Atheist debates: Always misunderstanding Scripture?

[goout]

fhansen:

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

So inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that which God wanted us to hear.

Does this mean that it’s infallable and correct and not to be questioned?

What do you mean by infallible? That is not a term generally applied to scripture.
What do you mean by correct? Genesis observes a hammered metal dome in the sky keeping the waters at bay.
I am asking this so we can know what you are expecting with these terms.

You have to have questions about such a profound and deep thing as the Word of God. Questions are good, they lead to deeper understanding and deeper faith.

 

[Lee1]

So does this mean that there is a book which is the Church’ understanding, and would that be the Catechism?

I ask because I’m told that some scripture is figurative and some is to be taken at face value and I find that confusing.

 

[fhansen]

We need to interpret as best we can in light of historical context and author’s and the Holy Spirit’s intentions. Again, without guidance we’ll be at a loss to understand many things.

 

[Lee1]

Genesis observes a hammered metal dome in the sky keeping the waters at bay.

That’s interesting but I wish you hadn’t told me frankly. Sounds like an alien spaceship!

Instead of infallible let’s say truth, not fallacious, and let’s say accurate instead of correct.

I have some problems when I read that God said this or that, as thought the writer knew the mind of God for example. I do believe in God but I am not happy when I encounter narrative which suggests that a third party, the writer, was present.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

To be honest, my faith has not been very biblically-centered.

Let me explain what I mean. I mean that, for me, my faith does not simply revolve around Scripture. It’s hard for me to. Frankly, it’s so easy to see the human element of the text, that it’s hard for me to discern what God is saying.

So in practice, I’d rather read some good theology than a book of the Old Testament.

That’s why I’m glad Catholicism is about the all-encompassing view of God’s revelation, with a history of saints and theologians that continue the development of Christian theology. Scripture is only part of the picture. More like a gift to the Christian Faith, not merely the centerpiece.

 

[vsedriver]

Are we really saying that the nature of God is such that He really commanded the Israelites to really kill “every living creature” of a certain tribe?

I found this to have a few answers.

Did God Command Genocide?

In his bestselling book, The God Delusion, popular atheist Richard Dawkins shares this genial observation: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty...

brandonvogt.com

 

[fhansen]

Usually the word used for Scripture is “inerrant”, without error, as it pertains to that knowledge God wants us to have for our salvation.

In any case God uses weak human vessels guided by the holy Spirit to receive, preserve, and proclaim or teach His revelation.

 

[goout]

Some nice resources there.
Benedict’s Verbum Domini is a really clarifying document, and we do not hear about it very often.

 

[goout]

Usually the word used for Scripture is “inerrant”, without error, as it pertains to that knowledge God wants us to have for our salvation.

In any case God uses weak human vessels guided by the holy Spirit to receive, preserve, and proclaim or teach His revelation.

yes
Inerrancy is not limited to materialist matters.
Was there really a hammered metal dome? These types of scientific or historical details are tangential to inerrancy.
The bible is not journalism in our modern sense.

 

[fhansen]

Right, and its purpose is salvation, not scientific explanations. So inerrancy need pertain only to that realm.

 

[Lee1]

Yes, and because it’s so important I’d like to be able to discern Gods actual will as opposed to mans.

 

[fhansen]

And that’s where the Church comes in. Otherwise, much of Scriptural interpretation becomes a matter of best-guess theology, regardless of one’s level of competency in biblical studies.

 

[Lee1]

Yes that’s fine, but how does the Church come in? In what form? I can’t run to my priest every time I have a question, when I read I have many questions.

 

[Lee1]

Here’s an example of a confusion in the New Testament

Is Jesus The Father? Apologetics

Jesus is the Son. But at the same time– Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '? "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. "Believe Me that I am in t…

Also, it intrigues me as to how the writers managed to remember verbatim exactly what Our Lord said so long after His departure.

 

[fhansen]

The Catechism is the very best source. And it also references it’s own sources which you can research as you’re interested. The Church draws on Scripture, Tradition, Early Church Fathers-and not so early Church Mothers (various saints), conciliar decrees, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

 

[Lee1]

Thank you.

 

[Inquisitor85]

The reason the Bible gets used as a debate weapon is because it’s the single unifying text for all of Christianity. It’s frankly pointless for either side to use in this context because it’s easy to cherry pick any part of the Bible in order to support any conclusion imaginable.

For me at least ,and I’d suggest most atheists, the theist would have to produce observable, testable and repeatable empirical evidence in support of their deity. It’s beyond the realm of science to produce any such evidence, and beyond any theists capabilities to produce any such evidence and so you end up with an impasse.

 

[goout]

The reason the Bible gets used as a debate weapon is because it’s the single unifying text for all of Christianity. It’s frankly pointless for either side to use in this context because it’s easy to cherry pick any part of the Bible in order to support any conclusion imaginable.

For me at least ,and I’d suggest most atheists, the theist would have to produce observable, testable and repeatable empirical evidence in support of their deity. It’s beyond the realm of science to produce any such evidence, and beyond any theists capabilities to produce any such evidence and so you end up with an impasse.

Very true you have an impasse.
I don’t need testable and repeatable empirical evidence to prove a specific reality. I truly don’t think anyone needs testable and repeatable empirical evidence to prove all of reality. That paradigm is something atheists insist upon to justify a belief system. The paradigm fails, but it’s something to stand pat on.

Love for instance. Love is not subject to testable repeatable empirical evidence, but I trust that it’s very real, and has an effect on the destiny of the world.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Very true you have an impasse.
I don’t need testable and repeatable empirical evidence to prove a specific reality. I truly don’t think anyone needs testable and repeatable empirical evidence to prove all of reality. That paradigm is something atheists insist upon to justify a belief system. The paradigm fails, but it’s something to stand pat on.

Love for instance. Love is not subject to testable repeatable empirical evidence, but I trust that it’s very real, and has an effect on the destiny of the world.

Yes but you do need that evidence to support the existence of a specific deity, unless you’re claiming that reality is a god in and of itself.

In a sense you’re right, but love in humans is the result of a chemical reaction and therefore is, in part, testable, repeatable, and observable.

 

[Lee1]

Incidentally Aquinas stopped writing after a vision saying that all his work was no more than straw. He died three months later.