Catholic Chruch: Some parts of the bible may not be true
Whoa. 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 “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. So which parts we talking about here? 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. 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. What? No Anti-Christ? No 666 marks the beast? No Damien? That's no fun. Imagine what would happen if someone in Al Azhar said something close to that about the Koran. Yeesh!
posted by The Sandmonkey @ 10/10/2005 08:19:00 AM
21 Comments:
Hey, maybe they'll drop the part about the Jews' having collectivly crucified Christ. And that whole bit about "let it be us and on our children."
What are you talking about? They have dropped that a long time ago.
I don't find the Catholic Church today particularly anti-semitic, at least not more so than most countries and many secular institutions.
for someone to believe that people who were about to commit a crime declare: "let it be us and on our children." is utterly naive.
The Bible differs than the quran in many ways.
1- the original text of the bible doesnt exist anymore, due to the fact that christians had to hide from roman persecution for over 2 centuries & was then found in greek or latin writing(not sure) so the original text isnt available today.
2- the Quran didnt suffer that fate & even though some qurans had different wordings than others albeit the same meaning, its still in its original language. The problem lies in Interpretation of the text,Hermenutics plays a great part in that.
3-Book of Revelation was written by Paul ( ex saul) & included with the 4 books of bible. why the reason, i have no idea.
But i guess the Coptic church will react as the azhar exactly & cal it a jewish zionist conspiracy. pity they cant blame the americans!
I thibnk the key here is " Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland". Since they are minor players and the Vatican disagrees with them I see ex communications in their future unless they retract their silly take on things.
I disagree about the bible. There are more things in their original language avaliable than you think.
Remember.... beware of false prophets. If there is one thing to take from the text, it is that passage.
"The Bible differs than the quran in many ways.
1- the original text of the bible doesnt exist anymore, due to the fact that christians had to hide from roman persecution for over 2 centuries & was then found in greek or latin writing(not sure) so the original text isnt available today."
Half of the Bible is the Torah and the Tanakh (the Old Testament). These Jewish books have remained unchanged longer than the Koran has.
The New Testament is a collection of writings. There is no 'original version' short of the one put together by the Council of Nicea. Near-originals of the Gospels show that the form of the Gospels has not changed since the first hundred years after Jesus' crucifixion.
"2- the Quran didnt suffer that fate & even though some qurans had different wordings than others albeit the same meaning, its still in its original language. The problem lies in Interpretation of the text,Hermenutics plays a great part in that.
"
The Koran was not put together by Mohammed. The seven divergent versions were compiled by order of the Caliph Othman in the century after Mohammed's death. In short, the Koran was edited and pieced together from longest Ayat to shortest by -MEN- not by God.
"3-Book of Revelation was written by Paul ( ex saul) & included with the 4 books of bible. why the reason,"
The Book of Revelation was written by a "Paul of Tarsus", who may not be the Aposle Paul. It was included with the four Gospels as were the major letters of Paul, Peter, and the acts of the other apostles to form the 'New Testament'. Mohammed's description of the Injil is utterly incorrect for any description of Christianity, belying his ignorance of the source material that he cribbed for the Koran.
1) What does "true" mean.
2) What's new in this piece of news? Revisionist reading and historical criticism is as old as 1850, and is not only Catholic.
I'm gonna skip commenting on all the opinions in the commenst section, and just say "that's a good start" - Recelations has always been controversial. Unfortunately, it's also one of the most often quoted parts of the New Testament. As for the old testament, that's "Judaism for dummies" it's not inherently Christian in any way, and is included mainly as background material.
ummmm ... the apocrapha is the version of the bible that comes from the greek translations it is what many of the bibles used within the catholic church are based on but bibles such as the NRSV are much more accurate... there are much older translations available that have been discovered over the years and are not taken from greek texts.
Also in case anyone cares ... the catholic church in i think 1996 said that hell did not exist. To bad they say a lot but never actually practice what they preach hahaha
Sam don't u miss these talks I'm a bit rusty can u tell?
one more thing....anonymous u really need to do your research ... revelation (at least u didnt say revelations and got that one right) was written by John of Patmos. I thought I was crazy but if you go check ur bible its in the first few verses.
