NationStates Jolt Archive

The Catholic church has issued a statement that the bible shouldn't be expected to contain full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision. This means you can still be faithfull to the Catholic church despite accepting the reality of evolution among other things. Why can't other religions follow suit? Wouldn't it go a long way towards ensurigng that the faithfull will not stray because they're being forced to choose between god and science?

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

The Catholic church has issued a statement that the bible shouldn't be expected to contain full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision. This means you can still be faithfull to the Catholic church despite accepting the reality of evolution among other things. Why can't other religions follow suit? Wouldn't it go a long way towards ensurigng that the faithfull will not stray because they're being forced to choose between god and science?

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

what other religions are you hoping for? I'm not Catholic, I'm a non-denominational Christian and I don't feel I have to choose between God and science. I never have.

The Catholic church has issued a statement that the bible shouldn't be expected to contain full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision. This means you can still be faithfull to the Catholic church despite accepting the reality of evolution among other things. Why can't other religions follow suit? Wouldn't it go a long way towards ensurigng that the faithfull will not stray because they're being forced to choose between god and science?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
Say hello to the Philosophy of Catholicism
:D

About darned time others followed suit. That part about the quoting the Bible to justify the pogroms against Jews was good- ergo: Bible says a lotta this. Don't take it literally.

two good points here; they come out clearly against fundamentalism, and refute revelations. looks like a step in the right direction.

Wouldn't it go a long way towards ensurigng that the faithfull will not stray because they're being forced to choose between god and science?

The Catholic Church learned its lesson from Galileo. Granted, it took them a long time to learn this lesson, but they did eventually admit that Galileo was right after all, and they should never have argued with him in the first place.

:p

The Catholic church has issued a statement that the bible shouldn't be expected to contain full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision. This means you can still be faithfull to the Catholic church despite accepting the reality of evolution among other things. Why can't other religions follow suit? Wouldn't it go a long way towards ensurigng that the faithfull will not stray because they're being forced to choose between god and science?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html I thought the Church decided this a long time ago?

The Bible is largely metaphorical. It seems that the Catholics might finally be latching on to this.

what other religions are you hoping for? I'm not Catholic, I'm a non-denominational Christian and I don't feel I have to choose between God and science. I never have.
same here. well replace non-denominational with southern baptist but yeah
I don't have to choose.

two good points here; they come out clearly against fundamentalism, and refute revelations. looks like a step in the right direction.
I don't think it refutes Revalation. It is a hard book to follow out of context with the history of the times, and also without a basic understanding of prior Biblical prophecy of the end times, and yes most of it is symbolic but that doesn't mean it is entirely wrong because you have to look deeper to understand it.

I settled for God created evolution. There is no reason for christians to make a fuss over evolution, just because its not mentioned in the bible. And i say Christians who do make a fuss about it are not the brightest amung their type, God didn't say that he didn't maked history when he made the earth.

I settled for God created evolution. There is no reason for christians to make a fuss over evolution, just because its not mentioned in the bible. And i say Christians who do make a fuss about it are not the brightest amung their type, God didn't say that he didn't maked history when he made the earth.
yeah as far as I am concerned it is a non-issue.

I do get really annoyed with the Christians who say "well, if evolution is true then you are saying God is wrong, you are bad"

I mean I don't want to be the one who says "God created the world this way and didn't the other because he can't do that or I will look dumb for being a creationist."

I don't want to tell God what He can or can't do, He's God he can do anything.

Well there is one thing God can't do. And that is to make a wall he can't jump over.

Well there is one thing God can't do. And that is to make a wall he can't jump over.


I am not even going to respond to that.... oops.... to late here goes.....

but do you want to be the one to tell God that?

Ahh just another way for someone later along the road to say "Christians are crap blah blah blah" darn catholics making it hard for everyone else, like usual
-kills a preist-

I thought the Church decided this a long time ago?
I think they expanded the list of things in the bible to take with a grain of salt.

I am not even going to respond to that.... oops.... to late here goes.....

but do you want to be the one to tell God that?
I think i will pass on telling him, I will just trink some one else to do it.


So, would you like to run this peice of papper to god for me, real quick? Ohh, and don't pay any heed to the "From Smunkeeville, To God" on the front.

what other religions are you hoping for? I'm not Catholic, I'm a non-denominational Christian and I don't feel I have to choose between God and science. I never have.
Whichever denominations keep trying to shove evolution out of schools and replace it with their versions of the christian creation myth.

Ahh just another way for someone later along the road to say "Christians are crap blah blah blah" darn catholics making it hard for everyone else, like usual
-kills a preist- No sense is made here.

Finally !
If I ruled the world, there wouldnt be any religions.
Theyre an absurd idea.
A superhuman creating the world plus more.Rediculous.

I don't think it refutes Revalation. It is a hard book to follow out of context with the history of the times, and also without a basic understanding of prior Biblical prophecy of the end times, and yes most of it is symbolic but that doesn't mean it is entirely wrong because you have to look deeper to understand it.

yeah, Revelation is how the world will end. Jesus Himself said that the book was not to be messed with.

I think i will pass on telling him, I will just trink some one else to do it.


So, would you like to run this peice of papper to god for me, real quick? Ohh, and don't pay any heed to the "From Smunkeeville, To God" on the front.
okay... uhh.... wait I remember getting in trouble in grammar school for passing notes, I sure don't want to lose my sticker for the day again, I mean what is life without stickers? pretty crappy... that's what it is.... ;)

yeah, Revelation is how the world will end. Jesus Himself said that the book was not to be messed with.
messing with and understanding are two completely different things....

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]I think they expanded the list of things in the bible to take with a grain of salt.[QUOTE]

...as is taking everything literally and dismissing completely

This is my favourite part of the article:

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word.

Finally !
If I ruled the world, there wouldnt be any religions.
Theyre an absurd idea.
A superhuman creating the world plus more.Rediculous.
God, or Gods are not super humans. God or Gods created every thing, assuming you are religous, just when you try to conjour up an image of a God, people tend to think that they look in sorts like him. For all we know it could be a super blob Green slim..... I remebered i had a point when i started this, but I lost it after "God or God's."

Jesus ? A swear word ?

Finally !
If I ruled the world, there wouldnt be any religions.
Theyre an absurd idea.
A superhuman creating the world plus more.Rediculous.
actually I think you mean ridiculous, and some people disagree, and we are all glad that you don't rule the world ;)

The Bible is largely metaphorical. It seems that the Catholics might finally be latching on to this.
Hmm, It's been in the minds of Catholics for a long time [Even the clergy], however the Church itself had never fully taken a stand on it.

I for one am quite happy that it is official.

Well there is one thing God can't do. And that is to make a wall he can't jump over.
If God is all powerful, then would God not be able to limit his own power at will? Create a wall, limit his ability to jump and he thusly cannot jump over the wall because he has forced himself to be unable to.

