quote: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.
Really? My mom was taught by nuns and they had accepted at that time she was in school that certain parts of the old testament were not completely historically accurate. I thought that was pretty well understood for the past century.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
I second Theaca on that. I am the product of 12 years of Catholic education and I was taught that certain parts of the bible were not completely historically accurate.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
But this is not common knowledge -- i was just listening to a religious station on the radio the other week in which a minister claimed it was essential to take the Bible completely literally.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I've been a Catholic my whole life, and as I stated in another thread, I don't take the whole Bible literally either. I was also taught evolution as pretty much fact at my old Catholic school. So I've never, ever been able to understand the view that all that scientific evidence MUST be false, or placed there to test us.
I mean, I can understand it now, but I still don't believe it. After all, my Catholic priest himself talked about how Revelation wasn't actually a prophecy for the end of the world, but instead was actually talking about contemporary events in code. (This was in regular conversation, not a sermon, though.)
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Leonide, was the minister Catholic?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Yes, because i remember him referencing the Pope at one point.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I was raised Catholic too and they always taught us in religion class that the Bible isn't totally accurate.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I don't take the Bible completely literally, I see most of it(like Revelation) as symbolic, but I still believe the symbols to be completely true. Does that make sense?
Then again, I'm Baptist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: i was just listening to a religious station on the radio the other week in which a minister claimed it was essential to take the Bible completely literally.
I wasn't aware that many Catholics held this opinion. Catholic literalism certainly isn't a huge movement, if it even exists.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
And this is why the rabbis instituted a day of mourning to commemorate the translation of the Bible in the days of Ptolemy II. And why God gave most of the Revelation in non-written form.
<sigh>
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Ya know, I'm kind of glad that the Bible isn't taught as being totally accurate.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
quote:And why God gave most of the Revelation in non-written form.
I'm think I'm not sure how you believe he gave the rest of the Bible.
Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. They also believe that as the inspired word of God it was written by Man. This can lead to a nonliteral translation of the Bible. Also I don't think that believeing that Geneisis is a story of the creation of the world would lessen the belief that God created the world even if you don't believe that it happened in 7 days.
Oh I'm not explaining myself well. argh. *runs off to class*
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Some notable early church fathers (Jerome and Augustine, for example) were already strongly of the opinion that the seven day creation story was not literally true, so, yes, as many people have said, this is hardly "news".
Must be a *really* slow news day.
As Sarah points out, too, not being a biblical literalist is *not* the same as saying the bible is "wrong" on some points.
And after all, it only makes sense from a Christian perspective... if Jesus can "only do what he has seen the Father do" and Jesus taught in parables, doesn't that mean that God did at some point as well?
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
Im glad to see they published that. The people who are trying to teach creationism in science classes need to read it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by TrapperKeeper: Im glad to see they published that. The people who are trying to teach creationism in science classes need to read it.
Got to remember though most of those pushing for creationism are not Catholic. Having spent 4 years in Catholic high school, and not being Catholic, I can attest they are definitely a lot more liberal than most branches of Christianity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, I'm going to jump over the miserably bad reporting here:
quote:Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
First, as people have pointed out, the "no longer" is misplaced here. Further, this headline is an almost total misrepresentation of this:
quote:“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
"Truth" is an inadequate summary of "accuracy" or "precision."
quote:Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
"Intelligent design" is not the same as literal creationism. This is just plain sloppy.
The rest is no better.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Thanks dags. That's what I had noticed as well, but you put it much better than I could've.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
Also, true and literal are not the same things. Something can be true without being literal.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In my experience, many, many Catholics believe in a form of intelligent design (although I'd say it generally doesn't rank high on their priorities), but there's relatively few literal creationists.
I don't know if it would be appropriate to say that they are more liberal than evangelicals, although they tend to be on many issues. The differences in how they see the world and their religion are by no means adequately covered by a liberal/conservative split.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, a radio minister referencing the Pope doesn't mean that they're Catholic. Many of them feel that the current Pope is on their side in the culture war they're trying to foment, so it's not uncommon for non-Catholic evangelics to reference the Pope, at least in part to get more Catholics on their side.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
The problem most fundamentalist have with saying the Bible isn't accurate in one area is that it opens the door to throwing out any part you don't like, at which point you’re making up your own religion loosely based on the parts of the Bible you like.
