Book X, Chapter Y, Verse Z...?

[Nate13]

What authority? The church is silent. After 2000 years it had not even started on an authoritative list of the different stories within the bible? The posters are the “authority”? Don’t make me laugh… I tried to get an answer from the apologists, but the question was never answered. Looks like they don’t appreciate questions like this… I wonder why?

Why is it important to know whether a story is completely factual, based on a factual event, or completely allegorical? Does any of that change the message by which the story is there to communicate? For example lets say you hear a fairy tale and you know its completely made up, do you ignore the message that the fairy tell is there to communicate to you because the story wasn’t true? Or do you realize the story is a literary device used to purvey the message? The Pope is not an infallible historian. If he came out and told me the Noah’s ark story was completely factual, that would not be a binding opinion we all had to believe just because the Pope said it. The fact is there is no infallible authority that determines whether the stories themselves actually did occur word for word, occurred but were embellished, or are completely allegorical. We have rely on fallible historians just like you do, to tell us whether Paul really did travel to Rome or whether Rome ever existed at all. Explain to me how knowing whether Noah really did load up an ark with animals will have any affect on my belief though? Maybe if you had evidence that Jerusalem itself never existed that might have an impact on my belief haha.

I find it curious though that when you see the fact that there is another ancient story that mirrors the flood story you automatically assume this proves your point that its all myth. Why would this not be proof that a flood of some sorts really did occur and you have two different accounts of it that match up incredibly well. If the story really were a myth the two stories would probably be completely different considering how much stories change when they are passed down by word of mouth. The fact that they are so similar gives credence to the idea that there was an event that really did occur.

I think where there is room for debate is when it talks about how the flood covered the whole world or that two of every animal was put in the boat. I would bet that the writer’s idea of the whole world was a lot smaller than what we know the whole world to be and the animals just would have included those close by. In any case this would be a lot more likely than assuming the event never occurred at all unless your presuming to tell me that a great flood over a large area of Mesopotamia would have been impossible.

 

[vz71]

You think incorrectly. I did not even make an argument - maybe you missed that part. I asked a question, and only got evasions. What is “circular” about a question?

There is nothing circular about the question at all until you decide the authority that makes the decision is only an opinion.

Not necessarily. It all depends on the method itself. If I asked many literary experts how to find out if a literary piece is masterpiece or junk, and they would explain about the choice of words, the adjectives, the originality, the tightness of story, the forming of the characters, etc, etc… that would help me to decide the literary value of a book, it would be an objective, and usable method.

OK, in that case I can make it a single easy to follow rule.
Defer to the authoritative word of God’s church.
It compiled the scripture and knows well what is and is not.
If the church remains silent concerning the status of a particular scripture, you are free to interpret as you will. Otherwise, God’s church has the authority.

 

[Spock]

There is nothing circular about the question at all until you decide the authority that makes the decision is only an opinion.

The definition of an authority is the one which can offer a substantiation for its claims - beside: “Because I SAID SO!!”.

OK, in that case I can make it a single easy to follow rule.
Defer to the authoritative word of God’s church.

And who says that the church is an authority…? Ah, I get it… the church says so. Now that is a circular argument, if I have ever seen one.

It compiled the scripture and knows well what is and is not.

No, the church did not compile the OT.

If the church remains silent concerning the status of a particular scripture, you are free to interpret as you will. Otherwise, God’s church has the authority.

Well, since the church has never separated the wheat from thew chaff, I guess I am free to interpret all the passages as I feel like it. Cool. Can I quote you as the source for that practice? I would appreciate it.

 

[Candide_West]

Whether it has been done is irrelevant because it is unnecessary. Jesus didn’t write a book but founded a community. The primary purpose of the Bible is provide a metaphysical, historical, allegorical and moral background to the doctrines of the Church.*

Well therein lies the problem, how can a reader tell whether any given part of the bible is providing historical background or allegorical background? Was Mary literally a virgin? Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Did God literally flood the entire earth? Did God literally command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Did God literally create the world in six days in the order it says in Genesis? Is earth literally fixed in position?