Thus God has thusly created a wall that he was not able to jump over, but is still technically all powerful.

yeah, Revelation is how the world will end. Jesus Himself said that the book was not to be messed with.

Jesus didn't even know the book existed. Revelations was the last book to be written, and it was written when Jesus had been dead for almost a thousand years.

I for one am quite happy that it is official.


If God is all powerful, then would God not be able to limit his own power at will? Create a wall, limit his ability to jump and he thusly cannot jump over the wall because he has forced himself to be unable to.

Thus God has thusly created a wall that he was not able to jump over, but is still technically all powerful.
[/QUOTE]
Dam wise words.

[QUOTE=Smunkeeville]we are all glad that you don't rule the world ;)[QUOTE]
Hehehe.
You wouldnt want me ruling the world,
I assure you.

God, or Gods are not super humans. God or Gods created every thing, assuming you are religous, just when you try to conjour up an image of a God, people tend to think that they look in sorts like him. For all we know it could be a super blob Green slim..... I remebered i had a point when i started this, but I lost it after "God or God's."

Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster

messing with and understanding are two completely different things....
Precisely. They are supporting a non-literal interpretation, referred to in the article as "religious teaching."

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.

Jesus didn't even know the book existed. Revelations was the last book to be written, and it was written when Jesus had been dead for almost a thousand years.
okay Jesus is God.
and if that isn't enough there are direct quotes in Revelation from Jesus stateing not to mess with it.

Jesus didn't even know the book existed. Revelations was the last book to be written, and it was written when Jesus had been dead for almost a thousand years.
I don't think it was a thousond years, I have been taught that it was 100ish, maybe pushing to 200 after his death, Death as in 33ish AD.

To me, religion is like semtex blowing up in your face-
painful.

Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster
Ahhh, yes, lets not for get him, i hope he dosn't cast judgement harshly on me for my forgetfullness.

Precisely. They are supporting a non-literal interpretation, referred to in the article as "religious teaching."
yeah. I get that. ;) I didn't say anything about it messing with the Bible someone else did and I was responding to them about how a non-literal veiw of parts of the Bible isn't messing with it because some of it wasn't meant to be taken literally anyway.

The Bible is largely metaphorical. It seems that the Catholics might finally be latching on to this.

Hey, I'm Catholic, and this stuff was taught to us, but explained that Genesis was a story made up by the soothsayers at the time to explain where we came from in simple terms because of the lack of knowledge and general education at the time. I believe very little of what's in the Bible, I think that a small bit was known about a man who claimed to be the Son of God, and those who wrote the Bible filled in the blanks. Stories in the Old Testament - Noah, Moses, etc, there's probably some element of truth there, but I don't believe that they're completely true

I find that the belief in I.D. is limited, in Europe, to the odd kook/fundamentalist group, and to a bunch of Americans who can't comprehend that we are nothing more than animals, allbeit with larger brains....

I don't think it was a thousond years, I have been taught that it was 100ish, maybe pushing to 200 after his death, Death as in 33ish AD.

Actually, they've given an approximate date of in or around the 1000AD mark, give or take a couple of hundred years, as the date that Revelations was written, the last I heard anyway.

okay Jesus is God.
and if that isn't enough there are direct quotes in Revelation from Jesus stateing not to mess with it.

This brings up an interesting question: if some wacko altered the bible without God's consent, would God intervene to change it, or would he expect the faithful to know the difference?

Jesus didn't even know the book existed. Revelations was the last book to be written, and it was written when Jesus had been dead for almost a thousand years.

ummm... in case you missed it, the angel of the Lord spoke through John in Revelation... you know, Angel of the Lord, God, Jesus... BTW, Jesus isn't dead.

Revelation 22:18-19
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

I was thinking of somthing else, I thought back a little bit, and that was at a privet school (Christian of corse) taught me, and i have still yet to break all the habbits and things i have learned.

I still have a tendecy to act to speak a little racest like, as in a few words that my offend, from that bloody school usin the words loosly and it being a part in my common vocabulary.

This brings up an interesting question: if some wacko altered the bible without God's consent, would God intervene to change it, or would he expect the faithful to know the difference?
there have been many who have altered the Bible. God hasn't done anything visible to them, they seem to be thriving, but we as the faithful were told to be ever vigilent about false teachings.

is there anyone here that goes to church on a regular basis ?
If you do, and go every Sunday then I can inform you that you will have wasted over 2500 hours in a building listening to others ranting false stories from a ludicrous book when you are dead.

is there anyone here that goes to church on a regular basis ?
hmm I go about 6 times a week.....

is there anyone here that goes to church on a regular basis ?
If you do, and go every Sunday then I can inform you that you will have wasted over 2500 hours in a building listening to others ranting false stories from a ludicrous book when you are dead.
Thats a little harsh to say, I go to church, because of its a good place to meet people my age, who tend to live a life style more like my own. Lets not forget that church girls are easy.

is there anyone here that goes to church on a regular basis ?
If you do, and go every Sunday then I can inform you that you will have wasted over 2500 hours in a building listening to others ranting false stories from a ludicrous book when you are dead.

Look, Christian bashing is ok, but do it in threads devoted to Christian bashing, please.

Look, Christian bashing is ok, but do it in threads devoted to Christian bashing, please.
Is this the christian bashing thread ?
Hehehehe @ Conservative

there have been many who have altered the Bible. God hasn't done anything visible to them, they seem to be thriving, but we as the faithful were told to be ever vigilent about false teachings.

So since Revelations was written by someone 1,000 years after Jesus lived, since it seems to be full of rather ungodly details, and since the author was (don't know if this is true but I heard it somewhere) somewhat of a crazy druggie, could it reasonably be interpreted that Revelations was written by someone without deific consent?

Is this the christian bashing thread ?
Hehehehe @ Conservative
:rolleyes: there are many. about 5 of them pop up every week without fail.
be careful though exactly how you bash us though because you could get in trouble for trolling or flaming. and that would be sad. :(

Is this the christian bashing thread ?
Hehehehe @ Conservative

This is more of the "We thank you for finally partially admitting you're wrong" thread. You can start a Christian bashing thread somewhere else. If I'm still on then I'll help you, I always enjoy a good Christian bash-fest.

Oh dont worry, I dont lose my temper too easily.
I might create my own later on.
Ill see if there are any on at the moment.

