Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

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

[safisoft]

The New Testament didn't exist then.

When you people finally admit that the Bible is more than the 'New Testament' then you can start making assinine claims to the Bible again - but until then, remember that the front 3/4s of the CATHOLIC BIBLE owes nothing to the Roman Church.

[safisoft]

I guess you made my point for me. That's what the Church Fathers and scholars are for. To interpret and help us understand the scriptures. I'd venture to say that most folks who believe that every single word in their KJV is to be taken literally also have no understanding of Hebrew or Greek.

You'd be wrong. Maybe that is where so many so-called 'Christians' would be surprised at how many traditionally 'uneducated' people have learned to study the Bible as a 'scholar' does - because it does not take a 'scholar' - it only takes someone willing to spend the time and energy - someone who wants to know for THEMSELVES, and not assume that everyone with a funny hat on is right.

If you are functionally literate, you can understand the Bible in original languages. There are a plethora of tools - and they are cheep. Just pick up a $10 Strong's Concordance. Online Bible and eSword are FREE. The only people who don't study the Bible as a 'scholar' does are those left without an excuse except laziness.

[green iguana]

The Bible is literally true from cover to cover.

The previous response to you is the best answer to explain why you are wrong. But as a more practical example: If what you say is correct, how do you explain the obvious contradiction between Genesis 1:25-27 and Genesis 2:18-19? Genesis 1 and 2 have direct contradictions in the order of creation - they can not both be literally true. And you'll note that we're not even out of the second chapter of the first book yet...

[Pyro7480]

When you people finally admit that the Bible is more than the 'New Testament' then you can start making assinine claims to the Bible again - but until then, remember that the front 3/4s of the CATHOLIC BIBLE owes nothing to the Roman Church.

Please do not direct your comment about "assinine claims" towards me, since I made no such thing. The Christian Bible, as it exists today, owes its existence largely to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, due to its councils and the copying skills of monks throughout the centuries.

[HamiltonJay]

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.

This is absolutely true... The Catholic faith does not believe in word for word literal interpretation of the Scripture. Never has... This isn't news folks. The only folks this is news to are folks who are for whatever reason wholey ignorant of the Catholic faith.

God created the heavens and the earth.. but he didn't do it in 6 human days. We were cast out of paradise due to original sin, God created a perfect world for us to live in, and we messed it up by our sin.. but was there a literal garden of eden? no. Etc etc etc..

You cannot read the writings of any of Catholicism and find anyone advocating a literal interpretation of every word of the Bible... going back the entire 2000 or so years of the Roman Catholic faith.

Catholicims is not rabbid evangelicalism.

[safisoft]

but the King James Version or whichever translation you prefer did not simply fall out of the sky.

Stone Tanach, Mesorah Publications. And it has no finger prints of Rome on it. And yes, it is a COMPLETE Bible - just not a Catholic one. If you will turn to your 'New Testament' you will find that Paul refers to my Bible as "The Scriptures". It was the BIBLE of the first believers. And no, Rome had not put its finger prints upon it. And yes, is a complete book - and was one long before the city of seven hills superceded Jerusalem in people's minds as the source of 'truth' /sarcasm.

[safisoft]

I don't know what version you have, but there is this whole big section called the New Testament, which makes it the Bible,

You people don't get out of mass much do you? The term "Bible" did not originate in the Roman Church - and there are a lot of places selling Bibles that do not contain 'New Testaments' - so they might be surprised by your claim. People like you spout this line every time, and when challenged you make some noise about "Oh, I meant the WHOLE Bible" - meanwhile discounting the fact that 3/4 of your Bible was what your supposed first pope (Kefa, Peter) called SCRIPTURE - and it was the only Bible HE HAD.

[safisoft]

The Christian Bible, as it exists today, owes its existence largely to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, due to its councils and the copying skills of monks throughout the centuries.

Even when using a source that is relieved from copyright it is still polite to cite your source. If you people were polite the first line of your copyright claim would say, "We owe the largest part of this document to the Jews and their careful preservation of the Scriptures". Instead you make assinine comments about delivering to the world "the Bible".