Different Christians will answer those questions in different ways. Is there an authoritative source that you can point to which says (for example) that Mary was literally a virgin, but that the order of creation in genesis is allegorical?*

Obviously it’s quite important how we interpret the bible as if we (for example) take the new testament to be mostly allegorical and the old testament to be mostly historical. Then we end up with the image of quite a violent and scary God. Whereas if we do the reverse we end up with a substantially more benevolent image.

If you take Genesis, geocentrism and the flood as historical events then you’ll have a significant conflict with science. If you take them as allegorical then you don’t…*

Where there is any doubt about the meaning of the text it should be interpreted in the context of the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who created us for love…

Is that the official position of the Catholic church or your personal opinion? If the former do you have a reference please?*

*There is only one lesson that really matters: the Son was put to death to liberate us from evil with His love.

Again, is that an official position or a personal opinion? Again do you have a reference?

 

[Spock]

Why is it important to know whether a story is completely factual, based on a factual event, or completely allegorical? Does any of that change the message by which the story is there to communicate?

It is of utmost importance - in certain cases. The OT has a whole lot of horrible atrocities attributed to God, both as commands and actual actions.

The Pope is not an infallible historian. If he came out and told me the Noah’s ark story was completely factual, that would not be a binding opinion we all had to believe just because the Pope said it.

If he said it “ex cathedra” it would be binding. Or could the pope declare something “ex cathedra” and be mistaken? Interesting possibilities arise. The pope could pray for enlightement to know which verses are factual and which ones are allegorical. Or is that too big a deal for the holy spirit?

Explain to me how knowing whether Noah really did load up an ark with animals will have any affect on my belief though?

How could I tell the effect on your belief?

I find it curious though that when you see the fact that there is another ancient story that mirrors the flood story you automatically assume this proves your point that its all myth. Why would this not be proof that a flood of some sorts really did occur and you have two different accounts of it that match up incredibly well. If the story really were a myth the two stories would probably be completely different considering how much stories change when they are passed down by word of mouth. The fact that they are so similar gives credence to the idea that there was an event that really did occur.

That there were MANY floods in Mesopotamia is beyond dispute. But that is not the point. We are not talking about some measly flood here, of which dime is a dozen. We talk about the destruction of all humans, and all animals at the very hand of God - a genocide of unspeakable magnitude. And that is the question here. The bible said it happened… Whether the story is to be taken literally or allegorically, it depicts a God who is unjust and cruel.

Just recently there was a post on the “Ask the Apologist” forum: here… where the apologist uses the worst kind of “argument” : God is a special case, he can do whatever he wants to do, and everyone should just shut up. God is God, and whatever he does is right, just, moral and good. A shameless display of the “special pleading fallacy”.

 

[vz71]

The definition of an authority is the one which can offer a substantiation for its claims - beside: “Because I SAID SO!!”.

No, an authority is one with the power to make laws, decisions, judgements, etc.
There are many online dictionaries that can corraborate this.
Perhaps you should verify for yourself.
Here:
thefreedictionary.com/authority

And who says that the church is an authority…? Ah, I get it… the church says so. Now that is a circular argument, if I have ever seen one.

And that is a straw man, and everyone can see that.
Perhaps if you did not indulge in these base tactics people would take your argument more seriously.
You know as well as everyone reading this thread that no one made that argument. It is a figment of your imagination.
It seems silly for you to be arguing with your own runaway imagination.
Nevertheless, it is your imagination, and you are free to disagree with it all you wish.

No, the church did not compile the OT.

As God’s church. it decides what is and is not scripture.
God also provides for the interpretation of these scriptures through the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Well, since the church has never separated the wheat from thew chaff, I guess I am free to interpret all the passages as I feel like it. Cool.
Can I quote you as the source for that practice? I would appreciate it.

If you truly intend on following the Catholic prescription concerning the scriptures that are left open, you logically bind yourself to those scriptures the church has made a pronouncement upon.
I would be honored if you cited me as one of the influences in your conversion.

 

[Jeremiah1278]

You think incorrectly. I did not even make an argument - maybe you missed that part. I asked a question, and only got evasions. What is “circular” about a question?

. . .

