مشاركة: الكنيسة الكاثوليكية: الكتاب المقدس يحتوي على أجزاء غير صحيحة
سبقتني أخي الحبيب الموحد ومع ذلك هذا هو الموضوع الأصل ويوجد أيضاً مفاجئة جاري البحث عنها
Debate
page 1]
Times Online October 05, 2005
The Bible: what is it good for?
The Roman Catholic Church has instructed the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true, and that they should not expect 'total accuracy' in Scripture. What do you look for when you read the Bible? Do you swear by it? Read the article and send us your views using the form below
Overall, the Bible gives us a guide to live by. It gives and substantiates the hope we all need for an afterlife. Do good to them that persecute you; turn the other cheek; the ten commandments; love thy neighbor as thyself, etc. There has to be inaccuracies and any thinking person will realise that. Unfortunately, there are those who take the Bible literally, "handle snakes" to prove their faith, and feel anyone who doesn't agree with their interpretation is wrong and is going to Hell. Robert Westmoreland, Mt Dora, Florida
How arrogant can Man get? To decide which parts of God's word are true and which are not beggar's belief! Because the links between the different parts of Scripture make them dependent upon one another, it means that either it is all true, or it is all lies. We cannot have it any other way. Interestingly, Jesus Christ clearly taught that it was all true - so they are saying that God Himself is wrong! Dominic Stockford, Teddington
This is joke right? I may not consider myself Christian, or even really believe that the Bible is a novel based on real events, but I do believe that people have faith in the Bible and that it is not for one person (or a group of people) to say what is right and what is not. I believe that the stories are not always literal, but they are stories that invoke thought in us and encourage us to learn lessons. But just because that is what I think doesn’t mean I am going to tell all Christians to believe it. Chris Carr, Gosport
The Latter-day Saints have an interesting perspective: "We believe that the Bible is true as far as it is translated correctly" (Joseph Smith). This takes into account the fact that it has been through numerous translations and interpretations since its inception. Of course it is not in exactly the same form as when it was first written. But that does not mean it is irrelevant. If we approach the Bible with a sincere intention to know the will of God, then we will qualify for assistance from Him to understand it. It is when man has tried to impose his limited interpretations on God's word that so many errors and confusion have occurred. Gareth Wretham, Leamington Spa
I fear that Ruth Gledhill has muddied the waters by her article in today's Times. I have not had an opportunity to read the latest document from the Catholic bishops but equating the word "fact" with "truth" is a very unsubtle and naive use of language. The Catholic Church has never regarded the Bible in the same way as the Protestant Reformers - but that is a very different thing from saying that it is not the inspired word of God. To say that the Catholic Church now believes that Genesis is "untrue" (as the article says) is to miss the whole point: that the Bible consists of many different types of writing, each one of which is to be understood in its own category. The category of Genesis is not modern cosmology - but that does not mean it is "untrue". One has only to think of Cole Porter's song: "You're the Tops" "... you're the Coliseum ... you're the Louvre Museum ... you're the melody of a symphony by Strauss....etc, etc". True or untrue? Alice J. McCabe, Doncaster
We're getting closer. Perhaps a mere 2,000 years more and the Church will have caught up with ideas of rational thought. And from there it should be no time at all before our brave Christian soldiers stop crusading against our unholy enemy combatants. Steven McCowan, Miami, Florida
The Bible was inspired by God but not dictated word for word by Him. Genesis reflects the understanding of the writers who did not, a thousand years before Christ, have a Hubble telescope to search the heavens. Joseph Collison, Danielson, Connecticut
The Bible is a collection of stories, some based on historical events, some based on visions of true believers, and some pure fiction, chosen to promulgate a belief that the Hebrew people were God's chosen race and the progenitors of the Messiah. Take it for what it's worth. Douglas Shands, Austin, Texas
In reading the article regarding the Catholic bishops' declaration on the Bible, I was confused. If they are able to say this bit is OK and that bit is not OK, who is to say who is right? Rhys Morgan, Glannau Dyfrdwy, Wales
Simply amazing. Next the Catholic Church will be recalling all of their parishioners' Bibles and reissuing ones written in pencil. This way, their followers can just erase parts that the Church can't explain. Don't they believe this is the word of God? I guess they know better. Anthony Shamoun, Novi, Michigan
So, Catholicism is now to be replaced by institutional liberalism, the new "virtual" religion. You couldn't make it up. Terry Daly, London
True Christians will continue to hold on to the truths of the Bible. The challenge, however, remains the manner of interpretation, literally or through in depth studies assisted by the Holy Spirit. The points raised by the Catholic bishops are not new. Ditto the misinterpretation of the Bible for selfish or mischievous purposes. Remember that it was even used to justify colonialism, while "the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism" was read by most of us in the universities. However, the truth still remains that it is the word of God. In it lies some eternal truths which have prevailed over time and provided succour to people in need of salvation for their souls. William Akuluono, Barnet