BTW, If you knew anything about textual transmission you would know that the 'New Testament' is not a single document. It is not even thousands of documents. It is many thousands. And there are so many variations and omissions that it makes the head spin. That is not to say that it cannot be derived from - it is only to say that if you people had done a better job of preserving what you claim comes from you, it would have made it easier for people like me.

On the other hand, when the earliest known copy of the Masor from Isaiah (Codex Leningrad) was compared to the great Isaiah scroll discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was THE SAME except for some punctuation. Separated by 1,300 years of scribes, and the Jews had preserved it. That is why the 'New Testament' says that the oracles of G-d were entrusted to the Jews - not Catholics or Protestants.

BTW, I am not Jewish.

[Preachin']

"I sure hope they aren't! Any word from the Vatican as to when they will be booted out?"

Just after the Kennedys.

[MeanWestTexan]

"The only authentic hierarchy if the Catholic church is the Pope and at the Vatican. Where is the Vatican source for this story?"

Hey, as repeatedly stated, I don't endorse the story, just posted it here because it was darned interesting. Kindly don't be smarmy to the messenger.

[MeanWestTexan]

"The Christian Bible, as it exists today, owes its existence largely to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, due to its councils and the copying skills of monks throughout the centuries."

True, as far as the New Testament is concerned.

Just for some historical trivia, it was primarily the Celtic Church tradition of monks that did this, not the Roman, which did not have nearly a strong tradition of monestaries --- which, while sometime unified with Rome (founded allegedly by Joseph of Aramathia, joined with Rome in the Synod of Whitby (like 300AD something), then broke off again just PRIOR TO Henry VIII, but was always a bunch of savages (think Braveheart)and a pain in Rome's buttocks in the interim).

[wallcrawlr]

If the Bible is not true than Christs redemption is not true.

Not sure why people try to create an "obvious contradiction", when there is none. Do you think God or Moses was confused when he wrote this down?

Genesis 1:25-27 - > Animals were created before Adam. Man has not evolved from them.

Genesis 2:18-19 - > God restates that he created animals/birds and Adam now names them. Adam is not like the animals, he has no equal, he did not evolve from them...he has no helpmate (yet).
Gen 1 = The account of creation
Gen 2 = Mans need for a helpmate

[Aquinasfan]

We are long past the days of believing that the world was created in six 24-hour days.

Right. Then there are allegories, etc.

The point is that the Church teaches that Scripture is the inspired Word of God. The reporting is very misleading.

As for the "Bible alone" crowd, I'd like to know where in the Bible Jesus is recorded as commanding his Apostles to write a New Testament. I do seem to recall something about the church being "the pillar and foundation of truth," though. Christ's Church wrote, preserved and canonized the Bible. No Church, no Bible.

[Aquinasfan]

I take it from God that the Bible is his Word.

Where's that in the Bible?

Does the Bible record Jesus commanding the writing of the New Testament?

Does the Bible tell us what books should be in the Bible?

Who determined the canon of the New Testament? By what authority?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I really like your name, <1/1,000,000th%

Thank you. It's from a Thomas Edison quote on a bumper sticker that someone I worked with for a long time had on a filing cabinet. I understand that our names don't have to make any sense.

In my own case I'm Protestant, but I like the writings of the early Church fathers. I'm just not crazy about the idea that only the Pope can be inspired by God.

The point of my post is that this thread isn't news to anyone who's followed the Church. The Church has never sworn by the truth of the Bible. But that's the media for ya. ;)

[ex-snook]

"As for the "Bible alone" crowd, I'd like to know where in the Bible Jesus is recorded as commanding his Apostles to write a New Testament."

Very good point. God the Father wrote in stone. Jesus wrote in sand. Jesus believed in teaching through others, not writings.

He selected apostles with Peter as the head to bind and to loose. The Catholic Church is the successor to the apostles with the Pope as Peter.

The Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation. Nothing more, nothing less.

[spunkets]

From the article:

"Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”"

They're right and the headline is wrong.

[radioman]

We don't even know who decided which books would be in the Bible

Sir Francis Bacon...1611
.

[conservonator]

Never.

With God all things are possible :)