the Bible as being inerrant, but I consider this different from being completely literally, historically, scientifically accurate.

[TXBubba]

Speaking of that. Ask a Jew how they count "days" in the Bible. Many people don't understand that the three days Jesus spent in the tomb was counted via the Jewish calendar. I believe "days" start either at sunset or midnight in that regard. Perhaps someone can answer that. That is why "three days" is accurate when it comes to Friday evening to Sunday morning of ressurection day...actually Thursday evening to Friday evening; Fri to Sat; Sat to Sun.

[safisoft]

One thing I've never understood about Genesis is how there could be morning and evening if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day.

Because the Hebrew idiom is not referring to an astronomical event.

[safisoft]

One thing I've never understood about Genesis is how there could be morning and evening if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day.

Because the Hebrew idiom is not referring to an astronomical event.

[sine_nomine]

This discussion sounds like pooled ignorance to me. The discussion in general.

[ItsForTheChildren]

He made us in His image.

I don't think God looks like me. Or George Burns for that matter.

Oh wait, did you really mean that literally?