So since Revelations was written by someone 1,000 years after Jesus lived, since it seems to be full of rather ungodly details, and since the author was (don't know if this is true but I heard it somewhere) somewhat of a crazy druggie, could it reasonably be interpreted that Revelations was written by someone without deific consent?
I don't think I have ever heard the crazed druggie theory.

as far as the interpretation thing, it depends on how you go about interpreting things, if you take everything on face value and refuse to study into the history, and get the low down on the
who? (who is speaking)
what? (what are they talking about0
when? (when was this written?)
where?(what are the cultural significances of the symbols?)
why? (why does the author think this is important?)
how? (how does this relate to me?)
then yeah I guess it would seem like someone on drugs wrote it.

but if you do pay attention to the history, the 5 W's and the H, and read it in context with other places in the Bible talking about the same things, using the same imagery and explaining what is behind those symbols, then it all makes sense, too much sense to have been written by a 'crazed druggie'

So since Revelations was written by someone 1,000 years after Jesus lived, since it seems to be full of rather ungodly details, and since the author was (don't know if this is true but I heard it somewhere) somewhat of a crazy druggie, could it reasonably be interpreted that Revelations was written by someone without deific consent?
according to catholic.org the book was written between 81 and 96 ad

http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm

is there anyone here that goes to church on a regular basis ?
If you do, and go every Sunday then I can inform you that you will have wasted over 2500 hours in a building listening to others ranting false stories from a ludicrous book when you are dead. Yes, I've always been an admirer of towering arrogance.
Thats a little harsh to say, I go to church, because of its a good place to meet people my age, who tend to live a life style more like my own. Lets not forget that church girls are easy. No they're not. It's always so hard to find her, it's such a big building… okay, I'll shut up now. :eek:

So since Revelations was written by someone 1,000 years after Jesus lived, since it seems to be full of rather ungodly details, and since the author was (don't know if this is true but I heard it somewhere) somewhat of a crazy druggie, could it reasonably be interpreted that Revelations was written by someone without deific consent?

It's believed that the Bible itself wasn't written by anyone who lived in the time of Jesus anyway. It's thought to have been written by priests from about 10 years after Christ is supposed to have died, and people continued to add to it for a long time, possibly adding pieces as knowledge was obtained, possibly trying to fill in blanks and make it more believeable so less questions will be asked. Sure, Christ is believed to have been born in August, 7BC, because winter in that area is cold and any baby born in a stable would most likely die, and they tracked that star that the three magi followed to Bethlehem, and it was most likely some supernova which was visible from Earth at the time...

It's always so hard to find her, it's such a big building… okay, I'll shut up now. :eek:
you should check out the preacher's daughter first :eek: oh wait I remember you.... if you are who you say you are, maybe you should stay away from her :p

you should check out the preacher's daughter first :eek: oh wait I remember you.... if you are who you say you are, maybe you should stay away from her :p Er, I'm Catholic… the preachers don't tend to have daughters… at least, not ones that they admit to. ;)

Why should I stay away from her? :(

It's believed that the Bible itself wasn't written by anyone who lived in the time of Jesus anyway.
believed by who?
and how to you account for the Gospels?

Thats a little harsh to say, I go to church, because of its a good place to meet people my age, who tend to live a life style more like my own. Lets not forget that church girls are easy.
I'm sorry that's why you go to church. I hope you also enjoy the instruction and fellowship you get by being a part of communal worship.

yeah. I get that. ;) I didn't say anything about it messing with the Bible someone else did and I was responding to them about how a non-literal veiw of parts of the Bible isn't messing with it because some of it wasn't meant to be taken literally anyway.
Yeah, I get that. ;) that's why I agreed with you. :)

Er, I'm Catholic… the preachers don't tend to have daughters… at least, not ones that they admit to. ;)

Why should I stay away from her? :(
maybe I have you confused with someone else in another thred
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9725399&postcount=22

is there anyone here that goes to church on a regular basis ?
If you do, and go every Sunday then I can inform you that you will have wasted over 2500 hours in a building listening to others ranting false stories from a ludicrous book when you are dead.

that's okay, i'll send you a postcard from heaven.

pity it'll burn before it reaches you.

hehe

Yeah, I get that. ;) that's why I agreed with you. :)
oh sorry, I misunderstood.
I am in Christian defense mode today.

I also was read about this in The Times this Afternoon and it says that Ten Commandants were actually untrue (The Vatican also mentioned other things that are not true), and it is about time that the Catholic Church to reveal the truth, as Christians may need to know the truth.

maybe I have you confused with someone else in another thred
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9725399&postcount=22 Why should I stay away just because I think sex is bad?

Olara']I'm sorry that's why you go to church. I hope you also enjoy the instruction and fellowship you get by being a part of communal worship.
I also go to church to worship, but i don't go to listen to the paster preach, they preach about what those who don't know God need to know. As for the people who know Jesus, its our job to bring them to church. A good way to get people in to church is to have a good group of friends who can appeal to non-believers.

As for the church girls thing, thats a saying my father told me many of times. (My father being of no faith, and "Converted to marrie my mom"

I also go to church to worship, but i don't go to listen to the paster preach, they preach about what those who don't know God need to know. As for the people who know Jesus, its our job to bring them to church. A good way to get people in to church is to have a good group of friends who can appeal to non-believers. Actually, sermons can be very thought-provoking, especially if they're good ones. That's what I've found.

Actually, sermons can be very thought-provoking, especially if they're good ones. That's what I've found.
I do hear a good one from time to time, but I know all I need to know. And with what i know, ii will gather more minions.... err I mean I will try and bring more people to church, an thus far my group of friends have brought many to the church, but not all stay, but i blame the hat lady for that.

Why should I stay away just because I think sex is bad?
sorry, there is an assumption in America that the preacher's daughter is a slut. (turns out most of the time it is true :()

sorry, there is an assumption in America that the preacher's daughter is a slut. (turns out most of the time it is true :() Solution: priestly celibacy! ;)

believed by who?
and how to you account for the Gospels?
Come on, Smunkeeville, historians write about things that happened before they were born. Why couldn't the Gospels have been written after the fact (assuming it was a fact for the sake of conversation)?

Come on, Smunkeeville, historians write about things that happened before they were born. Why couldn't the Gospels have been written after the fact (assuming it was a fact for the sake of conversation)?
the whole point of the Gospels is that they are written by the Apostles (that is people who actually met Jesus)

I don't put too much stock in things historians mull around and speculate about, if they can prove it fine, if not, then I am going with God. :)

Solution: priestly celibacy! ;)
or they could just not lord over thier kids to the point that they feel led to rebel sexually.....

you know either way is easy.... ;)

believed by who?
and how to you account for the Gospels?

There is a lot of research gone into determining the age of the Bible, I can't call myself an expert, but I have read some material and watched a few documentaries on the subject.

Apparently, the Gospels were written based on correspondence and the teachings of the supposed writers. Possibly the Gospels had been begun by one writer and continued by his students, who passed on the teachings, and which were added to as information became available.

The Bible is very complex, I don't believe that it was written in a short space of time, more that it was pieced together using letters, old stories passed from one generation to the next. How many accurate historical texts do you know of that have survived and been passed on without a single change, for more than 200 years?

