H
Hereiam
Guest
You are confusing “literal interpretation” with “literal sense”…the two are very different.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s why I made the distinction of “literalistic” …
So, you’re talking about an interpretation that requires it to be historically accurate as written, then. Fair enough.
Still, though, if you want to claim one of the spiritual senses of Scripture, you still have to make a claim for what the literal sense of that passage is.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
How does that not make sense?
Two different versions of a story.
Romeo and Juliette is Shakespeare’s version.
West Side Story is a modern version of the same story.
Shakespeare’s version doesn’t have cars. That does not mean that the explanation “doesn’t make sense.”
H
Hereiam
Guest
No, you really don’t. That’s the beauty of the anagogical sense. The spiritual meaning transcends the historical or other literal contexts of the passage.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Exactly. The J & P sources explanation is the best one, and it is also the Catholic one.
The PathsToKnowledge link is a good explanation.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
See the PathsToKnowlege link posted earlier.
Read that post.
Once you do that, it will become crystal clear.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No.
From “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Catholic Church”, by the Pontifical Biblical Commission:
H
Hereiam
Guest
“Transcending” still means it comes from, so of course the literal sense is the source, but is not driving force of the message.
G
Gorgias
Guest
“Indispensable foundation” kinda does imply “driving force”…
A
Arkansan
Guest
No, the JEDP theory is one commonly adhered to by scholars, both Catholic and otherwise, and formerly forbidden to Catholic scholars. The Church has never said anything even remotely in the ballpark of “Catholics have to believe JEDP”.
It’s like geocentrism, which was also once commonly adhered to by scholars. The difference being that there were once objectively good reasons for believing in geocentrism.
po18guy
Well-known member
It is not a math book, and not primarily a history book. Perhaps a copy of Mark Shea’s Making Senses out of Scripture would help.
H
hoping4more
Guest
Yes, stories can have different versions. They can even be spliced together. However saying some priest or rabbi person did this much later to have a greater focus on their own priesthood is illogical. If they wanted to have greater focus on their priesthood they would have just left it out.
Did you even look at that source? I would think you would know better, Friar David, it is written by a ‘bishop’, who is married with 5 kids and is a part of something called a Home Temple order. Here is their website just so you can understand where the author is coming from
http://www.hometemple.org/
Did you even look at that source? I would think you would know better, Friar David, it is written by a ‘bishop’, who is married with 5 kids and is a part of something called a Home Temple order. Here is their website just so you can understand where the author is coming from
http://www.hometemple.org/
H
Hereiam
Guest
In a legalistic sense, probably.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I’m concerned that you aren’t making a distinction between outdated understandings of Sacred Scripture and modern scholarly ones.
Yes, the JEPD method of reading Scripture (at least the Pentateuch) is considered to be both legitimate and is now taken as a “given” among Catholic scholars.
One cannot live in the past.
I can assure you that anyone who would deny the JEPD method (I mean outright deny it, not offer some refinements) would not be taken seriously among Catholic scholars today.
And by the way, it is indeed endorsed by the Church, and taught by the Church.
I want to caution you that if you need me to prove that (which I can do rather easily), you’ll be proving that you are unfamiliar with the subject of Scripture scholarship.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
No. It is not “illogical.” You aren’t making any sense. It’s also clear that you don’t understand the subject matter. Therefore you’re hardly in a position for anyone to take you seriously.
Which proves nothing beyond the fact that you have no knowledge of the subject matter.
Frankly, I did not need to look at the source. I looked at the material being presented. That’s what matters.
I’m not saying the source is irrelevant either. I’m saying the material is accurate and given the context of the time there was no need for me to go further into the source.
This is what’s known as the “genetic fallacy” it claiming that something is untrue merely because of the person who wrote it.
The fact that he has 5 children does not make him wrong when he provides a separation of the J and P narratives from each other.
H
hoping4more
Guest
Misinterpreted my meaning; bishop and married do not go hand in hand, ever. To your first point, I was questioning his agenda.
K
Kei
Guest
The issue is that sometimes something can be false and yet believed to be “reasonable”. JEPD can be shown to be not merely 4 different sources, but many hundreds if one so desires. Proposing a differing view is considered backward or may not even be considered.
This is despite the fact that the main assumption is not proved and rests on, mainly, 1) textual criticism and 2) supposed historical differences, or 3) supposed contradictions within a narrative Several of 2 have been shown false, and 3 usually dissipates upon a careful reading. 1 is spurious as many different critics come with many different sections. One may even see the idea that a single sentence is actually spliced up between multiple different authors.
But, this is what’s “reasonable.” Somewhat like thinking all miracles by an almighty God must actually be explainable by natural causes and good timing.
This is despite the fact that the main assumption is not proved and rests on, mainly, 1) textual criticism and 2) supposed historical differences, or 3) supposed contradictions within a narrative Several of 2 have been shown false, and 3 usually dissipates upon a careful reading. 1 is spurious as many different critics come with many different sections. One may even see the idea that a single sentence is actually spliced up between multiple different authors.
But, this is what’s “reasonable.” Somewhat like thinking all miracles by an almighty God must actually be explainable by natural causes and good timing.
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
Would it not be because they were sent out after 40 days?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
No. I do not misinterpret it.
It is the genetic fallacy.
The fact that he calls himself a bishop and the fact that he has children have nothing to do (absolutely NOTHING) with whether or not his webpage explaining the J and P narratives is accurate.
And it’s still the genetic fallacy.
G
Gorgias
Guest
By that standard, we should only have one Gospel, not four, right? Yet, those who compiled the Bible decided that these four accounts were all valuable and inspired. Perhaps the redactor of the Genesis account decided the same thing.
- Status