The Bible is Bunk

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Or so sez the Catholic Church

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

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

IROC · IROC's Garage

Alert the media! "parts of the Bible are not literally true". The sad thing is that this statement even needs to be made.

Kudos to the Catholic church, though.

Mike

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Quote:

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation

Scripture in revelation ?

http://www.ucc.ac.uk/theology/html/MoyiseThesis2.htm

Quote:

One of the intriguing questions about John’s apocalypse concerns the seven prophetic messages in Revelation 2-3.

All right boys, enlighten my ignorant heathen mind. Are they about to reveal God's end of the world plans on us soon?

I did a Google search on the phrase; Scripture in revelation.

Link:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Scripture+in+revelation&btnG=Google+Search

What does this all mean?

Is the new pope smoking dope, or is he just cool?

Superman · 10-05-2005, 08:29 AM

Christianity is not simple. Unless you're rejecting it, in which case you cannot let the details (facts) get into the discussion.

Catholic bishops have, over the years, made various statements. Intended to be helpful.

The leadership of the Catholic Church (the one at the Vatican, that is) has done the same. This statement comes from a group of Catholic bishops in England and surrounding areas. Not from the Vatican. There is a difference. And there is a difference between this statement and what we've seen from the Vatican.

But not that much of a difference. You see, the Catholic Church has for a very long time NOT taken a position on the historical accuracy of the Bible. And for a very good and simple reason. History is history and Faith is Faith. If you read the Bible as part of your historical research, you need to use some scientific skepticism. But if you're reading it as part of a theological endeavor, you take a very different approach. And here's the most relevant distinction:

If your interest in the Bible is not scientifi/historical....if your interest is theological....then even considering the question of its historical accuracy (or lack thereof) will serve only as a distraction. That is, when it comes to your relationship with God, and your interest in his teachings to you, historical considerations will only serve to distract and confuse you in that relationship.

That's what the Catholic Church says. These local bishops have gone a baby-step further than standard Catholic theological teachings, but not far. Essentially they are saying that you should not use blind faith when drawing conclusions about the Bible's historacal accuracy. The Catholic Church (Vatican) has been saying that for many many years.

Frankly, a book called Catechism of the Catholic Church, available in paperback form for ten bucks, is a very intriguing read.

Mulhollanddose · 10-05-2005, 11:52 AM

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.

They better hope so...In other news the Catholic church has a lot of pedophiles in the priesthood.

legion · 10-05-2005, 12:31 PM

So what they are saying, is that a document that has been translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin...and then to English, Italian, Spanish, German, etc. might have some inaccuracies? Imagine that.

Mulhollanddose · 10-05-2005, 12:36 PM

No buddy...The translations (at least those credible) were translated directly from the original texts...For example: Hebrew-->Japanese...Hebrew--->Russian....Hebrew--->English.

1967 R50/2 · 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
No buddy...The translations (at least those credible) were translated directly from the original texts...For example: Hebrew-->Japanese...Hebrew--->Russian....Hebrew--->English.

Sorry, but only the old testament texts were in Hebrew. Common language in Judea by new testament times was Aramaic.

I do believe certain letters of the Apostles and the later books were also written in Greek.

By the way, unless you were buddy buddy with St. Paul, chances are you never saw a ORIGINAL text.

In fact, because most of the gospels were written long after the events took place, there is, not suprisingly, pretty good evidence that they were based off of earlier drafts or even one common earlier source, sometimes known as the Q source.

Bottom Line: Nobody has an "original" text.

Mulhollanddose · 10-05-2005, 01:41 PM

The point I was trying to make was that translations didn't do anything like this: Aramaic to Greek to Japanese to Bengali to English to Spanish...They were directly copied from the oldest most authoritative texts available, deliberated on thoroughly.

The only real texts that are in question are those of the New Testament. The text of the New Testament, in early Christendom, was the most widely copied text, of all mass copied text, besting even Homer's Iliad...Based on these earliest available texts, and corroboration from historical sites (engravings, art, etc.) we have great accuracy in the New Testament.

"There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament"

F.F. Bruce (professor at the University of Manchester, England)

"...in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament."

Sir Frederic Kenyon (director of the British Museum)

He concluded: "The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."

targa911S · 10-05-2005, 01:44 PM

Paul and I used to go fishing all the time.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
deliberated on thoroughly.

...which means adding whatever political spin they felt was appropriate at the time. Not to mention the numerous occasions they all got together to decide what went into the bible and what didn't.

Mulhollanddose · 10-05-2005, 02:06 PM

"The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."

Mulhollanddose · 10-05-2005, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by widebody911
...which means adding whatever political spin they felt was appropriate at the time. Not to mention the numerous occasions they all got together to decide what went into the bible and what didn't.

Dan Rather type forgeries were discounted.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Dan Rather type forgeries were discounted.

GWB faux press releases 2 for 1, this week only! Call now and we'll throw in a free invasion justification!

1967 R50/2 · 10-05-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose

"...in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament."

[/i] [/B]

Yeah...well Kenyon has been dead for 53 years and research has moved well beyond him.

Modern researchers believe there was a more substantial delay between the actual events and the written versions that we currently have.

Likewise, with Bruce. I mean, the man was a Bible Apologetic for cyrin' out loud...expecting anything other than statements absolutely defending the authenticity of the bible would be out of character.

CamB · CamB's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
They better hope so...In other news the Catholic church has a lot of pedophiles in the priesthood.

Hate, hate, hate. Does it ever stop?

I would have thought you'd have better things to do with your time than condemn other Christians.

Mulhollanddose · 10-05-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by widebody911
GWB faux press releases 2 for 1, this week only! Call now and we'll throw in a free invasion justification!

Greenleaf is often cited by Christians because he set out to disprove the Biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ and subsequently became a Christian. [1] His work Testimony of the Evangelist is a often cited Christian apologetic work.:

Simon Greenleaf was a Harvard Law professor.

"There is enough of a discrepancy [between the Gospels] to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction."

Mulhollanddose · 10-05-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
Modern researchers believe there was a more substantial delay between the actual events and the written versions that we currently have.

Modern Christian opponents perhaps...Paul actually participated in the Jewish persecution of the early Church, converted and wrote in corroboration of all he previously persecuted.

Mulhollanddose · 10-05-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamB
Hate, hate, hate. Does it ever stop?

I would have thought you'd have better things to do with your time than condemn other Christians.

So, do you agree with the heretical teachings of the "Catholic leadership" that this thread discusses?...namely, that the scriptures cannot be trusted?

1967 R50/2 · 10-05-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Modern Christian opponents perhaps...Paul actually participated in the Jewish persecution of the early Church, converted and wrote in corroboration of all he previously persecuted.

Don't make statements just trying to get a knee jerk reaction. Others on this board will fall for it, but I will not.

You know that your statement is false. but clearly you are trying to get a rise out of other posters.

BTW: Yes, Saul originally persecuted Christians...but your statement is in no way germane to this conversation. As previously noted, there is no "original" text even of Paul's writings. What has come down to us is copies of copies. And plenty of modern CHRISTIAN theologians believe that.

That is all. This thread has already become a bore.