Posted on 10/04/2005 4:28:28 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
>>"We are long past the days of believing that the world was created in six 24-hour days."
>I don't think the Catholic Church believes in a word for word literal interpretation of the scriptures...certainly you don't get that from augustine, aquinas, francis, etc.
I think, however, it is accurate to say that the Bible is Scripturally true (as opposed to, for example, scientifically true). That is, we may take the Bible as God's teaching device to reveal his eternal truths to us.
Never.
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I. Cor. 2:14
(But it isn't necessarily a permanent condition)
This seems odd to me. You say, "All I'm saying is that it seems pretty officious of the bishops to sit down and say, "This is true" or "This is myth," when they really have absolutely no way of knowing." It is the job of bishops to not only know the truth but see to it that the seminaries teach it to the priests. Maybe you are the one with the problem, if you have "absolutely no way of knowing."
And here I thought it was a story about someone disobeying God in a big way :-)
I never understood the reluctance to buy into the Jonah story, yet other fantastic stories are OK - parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection, feeding of the 5000, whatever. God couldn't keep Jonah alive in the gut of a huge fish?
Were some of Christ's parables embellished by the Gospel writers? Probably, in fact, very likely.
Well, parables are stories meant to teach a lesson and are not necessarily understood to be accounts of actual events - but do you think the Gospel writers were inspired, and if so... why would they change what Jesus said?
This is the constant teaching of the Church which shall not change, ever:
"... the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, II, xxviii, 2. 2nd century.
"... following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, [the Council of Trent] receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament,—seeing that one God is the author of both ....
But if anyone receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church ... let him be anathema."
Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, Council of Trent, Session IV, April 8,1546.
"All of the books that the Church accepts as sacred and canonical, in their entirety, and together with all theirs parts, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, it is utterly impossible for the least error to be divinely inspired. In fact, by its very nature inspiration not only excludes all error, but makes its presence as utterly impossible as it is for God, the supreme truth, to be the author of any error whatever."
Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, November 18,1893.
If by Bible, is meant the Old AND New Testaments, yes. IAC, it was the 13th Century before it was gathered into a single book the size of the one's we read today. The Paris Bible was produced in the thousands. It was in Latin, but every literate person in Europe could read Latin.
I ditto that Wow and up you a WOW!
bump
But it goes on all the time.
There sure are a lot of petulant, smartass Bible-believers on this thread.
The frame of reference in Ge 1:2 is the Spirit of God hovering over the waters of the earth. The fourth day isn't necessarily the sun being created, it's the sun becoming visible on the surface of the earth after eons of an opaque atmosphere.
This is one of the reasons I don't think it could be six literal days.
The Hebrew word yom, translated as day, has three literal meanings - a 12 hour period, a 24 hour period, and a long indeterminate time. It would be a literal translation to say that the events in Ge 1 took place over six long epochs - notice there is no ending mentioned of the seventh, which we're in...
In fact, every book of the Bible was written by Jews, regardless of who compiled them together or translated them.
In a theological sense, Christians are still bound by Mosaic Law - - Yeshua followed Mosaic Law. Christianity is Messianic Judaism.
Both Yahweh and Yeshua are Zionists without exception or compromise. The enemies of Israel are nations of the Enemy.
I would defy anyone to say otherwise...
Of course while you argue about it, you have taken your eye off of the real enemy: The reason the Islamic pagan thugs and neo-pagan new age left hates Western Civilization is that it was founded on Mosaic Law.
Comments anyone?
That would be an interesting argument to sit in on, especially since it was Lot's wife that turned into a pillar of salt.
Then why the hell are you here?
Although, I am an atheist take note: There is no such thing as an ecumenical atheist or an orthodox atheist...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.