In the current problem, is the flood (for example) to be taken literally, or allegorically? And if it is allegorical, what does it mean? The story is pretty much standalone. The immutable and all knowing God, who saw that the people (all of them, including the toddlers) are beyond redemption decided to drown all of them, along with all the animals (what was their “sin” to deserve such a fate? and what about the fish? hmmm…) except 8 people and some animals… and start the experiment all over again. By the way, the new experiment did not turn out to be better… So is this a literal story? Or is it allegorical? In either case, what does it show except that God is cruel and unjust?

What authority? The church is silent. After 2000 years it had not even started on an authoritative list of the different stories within the bible? The posters are the “authority”? Don’t make me laugh… I tried to get an answer from the apologists, but the question was never answered. Looks like they don’t appreciate questions like this… I wonder why?

I would like to see an answer, just like in many threads before, but I am not going to get any - just like in many threads before. Lots of evasions, nothing else.

Yes, we can see you aren’t making an argument—you’re just sort of whining about the fact that the authority on the Bible isn’t telling you with specificity to “believe that these verses are to be taken literally and the rest figuratively.” Other folks are telling you that there are guidelines for interpreting any particular verse and you are rejecting those instructions because you want a list, dangit. Well there is no list, because (I’m guessing one of many reasons) the Church has the wisdom to understand that such a list is impossible without perfect knowledge of the authors’ intentions—something we will never have for many of the stories. Any attempt to pin believers down on a story like Noah could certainly lead to errors. But to act like the Church provides no guidance is silly.

My Catholic Bible has a few introductions before it hops into Genesis. The Vatican II Constitution is excerpted and tells the reader how to interpret the passages in the Bible. It provides the same pro-tips you’ve seen in this thread. (Account for the author’s style, era, etc.) Another introduction reminds me that I need to interpret the Bible with guidance from the Church (A little humility, Jeremiah: you can never duplicate the Church’s years of research and you’re not a first century Christian who may have chatted with the people who followed Christ). But the Church doesn’t leave me high and dry: she does provide guidance even within the pages of my Catholic Bible. With respect to Noah’s Ark, Genesis is prefaced with some help with its interpretation. It tells the reader the important truths to gather from the stories you’re going to read in the book and it indicates the allegorical nature of the stories. It tells you these stories certainly have a historical setting, but this isn’t really a history book.

Why should I whine that the Church isn’t providing me with more specifics?

 

[John7]

Is there a general method to find out about any arbitrary verse in the bible if it must be taken literally or allegorically?

If you’re a **premillenial Dispensationalist **then everything is to be taken literally.
So for example in Rev a book of the Apocalytic genre, in 20:4, 1000 years is taken
totally literally even though its in a very figurative chapter in the most figurative book in
the Bible. They say that Christ will literally come to earth and reign physically in
Jerusalem for a literal 1000 years not a day more or less.

Or in Rev 14.20, “And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood
came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand
and six hundred furlongs.” They believe that this is to be taken literally, that literal
human blood will come out of a winepress made of wood or something and reach
a depth of about 6 feet, for a literal distance of 1600 fulongs which is about 200
hundred miles.

They are an example of people who do not know how to differentiate between the
literal and the figurative. They mock other Christians who take parts of the bible
allegorically or figuratively and call them ‘spiritualizers of scripture’. What can you do
with this group? ugh

 

[Spock]

No, an authority is one with the power to make laws, decisions, judgements, etc.

What is the point to talk to someone like you? None whatsoever. OBVIOUSLY the word “authority” has several meanings. OBVIOUSLY I was referring to the meaning of the word as a "scientific or literary, etc… " authority, not a “legal enforcer” of a rule. Using your version, if someone in POWER declares that the Earth is flat, and has the sufficient POWER or enforce that declaration, in your eyes it is an authority, who can make such binding declarations. We had a few exchanges before, and I decided to give you another chance, when I saw your (name removed by moderator)ut. It was an error on my part. Good bye.

 

[tonyrey]

Whether it has been done is irrelevant because it is unnecessary. Jesus didn’t write a book but founded a community. The primary purpose of the Bible is provide a metaphysical, historical, allegorical and moral background

I had the OT primarily in mind because it is the main source of contention whereas the Gospels and Acts are clearly historical accounts and the Epistles are records of the teaching of the Apostles.They were carefully selected by the Church because it was soon realised that oral teaching must be supplemented by orthodox documents which would safeguard the truth about the life and teaching of Our Lord for future generations…

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus didn’t write a book but founded a community. The primary purpose of the Bible is provide a metaphysical, historical, allegorical and moral background to the doctrines of the Church.

