catholics believe bible = myth / protestants believe = fact?

[Pauliesonne]

Would it be fair to say that's a correct assumption?

[Ryokan]

No.

[ChristineR]

Absolutely no.

[CapelDodger]

Would it be fair to say that's a correct assumption?You're terms are catch-alls. It's fair to say that the Vatican had its run-ins with science a long time back, and has learnt to with it. Some Protestant sects - but not all - insist on literal Biblical truth. It's probably fair to say that believers in ID don't like Jesuits (if they've heard of them).

[RandFan]

No.

[a_unique_person]

You're terms are catch-alls. It's fair to say that the Vatican had its run-ins with science a long time back, and has learnt to with it. Some Protestant sects - but not all - insist on literal Biblical truth. It's probably fair to say that believers in ID don't like Jesuits (if they've heard of them).
They all know about the Jesuits, and the Jesuits know all about them.

You are correct, they ran up the white flag years ago. The Bible is a mix mythology inspired by god, and facts. Ask your local priest which is which.

[Soapy Sam]

And the Church of England believe nothing at all.

[ruach1]

Would it be fair to say that's a correct assumption?
Not really.

Catholics have a hierarchy of extremely well trained academics who basically "tell them how it is." This high academic tradition tends to shy away from fundamentalism and literal biblical inerrancy which is more a hallmark of some Protestant denominations but not all.

[Bikewer]

Right. Even many years ago when I was a Catholic kid, the attitude seemed to be, "now, just leave that Bible interpretation to us professionals!"

[ChristineR]

Right. Even many years ago when I was a Catholic kid, the attitude seemed to be, "now, just leave that Bible interpretation to us professionals!"

Well, that is a difference between Catholicism and most of the Protestant sects. The Catholics believe that wisdom is handed down through the church hierarchy, most Protestants believe you can talk directly to God and get the most reliable info that way.

[jjramsey]

Bear in mind that there are vast differences among Protestants as well. Some Protestants, especially in the so-called "mainline" denominations, take very liberal stances toward the Bible, while others, of course, are inerrantist.

[CapelDodger]

You are correct, they ran up the white flag years ago.It's about sticking to your core business, which in this case is selling hope. IIRC, Galileo warning the Church that were they to invest in a scientific issue that was subsequently shown to be wrong,the whole business would be damaged. He was right, of course.

[CapelDodger]

Right. Even many years ago when I was a Catholic kid, the attitude seemed to be, "now, just leave that Bible interpretation to us professionals!"Which is why they restricted it to Latin for so long. Announce conclusions, but keep the underlying data secret. :)

[Pauliesonne]

They all know about the Jesuits, and the Jesuits know all about them.

You are correct, they ran up the white flag years ago. The Bible is a mix mythology inspired by god, and facts. Ask your local priest which is which.

I'd like them to give me ONE reason why " God " had any part in it.

Dosen't it say in the bible, God dosen't lie.

[Pauliesonne]

Right. Even many years ago when I was a Catholic kid, the attitude seemed to be, "now, just leave that Bible interpretation to us professionals!"

and we all know the catholics are trustworthy......

afterall, the vatican never strays from the bible......:D

[gtc]

Dosen't it say in the bible, God dosen't lie.

This is taken from Skeptiwiki:

Mark 16:1-2 reads (NRSV translation),

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

Luke 23:55--24:1 reads (NRSV translation),

The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared.

Notice that in one chapter they buy spices before the Sabbath, in the other they buy spices after the Sabbath.

[CapelDodger]

and we all know the catholics are trustworthy......

afterall, the vatican never strays from the bible......:DNot while it has Jesuits to hand it doesn't.

[ChristineR]

This is taken from Skeptiwiki:



Notice that in one chapter they buy spices before the Sabbath, in the other they buy spices after the Sabbath.

You obviously don't have the slightest idea how these things work. The women bought spices twice. This also explains how there were two completely different groups of women, too.

[ceo_esq]

Which is why they restricted it to Latin for so long. Announce conclusions, but keep the underlying data secret. :)

This didn't really happen, though. As I once pointed out in another thread:

[R]ecall that the Church's favorite translation, the Latin Vulgate, was (as its name suggests) a translation into the vernacular at the time of its creation. As newer vernacular languages became well established, and Latin fell into disuse except among scholars and ecclesiastics, the Church produced for official pastoral purposes translations of the Bible in various European vernaculars: Anglo-Saxon, ca. 1000; Anglo-Norman, ca. 1350; French, 13th century; German, early 15th century; Swedish, 15th century; Italian, 1472; Spanish, 1478; Dutch, 1545.

[CapelDodger]

This didn't really happen, though. My mistake, although a gap of a thousand years between the Vulgate and English translation in late Elizabethan times seems a long time. Were the earlier translations actually sponsored by the Church or were they local inititiatives?

[ceo_esq]

My mistake, although a gap of a thousand years between the Vulgate and English translation in late Elizabethan times seems a long time. Were the earlier translations actually sponsored by the Church or were they local inititiatives?

You know, that's a good question; I suspect that even today Catholic non-Latin translations of the Bible are to a greater or lesser extent local (albeit still official) initiatives, and that was probably even more true a long time ago.

I think you have to bear in mind that during many of the intervening centuries, Latin was still the most internationally understood language in the West, and that modern languages such as English took a very long time to evolve from their antecedents and become somewhat standardized. It made sense to come out with an Anglo-Saxon version in AD1000; if the King James Version had somehow anachronistically appeared during that era it probably would have seemed like Esperanto or Klingon to literate inhabitants of England (which, of course, was no longer Catholic by Elizabethan times anyway).

[Rat]

And the Church of England believe nothing at all.
But if you wish to confuse matters further, the CofE is, of course, the Anglican Catholic church, as opposed to Roman Catholic. Try telling that to regular CofE churchgoers and see how many assume that you're lying or wrong.

Cheers,
Rat.

[Mephisto]

My mistake, although a gap of a thousand years between the Vulgate and English translation in late Elizabethan times seems a long time. Were the earlier translations actually sponsored by the Church or were they local inititiatives?

The earlier translations were actually sponsored by spice dealers who had been promised free ad time for catering the annual "Golden Calf" festival, therefore they could be viewed as local initiatives if it weren't for the fact that "Abe's Amazing Spices" was actually a franchise out of Gehenna.

[cpolk]

Would it be fair to say that's a correct assumption?

Not exactly...

It's a difference in the dogmatic principles (which is that whatever the Church deems as true, must be true, because God wouldn't have allowed it otherwise). Differing sects were formed by varying dogmatic beliefs. They all believe that they are all Christians, and in the world scope, that's all that matters - however, they will claim that the other sects misinterpret portions of the Bible.