Catholic church admits parts of the bible aren't true

[noj]

Wow, just wow: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 32,00.html

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”.

and later on...

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.”

I feel like asking someone to pinch me incase i'm dreaming.

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.”

Like for example, a major world leader being told 'by god' to invade other countries.

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.”

I literally cannot describe how happy this makes me feel. Every time I mention my religion I feel like an asshole because of what (it sometimes seems) the rest of the world's Christians are doing in the name of the religion. But this... Its be like Bush turning round and admitting he screwed up and that he was going to drop taxes for low income workers. Its like getting a call from your principal apologising for the behaviour of that asshole techer who wouldn't cut you a break, and raising your grades. In short, it's the most god-damn brollic news i've had since hearing my brother won an xbox 360, and there is not a guitar in the world big enough for the solo I now want to bust out.

What do you guys think?

[Cathar1950]

A little reason could go a long way. One thing that some religions in my country often do not understand is the subjective mythological nature of their beliefs. Even Myth is often misunderstood as facts and not as stories pointing to the quest for personal and community understanding and identity. I do not know how many times I have read in these forums some one saying that some interpretation of their beliefs are facts and not highly subjective beliefs based on highly subjective interpretations and writings. They some how think their scriptures dropped out of the sky compleat and ready for implementation. I have even read people (Protestants) complaining about the Catholics while never understanding that their traditions and writings were shaped by the same sources.

[phoenixfire]

Wow, just wow: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 32,00.html

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...What do you guys think?

I just want to repost part of what I posted here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=20

I don't know the full intent of what this document was published, but this first part at least is not necessarily contradictory to traditional Christian belief (though maybe they meant it to be).

My book on systematic theology defines Biblical inerrancy as 'Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact'

Following that are sections titled 'The bible can be inerrant and still speak in the ordinary languge of everyday speech', 'the bible can be inerrant and still include loose or free quotations', 'it is consistent with inerrancy to have unusual or uncommon grammatical constructions', etc.

For instance, if a writer of a narrative said '8000 men were killed in battle' he is not implying that he counted everyone. In the context and genre of what the write is saying, exact numbers are not expected. He is still mkaing a true statement even though 8246 men may have been killed in battle. But if 20000 were killed then it would be an untrue statement. It's like when somebody asks you how far away you live and you say '2 miles' even though the actual distance is 2.43 miles. You are not lying even though what your answer was not 100% accurate. Of course, 2.43 is just an approximation as well and is not 100% scientifically accurate.

When people believe the Bible is inerrant it does not mean every single phrase is literally true. But skeptics like to imply this is what the ignorant Christians believe and then they disprove the Bible by pointing out how some sentence somewhere is not literally true when the sentence was never meant to be taken that way.

[Jose]

When people believe the Bible is inerrant it does not mean every single phrase is literally true. But skeptics like to imply this is what the ignorant Christians believe and then they disprove the Bible by pointing out how some sentence somewhere is not literally true when the sentence was never meant to be taken that way.

But how do the inerrantists know what was meant to be true? Aren't they just picking and choosing to suit their preferred interpretation? And, since they are picking and choosing, why insist on choosing to claim that certain bits are true, when they manifestly contradict the actual earth itself?

Why can't they say that if Genesis says that the flood killed all living things except those with Noah, and then Noah sent out a dove, and it brought back a living olive leaf, that there's a contradiction here? Both statements cannot have been meant to be true if they are logically impossible, so why not accept that a local flood is far, far more likely than a global flood?

The weird thing about insisting on biblical inerrancy in the face of incosistencies is that the inerrantists are, in essence, claiming that they know the mind of God and that other Christian denominations do not. I bet that the other denominations think this is a very silly claim.

[Cathar1950]

When people believe the Bible is inerrant it does not mean every single phrase is literally true. But skeptics like to imply this is what the ignorant Christians believe and then they disprove the Bible by pointing out how some sentence somewhere is not literally true when the sentence was never meant to be taken that way.

It seems to say in effect that the bible is not inerrant, but my view and reading is inerrant, if you claim any kind of inerrancy.
If they are human they can't be inerrant nor can our interpretations even in the original words. If the bible is not human, like the some claim then they still are not inerrant because humans have any thing to do with it.
Any thing else is a claim that can not be substantiated for all of the above reasons. We are human.

[phoenixfire]

When people believe the Bible is inerrant it does not mean every single phrase is literally true. But skeptics like to imply this is what the ignorant Christians believe and then they disprove the Bible by pointing out how some sentence somewhere is not literally true when the sentence was never meant to be taken that way.

But how do the inerrantists know what was meant to be true? Aren't they just picking and choosing to suit their preferred interpretation? And, since they are picking and choosing, why insist on choosing to claim that certain bits are true, when they manifestly contradict the actual earth itself?