The Catholic Church which from the time of the Apostles has safeguarded the accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus - and recognises that the literal interpretation of Genesis is unwarranted.

Obviously it’s quite important how we interpret the bible as if we (for example) take the new testament to be mostly allegorical and the old testament to be mostly historical. Then we end up with the image of quite a violent and scary God. Whereas if we do the reverse we end up with a substantially more benevolent image.

You have hit the nail on the head!

If you take Genesis, geocentrism and the flood as historical events then you’ll have a significant conflict with science. If you take them as allegorical then you don’t…

Precisely.

Where there is any doubt about the meaning of the text it should be interpreted in the context of the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who created us for love…

Is that the official position of the Catholic church or your personal opinion? If the former do you have a reference please?

CCC 142 By his Revelation, “the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company.”

There is only one lesson that really matters: the Son was put to death to liberate us from evil with His love.

Again, is that an official position or a personal opinion? Again do you have a reference?

CCC 616 It is love “to the end” that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life. Now “the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.” No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

 

[Nate13]

It is of utmost importance - in certain cases. The OT has a whole lot of horrible atrocities attributed to God, both as commands and actual actions.

There are many other discussions that talk about these. That is a separate discussion altogether. It would change nothing even if they were all 100% factual. I don’t understand how you can claim anything was an atrocity if you don’t know all the facts behind what occurred in any case.

If he said it “ex cathedra” it would be binding. Or could the pope declare something “ex cathedra” and be mistaken? Interesting possibilities arise. The pope could pray for enlightement to know which verses are factual and which ones are allegorical. Or is that too big a deal for the holy spirit?

You are mistaken. The Pope could not speak ex cathedra on the historical accuracy of the flood anymore than the Pope could tell us that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The Pope could offer an opinion and I would definitely give it a lot of weight, but it would not be a binding belief in the Magesterium. If a Pope mistakenly thought he could and did so it would still not be binding.

How could I tell the effect on your belief?

If there is no affect what is the point of your thread?

That there were MANY floods in Mesopotamia is beyond dispute. But that is not the point. We are not talking about some measly flood here, of which dime is a dozen. We talk about the destruction of all humans, and all animals at the very hand of God - a genocide of unspeakable magnitude. And that is the question here. The bible said it happened… Whether the story is to be taken literally or allegorically, it depicts a God who is unjust and cruel.

If He created everything from nothing, I’m confused as to why its a problem if He decided to take it away. Your mind does not like the idea because you see your life as being owned by yourself. When you accept the fact that everything you have has been given to you by God, and only remains in existence because of His will the idea that he would destroy everything with a flood is not that incredible. I don’t know whether your are a moral relativist or not but if so on what basis do you call what he did unjust and cruel? I don’t believe God ever guaranteed any human a certain amount of time on Earth that they would be alive. I think many of the parables speak to this when we are told to be ready at all times for we do not know the day or time when God will come.

Just recently there was a post on the “Ask the Apologist” forum: here… where the apologist uses the worst kind of “argument” : God is a special case, he can do whatever he wants to do, and everyone should just shut up. God is God, and whatever he does is right, just, moral and good. A shameless display of the “special pleading fallacy”.

If the apologists words were as condescending as how you put it then that was wrong, but I highly doubt he did. God is a special case because he made everything from nothing. He owes us nothing.

 

[levinas12]

Is there a general method to find out about any arbitrary verse in the bible if it must be taken literally or allegorically?

The answer is no.

But I don’t think this should pose an overwhelming difficulty.

For example, I am sure that the creation story in Genesis has been understood very literally by many Christians over the centuries. But the message in this story is basically that God’s creative activity is good, and orderly, and peaceful. This is in contrast to the violent Babylonian creation story where the world is “born” from the viscera of Tiamat (goddess of chaos) who has been mangled by Marduk.

Likewise, Job is not literal but fictive. But it nonetheless asks an important question: why do bad things happen to good people?

And then there are obvious “historical” books in the OT. Whether historically accurate or not is another question.