It's a possibility that I'm very wrong and I'm open to criticism regarding this subject. Do you have any more interesting details?

believed by who?
and how to you account for the Gospels?
Bible historians and scholars. In one thing they all agree is that the Gospels were written some time after the death of Jesus and, in the best of cases, had been carried by oral tradition for many years before being written down.
We also know that there were more than four. A Fourth Century Archbishop chose the four that now form part of the Canon by considering their accuracy and consistency, in his eyes, of course. But we know that even after that they were altered and many version of the Bible have existed at every point in time.

There is a lot of research gone into determining the age of the Bible, I can't call myself an expert, but I have read some material and watched a few documentaries on the subject.

Apparently, the Gospels were written based on correspondence and the teachings of the supposed writers. Possibly the Gospels had been begun by one writer and continued by his students, who passed on the teachings, and which were added to as information became available.

The Bible is very complex, I don't believe that it was written in a short space of time, more that it was pieced together using letters, old stories passed from one generation to the next. How many accurate historical texts do you know of that have survived and been passed on without a single change, for more than 200 years?

It's a possibility that I'm very wrong and I'm open to criticism regarding this subject. Do you have any more interesting details?

I am going to need to research this point of veiw before I can come up with an intelligent response.

The diference (I believe) between the Bible and any other historical document is that it is God-breathed.

The Bible wasn't written over a short period of time at all, it was written over many years by many people, it is very complicated, but like I said I am going to want to know where their 'evidence' that it was written by anyone than who it is generally accepted to be written by in the church, before I can really comment as to any flaws that I might find.

Why can't other religions follow suit?

If "other religions" (I think you really meant other denominations) did everything the Catholics did, there wouldn't be other religions. ;)

Bible historians and scholars. In one thing they all agree is that the Gospels were written some time after the death of Jesus and, in the best of cases, had been carried by oral tradition for many years before being written down.
We also know that there were more than four. A Fourth Century Archbishop chose the four that now form part of the Canon by considering their accuracy and consistency, in his eyes, of course. But we know that even after that they were altered and many version of the Bible have existed at every point in time.
I do realize that the Gospels were written after the death of Jesus, some like 30 years after. My point is that they were written by Apostles, not the "church as an after thought to make Jesus look good"

as far as other Gospels, most of the ones I have heard about were gnostic, and not Christian and therefore not in the Christian bible. (which is different than the Catholic Bible, that has books that are not in the protestant Bible, and no I am not trying to say Catholics aren't Christians I am just having communication issues.)

I thought the churches position was always that the bible isn't 100% accurate,but it was the best they had so they went with it.

I thought the churches position was always that the bible isn't 100% accurate,but it was the best they had so they went with it. Sort of. The Church believes in "non sola scriptura" - the Bible is very important, but not the ONLY valid work of/about God.

I thought the churches position was always that the bible isn't 100% accurate,but it was the best they had so they went with it.
it kinda bothers me the use of the word accurate. They didn't say the Bible was inaccurate, only that there are parts that are symbolic and not to be taken literally. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, just that you need to adjust how you look at them to understand it better.

but.... since I am not Catholic I guess I shouldn't really worry about what they say anyway......

I do realize that the Gospels were written after the death of Jesus, some like 30 years after. My point is that they were written by Apostles, not the "church as an after thought to make Jesus look good"

as far as other Gospels, most of the ones I have heard about were gnostic, and not Christian and therefore not in the Christian bible. (which is different than the Catholic Bible, that has books that are not in the protestant Bible, and no I am not trying to say Catholics aren't Christians I am just having communication issues.)

Actually, the books in the Catholic Bible that aren't in most Protestant Bibles are pre-New Testament. They were part of the Septuiguint (sp.?), the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Later Hebrew scholars dismissed them as non-canonical, and Jesus never quoted from them, so the Protestants rejected them as far as canonicity is concerned, although they do acknowledge that they have spiritual value.

I am going to need to research this point of veiw before I can come up with an intelligent response.

The diference (I believe) between the Bible and any other historical document is that it is God-breathed.

The Bible wasn't written over a short period of time at all, it was written over many years by many people, it is very complicated, but like I said I am going to want to know where their 'evidence' that it was written by anyone than who it is generally accepted to be written by in the church, before I can really comment as to any flaws that I might find.

On the other hand, I could ask you to come up with conclusive proof that the Bible was written when and by whom it is claimed to be written. For something that old, the questions no longer have answers...

As for the Bible being God-breathed, it depends on how much influence you believe God has had in our lives/existance. I believe none, that he's out there somewhere watching, like a scientist watching a rat run around a cage, that 15 billion years ago, someone flicked a switch to start off the Universe and watched what would happen along the way....

I do realize that the Gospels were written after the death of Jesus, some like 30 years after. My point is that they were written by Apostles, not the "church as an after thought to make Jesus look good"

Supossedly, but the list was not compiled until the Fourth Century. By then it's unlikely that the compiler knew which books were really written by the Apostles and which weren't. Also oral tradition had taken it's toll and the sroty embellished.

To compound the problem no Gospel manuscripts have been found from before 2nd C. On top of that, in his letters, Paul makes no reference to any of the Gospels or the events they relate, which would have come very handy to put some of his points across.

There are 66 books in the Catholic Bible. Which of those are additional to the Protestant Bible?

Actually, the books in the Catholic Bible that aren't in most Protestant Bibles are pre-New Testament. They were part of the Septuiguint (sp.?), the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Later Hebrew scholars dismissed them as non-canonical, and Jesus never quoted from them, so the Protestants rejected them as far as canonicity is concerned, although they do acknowledge that they have spiritual value.
my denomination doesn't acknowledge any value of them at all. but I am aware of the rest of what you said.

On the other hand, I could ask you to come up with conclusive proof that the Bible was written when and by whom it is claimed to be written. For something that old, the questions no longer have answers...

As for the Bible being God-breathed, it depends on how much influence you believe God has had in our lives/existance. I believe none, that he's out there somewhere watching, like a scientist watching a rat run around a cage, that 15 billion years ago, someone flicked a switch to start off the Universe and watched what would happen along the way....
I didn't claim to have proof, I said if I were to make the choice between the speculation of a human and God, I am always going to choose God.

Supossedly, but the list was not compiled until the Fourth Century. By then it's unlikely that the compiler knew which books were really written by the Apostles and which weren't. Also oral tradition had taken it's toll and the sroty embellished.

To compound the problem no Gospel manuscripts have been found from before 2nd C. On top of that, in his letters, Paul makes no reference to any of the Gospels or the events they relate, which would have come very handy to put some of his points across.

There are 66 books in the Catholic Bible. Which of those are additional to the Protestant Bible?
there are 66 books in the protestant Bible.
there are (for lack of a better word) extra books in the Catholic Bible that some churches use they are included in the list here (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/)

If God is all powerful, then would God not be able to limit his own power at will? Create a wall, limit his ability to jump and he thusly cannot jump over the wall because he has forced himself to be unable to.

Thus God has thusly created a wall that he was not able to jump over, but is still technically all powerful.
[/QUOTE]

But surely that would not be a wall God couldn't jump over, rather it would be a wall he did not want to jump over.

