interesting article

  • Thread starter Thread starter Valz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No one should read the Bible literally, but with plain understanding, as the fundementalists do. Genesis clearly tells us the world was created in six, 24 hour days. I’m outraged at the Bishop’s foolish audacity that they somehow can declare the Genesis and Revelations to be “not truth”. If the first and last part of the Bible are not true, whose to say the middle part is? And without a first Adam, there is no need for a second Adam (Jesus), and our whole religion is bogus anyway. The authority of the Bible starts from the very first verse, or not at all.

These bishops have clearly committed heresy.
 
This article surfaced on an Anglican list, and some discussion ensued. I (a guest on the list) commented that the Anglicans themselves claim only that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation, not that "We should expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.”

Science, as we know it today, did not exist when the books of Holy Scripture were written,and the Canon of Scripture set by the Church. And history was recorded in a very different way then, too. (Read Heroditus. It’s certainly history, but not as we write it today.)

The suggestion that we should find scientific fact and absolute historical accuracy, as we understand it today, to be found in Holy Scripture is nonsense. And the article is nothing but mischief.

Belloc wrote of the strong background of anti-Catholicism in England. Looks like it hasn’t entirely gone away, certainly not in the leftish British press.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
These posts are very interesting. In view of them I have a few elementary questions:
  1. Who wrote the Bible, God or men?
  2. Are there any original source documents of the scriptural canon extant? If so, which are extant and where are they?
3.In what language was the Old Testament written?
  1. In what language was the New Testament written?
  2. When the the Church finally decide what the scriptural canon would be?
 
The Bible can most certainly be taken literaly, when the scriptures speak literaly. When the scriptures speak poeticly, read poeticly - and so on. The only way to test scripture reliably is with scripture itself, it’s God’s word not man’s.

*Then the LORD stretched out His hand and touched my mouth, and the LORD said to me, “Behold, I have put My words in your mouth.” * (Jeremiah 1:9).

Another, and most important thing to remember is the Bible is a living book - it has countless revelations given only through the Holy Spirit:

“But the soulish man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, and he is not able to know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (I Corinthians 2:14)

Bless you who study and pray for the Holy Spirit to clear your minds and reveal the face of God to you.
 
40.png
OriginalJS:
These posts are very interesting. In view of them I have a few elementary questions:
  1. Who wrote the Bible, God or men?
Click to expand...
The books are the Word of God in the words of men - they are not purely Divine; they are entirely human too
  1. Are there any original source documents of the scriptural canon extant? If so, which are extant and where are they?
Click to expand...
No - they are lost
3.In what language was the Old Testament written?
Click to expand...
Most of it in Hebrew; sections of Ezra & Daniel are in Aramaic.
  1. In what language was the New Testament written?
Click to expand...
Greek, with the possible exception of Matthew or whatever text or texts may have preceded the canonical book as now current.
  1. When the the Church finally decide what the scriptural canon would be?
Click to expand...
The first notices of the full 72/3-book canon as known to RCs go back to the fourth century - the canon had been in flux before then, within narrower limits the later the list, broadly speaking, and was to remain so, in the West at least; one or two Churches - the Armenian, IIRC, with others, perhaps - have never accepted the canonicity of the book of Revelation

To learn about the Bible, one must learn to ask the right questions.
 
40.png
Kane:
No one should read the Bible literally, but with plain understanding, as the fundementalists do. Genesis clearly tells us the world was created in six, 24 hour days. I’m outraged at the Bishop’s foolish audacity that they somehow can declare the Genesis and Revelations to be “not truth”. If the first and last part of the Bible are not true, whose to say the middle part is? And without a first Adam, there is no need for a second Adam (Jesus), and our whole religion is bogus anyway. The authority of the Bible starts from the very first verse, or not at all.

These bishops have clearly committed heresy.
Click to expand...
In fairness to the bishops - it is not clear that the list of passages labelled “UNTRUE” & “TRUE” is a quotation from what the bishops wrote.

Nobody with any understanding of the Bible could write something so foolish, because symbolism (such as that conveyed by the great red dragon of Rev.12, or by the parables, to take just two examples), though not the same thing as plain statement about historical facts, though not true in the same way as a passage in Herodotus might be, can perfectly well be true in a different way.

The truth of the Bible is not all of one kind; and much of its content is neithe true nor false, because nothing is asserted: only an assertion can be true: where there is nothing asserted, there is neither truth nor error nor falsity; and different assertions can be true in one frame of discourse, and not in another. The Parable of the Sower is made up of assertions - are they true as assertions ? Do they make assertions about historical or theological reality ? If they are to be called true, they are true within their frame of discourse, which is that of the type of short story known as parable. How they function as true assertions, is another matter. Maybe the unit to which truth is attributed, is the parable as a whole.
 
LOL no, that has to be the most mis-repoted thing I’ve seen yet

Bascially, the CC doesn’t take the entire bible literally- we believe there are metaphores, poetry, symbolism, allagories, etc. Ex: a sword will come out of Jesus mouth in Rev. Most people don’t take that as a literal text, instead that is symbolises he will seperate the people etc.

Also, check the CCC about scripture 🙂
 
Thankyou very much 🙂 this article was discussed on a different forum and I just wanted to know what the CC was getting at with the article…

Evanescence
 
[The Times article in full]
[ - The Times October 05, 2005
The Bible: what is it good for?

The Roman Catholic Church has instructed the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true, and that they should not expect ‘total accuracy’ in Scripture. What do you look for when you read the Bible? Do you swear by it? Read the article and send us your views using the form below
](The Times & The Sunday Times)
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - The Times October 07, 2005
Bishops, believers and the question of biblical truth

The second letter on this page is from one of the authors of the document.
IMO, the only way to avoid these misunderstandings is to assume that one’s audience is totally ignorant of the Bible.
 
40.png
Strider:
The link is to a fundamentalist, literalist web site. The information conflicts with Catholic doctrine. You can always refer to the Catechism for proper Magesterial teaching.
Also, the Navarre Bible has excellent Catholic commentary. It uses RSV CE text as well as Latin. Its only drawback is its expense, but we collected a whole set over several years. I recommend it highly.
Click to expand...
It may be a protestant run website but they’ve kept themselves form the Catholic/protestant debate and they do make extremely good points! Thing Catholicism should take note of, with regards to the Bible concerning the Creation, there is nothing I’ve found there on that topic against Catholic teachings.

They comment on this recent bit of news here:
answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1007authority.asp
 
Arba Sicula:
The Church does not consider the Bible totally inerrant as do the Fundamentalists and such. The Church holds the Bible to be totally inerrant only in matters of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Fundamentalist defenses of scripture I have read usually contain a laundry list of areas which they claim are invalid attacks on the truth of scripture. These include descriptions that the sky is a dome over the earth, that the sun stood still to allow a battle to be fought and other matters that are simply unacceptable to 21st century information.

Of course, there are still some flat-worlder’s out there who think that man on the moon, satellites, rockets into space, etc are all just frauds, but those folks lost credibility among the great majority of people a long time ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top