But there are troubling issues. For example, it seems that the OT does assert that God causes natural catastrophes to punish people for their sins. I see this in terms of an attempt to justify the ways of God to man, i.e., in its own way, an attempt to provide a rational explanation for bad stuff. Other ancient cultures (like the Greeks) also felt the need to affirm a cosmic “justice” (the role of “dike” in Greek tragedy). For these cultures, if natural catastrophes were the result of simple chaos, life would have been intolerable.

It would not be a stretch to say that this type of theodicy has fallen out of fashion.

But this does not mean that social evils do not have consequences (sometimes for an entire country - like Nazi Germany).

Am I saying that the interpretation of the Bible changes (in some respects)? Yes.

And that’s why there is no general method to determine the literal and the allegorical.

But I’m comfortable in saying that the Catholic Church is OK with that.

 

[vz71]

What is the point to talk to someone like you? None whatsoever. OBVIOUSLY the word “authority” has several meanings. OBVIOUSLY I was referring to the meaning of the word as a "scientific or literary, etc… " authority, not a “legal enforcer” of a rule. Using your version, if someone in POWER declares that the Earth is flat, and has the sufficient POWER or enforce that declaration, in your eyes it is an authority, who can make such binding declarations. We had a few exchanges before, and I decided to give you another chance, when I saw your (name removed by moderator)ut. It was an error on my part. Good bye.

Your gracious concession is noted.

 

[Candide_West]

The Catholic Church which from the time of the Apostles has safeguarded the accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus - and recognises that the literal interpretation of Genesis is unwarranted.

Great, so there’s a source which formally says that Genesis is allegorical? Is the source online? If so could you provide a link please?

*You have hit the nail on the head!

Precisely.

Great, so we seem to agree that it’s very important that we correctly interpret which sections of the bible are allegorical and which are historical in order to avoid getting a totally misleading impression of the Christian God and indeed the religious beliefs that form the Christian faith.*

This would seem to place upon the church a duty to provide as clear an explanation as possible of which should be interpreted as which. After all, otherwise you can have people saying that they are Catholic but that the world was literally created as per genesis and is the centre of the universe, but Mary wasn’t a virgin and the resurrection didn’t happen.*

*CCC 142 By his Revelation, “the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company.”

And you interpret that to mean…

“Where there is any doubt about the meaning of the text it should be interpreted in the context of the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who created us for love…”

I’m not sure how you get this information about interpretation of biblical text from the CCC passage you cited. Perhaps you could explain?*

*CCC 616 It is love “to the end” that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life. Now “the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.” No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

And again you interpret that to mean*

“There is only one lesson that really matters: the Son was put to death to liberate us from evil with His love.”

I’m afraid I don’t see the connection here either. How do you get from the CCC passage that there’s only one message that matters, or that that is the one message?

 

[tonyrey]

Great, so there’s a source which formally says that Genesis is allegorical? Is the source online? If so could you provide a link please?

In a commentary on Genesis authored as Cardinal Ratzinger titled * In the Beginning…* Benedict XVI spoke of “the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason” and that these two realms of knowledge are complementary, not contradictory: “We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, * In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall* [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)
philvaz.com/apologetics/p94.htm

Great, so we seem to agree that it’s very important that we correctly interpret which sections of the bible are allegorical and which are historical in order to avoid getting a totally misleading impression of the Christian God and indeed the religious beliefs that form the Christian faith.

This would seem to place upon the church a duty to provide as clear an explanation as possible of which should be interpreted as which. After all, otherwise you can have people saying that they are Catholic but that the world was literally created as per genesis and is the centre of the universe, but Mary wasn’t a virgin and the resurrection didn’t happen.

I have pointed out that the New Testament is regarded as historical.

*CCC 142 By his Revelation, “the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company.”

And you interpret that to mean…

“Where there is any doubt about the meaning of the text it should be interpreted in the context of the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who created us for love…”

I’m not sure how you get this information about interpretation of biblical text from the CCC passage you cited. Perhaps you could explain?*

If any interpretation of biblical text conflicts with the teaching that “the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company” it must be false.

“There is only one lesson that really matters: the Son was put to death to liberate us from evil with His love.”

