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.

[georgiadevildog]

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.

The scripture you quoted later in your post was deemed "God's word" by people just like these bishops. My question, which nobody has been able to answer, is this: how do we know that those who canonized the Bible didn't "have absolutely no way of knowing" as you put it?

[safisoft]

The Bible is inerrant. That is what the Church teaches. But it is not literally true.

Wow. This is breath-taking. If the Catholic 'church' believes the Bible is inerrant, but not literally true, this can explain a lot about the confusion among Catholics over what Scripture teaches. This explains it all...

[Alberta's Child]

Read the passages involving the multiplication of the loaves, too. I believe one Gospel states that five loaves and two fish were involved, one leaves out the fish, and another includes an unspecified number of loaves and fish.

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

[ClearAndPresent]

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.

[sinkspur]

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.

One can be fairly certain that some things in Scripture are part of a story. Jonah in the belly of a big fish, for instance.

Jesus used parables as teaching vehicles. It's hard to imagine that that methodology was not ingrained into Jewish history as a way of explaining and discussing God's relationship to the Jewish people.

[sinkspur]

Jonah was a real person.

Well, I'm not going to argue with you about it. If it helps you to believe that he was, then you should.

[el capitalista]

The law in the Old Testament was there to show that we are unable to keep it. There is no way anyone in the O.T. was able to keep all those laws. They fell short every time no matter how much they tried. What about the Jews?

[Savage Beast]

The ultimate truth--and the only ultimate truth--is God.

[Puddleglum]

The headline distorts what the bishops said.

"We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision"

It's not an earth-shattering departure from traditional exegesis. In fact, it's nothing new at all. Just an article to exacerbate the passions of folks who don't read past the headline.

[sinkspur]

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

Exactly.

[B-Chan]

Sigh. Let the bashing begin.

[Cicero]

Actually, Protestants have the harder time making their case, because as one convert to Catholicism points out, nowhere in Scripture is it written, "Sola scriptura." Also, as John Donne remarks in one of his sermons, the first Christians had to ask the Jews, "Which books were the scriptures?"

Catholics believe that God guides His Church to the Truth, and therefore when the Church decided that certain books were canonical and which were not (effectively decided at least as early as St. Jerome but not formally confirmed until the Council of Trent), they had divine guidance. Similarly the writers of the various biblical books were divinely guided.

There is, of course, no way to prove this unless you have faith, something Protestants and Catholics agree on. But I would find it hard to study history and not conclude that God intervened in history, first to the Jews and then to Christians. Both the Jewish and Christian stories are firmly anchored in history, although it's possible to be a skeptic and disbelieve it.

[k2blader]

Whew. Well, here's my mea culpa.

Still, the thread has some interesting discussion. :o)

[TXBubba]

And there have been other accounts of people surviving in the bellies of large "fish" (whales) also. Not to remove from Jonah and special qualities but to point out that its happening isn't a farfetched myth.

[safisoft]

When Jesus spoke in parables, were all those stories exactly true? Probably not.

Most 'Christians' do not know anything about Jewish literature or Hebraisms. If they did they would be able to quickly dicern a figure of speech or a mashal [parable]. The fact is that just because a mashal is used or an idiom does not make it 'not literal'.

Americans speak in a very literal language when it is heard by Americans. A non-American hears the multiplicity of idioms and thinks we are speaking in parables. We're not. We just use a language of idioms. Hebrew is very much like that. When you read it in English, as an American you think that it should not be treated literally - but that is because you are ignorant of the original language.

BTW, if you are ever interested in REALLY understanding what the Bible teaches you will not rely on English (or worse Latin). You will learn the culture and language of the writers. Jewish culture, expressed in Hebrew and Greek.

I laugh everytime some biblical neophyte makes a comment about a not thinking the Bible is speaking of a literal 24 hour day being represented in Genesis 1. Anyone with any Hebrew background could tell you that no matter - those are literal days, and 24-hour ones. The use of the idiom "evening and morning" in addition to the explicit hayom ensure it in the most explicit Hebrew sense. Anyone who tells you other wise is only looking for excuses.

[TXBubba]

Read the passages involving the multiplication of the loaves, too

Not to nitpick but which multiplication are you speaking about? Because Jesus did this miracle on two separate occasions. I just want to verify that you aren't talking about the two different miracles but rather a discrepancy regarding just one of the two.

[gcruse]

"The Bible is inerrant. That is what the Church teaches. But it is not literally true."

Fake but accurate?

[DLfromthedesert]

I believe the bishops were referring to taking the Bible as literal truth. Which some people still do.

[Puddleglum]

Still, the thread has some interesting discussion. :o)

I agree. I read a book on the history of the Bible recently and it was very interesting. I hope to find another now that I've gotten a toe-hold on the subject.