Catholic Church stops believing in the Bible

This should put the cat amoungst the pigeons:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/06102005/17...ing-bible.html
or:
http://tinyurl.com/cyn9y

THE Catholic Church in Scotland has published a new guide to the Bible
which explains that some passages are not literally true.

Worshippers are being warned not to expect "total accuracy" from the
Bible, according to a new teaching document published by the Catholic
Bishops of Scotland in collaboration with the Bishops' Conference in
England and Wales.

While basic tenets such as the Virgin birth and the resurrection of
Jesus Christ are still deemed to be factually correct, areas such as
the
Garden of Eden and the creation of a woman from Adam's rib are
dismissed as simply "symbolic language".

"We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or
complete historical precision," explains the Church in The Gift of
Scripture, which is designed to assist those embarking on a course of
Bible study.

In the United States there is a debate among some Christians who wish
the story of creation as told in the Book of Genesis to be taught as an
alternative to the theory of evolution as explained by Charles Darwin.

However, the first 11 chapters of Genesis, which gives two differing
stories of creation, cannot be considered as "historical" according to
Scotland's Bishops.

While the Bible is considered to be true in those passages which relate
to human salvation, other areas are questionable. "We should not expect
total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."

In fact the bishops go as far as to say that there are "significant
dangers" involved in taking a fundamentalist approach to the Bible.
"Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation
or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even
consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against
others."

Your point being? The Catholic church has never believed in the literal
interpretation of the bible. The same is true of most other major
christian denominations. The literal reading of the bible is limited to
a small number of fundamentalist churches. Ignoring the conflicting
parts of the bible is also an apparent specialty of that small number of
churches.

http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...12_19_2002.asp

Bryan

Geo wrote:
> This should put the cat amoungst the pigeons:
>
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/06102005/17...ing-bible.html
> or:
> http://tinyurl.com/cyn9y
>
> THE Catholic Church in Scotland has published a new guide to the Bible
> which explains that some passages are not literally true.

Ahh, but do they believe that pterodactyls and humans existed at the
same time, and that pterodactyls are extinct because they were too big
for Noah's boat?

Michael Wolf wrote:

> Bryan Heit wrote:
>
>> Your point being? The Catholic church has never believed in the
>> literal interpretation of the bible. The same is true of most other
>> major christian denominations. The literal reading of the bible is
>> limited to a small number of fundamentalist churches. Ignoring the
>> conflicting parts of the bible is also an apparent specialty of that
>> small number of churches.
>>
>> http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm
>> http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...12_19_2002.asp
>>
>>
>> Bryan
>
>
> Well, it started already before when they threw out those parts of the
> bible that didn't fit in the picture.
>
Like the one that told about Maria having been an orphan
raised by priest in the temple, and once they discovered she
was growing up to be a woman, about her age of 13 years,
they gave her to a certain Joseph.
Just in time. ( Apocryphs,letter of Peter)

Matthias

Bryan Heit wrote:
> Your point being? The Catholic church has never believed in the literal
> interpretation of the bible. The same is true of most other major
> christian denominations. The literal reading of the bible is limited to
> a small number of fundamentalist churches. Ignoring the conflicting
> parts of the bible is also an apparent specialty of that small number of
> churches.
>
> http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm
> http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...12_19_2002.asp
>
>
> Bryan

Well, it started already before when they threw out those parts of the
bible that didn't fit in the picture.

--
Michael Wolf

-----

Cthulhu For President.
Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

Al Wells wrote:
> Geo wrote:
> > This should put the cat amoungst the pigeons:
> >
> > http://uk.news.yahoo.com/06102005/17...ing-bible.html
> > or:
> > http://tinyurl.com/cyn9y
> >
> > THE Catholic Church in Scotland has published a new guide to the Bible
> > which explains that some passages are not literally true.
>
> Ahh, but do they believe that pterodactyls and humans existed at the
> same time, and that pterodactyls are extinct because they were too big
> for Noah's boat?
>
I used to believe that pterodactyls and humans existed at the same
time, in fact I'm pretty sure I've seen pterodactyls. Then I gave up
drinking.

Geo

> THE Catholic Church in Scotland has published a new guide to the Bible
> which explains that some passages are not literally true....

Jesus doesn't really use TriMix