J
J_Chrysostomos
Guest
Let’s try this again (didn’t work last time, I think)
I am new here. I am a Reformed Christian who has recently been attending some functions at a Catholic church and am interested in learning about Catholicism from Catholics. I look forward to some good discussions here.
Now, here is my question. I own a copy of both the NAB Bible and the NJB. I must confess that I don’t care for a lot of the editorial introductions and notes, and this has nothing to do with them being Catholic. It seems the editors of both of these have accepted the radical view of Biblical criticism propounded by liberals a century ago and do not even consider traditionalist views.
My big beef (among many) is how they treat the book of Daniel. If Daniel was written by who it said it was and at that time, then it is a marvelous proof of God’s sovereignty and His control over and knowledge of the future. However, the NAB and NJB says that it was written by someone else during the Maccabean period and was presenting the past as “future”. (Those who think Daniel talks about the coming of Christ are just ignorant fundamentalists I guess.)
If this is true, then Daniel is a forgery and a fraud; would this mean that there is no place for it in the Bible? Their Holinesses Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus) and Pius XII (Divino Afflante Spiritu) both came out in favor of the view that the Bible is inerrant. (I’m no fundamentalist - I believe in interpreting the Bible literally but NOT literalistically) Don’t these “scholars” not only malign God’s Word, but also go against what these Pontiffs have said? Are there still priests, bishops, and scholars who believe Daniel wrote Daniel?
I am new here. I am a Reformed Christian who has recently been attending some functions at a Catholic church and am interested in learning about Catholicism from Catholics. I look forward to some good discussions here.
Now, here is my question. I own a copy of both the NAB Bible and the NJB. I must confess that I don’t care for a lot of the editorial introductions and notes, and this has nothing to do with them being Catholic. It seems the editors of both of these have accepted the radical view of Biblical criticism propounded by liberals a century ago and do not even consider traditionalist views.
My big beef (among many) is how they treat the book of Daniel. If Daniel was written by who it said it was and at that time, then it is a marvelous proof of God’s sovereignty and His control over and knowledge of the future. However, the NAB and NJB says that it was written by someone else during the Maccabean period and was presenting the past as “future”. (Those who think Daniel talks about the coming of Christ are just ignorant fundamentalists I guess.)
If this is true, then Daniel is a forgery and a fraud; would this mean that there is no place for it in the Bible? Their Holinesses Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus) and Pius XII (Divino Afflante Spiritu) both came out in favor of the view that the Bible is inerrant. (I’m no fundamentalist - I believe in interpreting the Bible literally but NOT literalistically) Don’t these “scholars” not only malign God’s Word, but also go against what these Pontiffs have said? Are there still priests, bishops, and scholars who believe Daniel wrote Daniel?