Bible: Not literally true

Catholic Chuch writes:“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,”

Dei Verbum writes: However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.(7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)refs:
6. St. Augustine, "City of God," XVII, 6, 2: PL 41, 537: CSEL. XL, 2, 228.7. St. Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine" III, 18, 26; PL 34, 75-76.8. Pius XII, loc. cit. Denziger 2294 (3829-3830); EB 557-562.

Modulous writes: The Catholic Church have clarified their position, which is of interest to the EvC debate(insofar as concerns Roman Catholics)

the article writes: "the document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible...."

"They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach".

"Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority..."

May I modify the end of your sentence as enclosed between brackets above

I'm not a particular fan of the RC church but this is just standard secularist fare "how far the Catholic Church has come". How has the author figured out that the church needs to come from anywhere, I wonder. What measure is he/she using in order to know?

Intransigent meaning that God doesn't change, his gospel doesn't change, man doesn't change.

RC sees itself as the superior authority of the faith. The current Pope refers to Protestants for example as "ecclesial communities" - not part of "the church of Christ". Touch of the old kettle/pot here..

RC is entitled to think the bible isn't literally true if it likes. Each to their own I guess.

mod writes:For example "The Monarchy of England has come a long way since the 16th Century".

"Intransigent intolerance" means that the intolerance doesn't change.

A simplification, but not a bad one. RC thinks that that some books, in the collection of books known as The Holy Bible should not be read literally. Instead the style of the book should be taken into consideration. In their opinion Genesis is not stylistically consistent with literal Gospel.

If for example the biblical position on celibacy was established then that's it. It can't change because it seems unreasonable in "this day and age"

There are plenty of things in the bible which folk wouldn't like. It cramps their style. It's just their style versus God's style. God wins - whether we like it or not. Calling it intolerance (although I decry non-biblical lunatic-fringe cruelty) makes no difference to anything ultimately

The only trouble is that the authority for deciding this rests with the RC church.