Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

[____]

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 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åtotal accuracyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Ryan]

I honestly don't know what to say..big wtf sign over my head.

[AThousandLies]

It's about ****ing time.

[CoRnMaN]

im confused what it is saying?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is it saying that catholics think the bible is wrong? (if u think some of it is wrong. u think all of it is wrong. i dont care what crap u make up about cultures and what people want to believe).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or is it saying more people need to know who jesus is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

really confused, please explain it a bit.

[insane]

Catholicism is dead.

[CoRnMaN]

Catholicism is dead.

no its just making the transition from part cult to full cult

[Trip]

this is a good thing. Although it won't stop people killing just because they can't quote from the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and CoRnMaN, I'm pretty sure its doing the opposite of turning into more of a cult.

[insane]

 

Catholicism is dead.

no its just making the transition from part cult to full cult

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*shrugs* what I get out of it is that the Catholic hierarchy doesn't actually understand how to read the Bible. Just because something is figurative (which they cannot prove, I don't know how you get Genesis 1 is untrue out of evolution, seeing as going back to the Hebrew makes the word for 'day' a very vague meaning indeed), doesn't make it unapplicable, or untrue for that matter - it's a matter of reading between the lines, something they are apparently unable to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that they are trying to make Christianity "more appealing" as the article said, just goes to show that they aren't leading the true Christian life - as it should be the most appealing thing out there... but because of all the corruption and hypocrisy, they need to declare parts of the Bible untrue to basically trick people into believing a false Christianity...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I don't know how they can say "this verse is true", and "this verse is untrue"... it's sickening. How can they know that any of the Bible is true now, for that matter. The very existence of the Church is dependent on the Bible being captial-T-True. So basically, they're destroying themselves.

[stevester77]

:x this is rediculous. I cant believe the catholic church. If they feel that part of the Bible is wrong, what makes the other parts right? I am ashamed of them.

[weezcake]

It's about ****ing time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ditto.

[racer]

Yeah, it was going to happen....

[hohto]

Now we just need to reduce the power of the Pope's words. After it this world is a better place to live.

[Zonorhc]

 

Catholicism is dead.

no its just making the transition from part cult to full cult

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is what established religion is composed of.

[Mercifull]

They seem to be doing well keeping this news out of mainstream press however. Shouls be FP stuff. This is quite incredible to say that parts of the bible are untrue. So if this really is the case who decides whats true and whats not? the pope?

[SAGE]

Only time before otherr religions use it as an exmaple for their religion being the right one :roll: . When this gets big I suspect alot of tension

[wl_daniel]

 

It's about ****ing time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ditto.

 

 

 

yeah,you're right :)

[Mayjest]

This sort of stuff happens all the time, and is periodical in the churches history. Look no further than half of Paul's letters (I think Ephesians specifically), where people are already disregarding Pauls and others teaching. Heck, around 150 years ago the Church of England decided it would place 'The Book of Common Prayer' on a higher pedestal than the Bible, now the book of common prayer is hardly used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's a testament to the truth and longevity of the Bible that it's survived almost 2 millennia, and it will survive this as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you'll allow me to go 'religious' on you: The Devil has been trying to destroy the Church/Christianity for thousands of years. He hasn't succeeded yet, and he never will. Religious speel over.

[insane]

 

 

It's about ****ing time.

 

 

 

Ditto.

 

 

 

yeah,you're right :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What makes you three all so sure this is a good thing? Just curious. Maybe you don't believe the Bible is true, but to think it a good thing when those whose very belief system are dependent on the Bible being true declare it somewhat false, is very spiteful indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This sort of stuff happens all the time, and is periodical in the churches history. Look no further than half of Paul's letters (I think Ephesians specifically), where people are already disregarding Pauls and others teaching. Heck, around 150 years ago the Church of England decided it would place 'The Book of Common Prayer' on a higher pedestal than the Bible, now the book of common prayer is hardly used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's a testament to the truth and longevity of the Bible that it's survived almost 2 millennia, and it will survive this as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you'll allow me to go 'religious' on you: The Devil has been trying to destroy the Church/Christianity for thousands of years. He hasn't succeeded yet, and he never will. Religious speel over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good call.

