Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

College Confidential Community
1

<p>If the Holy Book is false than how can the religion be true?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
Europe </p>

<p>The Times October 05, 2005 </p>

<p>Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

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

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

<p>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. </p>

<p>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”. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

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

<p>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.” </p>

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

<p>“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.” </p>

<p>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.” </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.” </p>

<p>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. </p>

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

<p>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.” </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.” </p>

<p>BELIEVE IT OR NOT</p>

<p>UNTRUE</p>

<p>Genesis ii, 21-22</p>

<p>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 </p>

<p>Genesis iii, 16 </p>

<p>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.” </p>

<p>Matthew xxvii, 25 </p>

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

<p>Revelation xix,20 </p>

<p>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.” </p>

<p>TRUE </p>

<p>Exodus iii, 14 </p>

<p>God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.” </p>

<p>Leviticus xxvi,12 </p>

<p>“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.” </p>

<p>Exodus xx,1-17 </p>

<p>The Ten Commandments </p>

<p>Matthew v,7 </p>

<p>The Sermon on the Mount </p>

<p>Mark viii,29 </p>

<p>Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ </p>

<p>Luke i </p>

<p>The Virgin Birth </p>

<p>John xx,28 </p>

<p>Proof of bodily resurrection</p>

2

<p>
[quote]
If the Holy Book is false than how can the religion be true?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is a difference between "false" and not completely accurate. The Bible isn't a history book, or a science book. It's only natural that it can't meet the stringent standards of today on such positions. There is a lot to be learned from the Bible, but taking every word literally, despite clearly metaphorical passages, isn't the right way to approach it.</p>

3

<p>^Agreed. It has long been the Catholic belief that many stories of the Bible are more symbolic than literal. As shocking as it may be to the OP, almost all of us (Catholics) know that the world wasn't created in 168 hours and Noah didn't take two of every animal into a boat when the entire earth was flooded. These stories have value not in the fact that they're true to the letter, but in the fact that they have been used for centuries to illustrate moral messages.</p>

4

<p>+1 on buckeyenation's post. I've always thought the catholic church has done a great job keeping up with the times. Unlike certain protestants, catholics don't believe in the utter literal-ness of the bible. The earth isn't 6000 years old, wasn't created in 7 24-hour days, etc. etc. etc. So really, this article isn't a groundbreaking new teaching from the Church.</p>

5

<p>If the Bible is the word of God, how can it not be accurate? </p>

<p>Since God is Perfect how can His word be not perfect?</p>

6

<p>oh lets please not get into this...</p>

7

<p>I'm with Icarus. Besides, everyone knows the Church of the Sub-Genius is the one true religion:-)</p>

8

<p>I am sorry. I am not trying to offend anybody or trying to start something. Honestly, We are college students and as college students we are part of a higher educational system that gives the ability to stand and think on our own two feet not to blindly follow. We have the resoure, our brain, to think and ponder and understand. We only use 3% of our intellectual capacity, why not make the most of it. No longer can we sit there and just follow what mommy and daddy said. That does not make sense. If the own Catholic Church is coming out and testifying the Holy Book is not completely accurate, then there is something wrong there. Which leads to question, that if God is Perfect in His Majestical Perfection, how can His own word not be completely accurate and that is not speaking about metaphoric phrases. Again as pupils of a higher educational system, we can no longer blindly follow or justify falsified documents.</p>

9

<p>well first, we are not all college stuents here (as if that is a deciding factor of maturity or ability to think independantly), but more importantly, this will lead to some ugly conversation. Personally, I enjoy lively debate about any topic, but that seems to be difficult to accomplish on internet forums. Religion is one of those things that most people do have because of their upbringing. Most people don't think critically about it at all and, as you point out, blindly follow whatever mom/dad/pastor thinks. </p>

<p>But whatever, here's my $.02</p>

<p>It really comes down to the following: with religious issues, someone can ALWAYS just say "it was inspired by god" or "god did it" or "that's just how god is" or something to that effect, and no one can argue with that. The problem with that is that this makes it an invalid argument. So don't argue about it - the only topic even worth debating when it comes to religion is the existance or non-existance of god.</p>

10

<p>side tangent - I thought they always believed that a "day" wasn't necessarily 24 hours, but a "day" of God, which could be 100's of years apiece our time...</p>

<p>The only part I guess I am surprised at is the part about not accepting revelations...Perphaps in rebuttal to the "Left Behind" series???</p>

11

<p>hmh01... As college students, you should have the knowledge to know that most of the stuff in the bible cannot possibly happen...</p>

12

<p>6000 years, also pretty sure that Protestants just believe that's how long mankind has been on earth, not how old the earth is, I may be getting religions crossed...</p>

13

<p>A people lived by the law of Moses, exactly following the laws set out...A people cleared the land of others and occupied it...There were droughts and famines in the land, nope, never happened in the history of whenever...We have never had any smaller group come in and wipe out nations, nope, not true <em>end of sarcasm</em> </p>

<p>That is a gross generalization...And "could not" is a very strong rationalization..</p>

14

<p>There has yet to be one Catholic to reply to the issue. There is 1 Billion Catholics worldwide. This issue is not something small its something that is serious and again I am only trying to understand. Please acknowledge the points I have previously stated.</p>

15

<p>I never believed in the Bible. I read it, but I didn't believe it. I don't want to offend anybody, but most of the things that talk about in the Bible is simply impossible and very hard to believe. Even though people say that the Bible is words of God, but who knows who wrote the Bible? It could have been some randomest guy trying to write some kind of novel for once or something. I guess I believe in God himself (I'm not atheist or anything... possibly,, but still thinking on that issue,) but I don't believe in Bible. </p>

<p>Again, I hope I'm not offending anyone.</p>

16

<p>I agree with your point, but I'm not catholic, so I pass the question on...</p>

17

<p>Even though people say that the Bible is words of God, but who knows who wrote the Bible?</p>

<p>but see, we do know (more of less) who wrote the respective books of the bible (esp. the NT). The bible was not written as one big volume, but is rather a collection of works written by many people over thousands of years, then put together by the christian church thousands of years after the events it describes. Many of the books of the NT are simply letters that were never meant to be scripture, sent between the leaders of ancient churches. And there were plenty of other such writings that didn't "make the cut" as it were. Looked at in this context, it would seem to be a big stretch to say that the Bible is gods infallible word.</p>

18

<p>Here's also another link sort of about this topic:
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051130/od_nm/pope_limbo_dc%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051130/od_nm/pope_limbo_dc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>