posted
This is a far cry from my days with the nuns.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was raised Catholic too and they always taught us in religion class that the Bible isn't totally accurate.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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*
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im glad to see they published that. The people who are trying to teach creationism in science classes need to read it.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ah well... meantime I seem to have forgotten how to spell "Odyssey"... nope that doesn't look right either... help anyone?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a figure of speech can be a powerful way of communicating truth. And yet, it is by definition not literal.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would be a better translation, then? Don't worry about making it fit the rhythm: what would best encapsulate the meaning?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
