Catholic church admits parts of the bible aren't true

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

noj
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:18 pm

Catholic church admits parts of the bible aren't true

Post #1

Post by noj »

:shock: 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. :lol:
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?

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #31

Post by Cathar1950 »

phoenixfire wrote:
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.
I don't remember how many times I have heard this poor reasoning.
I'll start out by stating that the books are not divine. I think God or gods are divine. There is no reason why if something was incorrect someone would have said anything. Maybe they did and the opposition was destroyed.
Come to think of it, that is what happened. They called it heresy, both sides. How would they know it was incorrect? Everyone was pretty dead by the time the author of Mark wrote his little story about 70 CE after the fall of Jerusalem and it was written to gentiles who followed Paul. Of course The Author of Matthew 15 years later corrected Mark's work while while doing a rewrite. Then the Church did some editing between then and 400 CE. Luke wrote around 90-100 CE and added a few more changes as he rewrote. John doesn't count. Anyway no one was around that had witnessed anything considering the Jerusalem Church was most likely eradicated during the revolt 66-70. All this and add the split between Paul's teaching and James somewhat reflected and glossed over by the author of Acts and you have no wittinesses to already disagreements with in the church which is also a little known time in the history of the church.

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 is good evidence that Luke and Acts were written after 95 CE when Josephus wrote his stuff. "James the brother of Jesus".
There are also other reasons the particular books were canonized, including the books consistency with other writings of the apostles and the Old Testament.
Considering the NT authors were using the OT greek version it should be some consistency. The question was the story related to the OT or was the story made to fit the OT. Matthew get the virgin story mixed up because he didn't understand Hebrew. The gospel writers where looking for patterns that fit their preconcived notions of Jesus and each was different. They filled in the blanks.

steen
Scholar
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:23 pm
Location: Upper Midwest

Post #32

Post by steen »

phoenixfire wrote: Most types of plants and sea creatures would obviously survive a flood.
No photosynthesis for 40 days and flood waters powerful enough to rearrange the earth's surface? That would kill off the plants.

And was the flood freshwater or saltwater? In either case, the other organisms would die off.
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!"

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #33

Post by Cathar1950 »

phoenixfire wrote:
The divine (and thusly inerrant) authorship of the Old Testament can be know by, among other things, the opinion of Jesus Christ himself.
As has been stated before, the Gospel writers wrote as the saw fit. We can't be sure what Jesus thought. Paul he took the lead didn't bother to tell us what Jesus actually taught he was mostly concerned with ideas about Jesus. The Gospel writers seem to have had a collection of Jesus sayings and most worked from Mark and felt free to change according to their needs. The letters of Peter, John, 5 Pauline, Jude, Titus, and Timothy, are all suspect. John may have had some of the gospels but took an almost gnostic turn and is hardly recognizable compared to the other 3 gospels. His Christology is more developed.

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

Post #34

Post by Jose »

phoenixfire wrote: Most types of plants and sea creatures would obviously survive a flood.
Doesn't this kinda prove that parts of the bible aren't true? After all, it comes right out and says that all living things were destroyed by the flood. Yet, here we have faith that some of them lived through it. And, of course, to get that olive leaf, they had to. It looks like the statement that everything was destroyed can't be true.
Panza llena, corazon contento

User avatar
Chimp
Scholar
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:20 pm

Post #35

Post by Chimp »

to get that olive leaf
Amen, Brother...hehe Olive trees may be tough once they are grown,
but they are a total pain in the ass to get started. It takes years to get them
rolling.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #36

Post by Cathar1950 »

Maybe God made the olive tree grow real fast?
Jesus Jose don't be such a pessimist. Pun on the names intended.
I name my son Joshua.
I would like to know why an all powerful God needed Noah to build a boat?
Why was he sending out doves? Why God not just say "I see land"?

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

Post #37

Post by Jose »

The ways of God are not our ways; how can we know why He decides to do things one way or another?

The reason he couldn't make the olive trees grow real fast is that The Rules tell us that after the Flood, the laws of physics were as they are now, and there was no further divine intervention. This is the only way that we can pretend that there might be "evidence" for a Flood--that it left deposits and stuff. If there was more creation and more divine intervention, then the YEC viewpoint is forced to diminish to "everything we see is exactly as god made it, whenever he made it, which could have been yesterday for all we know." This view kinda suggests that there should be no reason whatsoever for any physical laws or consistency of observations--something that is fairly easily ruled out by some very simple scientific analyses.

In any event, the bible doesn't say that god made new trees grow real fast, so he must not have. We're back to the same conundrum: some statements that cannot all be true at once.
Panza llena, corazon contento

Post Reply