Not actually true
It is so very hard to engage in constructive dialogue with Christians who are skeptical of Catholic beliefs when you read news articles with headlines like this: Catholic Church No Longer Swears By The Truth Of The Bible
Why is it that so many reporters of religious issues are incompetent when it comes to religious matters? Note that while the introduction to the article says:
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. [emphasis mine]
The actual language of the text produced by the Catholic Church of Great Britain is “We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision”
Therefore, what the document is saying is not that some parts of the Bible are not actually true, but that some parts of the Bible are not literally historically true. A very different conclusion. This is certainly not anything new. Everyone knows that not everything in the Bible is to be read as literal history - for example, the Parables are not seen as stories of actual events.
The article from the Times goes on to make another egregious error:
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
Intelligent Design theory is not the same thing as a literal interpretation of Genesis. Indeed Intelligent Design would oppose a literal interpretation of Genesis.
This only emphasizes that one should never accept what secular media says about Catholic documents, one should always read the documents themselves. There are too many people reporting on religion who present information that is not actually true.
Why is it that so many reporters of religious issues are incompetent when it comes to religious matters? Note that while the introduction to the article says:
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. [emphasis mine]
The actual language of the text produced by the Catholic Church of Great Britain is “We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision”
Therefore, what the document is saying is not that some parts of the Bible are not actually true, but that some parts of the Bible are not literally historically true. A very different conclusion. This is certainly not anything new. Everyone knows that not everything in the Bible is to be read as literal history - for example, the Parables are not seen as stories of actual events.
The article from the Times goes on to make another egregious error:
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
Intelligent Design theory is not the same thing as a literal interpretation of Genesis. Indeed Intelligent Design would oppose a literal interpretation of Genesis.
This only emphasizes that one should never accept what secular media says about Catholic documents, one should always read the documents themselves. There are too many people reporting on religion who present information that is not actually true.
posted by Fr. Seraphim Beshoner, TOR | 9:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home