Bible historians and scholars. In one thing they all agree is that the Gospels were written some time after the death of Jesus and, in the best of cases, had been carried by oral tradition for many years before being written down.
We also know that there were more than four. A Fourth Century Archbishop chose the four that now form part of the Canon by considering their accuracy and consistency, in his eyes, of course. But we know that even after that they were altered and many version of the Bible have existed at every point in time.
Yep. You've got the "Q" gospel http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

You've got the Thomas Gospel http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

There's even a gospel of Mary. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html

All were in use at some time by early christians, but only the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were included in the bible that the early Catholics put together.

If "other religions" (I think you really meant other denominations) did everything the Catholics did, there wouldn't be other religions. ;)
Well they need not do everything the Catholics do. They could strive to be more like the Unitarians or something. :D

there are 66 books in the protestant Bible.
there are (for lack of a better word) extra books in the Catholic Bible that some churches use they are included in the list here (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/)
True, it's the other way around. The Catholics seem to place value in a Greek translation of the Old Testament which the Protestants don't recognize. Odd, since the whole thing is supposed to have been inspired by God and only those books that were true made it into the Bible. Why would God have chosen to put in it books that were not right? Or maybe it was humans who made up the list and could have made a mistake? Could there be other mistakes in the list or it's texts?

Hmmm... much to ponder.

There's a book by Scott Hahn entitled, The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth. One of the things it describes is how the Catholic mass correlates with the book of Revelation.

True, it's the other way around. The Catholics seem to place value in a Greek translation of the Old Testament which the Protestants don't recognize. Odd, since the whole thing is supposed to have been inspired by God and only those books that were true made it into the Bible. Why would God have chosen to put in it books that were not right? Or maybe it was humans who made up the list and could have made a mistake? Could there be other mistakes in the list or it's texts?

Hmmm... much to ponder.
not an expert on the subject at all and it is probably best discussed in another place.

btw I really need to figure out how to talk about the other books without saying 'extra' because it seems to offend.

btw I really need to figure out how to talk about the other books without saying 'extra' because it seems to offend.
The Catholics call them Deuterocanonical, but that seems a tad too long, especially if you try to say it three times fast.
So, unless Catholics have a better option, I think extra will have to do.

There are 66 books in the Catholic Bible. Which of those are additional to the Protestant Bible?

Sorry, kneejerk reaction. Someone probably already said this, but the Catholic Bible has 73 books; the Protestant one has 66.

7 and 3 are both numbers found extensively in scripture.

7 plus 3 equals ten, which is the first number to break the single-denomination. Which has little or nothing to do with scripture or Christianity. I love the number 73.

The Catholics call them Deuterocanonical, but that seems a tad too long, especially if you try to say it three times fast.
So, unless Catholics have a better option, I think extra will have to do.
maybe I could replace extra with 'bonus' and put a big :D with it so they don't get so cranky, I mean everyone likes a bonus :D right?!

maybe I could replace extra with 'bonus' and put a big :D with it so they don't get so cranky, I mean everyone likes a bonus :D right?!

Hey, remember that Luther tried to take out Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation along with the deuterocanonicals. Luckily, it didn't catch on.

True, it's the other way around. The Catholics seem to place value in a Greek translation of the Old Testament which the Protestants don't recognize. Odd, since the whole thing is supposed to have been inspired by God and only those books that were true made it into the Bible. Why would God have chosen to put in it books that were not right? Or maybe it was humans who made up the list and could have made a mistake? Could there be other mistakes in the list or it's texts?

Hmmm... much to ponder.

Nah, you have to reconcile sacred scripture and holy tradition. That's all. Which basically means that the episcopacy can decide exactly what any given bit of the bible really means. So the bible is never wrong, it just changes its meaning over time, or something.

Actually, they've given an approximate date of in or around the 1000AD mark, give or take a couple of hundred years, as the date that Revelations was written, the last I heard anyway.
Considering the Bible in it's current form was compled in a councile that took place arround the fourth century I find that rather hard to believe.

Yep. You've got the "Q" gospel http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

All were in use at some time by early christians, but only the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were included in the bible that the early Catholics put together.
From what I've learned in Church History and Scripture study over the years, at a Redemtrist Grade/Middle school, a Diocess High School and currently at a Jesuit University, this is correct, additionally the "Q" gosple, which is lost, is theorized to have been used as a source along side Matthew, I believe, I might be mixing it up with Mark. The other three caame later and used those two as sources. Also it is believed, based on comparative analyssis of the writting styles I believe, that the writer of John also wrote Revalation.

From what I've learned in Church History and Scripture study over the years, at a Redemtrist Grade/Middle school, a Diocess High School and currently at a Jesuit University, this is correct, additionally the "Q" gosple, which is lost, is theorized to have been used as a source along side Matthew, I believe, I might be mixing it up with Mark. The other three caame later and used those two as sources. Also it is believed, based on comparative analyssis of the writting styles I believe, that the writer of John also wrote Revalation.
I'd never heard that about the author of the gospel of John and Revelations, but it makes sense. Isn't the complete title of Revelations "The revelations to John" or something?

I'd never heard that about the author of the gospel of John and Revelations, but it makes sense. Isn't the complete title of Revelations "The revelations to John" or something?
Not sure, but I think I have heard that before.

yeah, Revelation is how the world will end. Jesus Himself said that the book was not to be messed with.
No he didn't.
He'd already been nailed, coveted away, removed and moved on by the time that sick f*ck who supposedly penned "Revelation" had his fever dream.
JOHN is the one who said that book shouldn't be messed with.

Nah, you have to reconcile sacred scripture and holy tradition. That's all. Which basically means that the episcopacy can decide exactly what any given bit of the bible really means. So the bible is never wrong, it just changes its meaning over time, or something.
Not really a rock of conviction ... more like nailing jell-o to a wall.

The Catholic Church is merely stating what any good christian has always known. All religions have mythology, fables and stories wherein the moral rather than the facts are set in stone.

Science and religion are NOT at polar opposites, hence why many microbiologists and physicists of the highest authority are religious.

Hmm, It's been in the minds of Catholics for a long time [Even the clergy], however the Church itself had never fully taken a stand on it.

I for one am quite happy that it is official.


If God is all powerful, then would God not be able to limit his own power at will? Create a wall, limit his ability to jump and he thusly cannot jump over the wall because he has forced himself to be unable to.

Thus God has thusly created a wall that he was not able to jump over, but is still technically all powerful.

This was covered ad nauseum on Heikoku's "C'mon get me, pseudo-christians" thread. Towards the end.

okay Jesus is God.
and if that isn't enough there are direct quotes in Revelation from Jesus stateing not to mess with it.
Linkie.

