Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

#1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1811332,00.html

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

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.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

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”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.

They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.

That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

UNTRUE

Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Matthew xxvii, 25

The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”

TRUE

Exodus iii, 14

God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”

Leviticus xxvi,12

“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”

Exodus xx,1-17

The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7

The Sermon on the Mount

Mark viii,29

Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ

Luke i

The Virgin Birth

John xx,28

Proof of bodily resurrection

JOIN THE DEBATE
www.timesonline.co.uk/debate
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#4
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,”

already knew that. anyone who didnt is blind.

very interesting read, this should piss off alot of the people who hold the bible so dear to them and take it literaly
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#5
I'm not surprised by this. It's a long, slow process in which the church continues to have to "give in" on certain such historical points to science.
This is a big move for the Church, though. And although i'm not religious, i believe this will benefit the Catholic church. It will "open up" the faith. I've always disliked the (silly?) literal teachings of f.e. Genesis.
 
#7
^^
Exactly what I was thinkin. lol

I doubt anybody is really going to lose their faith because of this, as long there are some things wrong but others are correct, then everything is fine.
 
#9
^ not catholic but I agree.

MY belief. If God can give life, death, voice, breath, vision, hearing, taste, smell, feeling, emotion, etc.. Why can't God write his own book? Better yet, why do WE need this book?

Alot of people literally "LIVE BY THE BOOK". I find it to be a pure act of ignorance to believe that everything in the bible is true. I'm sure SOME of it is true. But hell, some of FREDDY was true. I'm sure there was some child killer that got burned alive. And how bout Jason? People's been "possessed" and caused damage, i'm sure of it.
My point is that EVERY story has SOME truth to it. The bible is not something you should "refer to" or base your life by. It honestly serves no purpose in our modern society but a means to go to war appearantly. As far as I'm concerned, religion in the shape of a cover and pages, should be destroyed. Religion should be what you believe in your heart, not what you believe in your book you have on your dresser.
 
#10
theres no way to prove or disprove this claim considering none of us were there during the writting of the book. I 'd say just leave the book as is, let people use faith and call it a day. the book was written to establish the way god's people were to be living - considering (according to the bible) that the church should be apart from the 'world'. there fore this was the literal instruction manual. \
either the book is 100% real or not. You can not tell me that a 'Virgin Birth' can be considered believeable , but Revelation xix,20 is not.
 
#11
jesus was a scammer just like CR Rebel
he faked his ID sayin he from bethlehem
then he starts walking over the dead sea... yea pretty nice, it's so salty everybody can do that
then he eats some unrised bread and breaks it-- like ur suppose to as a jew on pesach, drinks some wine.. which was too much for him (only 4 glasses) cuz he believed it to be water lol and then he talkin ish about it bein his blood or w/e
and about him comming back? look he was hanged by the romans right? then some idiotic 'mothafukkin' fanboys took him off, burried him a G and then duck him up again cuz they wanted to see his penis one more time... one fanboy who was left out on this came accidently there and so they acted like he was still alive...
o and about him curing blind ppl, he just scammed that whole shit man.. the guy wasnt blind to begin with. he prolly gave him a blowjob or something to make that guy help him out in front of the crowd when ppl was doubting his sorry ass.
damn
what a punk. i hate scammers like that, any bytch knows the world aint flat. let's ban jesus.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#14
Baukem said:
jesus was a scammer just like CR Rebel
he faked his ID sayin he from bethlehem
then he starts walking over the dead sea... yea pretty nice, it's so salty everybody can do that
then he eats some unrised bread and breaks it-- like ur suppose to as a jew on pesach, drinks some wine.. which was too much for him (only 4 glasses) cuz he believed it to be water lol and then he talkin ish about it bein his blood or w/e
and about him comming back? look he was hanged by the romans right? then some idiotic 'mothafukkin' fanboys took him off, burried him a G and then duck him up again cuz they wanted to see his penis one more time... one fanboy who was left out on this came accidently there and so they acted like he was still alive...
o and about him curing blind ppl, he just scammed that whole shit man.. the guy wasnt blind to begin with. he prolly gave him a blowjob or something to make that guy help him out in front of the crowd when ppl was doubting his sorry ass.
damn
what a punk. i hate scammers like that, any bytch knows the world aint flat. let's ban jesus.
Son for real, i'm not even religious but that's plain disrespectful.
 
#16
Jocka said:
The bible is not something you should "refer to" or base your life by.
....
Religion should be what you believe in your heart, not what you believe in your book you have on your dresser.
I agree and would not limit it to Catholicism, it's true of all religion. There is a danger in relying too much on one source. Faith is best found by reference to ones own life and by applying the values in our heart, arguably which are influenced by various sources, but they should not be wholly determined by one book - that would generate a very narrow-minded understanding of life I believe.

"Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally."

I dont believe the bible was ever intended to be taken literally. A book called The Second Messiah suggests that the language in the bible is a particular form of expression, which may be misleading if not understood in the context of the time. It was written in a descriptive metaphorical way. Think of the way we speak these days, we use metaphors or otherwise expressive language which may be confusing if not understood in the context of the time with reference to the appropriate colloquialism.

I dont think a less literal translation of the bible will change anything at all, nor is a stunt. It just indicates to me a level of pragmatism with regard to religion which may have been missing in some circles.
 

Rukas

Capo Dei Capi
Staff member
#17
Amara said:
I agree and would not limit it to Catholicism, it's true of all religion. There is a danger in relying too much on one source. Faith is best found by reference to ones own life and by applying the values in our heart, arguably which are influenced by various sources, but they should not be wholly determined by one book - that would generate a very narrow-minded understanding of life I believe.

"Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally."

I dont believe the bible was ever intended to be taken literally. A book called The Second Messiah suggests that the language in the bible is a particular form of expression, which may be misleading if not understood in the context of the time. It was written in a descriptive metaphorical way. Think of the way we speak these days, we use metaphors or otherwise expressive language which may be confusing if not understood in the context of the time with reference to the appropriate colloquialism.

I dont think a less literal translation of the bible will change anything at all, nor is a stunt. It just indicates to me a level of pragmatism with regard to religion which may have been missing in some circles.
I totally agree, and I dont think this "knowledge" if you call it that will take away from the Bible, it doesn't disprove the core principles and teachings or take away from the values, it simply opens Christianity up to the world.

You only have to look at current writings, books of today are written for today, they are not written with the readers 2000 years from now in mind. They are written in the context of todays readers and are written to appeal to them, and in a language, dilect and style they understand, there is nothing to suggest that the Bible and other Religious books are not the same, written for their time, not ours. This doesnt take away from the meaning, only the scope.

A book written now, read 2000 years from now, will still make sense, but it will not encompass life 2000 years from now, it will only reflect life today.

Imagine people 2000 years from now trying to use a car manual from today to drive their cars or hovercrafts or whatever they have? The principles such as acceleration and breaking will be the same, but there is no way it can detail everything they need or know. Now imagine themselves trying to restrict their car use to the rules we set forth today?
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

Top