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.
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.
I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of subordinating scriptural truth to cherished tradition. When the words of men matter more than the Word of God, such a conclusion comes as no surprise.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
The linked article is a slanted, dishonest screed. It's instructional, though, about how much of the world views Christian history and teaching. Galileo was not branded a heretic for shunning a belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible. It's a complete crock. Galileo was a devout follower of Christ who never wavered in his beliefs. He was castigated because he challenged the absolute authority of the Catholic Church. That, and he was a pretty combative guy, to boot.
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
It's hilarious how the definition of "tolerance" has been degraded. It used to entail the allowance of diverging viewpoints. Now, apparently, it means the embracing of all views as equally valid. All views, that is, except that which insists on biblical inerrancy.
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.
I would think the similarity of Genesis to the creation accounts of other cultures bolsters its historical credibility, not vice versa. I've never understood the concept of picking and choosing which passages to believe, and which to reject. How does one make that distinction?
Here are a couple of passage-examples now considered untrue by these "scholars and theologians:"
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments
Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount
Luke i
The Virgin Birth
John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection
If these aren't true, why not be forthright and just state your actual position: the Bible is bunk, from cover to cover!
UPDATE!
It seems I made a boo-boo, folks. Perhaps I should work on my reading comprehension. A word of advice: don't blog angry. I usually try to be careful about getting my facts straight.
Turns out, all the scripture examples I gave at the end of the post--except for the first one--fell under the TRUE column, not the UNTRUE one. So, the situation isn't quite as bad as it might be. But I stand by the rest of this post, and I think my points are valid.
Rejecting scripture in favor of Man's pontifications is a dangerous, foolish thing. The description of Galileo's run-in with the Catholic Church still is just as wrong.
Much appreciation goes to TOTAL 1087 for catching my error.
No comments:
Post a Comment