This brings up an interesting question: if some wacko altered the bible without God's consent, would God intervene to change it, or would he expect the faithful to know the difference?
GOOD question!!!!!
*bows*

ummm... in case you missed it, the angel of the Lord spoke through John in Revelation... you know, Angel of the Lord, God, Jesus... BTW, Jesus isn't dead.

Revelation 22:18-19
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Yes, it's good to hang hope on the fever-ridden exile, after he dreams up some horrible scenario in a cave. Good idea. :rolleyes:

hmm I go about 6 times a week.....
Oh, it shows, it shows.
Your spiritual body appears quite svelte!

Jesus didn't even know the book existed. Revelations was the last book to be written, and it was written when Jesus had been dead for almost a thousand years.

Not dead---very much alive!

Romans 1:3-4
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

And Revelation 1:1-3
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand

And the book of Revelation was written by the apostle John, who most certainly was not over one thousand years old when he wrote it... ;)

Not dead---very much alive!


Correct me if I am wrong. But don't Christians generally thikn Jesus had accended into heaven by AD 96 (the traditionally held year of when Revelation was penned. Either that or c. 68 AD)

And the book of Revelation was written by the apostle John, who most certainly was not over one thousand years old when he wrote it..

There is much doubt on that count.

Lets not forget that church girls are easy.
AMEN to that!!!
"Can I get a WITNESS?!?!?!"

And Revelation 1:1-3

3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand


I've come across a rather AWESOME site concerning this issue....

www.sullivan-county.com

Consider the "time-is-at-hand"-line:

44 Theudas declared himself the Messiah, taking 400 people with him into the desert. T beheaded by Roman soldiers. Josephus records this.
53 Even before all the books of the Bible were written, there was talk that Christ's return had already taken place. The Thessalonians panicked on Paul, when they heard a rumor that the day of the Lord was at hand, and they had missed the rapture.
80 Ben Zakkai died about 80, and expected the Messiah about the time of his death

381 Return of Christ; Tichonus a writer of the 4th Cent (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)
400 Hippolytus "calculated that 5,500 years separated Adam and Christ and that the life of the world was 6,000 six full 'days' of years until the seventh the day of rest." His calculations in 234 indicted there were still two centuries left. (from A History of the End of the World, Rubinsky and Wiseman, 1982)
400 Rabbi Dosa (2-3rd Century) said the Messiah would come at the end of 400 years. This was based (?) on Gen. 15:13 (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)
435 Messiah comes; Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi (135-220) believed Messiah would come 365 years after Temple destroyed in 70 (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)
470 Messiah would come; Rabbi Hanina (3rd C), though Messiah would come 400 years after Temple Destruction. (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)
500 A Roman priest and theologian in the second and third centuries, predicted Christ would return in A.D. 500, based on the dimensions of Noah's ark.
500 Return of Christ; Hyppolytus (170-236) and Lactantius (250-330) said 500 would be the time for the second coming of Christ (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)
950 Acrostic on the end of the world, predecessor of Celano's "Dies irae," found in a ms. from Aniane (second half of the tenth century, ed. Paulin Blanc,"Nouvelle Prose sur le Dernier Jour, Composée avec chant noté, vers l'An Mille..." Mémoires de la Société Archéologique de Montpellier, 2 (1850), 451-509, second copy located by Michel Huglo: BN lat. 1928 f.178, Fécamp c.1040).
950 "Treatise on the Antichrist" by Adso of Montier-en-Der, c.950, a response to a variety of crises at mid-century that provoked widespread apocalyptic disquiet, and rapidly become a central text in the European eschatological literature (ed. by Verhelst, CCSL, Cont. med. aeui 40; study in the context of 1000, by Verhelst, "Adso van Montier-en-Der en de angst voor het jaar Duizend," Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, 90 (1977), 1-10); and C. Carozzi, La fin des temps: Terreurs et prophéties au Moyen Age (Paris: Stock, 1982), pp.186-94. See below # .
950-80: Letter on the Hungarians that speaks of widespread apocalyptic reactions among the population, Ac primum dicendum opinionem quae innumeros tam in vestra quam in nostra regione persuasit frivolam esse et nihil veri in se habere, qua putatur Deo odibilis gens Hungrorum esse Gog et Magog ceteraeque gentes quae cum eis describuntur... Dicunt enim nunc esse novissimum saeculi tempus finemque imminere mundi, et idcirco Gog et Magog esse Hungros, qui numquam antea auditi sunt, sed modo, in novissimo temporum apparuerunt. R.B.C. Huygens, "Un témoin" [n.11], p.231, lines 94-106; letter from the bishop of Auxerre to the bishop of Verdun (commentary by Huygens, p.236f). Dated variously early tenth century, or, according to Huygens, to second half of the tenth ("Un témoin de la crainte de l'an 1000: La lettre sur les Hongrois," Latomus, 15 (1956), 224-38); considered the background of Adso's treatise (see below #3).

This is *JUST* the f*cking BEGINNING of "prophetic interpretation".
More posts from this line are available, but in deference to thine senses and considerations of spam, they are available by request or by investigation.

but i blame the hat lady for that.
Hat lady?
...RED Hat Lady?
Lady with the hat one is supposed to tithe into?

Sorry, kneejerk reaction. Someone probably already said this, but the Catholic Bible has 73 books; the Protestant one has 66.

7 and 3 are both numbers found extensively in scripture.

7 plus 3 equals ten, which is the first number to break the single-denomination. Which has little or nothing to do with scripture or Christianity. I love the number 73.
Well, I was born in '73, so right off the bat i'm partial ...
but, Nixon had some unpleasant influence in '73, so i'm torn.
*pout*

I'd never heard that about the author of the gospel of John and Revelations, but it makes sense. Isn't the complete title of Revelations "The revelations to John" or something?
King James:
The Revelation of St. John the Divine
-
New International:
Revelation
-
Living Bible:
The Revelation
-
Revised Standard
The Revelation to John
-
New Living Translation
Revelation

-----------------
One might draw their own conclusions regarding shifting text and subtleties.

If God is all powerful, then would God not be able to limit his own power at will? Create a wall, limit his ability to jump and he thusly cannot jump over the wall because he has forced himself to be unable to.

Thus God has thusly created a wall that he was not able to jump over, but is still technically all powerful.


But surely that would not be a wall God couldn't jump over, rather it would be a wall he did not want to jump over.[/QUOTE]
Without changing the form he chose or the wall he made he could not jump over it. To me this fits the idea, but I suppose it's just how you look at it...I myself think of changing either the wall or the chosen form as being the same as a human getting a ladder and using that as a platform to jump over the wall.

Besides, we could probably argue for days in this topic as to whether or not having the ability to change something is the same as being able to do something.

True, it's the other way around. The Catholics seem to place value in a Greek translation of the Old Testament which the Protestants don't recognize. Odd, since the whole thing is supposed to have been inspired by God and only those books that were true made it into the Bible. Why would God have chosen to put in it books that were not right? Or maybe it was humans who made up the list and could have made a mistake? Could there be other mistakes in the list or it's texts?

