R
roadrunner570
Guest
I know what it sounds like, but does someone have a better explanation:
timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C13509-1811332%2C00.html
timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C13509-1811332%2C00.html
I see. Me being protestant, I’m trying to give the Catholic Church the benefit of the doubt here since on the protestant boards I go on, they are already having a field day with this.I may be able to add some insight to this though it is just my personal thoughts. I am attending a Church Ministry class and the first few weeks were on the Old Testament.When sister said that the bible was full of inaccuratcies I thought I would fall off my seat, she than went on to explain what she meant that may told stories and used their own interpretation and when the bible was compilied the stories than merged. I have only been in this class for a few weeks so my explaination is somewhat juvenile. I will say this, once she made clear what she meant it all made complete sense and I love the bible we can learn so much from it. I hope that the Bishops and priest explain what they are saying to people so that they also can understand.
I hope this helps
God Bless
Kathleen
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 manGenesis ii, 21-22
**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.”**Genesis iii, 16 **
The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.” And indeed the blood of Christ is on all of our hands. But the emphasis has been away from the Jews being guilty of deicide… and I see no problem with that. That the crowd boasted that doesn’t mean that it truly is specifically on their childen.**Matthew xxvii, 25 **
******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.”**Revelation xix,20 **
**“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.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. **
Well, even if these 3 bishops did say what the author thinks they did, it wouldn’t matter because 3 bishops don’t speak for the whole Church. Only the Magisterium and/or the pope speaks for the whole Church. After all, there was a time in the Church’s history when a majority of its bishops held to a heresy. But, they had a council of all the bishops, the heresy got thrown out and the Church was stronger than ever before. So, I’m not getting my panties in a twist over this article. It’s not important enough for that!Interesting points…and I was wondering how they determined what passages were true and not and how they determined that. The article I have to say DOES make the RCC look bad. I wonder if anyone knows where someone can see the actual document mentioned in the article so you can see what they actually said.
* Opening the Gift of Scripture
Material for Deanery Meetings
* Preaching the Word
Reflections on preaching drawn from The Gift of Scripture
* Celebrating the Word
Preparing a liturgy of the word
* Praying the Word
Lectio Divina and the Sunday Scriptures
* Sharing the Word
Lectionary based Catechesis
* Proclaiming the Word
Guidelines for Ministering the Word at Sunday Mass
* Ministers of the Word
Guidelines ministers prepared by the Liturgy Office
I think it is perfectly orthodox (and also very late in being said). Odd though that may seem. For, incompleteness is not error, nor is bias, nor are a lot of other defects in the Bible, nor are the characteristics of the writings of which it is made - in fact, ISTM that assertions of inerrancy have been very poorly focussed.It seems to be as if the title is sensational. At the end it lists verses that it claims are “untrue.”
**This is perfectly true, but not in the sense that it is literally true. It is perfectly true that God created man, and that he created woman from man… but that doesn’t mean the Bible purports this to be a literalistic history of what *actually ***happened. The creation story expresses religious truths… i.e., God created man, creation is good, etc…
**
After the fall, the human body is susceptible to many weaknesses… I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Perhaps it wasn’t literally a serpent… as the serpent would symbolic of what Satan really is, but that doesn’t mean Satan didn’t tempt the woman to the fall, or that the story is untrue…**
And indeed the blood of Christ is on all of our hands. But the emphasis has been away from the Jews being guilty of deicide… and I see no problem with that. That the crowd boasted that doesn’t mean that it truly is specifically on their childen.
**
**Obviously this is apocalyptic literature, which uses symbols very extravagently. What the symbols represent is true. Was there a beast literally with X number of horns? These are symbols for real things. Yes it is true, no it isn’t meant to be literal in the sense that the beast is some sort of demonic creature… the beast is Nero. ********
The part that I wonder if it is orthodox is this:
I must go, I’ll get back to this sometime.