CCC 616 It is love “to the end” that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life. Now “the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.” No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

I’m afraid I don’t see the connection here either. How do you get from the CCC passage that there’s only one message that matters, or that that is the one message?
Can you suggest a more important fundamental message from the Christian point of view?

 

[Jesus_123]

+This is a Catholic Answers forum . . . below is the Catholic answer from our Holy Mother Church’s Magesterium stated in the The Catechism of the Catholic Church . . . which clearly reveals Sacred :bible1: Scripture is **multi-dimensional **and can be believed on two (2) levels . . . not just one . . . it is not an either/or situation . . . but a **both/and ** type of understanding that is revealed . . . with the second level of knowledge being divided up into three sublevels of perceiving revelations of truth . . . and the literary genre doesn’t affect the truth of the revelation in any way.

**. . . :coffeeread: . . .**The senses of Scripture

115 **
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal** and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

**116 **
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

**117 **
The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction."85
2. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 **
A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four** senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

**119 **
"It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, …​

God is the author of Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . and it contains infallible truth (truth without error) . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .

II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture

**105 **
God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

**106 **
God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

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​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Gracious Lord+​

 

[levinas12]

Interpretation is like phronesis in Aristotle.

In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle talks about the mean between two extremes. For example, courage is the mean between recklessness and cowardice.

But the mean will vary depending upon the person and the context, i.e., the mean is sensitive to the “facticity” or “historical situation” of the agent.

Phronesis is the ability to find the “right” or “appropriate” mean in a particular situation.

This can be extrapolated to interpretation. Phronesis becomes the ability to determine the meaning of a text given the interpreter’s situation.

This is not relativism. There is both continuity and discontinuity.

For example, the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews may be discarded but that does not distort the meaning which God intends.

I know this sounds like a dodge but it’s not.

Bible scholars and popes/bishops work together in determining the “right” mean when it comes to interpretation. But there is no hard and fast general algorithm or rule … just like in Aristotlean ethics, the “right” thing to do is not determined geometrically or through propositional logic or, in more modern terms, through a computer program.

For those familiar with Greek philosophy, phronesis is not “nous” or theoretical reason. And it is not “poiesis” or the use of reason in the “making of objects” (beautiful or useful). As opposed to objects, phronesis deals with human actions.

 

[Candide_West]

In a commentary on Genesis authored as Cardinal Ratzinger titled * In the Beginning…* *Benedict XVI spoke of “the inner unity of creation and evolution and of *faith and reason” and that these two realms of knowledge are *complementary, not contradictory: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two *things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the *earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact *explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It *explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they *are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and *describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain *where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, *nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two *complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, * * * * * In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)
philvaz.com/apologetics/p94.htm

---

Excellent, thanks for that.

Spock, looks as if this has been done for some sections of the bible at least. I wonder if anyone out there has compiled a list of such formal statements about the status of different parts of the bible…

*I have pointed out that the New Testament is regarded as historical.

Ok, but is that supported by a formal statement such as the one above regarding Genesis, or is that your personal opinion? If the former then we are indeed starting to build a picture like the one Spock asked for. If it’s your personal opinion then I’m afraid that probably doesn’t hold much water with the world at large.

*If any interpretation of biblical text conflicts with the teaching that “the invisible God, from the fullness of his *love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to *invite and receive them into his own company” it must be false.

Ahhh I believe I understand now, thanks. But I don’t think that is necessarily very helpful, for example you could judge that the global genocide committed by God in the story of Noah, God was addressing humans as friends and moving among them to receive them into his company… by drowning them. And therefore the story may be historic.

I wouldn’t presume to judge one way or the other. But of course it being fundamental doesn’t make it the only one that matters, which was the question.*

[/QUOTE]

 

[Spock]

Excellent, thanks for that.

Spock, looks as if this has been done for some sections of the bible at least. I wonder if anyone out there has compiled a list of such formal statements about the status of different parts of the bible…

“Formal” statements are nice, but not sufficient. The question still remains: “is this an infallible, official declaration of the church, or some personal opinion?”. You see, the problem is two-fold. The separation of literal-allegorical verses cannot just be a list of personal opinions, it needs to be infallible and dogmatic listing. Otherwise, it has no merit.