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

Quote :

" Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent 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. [...] "

Ha! I use to pick on Catholics a lot for some of their crazy beliefs, but they seem to be officially advancing faster than other branches of Christianity. Most Christians don't realize it, but they don't really hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but now there are some Catholic leaders teaching it as official policy (in a way).

10/9/2005 3:11:00 AM

you're a moron

10/9/2005 3:13:12 AM

10/9/2005 3:19:06 AM

Too bad that ain't the only thing the Catholic Church is screwing.

10/9/2005 3:57:23 AM

The Bible is entirely inerrant.

All that the document says is that not every book is supposed to be a literal historical account or a scientific report. Which we have known since the beginning.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 4:07 AM. Reason : add]

10/9/2005 4:06:29 AM

Quote :

"“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture."

So the bible is entirely inerrant.

But there are parts that are factually incorrect.



GOTCHA.

10/9/2005 12:35:54 PM

you see these inaccuracies are just "practices." everything else in the bible is "doctrine" and therefore is inerrant.

10/9/2005 12:42:49 PM

Quote :

"The Bible is entirely inerrant."

Quote :

"not every book is supposed to be a literal historical account or a scientific report"

wait
i'm sorry
i'm a Bible believing Christian, so you're gonna have to go slow here when you PULL A RECONCILIATION OF THESE TWO STATEMENTS OUT OF YOUR ASS

my suggestion is just to backpedal
or make a post that decrees the post in which you said that never actually happened

10/9/2005 12:59:01 PM

What he said was inerrant, but is not to be taken as fact.

10/9/2005 1:04:21 PM

I'm going to start doing that when I turn in project now.

I'm going to be like "this is perfect, but it might mess up"

10/9/2005 1:07:48 PM

i mean, i was always taught that the point of innerancy is so you cannot pick and choose

10/9/2005 1:09:14 PM

i have to agree with wolfpack2k

it kinda makes me sad inside

10/9/2005 1:14:32 PM

Think more deeply about what was said. (By the way, you all on here should kind of take that as a standing recommendation.)

10/9/2005 2:26:25 PM

Quote :

"So the bible is entirely inerrant. But there are parts that are factually incorrect. GOTCHA."

10/9/2005 2:35:30 PM

didn't wolfpack2k only a matter of months ago declare the Bible to be completely true?

10/9/2005 2:39:28 PM

The Bible is not a scientific or historical document - it is one that is a collection of revelations from God that were put into word by various men over 1000 years that, above all else, is a roadmap for the path of salvation and therefore should be kept with that in mind.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 3:01 PM. Reason : ]

10/9/2005 2:58:23 PM

^^ Wolfpack2K just a matter of minutes ago declared the Bible to be completely true. And reaffirms it such statement this minute.

^ Exactly. Consider the most misinterpreted passage in all the Bible. "This is My Body... this is the Cup of My Blood." If you were to analyze the elements scientifically you would see that they still maintain the physical properties and appearances of bread and wine - but we know in truth that they are not. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, but is not errant.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 3:01 PM. Reason : add]

10/9/2005 3:00:31 PM

Quote :

"If you were to analyze the elements scientifically you would see that they still maintain the physical properties and appearances of bread and wine - but we know in truth that they are not. "

what? so you are willing to accept that the bread and wine don't actually transubstantiate into blood and flesh, but then you're saying they are in fact blood and flesh?

10/9/2005 3:05:18 PM

I fucking LOVE Schroedinger's crackers.

10/9/2005 3:06:40 PM

Yes of course, the elements do actually transubstantiate - that is what I said. "We know in truth that they are not [breand and wine]." Well if they were bread and wine before, but are not now, then something must have happened to them in the interim - their substance changed. That is what transubstantiation means.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 3:09 PM. Reason : add]

10/9/2005 3:06:56 PM

yeah, i know, but you just said "If you were to analyze the elements scientifically you would see that they still maintain the physical properties and appearances of bread and wine", so in light of that, what gives you the right to say they are not "in truth" actually bread and wine?

10/9/2005 3:18:07 PM

Things are not always as they appear, would not that be an accurate statement?

It is exactly the distinction between a scientific textbook and a book of truth. Understand my statement and you will understand the distinction.

10/9/2005 3:20:17 PM

WolfPack2K: I've found a very novel ( ) cop-out. I'll take any bullshit statement and give it legitimacy by claiming it needs to be understood in some "higher" sense, not "literarily". Because who in the world analyzes the true meaning of the words when trying to figure out if a particular sentence makes sense?

10/9/2005 3:24:16 PM

this is some of the dumbest fucking shit i've ever seen

good fucking grief

10/9/2005 3:27:19 PM

10/9/2005 3:33:26 PM

I'm all for this outlook on the Bible, but to pretend that this doesn't change anything is silly.

For practical purposes, saying that the Bible is both not 100% fact and inerrant is contradictory.