[dusqi]

I respect this, it is a brave document. The fundamentalists are worried that if they acknowledge that some aspects of the Bible are untrue, then people will start to question other parts that they won't tolerate being questioned, such as homosexual marriage. Sadly this forces them to accept myths like Adam and Eve as fact. So for the Catholic Church to officially come out and say that parts of the Bible are inaccurate, they're risking a lot. I must admit that I'm surprised, since I thought the new Pope was rather fundamentalist himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This does come from UK Catholics though, and in the UK trying to deny evolution in favour of Biblical tales really is laughable. So the Church has a difficult time either sticking with the Bible as completely factual, and being laughed at and ignored, or admitting that some of it is wrong and risking having other parts of it questioned.

[hohto]

What makes you three all so sure this is a good thing? Just curious. Maybe you don't believe the Bible is true, but to think it a good thing when those whose very belief system are dependent on the Bible being true declare it somewhat false, is very spiteful indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically the Bible is just a book with stories and taughts. It's not a history book with exact facts. Genesis for example can't be taken as it was a fact, not even if mr George believes in it. Understanding it literally is really dangerous (same with any other "holy" books, not only the Bible) because chain our thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The current version of the Bible is really different to the "original" one. New translations, normal humanly mistakes and others have made the story totally different. Actually if we really go "deep" in this subject, we can say that Lucifer is actually Jesus. Hieronymus made a mistake when he translated a hebrean/old latin word "morning star, the son of the dawn" (don't know exact English names, so I gotta translate Finnish words. ) into Lucifer. By the time with new translations, Lucifer started to live his own life. This is just one example how the story has changed past the centuries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying that the Bible is totally useless story book. It isn't, there are quite a few "handy things" there which we should actually "obey". I'm just saying that we shouldn't take it from word to word.

[insane]

 

What makes you three all so sure this is a good thing? Just curious. Maybe you don't believe the Bible is true, but to think it a good thing when those whose very belief system are dependent on the Bible being true declare it somewhat false, is very spiteful indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically the Bible is just a book with stories and taughts. It's not a history book with exact facts. Genesis for example can't be taken as it was a fact, not even if mr George believes in it. Understanding it literally is really dangerous (same with any other "holy" books, not only the Bible) because chain our thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prove it. How is it dangerous? People often bring Galileo into this. They say "oh the church didn't want to believe him so they persecuted him"... ironically, Galileo wrote a dialogue about these new beliefs, where the Pope was named "simpleton" or something along those lines. It was Galileo's refusal to let the church let the idea sink in along with his insulting the pope that led to his persecution, you see. The media just wants us to believe that the church is evil, so they conveniently forget this little tidbit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The current version of the Bible is really different to the "original" one. New translations, normal humanly mistakes and others have made the story totally different

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, prove it. Extremely old scrolls of Isaiah were found, and when compared to todays manuscripts, they were found to be 99.5 or 95% correct, I can't remember, but it's irrelevent - the only difference in the percent was caused solely by spelling and grammatical errors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, the New Testament for that matter is more reliable than any historical document we have - if you want the facts, I can show them to you - but we have more manuscripts, written closer to Christ's life, than any other document pertaining to any other historial figure, ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I must admit that I'm surprised, since I thought the new Pope was rather fundamentalist himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My thoughts exactly, which makes me wonder...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in the UK trying to deny evolution in favour of Biblical tales really is laughable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And apparently the church is the society full of intolerance...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sadly this forces them to accept myths like Adam and Eve as fact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, yes, Adam and Eve is a myth. This is shown through the historical documents telling us so, correct? So far, we have only one document telling us it's true, and 0 telling us otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Random statements claiming it's invalidity really are laughable...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look, I'm not saying that Genesis is literal, or isn't symbolic. I just don't appreciate people who generally call the church intolerant cut *our* views down, call them laughable. It's quite hypocritical. At least offer some proof as to why we are incorrect! Evolution is irrelevant to creation being untrue, fyi, so don't bring that against it. Of course things could be symbolic, but it doesn't mean they aren't applicable, or "true" in some sense! The fact that the church thinks that they can now, after all these years, begin to change what is "true" and "not true" just shows how far we've strayed.

[Bubsa]

It seems they've finally take the first steps into the modern world.

