Thank you for gracing our humble Religious Studies board, RD!
from that article:
|The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”
How do they know some of it is true and some isn't? LOL A vote, like the one that determined women were human? Which was a squeaker.
|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.
Um, no duh. Seminarians learn this in school, but usually try not to share it with the flocks.
|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.
Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, ...
Wow! I know that this book was the last one canonized, and now it is in hot water again. Love it!
|The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally.
Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, just like Spong.
True: the Virgin Birth
What, that one doesn't bear a resemblance to "legends from other cultures" as well? As does the dying and rising god-man. Hm, looks like the Bishops know just what to save and what not to.
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Wow, ladies, we're off the hook! No more pain in chidlbirth (BTW, that's also translated as labor, like what Adam has to do in the fields). No more husbands ruling over us! Yay!
Hey Bishops, which one of these is true?:
Go forth and multiply
It is better for man not to marry