The writtings were supposed to have been inspired by God, but the list was compiled by humans...Humans don't know which books have been inspired by God or which books have been written by humans alone.

This was covered ad nauseum on Heikoku's "C'mon get me, pseudo-christians" thread. Towards the end.

Well, people keep making the "Createed rock God couldn't lift" posts, so it's not like a single topic will stop anything.
~~~
BTW, Straughn, the new American version also says John [well, my copy does]

Why can't other religions follow suit?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

because they're heretics.

The Church really ad to change its views on philosophy it cant just have the same belief it had in the middle ages science has come a long way and the church needs to keep up with it

The writtings were supposed to have been inspired by God, but the list was compiled by humans...Humans don't know which books have been inspired by God or which books have been written by humans alone.

And so, given that there are so many apocrypha, and countless versions in antiquity, some of them lost forever, any of the books in the current Bible could be wrong. Or all of them could be wrong.

The Catholic church has issued a statement that the bible shouldn't be expected to contain full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision. This means you can still be faithfull to the Catholic church despite accepting the reality of evolution among other things.
We Catholics have known this for years. Who knows what really went into the Bible? And this just doesn't pertain to evolution, but also many questionable passages in the Bible, some of which is filled with things that no church teaches. My favorite is the passage from Leviticus that prescribes a remedy for impotence.

And so, given that there are so many apocrypha, and countless versions in antiquity, some of them lost forever, any of the books in the current Bible could be wrong. Or all of them could be wrong.
Yes, it is 100% that we chose wrong, but pert of being a Christian is the assumption that the books we have in the current Bible are in fact the correct ones.

It's just the same as how we believe we are right, but for all we know it could be them crazy Pagans who knew what they were talking about, or the Hindus or even my friend who claims to be God sometimes who was correct.

Though I'm pretty sure it's not my friend who is right.

The Catholic Church has never been fundamentalist. Never has the Church claimed the Bible should be taken literally. Thuis is in fact, the reason why the Bible was not translated from Latin in the Middle Ages, so only trained people would set about interpreting it.

The writtings were supposed to have been inspired by God, but the list was compiled by humans...Humans don't know which books have been inspired by God or which books have been written by humans alone.

And you are coming upon one of the issues that started me in the direction of Catholicism over other denominations. We have faith that God guides not only sacred scripture but certain official Church proclamations (dogma). This is not to say that the Church is perfect; just that it is infallible when it concerns these specific matters of faith.

The Bible has no table of contents. The Catholic councils prayed to God to assist them in choosing which books were part of his divine message. Part of my faith is believing that God was with these councils, and it is irrevocably tied with my faith that the books in my Bible are the word of the Lord.

When I was a Protestant, I couldn't for the life of me come up with rationale for deciding that the other Catholic old testament books were not part of scripture. There was nothing that made that statement: no table of contents, no councils, nothing to have faith in.

I have been trying to decide whether to go there or not.
Go there won out!

There's so much to share and words are so easily mis-read, but I'll try to be clear. I am a non-denominational Christian. The Bible is my guide just as the many other religions have theirs.
If the Catholic Church made the claim that the Bible was not accurate, then why would they use it or even follow Christianity at all?
However through my years of studying religion, I've seen many religious denominations make some crazy claims to keep the parishoners happy, up with the times, and in the seats.

I'm glad that we have the freedom to choose (or not) our religious beliefs.
However, I will say that the Bible has foretold many of the things that we have faced in the past and many of the things that (I believe) will happen.

Because there is much to share, I will be happy to answer e-mails sent concerning this topic. But, I do want to say that the Bible actually foretold of the Catholic Church before it was established around 300-350AD.

I will pray for you all!
BTW - The book is Revelation, no plural involved.

I have been trying to decide whether to go there or not.
Go there won out!

There's so much to share and words are so easily mis-read, but I'll try to be clear. I am a non-denominational Christian. The Bible is my guide just as the many other religions have theirs.
If the Catholic Church made the claim that the Bible was not accurate, then why would they use it or even follow Christianity at all?
it's ment to guide us through our lives and provide us with morals...even if it is not 100% accurate, it does get the jist of things down and does provide us with ways to live.

I will pray for you all!
BTW - The book is Revelation, no plural involved.
Retain the integrity in your prayers to respect that whatever god is will share whatever is truly important true and relevant to the individual being, and that your own ignorance as well as everyone else's ignorance to the nature of said god would not impede the grace of reaching that union the way it is meant to be - by personal sacrifice and relation and not by a twisted delusory misinterpretation of a treatise of distrust suffering and malignancy.
Coveting and bartering of the soul is the very nature i'm speaking of - consider me not at all any part of any such transaction.

If the Catholic Church made the claim that the Bible was not accurate, then why would they use it or even follow Christianity at all?

First, you can't say that the Catholic Church doesn't follow Christianity. The RCC was THE Church before there was Arianism, a Martin Luther, and all the denoms (and non-denom people). You might as well say that Sunni are not Muslims.
What the RCC is saying is that the bible is not the literal word of God. It is a collection of stories meant to pass down a sense of morality. Also, it is partially a history of the early church, written as the men who were there saw it. It is a guideline, not a rulebook.

But, I do want to say that the Bible actually foretold of the Catholic Church before it was established around 300-350AD.

Hate to break it to you, but, technically speaking, the Catholic Church was founded...say...oh...the day Jesus told the Apostle Peter (the first Pope) that he was founding his church upon him. You are refering to the councils at Nicea, where the nature of Jesus' divinity was discussed, among other things.

When considering the validity of the Bible, bear in mind that it was originally written in Aramaeic (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), and a lot was lost when it was translated to Latin, then to English. Mistakes crept in, the meanings of some words were confused, sometimes words had more than one meaning, and those who translated did their best to translate, but nobody's perfect...

The actual Bible, written in the old texts might give a totally different story, if anyone on this planet could accurately read it nowadays, which I think is going to be a very difficult one....

Hate to break it to you, but, technically speaking, the Catholic Church was founded...say...oh...the day Jesus told the Apostle Peter (the first Pope) that he was founding his church upon him. You are refering to the councils at Nicea, where the nature of Jesus' divinity was discussed, among other things.
Actually there were numerous christian churches and different christian religions shortly after Jesus' death. One of them turned into Catholicism. Then it proceeded to destroy or absorb the others except for the Coptic Christians in Egypt, and maby a couple of others.

I have been trying to decide whether to go there or not.
Go there won out!

There's so much to share and words are so easily mis-read, but I'll try to be clear. I am a non-denominational Christian. The Bible is my guide just as the many other religions have theirs.
If the Catholic Church made the claim that the Bible was not accurate, then why would they use it or even follow Christianity at all?
However through my years of studying religion, I've seen many religious denominations make some crazy claims to keep the parishoners happy, up with the times, and in the seats.

I'm glad that we have the freedom to choose (or not) our religious beliefs.
However, I will say that the Bible has foretold many of the things that we have faced in the past and many of the things that (I believe) will happen.