If it's not accurate in the creation story, then it's probably not accurate when it comes to all those miracles, or the divinity of Christ.
Then you could take it a step further and eliminate any parts which condemn homosexuality, sex out of wedlock, ect.
The whole slippery slope thing.
I agree this is a sloppy article aimed at starting a controversy, but if it is true the Catholics are teaching the Bible is not completely accurate I can see why many Protestants don’t agree with them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem most fundamentalist have with saying the Bible isn't accurate in one area is that it opens the door to throwing out any part you don't like, at which point you’re making up your own religion loosely based on the parts of the Bible you like.
I've seen few fundamantalists walking around with missing eyes; it seems everyone applies some judgment as to which parts to take literally.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If it's not accurate in the creation story, then it's probably not accurate when it comes to all those miracles, or the divinity of Christ.
The biblical creation stories are obviously not accurate in a literal sense. They are mutually exclusive, in that they describe things happening in a different order.
I'd argue that insisting that everything in the Bible must be literally true, even when it is impossible or extremely unlikely that this is so is at least as much throwing out the parts you don't like.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If every detail of the Bible were true, why are there so many different Bibles that differ on the details? I wonder what would happen if I made my own translation of the Bible - would it have to be true?
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If every detail of the Bible were true, why are there so many different Bibles that differ on the details? I wonder what would happen if I made my own translation of the Bible - would it have to be true?
There is an entire field devoted to resolving the apparent differences in the Bible. It’s called Apologetics. I am not an expert and really not that concerned with it. But you can look it up if you are interested.
An accurate translation should always go back to the oldest available text. Translating 5000-2000 year old Hebrew and Greek is not easy for a lot of reasons. Different approaches in translating are why there are many different versions. Most seminaries require Greek and Hebrew so if a pastor ever has a question he can look up the original text.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:There is an entire field devoted to resolving the apparent differences in the Bible. It’s called Apologetics.
BZZZZZZZT . . . Apologetics is concerned with explaining and/or defending the doctrines of Christianity to non-believers. This may include resolving contradictions, but that is by no means the entire field.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Apologetics is more the field of making arguments for the truth of what you believe... just for the record
For example, G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy and C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity are widely considered apologetic works, even though they touch on very little of the bible and don't quote directly from it very often, if at all (I think... it's been a little while since I've read them all the way through).
Speaking of which... Dag, how's your GKC oddessey coming?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hehe - This month, contrary to everything I've read about third year of law school, has been by far my busiest since I started. GKC is going to have to wait until Fall Break.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
ah well... meantime I seem to have forgotten how to spell "Odyssey"... nope that doesn't look right either... help anyone?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Odyssey
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
(restrains self from commenting on the utter foolishness of "biblical literalism")
(realizes he's just failed)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parsimony: Also, true and literal are not the same things. Something can be true without being literal.
I never did understand that particular piece of sophistry. The water in the rivers in Egypt turned into blood. Did it, or didn't it? If it did, then the statement is true. If it didn't, the statement is not true.
How can you have a statement that is simultaneously correct and false? Or incorrect and true? Can you point to an example in real life?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarahdipity:
quote:And why God gave most of the Revelation in non-written form.
I'm think I'm not sure how you believe he gave the rest of the Bible.
See here.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I think a figure of speech can be a powerful way of communicating truth. And yet, it is by definition not literal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I never did understand that particular piece of sophistry. The water in the rivers in Egypt turned into blood. Did it, or didn't it? If it did, then the statement is true. If it didn't, the statement is not true.
How can you have a statement that is simultaneously correct and false? Or incorrect and true? Can you point to an example in real life?
"Take up your cross and follow me."
It doesn't mean you're supposed to pick up an engine of execution and carry it around.
Few people speak literally. When you "grasp" an idea, you haven't touched it. When you face your fear, you may or may not actually turn your face toward what you fear.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Man has used myth and parable to communicate truth for ages...
