Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

[Gurrato Alaien]

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible


The Catholic church claims that the bible is inaccurate and cannot be taken as full truth.

Here is what the Catholic church have recently come out with. The church is saying it is not accurate, so seek the truth elsewhere.Seek the truth from Reliable, accurate sources.

Read this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html


Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
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. NI_MPU('middle');
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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html

Comments please
peace

[rufioag]

I dont understand where they get the logic that certain verses are not true. I am not catholic nor agree with many of the catholic preachings. But what I did notice is this was stated as TRUE:

John xx,28

Proof of bodily resurrection

So Jesus rose from the dead...thats true in the Bible...so what does that mean? It means that the Christian faith is accurate! Also I noticed that the verse considered True and Untrue are all based on wether are not they should be taken literaly or figurativly. They say to take the resurrection as literal truth, meaning He did rise from the dead! I do not think you prove anything by posting this. I have said before that the Bible is 99.5% accurate as it relates to manuscipts from over 1500 years ago and that none of the inaccuracies even put a dent or a scratch on the legitimacy of the Christian faith.

[atiguhya padma]

I'd much rather trust a religion that acknowledges its fallacies and inaccuracies than one that went around claiming to be 100% proof.

Never trust a book, a dogma, or an ideology that doesn't admit it can be wrong.

[The Unnamable]

"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."

Mark Twain

[RobinHood3000]

I'm with atiguhya padma and Unnamable. The first mistake that people often make in discussing religion is to dig their heels in where they stand.

[Zippy]

I find it refreshing that a religion has stepped forward and admitted that its scriptures are not 100% accurate.

It is those people who believe absolutely in what is written and who refuse to admit fallibility which are the most alarming. This is what breeds fanaticism.

If you except the existance of God then you must accept that everything is in His hands. If you believe then you have to acknowledge that mistakes and inaccuracies in the scriptures are also the work of God. It does not mean that science or other religions and philosophies are wrong, but that God has planned it this way. There is a reason for it which will be revealled in the end.

Another point which I would raise is to ask the question of whether the spirit or the scripture is more important? Is it nobler to adhere to the exact word of the scriptures - the word of law - or to follow the spirit - the message which it is trying to convey?. Surely it is more important to love God, love your fellow human-beings and try to live a decent life, rather than to be bogged-down in the minutae? Words are open to interpretation after all.

[Shield&Sword]

It depend on your point of view.

If we believe a book come from God, and we believe that God doesnt mistake then his book must be without mistakes.
If a book relaited to God and have mistakes, then we can refuse that book, because if it contain one error then it contain changes made by man.

Beside if we believe that a book cant be true 100% even if it come from God, then how we can know words of God and words of man, and what if changes touch the basic of the religioun, and how much is the accuracy of the book 90%, 80% for sure not 100% then it can be refused. The theory say if a book is revealed from God then its 100% accurate becuase God doesnt mistake, it has no contraddictions, no historical errors, no added canceled verses, no bad language, no contraddiction with science and other things.

For sure the vangel that Jesus pbuh got was pure word of God, so and Turah that Moses pbuh got. But is the bibe that we have today is the same bible at time of Jesus pbuh and Moses pbuh, if one of the above things we find in nowadays bible then we can be sure its not what the prophets got.

[Scheherazade]

Reminder: This topic remains open with the faith that it will not turn into yet another 'whose religious book/religion is superior' debate. Any off topic references/posts which aim to diminish other religious views or to preach will be edited/deleted.

Here is a quote from The Name of the Rose, which, I thought, is quite relevant to our topic:

Books are not made to be believed, but to be subjected to inquiry. When we consider a book, we mustn't ask ourselves what it says but what it means...

[Shield&Sword]

The verses i posted were to respond the post that say he/she prefair to believe a book that admit its not 10% true than to be believe one that people claim its 100% right and has no mistakes. But i see it was edited. So i will say these things by my words.
In Holy Quran its written that if this book (the Holy Quran) is not from God then it will have many differents (contraddictions, mistakes). (We look on other books from this point).
Second thing that the Holy Quran challenge people to get even one surah or verse like it, and then it says you wont make this thing. When we look on orthodox book we see psalms 151, when we look on cahtolic orthodox we see apocrypha and daniel 14 and 13, when we look at protestant book we dont see apocrypha and we dont see daniel 13 and 14.

The verses i mentioned wasnt to show my book is better and yours is worst, my point was to respond the one who said he prefair the not 100% book, i dont know if its a new method to convince people.

[mono]

Interesting article, but I honestly wonder how the Catholic Church would suddenly change their minds so swiftly. Not desiring to insult anyone, I have always expressed some disbelief in certain passages of The Bible, not requiring specifics. I also had trouble following areas word-for-word, often considering them more as moral stories, or even as if certain events merely seemed perceived in seemingly strange ways, then, afterwards, corrupted by the thousands of translations.

[cuppajoe_9]

It has always been my position that taking ever word in a 2000+ year old book as the literal truth requires (no offense) a certain degree of insanity. Taking the entire bible literally would require one to believe that the sun goes around the earth and that the value of pi is 3.

[rufioag]

You may want to get ur facts straight but the Bible Never says that pi = 3. You are referring to 1 Kings 7:23 . What you must understand was that the measurements were from Brim to brim. Verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says that the vessel in question had a brim which 'was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies' (KJV), or a rim 'like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom' (NIV), i.e. the brim or rim turned outward, suggesting the curvature of a lily. So if its brim to brim, then one can assume that it is 10 cubits but if we consider the actual diameter we can take 30 cubits/3.14 and equate 9.65 cubits which was the actual diameter. It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of pi, and in particular it does not say that pi equals 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination.

This was gathered from the link below that goes into more depth about this. This is a needed post.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp

[bhekti]

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
The Catholic church claims that the bible is inaccurate and cannot be taken as full truth.
......
Comments please
peace

Mmmm... I see.

[bhekti]

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

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html

Comments please
peace

Fiuuh, thank God then! For I think it's an insignificant task "to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision" because, as Paul Feyerabend says in his Against Method:

The idea that science can, and should, be run according to fixed and universal rules, is both unrealistic and pernicious. It is unrealistic, for it takes too simple a view of the talents of man and of the circumstances which encourage, or cause, their development. And it is pernicious, for the attempt to enforce the rules is bound to increase our professional qualifications at the expense of our humanity. In addition, the idea is detrimental to science, for it neglects the complex physical and historical conditions which influence scientific change. It makes our science less adaptable and more dogmatic: every methodological rule is associated with cosmological assumptions, so that using the rule we take it for granted that the assumptions are correct. Naive falsificationism takes it for granted that the laws of nature are manifest and not hidden beneath disturbances of considerable magnitude. Empiricism takes it for -ranted that sense experience is a better mirror of the world than pure thought. Praise of argument takes it for granted that the artifices of Reason give better results than the unchecked play of our emotions. Such assumptions may be perfectly plausible and even true. Still, one should occasionally put them to a test. Putting them to a test means that we stop using the methodology associated with them, start doing science in a different way and see what happens. Case studies such as those reported in the preceding chapters show that such tests occur all the time, and that they speak against the universal validity of any rule. All methodologies have their limitations and the only 'rule' that survives is 'anything goes'.

[cuppajoe_9]

rufioag:

I regret the error. However, the earth is not flat, it was not created 6000 years ago in six days, the sun does not travel around it, slavery is not ok, homosexuality is not reasonable grounds for execution, and when any part of the text is historically accurate, it is only by accident.

The Bible is allegorical. It's not a science text-book, it's not a history, it's a moral code, and I am very glad that the catholic church acknowledges this.