[hohto]

Prove it. How is it dangerous? People often bring Galileo into this. They say "oh the church didn't want to believe him so they persecuted him"... ironically, Galileo wrote a dialogue about these new beliefs, where the Pope was named "simpleton" or something along those lines. It was Galileo's refusal to let the church let the idea sink in along with his insulting the pope that led to his persecution, you see. The media just wants us to believe that the church is evil, so they conveniently forget this little tidbit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's always dangerous when you are following something like a brainless zombie. I never said that Bible was the only "dangerous" book.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you believe that the Bible is the only fact, you will cross with problems. Things can be understood many different ways. What happened in 1054? When different religious leaders had understood few things different way, the whole church split into 2 different parts and "cursed" each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the crusades? There's a part which goes something like "go and make every folk part of Jesus Christ" (again, I only have a Finnish version of the bible. Look Mt. 28: 18- 20 ). They weren't just to baptise "pagan" people. For example thousands of Baltic and Finnish people were killed. I wrote more about them at http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=294313&

 

 

 

postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

 

 

 

Crusades can be seen as a brainless following of the Bible's words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at the Bible. Are we all sinned just because Eve ate an apple from a forbitten tree? Don't know how good it actually is for your mental balance, but at least I don't believe that I'm sinned. What even is sin? When a baby borns sick and is going to die within few minutes, is it going to hell because it's sinned?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, prove it. Extremely old scrolls of Isaiah were found, and when compared to todays manuscripts, they were found to be 99.5 or 95% correct, I can't remember, but it's irrelevent - the only difference in the percent was caused solely by spelling and grammatical errors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, the New Testament for that matter is more reliable than any historical document we have - if you want the facts, I can show them to you - but we have more manuscripts, written closer to Christ's life, than any other document pertaining to any other historial figure, ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I already gave you an example of Lucifer. That's pretty big mistake if you ask me. The word Lucifer means lightbringer and it comes from the word Lux (=light) and Ferous (=bringer/to bring).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. -- Revelation 2 2:16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Greek manuscript there was a word 'phos-phoros' for lightbringer. Hieronymus translated it into Lucifer and through the centuries a metamorphosis happened and the lightbringer turned into a fallen angel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also the thing that Jesus used Aramea, evangels wrote it in Greek and now you are using an English (and I am Finnish) version can cause slight conflicts. Actually there are few things said differently even in the first Finnish bible (written in 1642) and the current one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

May I ask you do you believe blindly in the Bible? How old is the world?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit: Just saw your last chapter. You can forget my last question :P

[insane]

Crusades can be seen as a brainless following of the Bible's words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that's the ticket. The crusades were a *brainless* following of the Bible's words - it makes the crusades invalid, *not* the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for how old the world is? I have no idea. It is not beyond God to create the universe with fossils already in the earth etc... though I don't believe he'd do that - it's only my opinion, and it's entirely possible he created the universe already aged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, in the creation account in Genesis, it talks about God creating the world in 7 "days"... the Hebrew word for day here is "Yom", which translated could mean age, era, year, etc... it has no specific value :) So it is just as possible that God created the world in 7 ages, or 7 eras, see?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, I believe evolution is one of the greatest proofs *for* God - but who knows, I'm pretty sure the age of the universe is irrelevant to my faith ;)

[hohto]

 

Crusades can be seen as a brainless following of the Bible's words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that's the ticket. The crusades were a *brainless* following of the Bible's words - it makes the crusades invalid, *not* the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if we start looking at it, the reason can be found from the Bible ;) Of course the Bible tells you not to kill, not steal and other things like that. That means that if the Bible was obeyed from word to word, we wouln't need to think about the violent crusaders now :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for how old the world is? I have no idea. It is not beyond God to create the universe with fossils already in the earth etc... though I don't believe he'd do that - it's only my opinion, and it's entirely possible he created the universe already aged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point was that if you take it literally, the world would be greated in 7 days and it would be "a bit" newer thing that it actually is ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, in the creation account in Genesis, it talks about God creating the world in 7 "days"... the Hebrew word for day here is "Yom", which translated could mean age, era, year, etc... it has no specific value :) So it is just as possible that God created the world in 7 ages, or 7 eras, see?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That era/age thing was new for me. Yes, something else would be a better translation for that word than "day". Anyways, here's another good example of a translation which is misleading ;)