Are Aesop's Fables literally true? Does that mean they contain no truth?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Definately, true and literal do not mean the same things. Parts of the Bible can be taken as literal, but parts also shouldn't. But it, IMO, is all true. The argument of what to consider literal and what not is the problem, and its one I struggle with whenever I get into theological discussions. Everyone seems to interpret things differently. Imagine that. I think its an unresovable issue personally
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: "Take up your cross and follow me."
It doesn't mean you're supposed to pick up an engine of execution and carry it around.
Second Amendment lovers would agree with this, I think! Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:"Intelligent design" is not the same as literal creationism. This is just plain sloppy.
It surely is in the minds of most Americans who are debating it. Just as people mistake "The Origin of Species" with "The Origin of Life" which are clearly different concepts, especially to Darwin, but are mixed up into one. Creationists are using the same arguments but couching them in "Intelligent Design" but it isn't any different than the stuff we read about with the Scopes trial in substance. Maybe bits and pieces of words or phrasing are different but in the larger context, they are the same exact argument to most people that talk about it.
True, Catholics aren't pushing the Creationism agenda but any time a GIGANTIC Christian organization takes a stand, it can have ripples. It is a good move and one long needed.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt.
Great. Simply GREAT. Last year we spent months studying Augustinus and how his decrees affected the different crusades, how Pope Urban related to it all and what happened to different Jewish communities.
And now the Church remembers to condemn its Antisemitic implications? Gee, thanks!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
JH, It's done so on numerous ocassions since JPII became Pope.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Also:
quote: God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”
Never translate this phrase into any language, for it is intranslatable. Like "selah", keep it "ehyeh asher ehyeh". But if you must, translate as "I WILL BE who I WILL BE". It's future tense, for God's sake! אהיה, not הוה.
Eeesh!
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I prefer "I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Also:
quote: God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”
Never translate this phrase into any language, for it is untranslatable. Like "selah", keep it "ehyeh asher ehyeh". But if you must, translate as "I WILL BE who I WILL BE". It's future tense, for God's sake! אהיה, not הוה.
Eeesh!
*laugh* I knew there had to be something, somewhere, in כל התורה כלה that we agreed on. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Would it translate better as "I shall be who I choose to be?"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Definitely not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What would be a better translation, then? Don't worry about making it fit the rhythm: what would best encapsulate the meaning?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
As I said, I agree with Jonathan on this. It's untranslatable.
If you insist on a closest approximation, then "I shall be what I shall be." But it completely fails to capture the meaning of the phrase. As well as the fact that it isn't meant to be a phrase at all, but a Name.
Even Onkelos (whose translation of the Torah into Aramaic is printed side-by-side with the Hebrew text in most Chumashim) doesn't attempt to translate it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But it completely fails to capture the meaning of the phrase.
What is the meaning of the phrase, then?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's jargon, Tom. To use Jonathan's example, what does "selah" mean? It has implications, but you can't translate it into English.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
They really need to rewrite the UBBoard so that the last post on one page repeats on the next. <sigh>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I never did understand that particular piece of sophistry. The water in the rivers in Egypt turned into blood. Did it, or didn't it? If it did, then the statement is true. If it didn't, the statement is not true.
How can you have a statement that is simultaneously correct and false? Or incorrect and true? Can you point to an example in real life?
"Take up your cross and follow me."
It doesn't mean you're supposed to pick up an engine of execution and carry it around.
Few people speak literally. When you "grasp" an idea, you haven't touched it. When you face your fear, you may or may not actually turn your face toward what you fear.
Valid point. That was my mistake. I agree that something can be non-literal and still be true. But if something is claimed to have happened and it didn't actually happen, I don't see how it can be considered true.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, bump this thread this afternoon, and I'll try my hand at explaining it. (I'm about to head off to work.)
Lisa, so tell me. How old was Rivka Imeinu when she married Yitzchak?
Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
*bump*
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Rivka, I don't believe it says in the text. And I think you know what the Rambam says about people who take all midrashim literally.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not my point, actually. My point was that there are mutually exclusive accounts of her age. She can only have been one literal, actual physical age (leaving aside any jokes about time travel and/or near-lightspeed travel).
Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chayim. I happen to consider that one of the most crucial aspects of Jewish philosophy. So only one was literally true -- so what? So the ones that were not literally true were meaningless?
No.
So the ones that were not literally true have other truths to teach us. And the fact that we cannot know which one was literally true will push us to see the lessons inherent in each possibility. (I heard a speaker explain why Rivka's age matters, but it was years ago and I don't remember enough to try to repeat it.)
Tom, first of all, I laugh every time I see you post as Christy or v.v. (I still haven't gotten over your comment on prenatal vitamins). Secondly, I apologize, but I had an attack of RL on Friday.
Ok, on to eheyeh asher eheyeh (or back to it -- as I will explain, it doesn't much matter). In KarlEd's recent thread about the nature of God, there was some discussion of God existing outside of time, completely independent of the timestream. That's what this phrase/Name is about. God is eternal and unchanging, not so much because He cannot change, but because He IS. And He IS in a single non-time-unit moment (sorry, I don't know how to say this) all that He ever was or will be. Because He IS outside of time.
Now, how would you translate the phrase in a way that captures that meaning and the fact that it is actually a Name? I cannot do it, and the best translations I am aware of essentially throw of their hands in despair and fall back on the strictly literal sense of the individual words.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Not my point, actually. My point was that there are mutually exclusive accounts of her age. She can only have been one literal, actual physical age (leaving aside any jokes about time travel and/or near-lightspeed travel).
True. And that's midrash. But it doesn't change the fact that if the Torah says Sarah was 90 when she gave birth to Yitzchak, then either she was 90, or we're being lied to.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chayim. I happen to consider that one of the most crucial aspects of Jewish philosophy. So only one was literally true -- so what? So the ones that were not literally true were meaningless?
I never said that. And I'm well aware that the written Torah isn't all literal in that sense. "An eye for an eye" never meant that literally, for instance. But we can say that because Hashem told us so. Not because we wanted to come around after the fact and "reinterpret" it.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So the ones that were not literally true have other truths to teach us. And the fact that we cannot know which one was literally true will push us to see the lessons inherent in each possibility.
Same with Shlomo's age. He was either 12 or 20 at accession. I get that. But the text doesn't say one way or another. It does say that David lived to be 70, and that Adam lived to be 930.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (I heard a speaker explain why Rivka's age matters, but it was years ago and I don't remember enough to try to repeat it.)
One issue is the idea that she was born when Sarah died. If that's true, and if Sarah died at the time of Akeida, it works out. And that value is used for halakhic purposes (and I'm being vague to avoid the "ick" factor).
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Ok, on to eheyeh asher eheyeh (or back to it -- as I will explain, it doesn't much matter). In KarlEd's recent thread about the nature of God, there was some discussion of God existing outside of time, completely independent of the timestream. That's what this phrase/Name is about. God is eternal and unchanging, not so much because He cannot change, but because He IS. And He IS in a single non-time-unit moment (sorry, I don't know how to say this) all that He ever was or will be. Because He IS outside of time.
Relative to us, you could say He is in a single moment that maps to all of what we experience as time. But I wouldn't say He's outside of time. It's a little like the air in my house. It isn't bound by my house, but it exists in and out of my house, and would be there even if my house weren't.
He isn't bound by time, but He isn't external to it either. That'd be limiting Him.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Now, how would you translate the phrase in a way that captures that meaning and the fact that it is actually a Name? I cannot do it, and the best translations I am aware of essentially throw of their hands in despair and fall back on the strictly literal sense of the individual words.
The Eternal? I've seen that used for the Tetragrammaton, too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm not going to debate you point by point (I don't see the point ), but suffice it to say I disagree.
And the Eternal is a good start, but really doesn't do much. It also makes it indistinguishable from the Tetragrammaton (to which it is certainly related, but it's not the same thing).
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
There's a difference in "accurate" and "literal." The article sounded a great deal more exciting than it was. Fortunately, the clergy here are only saying that parts of the Bible are not literal, which is hardly a new idea.
There are people who say they are literalists, but even they break with literalism when you ask, if Christ is the Vine and we are the branches, why aren't we sprouting leaves.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That's what I had noticed as well, but you put it much better than I could've.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), but suffice it to say I disagree.