Also stephania ... there are multiple sources throughout the bible and sam knows this is one of my favorite parts ... basically adam and eve was written by the j-source who was very anti pagan thus anti feminine. There are of course many problems that come out of the j - source. But its ok cause there are also two creation myths to choose from ... you don't like the garden of eden so go with the p - source aka the world was created in 7 days. In this portion of the text man and woman were created at the same time and are both in the image of god (thus where christian science finds the basis of its entire religion) and there isn't any of that where did all the other people come from. They were created at the same time (a bunch of em) and well they had sex and u can figure out the rest. They were two very different stories that tell two very different tales but the J source is highly problematic because it was written with so much bias where as the p-source is much easier to work with. Thus how many religious folks have made that one agree with evolution.
Revelation 22:19
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things, which are written in this book."
Joanne
What a hype. Thanks to R for saying it!
Stefania, I don't think we should read religion as textbooks or look for an ultimate truth. Take it instead as the writing of learned men at their time who interpreted their experiences -- including religious (which is a way of making sense of the world, especially if you don't have any scientific tools) and the collected experiences from society over generations. With this approach - rather unprejudiced I would say - we can discover many things that were true then that is also true now, and learn about ourselves and our world with the help of those experiences - call part of it wisdom if you like.
Also in case anyone cares ... the catholic church in i think 1996 said that hell did not exist. To bad they say a lot but never actually practice what they preach hahaha
Not true at all! That proclamation was by another self appointed group just like this one is doing. The Vatican which is the Catholic church disavowed that proclamation. I hate it when people don't know what they are talking about and make fun of the one true chirch.
Wisdom is the collection of thoughts of ol men who either never really lived the life they wanted or lived a life that they didn't want.
Take it from me.
I got plenty of Wisdom
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Yes, I agree what do you expect from a 22yo from 'ASSachutesses? home of Hanoi "didyaknowhewasinVietnam" Kerry. hahaha back at you
Originally posted by Joanne
Revelation 22:19
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things, which are written in this book."
Verse 18 and 19 go together:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
I personally don't pay much attention to what any Catholic church decrees, especially if they tell me Revelation is not factual. Look a little deeper; the writings are a bit cryptic as to prevent evil men from learning it's secrets. Those bishops lack perception and understanding if they think Genesis is not to be taken literally. Here is Genesis and science together:
http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
Sandmonkey, can you please tell me the source of this article?
What is your source? Do you expect that we should just believe what you write without giving any sources?
Marmar
whatchu guys talking about source? the link is up there.
Ritzy said:
Take it instead as the writing of learned men at their time who interpreted their experiences -- including religious
I agree with you, 100%. This approach will solve many, many problems.
The links are the words that a different colors in the post, just incase you are a newbie.:) Just click on them to go read.
to ANON
1- I said the BIBLE not the Old Testament. The christian side not the Jewish side.
2- There werent 7 divergent books, 7 divergent accents & it meant not 7 different versions but synoyms to a word to give the same meaning.
2- It wasnt compiled by Khalifa Othman for your msinformation, it was first compiled by khalifa Abu Bakr a year & a half after Mohamed's death, othamn merely destroyed the divergent accents keeping on the Quraysh accent.
3- & some say it was Saul who later became st paul,you say who may not be but more likely is, still does not make any logical sense to include a writing by an apostle even next to Holy text.
4- You never mention what was Mohamed's ignorance about the Injil mr know it all but actually doesn't, & if it was source material, which is ludicrous as they both cannot be compared to eachother anyway.
4- In actual fact, Mohamed did order the verses to be placed next to each other in a certain order, there is mystery as to the order of the suras not the verses inside the sura itself that remains. so again you are completely wrong!
Your information is laregly false prompting me to ask where did you get your falacities from? i need a good laugh you see & my source material will be your ignorance
Post a Comment
<< Home