Because there is much to share, I will be happy to answer e-mails sent concerning this topic. But, I do want to say that the Bible actually foretold of the Catholic Church before it was established around 300-350AD.

I will pray for you all!
BTW - The book is Revelation, no plural involved.
If you'd read the article you'd see that the Catholic church didn't say the bible was invalid, only that some parts weren't literal truth and that the Jews bear no guilt for Jesus' death. They still see it as the source of god's teachings.

Also the bible fortells nothing. All the so-called prophecies in the bible are so vague that almost any event at almost any time in history might be said to fulfill them. Do you disagree? Then prove me wrong. Find me one prophecy that gives the exact time, the exact location, the exact event, and preferably names of those involved in the event that managed to come true. Oh, also you should be able to prove that it was written before the event took place.

The Catholic church has issued a statement that the bible shouldn't be expected to contain full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision. This means you can still be faithfull to the Catholic church despite accepting the reality of evolution among other things. Why can't other religions follow suit? Wouldn't it go a long way towards ensurigng that the faithfull will not stray because they're being forced to choose between god and science?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
And they always seemed to be one of the more restrictive religions ... hmm might have to change my mind about them

When considering the validity of the Bible, bear in mind that it was originally written in Aramaeic (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), and a lot was lost when it was translated to Latin, then to English. Mistakes crept in, the meanings of some words were confused, sometimes words had more than one meaning, and those who translated did their best to translate, but nobody's perfect...

The actual Bible, written in the old texts might give a totally different story, if anyone on this planet could accurately read it nowadays, which I think is going to be a very difficult one....
the new testament was written in greek. jesus and his aspotles and everyone else (except maybe pontious pilate) spoke aramaic.

so right there you have a translation problem with native aramaic speakers writing accounts and letters in greek. he thought back to what jesus said one day years back while preaching on a mount and tried to get the words and tone correct in greek. centuries later st jerome tries to recreate the words and tone in latin. today we try to recreate the words and tone of a long lost time and place into english. it can be problematical.

I think where a lot of people go wrong in interpreting the Bible is that they always take each section individually, then as it doesn't really make sense they assume it's a metaphor.

Let me give you an example: the story of Creation in Genesis. Now, you look at that, and read about God creating the world in six days (remember people, He didn't take seven days - on the seventh day He rested. A surprisingly large number of people make that mistake, and I'm a natural nitpicker :D). Now, science has shown that the world took billions of years to form, and life millions to evolve, so naturally people say that Genesis is a metaphorical story.

But, in 2 Peter 3 v 8 it says 'a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day'. Now, that is where I believe metaphor to come in. Surely if a day can be like a thousand years, then why now millions? Billions even? That would explain the time discrepency in Genesis wouldn't it? See? The whole thing ties together quite nicely if you know where to look :)

Incidentally this isn't to say that the Bible isn't metaphorical in places, but it does contain a lot more literal truth than many people think. And yes I have posted this argument several times before.

I think where a lot of people go wrong in interpreting the Bible is that they always take each section individually, then as it doesn't really make sense they assume it's a metaphor.

Let me give you an example: the story of Creation in Genesis. Now, you look at that, and read about God creating the world in six days (remember people, He didn't take seven days - on the seventh day He rested. A surprisingly large number of people make that mistake, and I'm a natural nitpicker :D). Now, science has shown that the world took billions of years to form, and life millions to evolve, so naturally people say that Genesis is a metaphorical story.

But, in 2 Peter 3 v 8 it says 'a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day'. Now, that is where I believe metaphor to come in. Surely if a day can be like a thousand years, then why now millions? Billions even? That would explain the time discrepency in Genesis wouldn't it? See? The whole thing ties together quite nicely if you know where to look :)


Umm, seems to suggest that he thought God was timeless, and that when you are with God (in heaven I assume) time has no meaning.

(Also you realise that that is said far earlier in the Bible. Psalm. Ch90 V.4 )

Let me give you an example: the story of Creation in Genesis. Now, you look at that, and read about God creating the world in six days (remember people, He didn't take seven days - on the seventh day He rested. A surprisingly large number of people make that mistake, and I'm a natural nitpicker :D). Now, science has shown that the world took billions of years to form, and life millions to evolve, so naturally people say that Genesis is a metaphorical story.

But, in 2 Peter 3 v 8 it says 'a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day'. Now, that is where I believe metaphor to come in. Surely if a day can be like a thousand years, then why now millions? Billions even? That would explain the time discrepency in Genesis wouldn't it? See? The whole thing ties together quite nicely if you know where to look :)

I used to subscribe to the "day-is-actually-longer-than-a-day" theory, but Genesis does not seem to support that:

Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day.

Also remember that Genesis gives another version of the creation story. Here are some parts from the second version:

At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted . . . the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.
The LORD God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him." So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air . . .

Notice how God first makes man, and only after that does he make the other plants and animals, which are for man, and none of these animals can be man's partner except woman, which is the same substance as him. In the first account, God makes plants and animals before humans, and he makes male and female at the same time.

Very few (if any) Creationists try to get schools to teach that God created men, then created all other plants and animals, and then created women.

It all weaves together to make a beautiful, most true pattern. Truth, however, is not always the same as the literal.

"Well there is one thing God can't do. And that is to make a wall he can't jump over."

yet he can,cause god can do anything. but why would he?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

just because "god" created everything in 6 days,doesnt mean 6 human days. 6 days to god could be 6 million years to us. another misconception is that we look like god because we were created in his image. thats not what was meant by "created in his image." we are spiritual creatures that take on flesh so we can exist for a time on earth in solid form. when the bible says god gave you life,its not refering to your body as much as it is refering to your soul. thats why when you sin and are removed from gods grace,you die. its a spiritual death,not a physical one. your fleshy body doesnt mean crap. its your soul that matters. your soul is eternal unless you reject god. you cant exist without the source of all life that is God. earth is a school and a testing ground for us spiritual creatures. i would have thought that christians would have figured that out by now. thats why life on earth sucks. its not supposed to be a free ride. you are supposed to learn while you are here and make choices that will determine your future,as if you were going to college.

of course God is not really christian,or Hindu,or Pagan,or whatever. it doesnt matter what you call your religion as long as you have FAITH and strive to become the best spiritual person you can be so you eliminate things from yourself such as greed,hate,fear,jealousy,deceit,etc until you are pure enough(all love and wizdom)to join god in heaven,nirvana,valhalla,whatever.

there is only one source of all that is good and all that is evil. gods name and rituals change by culture,but we all actually worship the same source in our own ways. the way we do it is simply defined by the culture we live in. thats why people need to stop fighting over which religion is better. religion is a human invention. its just our way of showing praise to our universal creator...