Why can't they say that if Genesis says that the flood killed all living things except those with Noah, and then Noah sent out a dove, and it brought back a living olive leaf, that there's a contradiction here? Both statements cannot have been meant to be true if they are logically impossible, so why not accept that a local flood is far, far more likely than a global flood?

The weird thing about insisting on biblical inerrancy in the face of incosistencies is that the inerrantists are, in essence, claiming that they know the mind of God and that other Christian denominations do not. I bet that the other denominations think this is a very silly claim.

Nobody that knows anything about proper interpretation of scripture takes one passage and uses it to try to prove something. It is called proof-texting. I know Christians do this sometimes because they haven't been propety taught how to interpret scripture, but it is also done all the time by people trying to disprove the Bible.

The way inerrantists KNOW what is true is by using proper hermenutics (study of how to interpret scripture). You have to take into consideration the paragraph, chapter, book, genre, the original language, and what the rest of the Bible says. The study of what the ENTIRE bible says on any particular topic is called systematic theology. And when you study every mention of a particular topic it becomes quite clear what the Bible teaches. If you can study the whole Bible and something is not clear (which happens, usually because there aren't many verses about it) then it is something that is not that important and a firm stand should not be taken on the issue.

It is obviously impossible to clearly explain just about anything in just one sentence. We all know that you can take a sentence of someone's speech out of context and make it look like they are saying something completely different than what they actually were trying to say.

Nobody is claiming to have some special insight to the mind of GOD that others don't. All denominations can look at the same Bible.

Let's review what the Bible actually says about the issue you brought up.

Gen 6:7 'So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind..from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and the birs of the air..."

13 "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is flled with violence because of them...'

17 "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you and you wll enter the ark--you and your sons and your wife and your son's wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and femail, to keep them alive with you. Two of eery kind of bird, of every kind of animal and every kind of creature that moves along the ground..."

7:22 "Everythign on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth."

Do I need to go on? Obviously the context of passage does not say God wanted to utterly destroy every living (scientific definition) thing. He brought on the flood to destroy man and the land animals were also destroyed as a consequence. Most types of plants and sea creatures would obviously survive a flood.

So the two phrases you pulled out obviously do not contradict each other or disprove the inerrancy of the Bible.

[phoenixfire]

It seems to say in effect that the bible is not inerrant but my view and reading is inerrant if you claim any kind of inerrancy.
If they are human they they can't be inerrant nor can our interpretations or original words. If they are not human say like the some claim then they still are not inerrant because humans humans have any thing to do with it.
Any thing else is a claim that can not be substantiated for all of the above reasons.

I probably missed something you were saying due to bad grammar.

I think you were just saying that the Bible can't be innerrant because it was written by humans. Humans are of course not perfect UNLESS their writing was inspired by GOD. If GOD does exist and he wanted to communicate through a human he could obviously do so as he is GOD and by definition all powerful.

Many of the words of scriptures are direct quotations from God, though God did use various means to communicate.

It should be noted that basically the entire New Testaments was written by the apostles (those who were directly taughts by Jesus and who he gave special authority) or were books that were affirmed by apostles. The only real exception would be Hebrews whose Pauline authoriship is somewhat debatable.

The divine (and thusly inerrant) authorship of the Old Testament can be know by, among other things, the opinion of Jesus Christ himself.

[McCulloch]

It should be noted that basically the entire New Testaments was written by the apostles (those who were directly taughts by Jesus and who he gave special authority) or were books that were affirmed by apostles. The only real exception would be Hebrews whose Pauline authoriship is somewhat debatable.

I don't know where Luke, the author of the gospel of that name and of Acts, is listed as an apostle.

[Cathar1950]

I probably missed something you were saying due to bad grammar.

Probably, I didn't understand half of what I wrote.
I will get back to you on it. There were some other points but I need to eat something and take a nap.
Sorry I will see if I can fix it later.

[phoenixfire]

It should be noted that basically the entire New Testaments was written by the apostles (those who were directly taughts by Jesus and who he gave special authority) or were books that were affirmed by apostles. The only real exception would be Hebrews whose Pauline authoriship is somewhat debatable.

I don't know where Luke, the author of the gospel of that name and of Acts, is listed as an apostle.

I said 'or affirmed by apostles'. There are actually 4 NT books not written by apostles (Mark, Luke, Acts, Jude). Mark, Luke, and Acts were commonly acknowledged as scripture very early because of the association of Mark with Peter and of Luke with Paul. Jude was accepted because of the author's connectin with James, the brother of Jesus. The early church also had the personal testimony of various apostles to affirm the divinity of these books. If something was incorrect, someone would have said something.

And in the case of Luke, there of course were other people who were witnesses of Jesus and the events recorded in the gospel that could have contradicted anything incorrect.

There are also other reasons the particular books were canonized, including the books consistency with other writings of the apostles and the Old Testament.

[trencacloscas]

None of them were written by actual apostles, as far as we know. They just followed the tradition of Irineus Of Lyon to name them.