The role of bishops is to hand down the Deposit of Faith given by Christ and His apostles. Quite frankly, the UK Bishops have no authority whatsoever to say what is true and what is not: they weren't there when the Bible was written so they wouldn't know. The Fathers of the Church, St Augustine, Jerome, etc, certainly took a different view: they found nothing false in the Bible and found inconsistencies could be explained if examined. I'll still continue to consult them: after all, they were experts in the language of the Bible and lived closer in time to the events described. Ciaran ryan, Brisbane, Australia
As an atheist I am intrigued that the Catholic Church is apparently bowing to reason and discarding some of its central doctrines with regard to Biblical literalism. Hopefully, this may take some of the wind out of the sails of creationists and other fundamentalists, if they are still capable of listening to the voice of moderation. Having been obliged at last to make these concessions, I wonder how much longer it will take for the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ and the resurrection also to be conceded as "symbolic". Then what future for the raison d'être of the Church itself, except maybe as a charitable institution? Reginald le Sueur, Jersey
[Page 2
[Debate
Biblical scholarship has come a long way and none of what has been quoted as being said in "The Gift of Scripture" is in any way at odds with the Roman Catholic Church. Ruth Gledhill's article fails to take account of the Church's understanding of myth, truth and fallacy, and uses the term "untrue" misleadingly. I am troubled by this article, which reports as new something that has been the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and most mainstream churches for some time. I am almost expecting a similar article next week, with the headline: "Catholic Church rejects flat-Earth theory". Michael Astley, Manchester
I am amazed that it has taken this long for the Roman Catholic Church to admit that the Bible is not historically accurate. It is time that we move away from this increasingly fundamental type of Christianity, and returned to an open and honest debate about Biblical literature and its use. Kerry Walker, Birmingham
A sensible article by Ruth Gledhill is wrecked - yet again? - by a populist headline declaring that the hierarchy is no longer "swearing by the truth of the Bible". This would have been substantially avoided had the word "literal" been introduced before "truth". It would, of course, have meant that the article would have appeared much less sensational in reporting the broadly secure findings of a hundred years of biblical scholarship. The Rev David Hares, Norwich, Norfolk
It amazes me that this story should be seen as news. Christians of all kinds have always insisted that the Bible contains different kinds of literature, some to be read literally, some not. The only debate is about which is which. For your article to label some biblical claims as "true" and others "untrue" is to miss the point entirely. The question is: what kind of truth is being expressed? The only people who imagine simplistically that it is possible to read the entire Bible literally are those who never read it. Even redneck fundamentalists are more aware of the realities than that! John Allan, Exeter
Could Ruth Gledhill point out exactly how Galileo's discovery about the solar system brings down the doctrine of inspiration of Scripture? It is worth noting that in the countries where the Reformation had taken root, where the Bible was read more broadly by ordinary people, such ideas were embraced much more readily. Galileo didn't threaten Biblical ideas, but the Platonic world view that the Roman Church was tied to at the time. Darren Moore, Tranmere
If we do not want to lower ourselves to the same level as the terrorists that we condemn, then we should accept writings that date back thousands of years for what they really are: the reflection of the way people looked at the world at that time. Edgard Adriaens, Ninove, Belgium
As a Roman Catholic, I find the Church's approach to the Bible refreshing and correct. Most educated religious individuals acknowledge that there are two aspects to religion, logos and mythos. The importance of these is not to blur the lines but understand what each represents and why. Hopefully the guidance now given will be heeded. I am sure my Jewish girlfriend will be relieved to read the fresh insight towards Jews. Gregory Irgin, London
It is comments like these that make us thank God more and more for the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It is funny how the scientific establishment often plays catch-up with the Bible. All sorts of "recent scientific discoveries" are found there. Forget Darwin. Forget Rome. Read your Bible. It'll do you the power of good! Colin Maxwell, Cork, Republic of Ireland
This is not really a significant change for the Church in terms of beliefs. The previous Pope often spoke of the deep meaning in the story of Genesis, (such as here), without any need to adhere to over simplified interpretations that effectively assume man's creation to be equivalent to the process of making a snowman. It must be a good thing to stand up in the face of so many of the new evangelical movements in the US that make Christianity look like something for people not interested in the truth, which is in fact its antithesis. Simon Adams, Weybridge
Please complete the form below and your contribution will be considered for publication. Please restrict your response to 250 words maximum. It may be necessary to edit your comments. Please include your name, town/county/state of residence and e-mail.
رد مع اقتباس
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة احمد العربى
المفضلات