Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by trev
It is correct to say that Jesus taught in parables, and therefore they are to be interpreted rather than taken as fact.

Ah - so now as the Bishops suggested, we're interpreting. By the way, what the protestants sects tend to do is omit a lot of the bible, not discuss it. They say the whole bible is true but only harp on the bits that suit them. They don't have a wholistic view of the bible.

However Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are written as fact and not as a story or parable and therefore should be taught as fact

Where does it say in Genesis that this is factual account of how God made the world? How do you reconcile the fact there are 2 quite different creation stories in Genesis? God "made" things in a different order and on different "days" in each account. Woman was "made" differently in each account.

, likewise the book of Revelation is written as future prophecy and should likewise be treated as events that will happen in the future , although allowance needs to be made for John's difficulty in describing things that had no names in his time.

The Book of Revelation is not a book of prophecy at all - it was a message of hope to the early Christians during a time of Roman persecution. Jesus specifically warned Christians to ignore end time prophecies and have nohting to do with people who preached about the end of the world in a prophetic way because they were false prophets. This is one of the passages of the ever "true" bible that fundamentalists don't discuss.

The symbolism in Revelation, which can't be taken literally because it is after all "symbolism", clearly refers to the Roman Empire and would have been understood very well as such by ancient Christians.

As the Catholic refuses to teach these sections of the bible as fact, they lose credibility and membership to churches who teach the whole bible is true.

The catholic church uses and teaches the books of Genesis and Revelation very thoroughly. They are integral parts of church teaching and worship, used in services every day of the week. If there is a reading from Genesis or Revelation in the service, you usually get a sermon on it too!

As the Anglican (ie Church of England) is even more wishywashy on the bible they suffer even more from loss of membership, as do much of the Lutheran, Uniting (ie Methodist, Congregational etc)

And yet the Anglican and Lutherans have been around for hundreds of years whereas other Christian fellowships just come and go. Why? Because in the end their members want a deeper faith or they lose their faith because simplicity of their message loses its attraction. It just doesn't add up or sustain over a lifetime for many people.

Churches which believe the bible is true will keep their relevance, others will lose it.

Agreed. And there is no difference of view on this between the established churches and the new groups.

[Snotty]

I thought this was a thread about Charlotte Church

[Apocalypse]

to AH. I don't know why people want the Book of Revelation to be a book about the future. I know it's interesting and all but it's very clearly symbolism about the Roman Empire and some of the politics of the time. You'd think no one ever bought a bible with footnotes before.

[loinburger]

Blasphemy! God didn't put footnotes in the Bible!

[Tassadar500]

About the book of Genesis...

God supposedly creates the world in six days. Now, how can we define what a day meant before there was light and dark, before there was a sun and a moon? Perhaps each days was a million years in our time.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
About the book of Genesis...

God supposedly creates the world in six days. Now, how can we define what a day meant before there was light and dark, before there was a sun and a moon? Perhaps each days was a million years in our time.

Actually, the days started after God created light.

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

[Tassadar500]

But maybe the dark and light cycles He is taking about is not as we think of day and night, but of Summer and Winter?

[Spiffor]

Well, even if one take a literalist approach of the Bible, nothing tells that the nights and days followed a 24 hours pattern during the creation of the world.

If we don't take a literalist approach of the Bible, we shouldn't be looking for technicalities, but try to look for the message contained in it: that God is the creator of all, that he's omnipotent etc.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, even if one take a literalist approach of the Bible, nothing tells that the nights and days followed a 24 hours pattern during the creation of the world.

If we don't take a literalist approach of the Bible, we shouldn't be looking for technicalities, but try to look for the message contained in it: that God is the creator of all, that he's omnipotent etc.

Agreed. Speaking of which, I remember hearing someone talk about how the syntax changes during the later books of the Bible. Does anyone know any information about that?

[Alexander's Horse]

I don't know if this is what you mean but the Bishops singled out that anti Jewish statement - his blood be on us and our children - because textual analysis of the New Testament shows that some bits of text are highly suspect and look like they were added later or with hindsight. This bit of text is notorious. Even to a non expert it does not "flow" naturally from the text before and after, which is the story of crucifixion.

The relevant passage was written about the time that Titus destroyed Jerusalem in about 70 AD. The author would have known about this.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by trev
It is correct to say that Jesus taught in parables, and therefore they are to be interpreted rather than taken as fact. However Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are written as fact and not as a story or parable and therefore should be taught as fact...

And what, pray tell, are the indisputable objective measurable criteria these 'facts' are based upon ?

Who was taking down the notes in the Garden of Eden?

Gabriel, the Stenographer Angel ?

Where was the court reporter making sure that every word spoken was accurately captured for posterity ?

You seem largely ignorant of the contradictions in Genesis- of two versions of the Creation story, which in detail disagree with each other, in the same book.

This is not even to mention the parts where the bible is seriously out of synch with Achaemenid, Moabite and Roman history- let alone with science.

But then if you wish to take an obvious fable such as Noah's Ark to be a literal truth of a world spanning inundation in which a family managed to somehow rescue all the world's creatures (including those that live only in underground cave systems, or exist solely on one plant, or need freshwater not seawater to survive) then it shows why the Catholic Church (however much I criticise it) still is intellectually streets ahead of the fundy Protestant fringe.

You could learn a lot from St Augustine of Hippo:

We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers.

De Genesi ad litteram, I, 19, 21, especially n. 39.

[Spiffor]

We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers.

Wow, it's an amazing quote

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by molly bloom
But then if you wish to take an obvious fable such as Noah's Ark to be a literal truth of a world spanning inundation in which a family managed to somehow rescue all the world's creatures (including those that live only in underground cave systems, or exist solely on one plant, or need freshwater not seawater to survive)

You're talking to Trev. He is the one who believes that mountains first appeared in the aftermath of the flood. Look for his posts in creationism threads, they're absolutely amazing.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Spiffor

We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers.

Wow, it's an amazing quote

all the more remarkable when you consider Augustine lived at the time of the late Roman Empire

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine.html

That's another thing that annoys me about literalist christians - they treat the ancients like cartoon characters in some moral fairy tale - not flesh and blood humans just as smart as us.

The ancients were well aware the Bible was a collection stories some of which were true or based on fact and others which were not, and not meant to be thought of that way.

[Mr. Harley]

Alexander's Horse (or horsie as my little girl calls you).

Spiffor and Lord Nuclear.

Lord Nuclear, FYI. My wife has two different Hebrew Bibles and numerous books on Hebrew - she's taught at the local synagogue. It has been an eye opener for a Christian when she tries explaining to me the differences betweent the translation and the actual Hebrew - I'd never realized items like how "God" changes case and person in the beginning of Genesis. At least that's how I explain it, my wife could do a much better job than my limited understanding, I am utterly terrible when it comes to languages.