Let's pretend the parables and metaphors in the Bible are inerrant. Unfortunately our interpretations of them aren't. The only purpose maintaining these two views serves it to shrug off glaring inaccuracies in the Bible without losing your claim on the Ultimate Truth(c).

10/9/2005 3:43:03 PM

yeah
you can't open up the "roadmap" and "metaphor" doors
and then hold fast to Jesus WALKING ON WATER, TURNING WATER INTO WINE, HEALING THE SICK, AND OH YEAH RAISING FROM THE DEAD

its either all good or take the "fake" shit out

10/9/2005 3:47:08 PM

Think on a deeper level. Go ahead and begin now.

10/9/2005 3:53:12 PM

please enlighten us

10/9/2005 3:57:17 PM

oh you're so clever

i wish i wasn't such a good person
or i'd rip the shit out of some of your posts in this thread

rip
the
shit
out
of
them

10/9/2005 3:58:16 PM

I am trying to help agentlion - that is all. To be perfectly honest, enlightening you is beyond even my power. A course in Philosophy might be fitting.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 4:02 PM. Reason : recommendation]

10/9/2005 4:01:35 PM

me?

oh skip

10/9/2005 4:03:24 PM

OH YOU GET THE ROLLY EYES BIG BOY

10/9/2005 4:04:03 PM

i have to side at least closer to the wolfpack2k side of things, in that being literal and being inerrant are two different things, although there is a fine line.

i do have trouble reconciling some of the crazy shit in the Old Testament. my solution, for lack of acute enough understanding, is to pretty much toss the Old Testament aside, or more correctly, view it as a background for helping to understand the context of the New Testament, which I view as the books of the Bible that actually count.

10/9/2005 4:04:03 PM

Well then actually, wouldn't that make you side more with me; when i said:

Quote :

"its either all good or take the "fake" shit out"

10/9/2005 4:05:07 PM

I understand that literal and inerrant are two different things.

But in the context of church doctrine, I see no appreciable difference between the two. Sure, the Bible may be God's exact, inerrant words. However if you admit that God's exact, inerrant words can't be taken at face value, then the Bible's total inerrancy is completely voided.

10/9/2005 4:11:57 PM

In what context exactly do Christians use the word "inerrant"? How can something truly be inerrant, esp. something as ambiguous as the Bible?

On top of that, if you can't interpret certain parts of the Bible as literal, then how are you suppose to interpret them? Different people will unfailingly interpret a figurative (and sometimes literal) passage differently. So if something is designed to not be literal, then how can it also be designed inerrant as well?

I have to agree with MathFreak that this is a Catholic double-speak cop-out.

10/9/2005 6:26:00 PM

SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE PEOPLE

not rocket science

10/9/2005 7:01:59 PM

Well then who is to say that Jesus life and times are not a symbolic representation of the finer parts of life at the turn of the 37th century

10/9/2005 7:36:12 PM

anyone with a brain larger than a peanut you fucking twit

10/9/2005 7:37:09 PM

oh
so i'm supposed to take the word of some book, that even its most influential followers now say is just a "roadmap" and for "illustration" that some dead guy BROUGHT PEOPLE BACK TO LIFE, AND THEN HAD ENOUGH POWER LEFT OVER IN HIS DURACELLS TO BRING HIMSELF BACK TO LIFE

just because 4 writers kind of said it in similar ways

AND I'M THE TWIT

10/9/2005 7:41:46 PM

yeah pretty much

10/9/2005 7:42:29 PM

so can i get a rundown of what books/chapters are real now
and which ones are demonstrative

kkthx

10/9/2005 7:44:14 PM

i guess you haven't clicked the link

kkthnx

10/9/2005 7:44:44 PM

ps ohsnappwnt

10/9/2005 7:45:11 PM

HAHAHAHHAHAH

poor wolfpack2k

best thread evar

10/9/2005 7:46:11 PM

Quote :

"As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing. Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb. "

new edict:
HE DIDN'T MAKE US, AND HE ISN'T COMING BACK FOR US

10/9/2005 7:46:41 PM

Quote :

"Ha! I use to pick on Catholics a lot for some of their crazy beliefs, but they seem to be officially advancing faster than other branches of Christianity. Most Christians don't realize it, but they don't really hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but now there are some Catholic leaders teaching it as official policy (in a way)."

oddly enough, most Christians ARE Catholic

Catholicism isn't advancing either... its declining
but declining from back when it ruled the Western world

10/9/2005 10:41:03 PM

moroms and blazin like a wild fire

10/9/2005 10:46:39 PM

Quote :

"The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland "

Not a change in the entire Church's doctrine, but a suggestion made by these Bishops for their Dioceses.

Quote :

"oddly enough, most Christians ARE Catholic"

Go figure...Something about a Reformation and Protestants, perhaps?...

ps- I'm always amazed at the hatred of Catholicism expressed by many Protestants, especially when they begin showing how little they really know about the Church, in particualr, the historical origins of their own religous sects. We come from a common ancestry, and share many to most of our beliefs...why should the few cause such violent argument?

10/9/2005 10:55:35 PM