J
Jim_Baur
Guest
TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE, THAT IS THE QUESTION.
- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
To rely on the supernatural for scientific data would be a very unsound method of scientific procedure - historians don’t rely upon the supernatual, for the same reason. Neither do Biblical scholars - again, for the same reason. Scientists, historians and Biblical scholars may have have a strong personal faith in the reality of certain allegedly supernatural events, and may well accept them as being supernatural - but the supernatural has no explanatory power: saying “God created amino acids”, “God raised up Martin Luther to protest against the corruptions of the Church of Rome”, “God inspired King David to write Psalm 45”, does not tell one anything about the detail of amino acids, the Reformation, or the theology of the Book of Psalms - so these statements, true though they may be, are of no use to learning.
What is more, statements about God creating amino acids make sense only if one is a theist of some kind; if God is to be made an explanation for the entities studied by the methods of science, than non-theists are disqualified from being scientists. God is not appealed to as an explanation, because scholarship needs a common language if it is to have an agreed set of methods. Bringing God into a subject as an explanation for its details, does not allow all to have an agreed set of methods.And it degrades God from Cause to explanation - which is not a Christian position, but a Deist one; and is very short-sighted, since God becomes needless if His sole function is to account for the gaps in our knowledge. This is not the God of the Bible or of Christianity. ##
And that, is the correct way - regardless of one’s beliefs
Tell me, what is the fundamental difference between an “atheist” and a “naturalist”? I could easliy transmute my label as an “atheist” into scientific materialist and philosophical naturalist without changing any of my views whatsoever. This, I believe, would be the stances of most, if not all, scientists.
Aaah, well good to be back here after a little more than 2/3’s of a year.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Larry B:
And we are leaving the door open for others to say that the Bible originally mentioned green eggs and ham - we may not like their doing so, but we cannot deny, in any very convincing way, that the Bible did so, unless we can show that it did not. And if we do not have it, either in the original or in perfectly accurate copies, then we cannot be convincing in our denial; it is our word against theirs.
Besides, what would being inerrant do for the Bible ? How is it different in text, interpretation, readings, or in any other way if we believe it was inerrant “as originally given”, than if we do not believe this; than if we believe it is reliable for ordinary religious purposes, without necessarily being free from all error whatever ? If it was inerrant “as originally given”, but not now, what use is that ? One can learn about early forms of animals from the fossilised remains of their ancestors - the fossils are available, and useful, because one can see the details of them. To say that the Bible “as originally given”, was inerrant, is (to quote James Barr) “a very useless piece of information”. It’s useless, because it tells us nothing about the contents of the Biblical texts: it tells us nothing about readings, meaning, order of the text, or anything else: it does not do anything - it does not even convey information. In saying the Bible was inerrant “as originally given”, the Church might as well be teaching us about the green eggs and ham of the Cat in the Hat.
Maybe it is inerrant - & maybe not; why should it matter ? “The Church teaches it is inerrant” is all very well - but why does the Church teach this ? What made the Church think the Bible is inerrant in the first place ? One can hardly defend a doctrine when speaking to the unconvinced if all one can offer is a “The Church says…”.
It would be a fine thing to see some explanation of these not unimportant points. ##
The problem with that statement is, that it is identical in kind with saying, “A particular translation of the Bible may not mention the Cat in the Hat, but God’s Word does mention the Cat in the Hat”.
One cannot affirm that the Cat in the Hat was mentioned in some unknown form of the Bible - still less can one require others to believe this - unless there is some evidence that the CitH was mentioned in it. If we make statements about the details of a text which no one has ever seen, we are not saying anything useful, but making up fantasies.And we are leaving the door open for others to say that the Bible originally mentioned green eggs and ham - we may not like their doing so, but we cannot deny, in any very convincing way, that the Bible did so, unless we can show that it did not. And if we do not have it, either in the original or in perfectly accurate copies, then we cannot be convincing in our denial; it is our word against theirs.
Besides, what would being inerrant do for the Bible ? How is it different in text, interpretation, readings, or in any other way if we believe it was inerrant “as originally given”, than if we do not believe this; than if we believe it is reliable for ordinary religious purposes, without necessarily being free from all error whatever ? If it was inerrant “as originally given”, but not now, what use is that ? One can learn about early forms of animals from the fossilised remains of their ancestors - the fossils are available, and useful, because one can see the details of them. To say that the Bible “as originally given”, was inerrant, is (to quote James Barr) “a very useless piece of information”. It’s useless, because it tells us nothing about the contents of the Biblical texts: it tells us nothing about readings, meaning, order of the text, or anything else: it does not do anything - it does not even convey information. In saying the Bible was inerrant “as originally given”, the Church might as well be teaching us about the green eggs and ham of the Cat in the Hat.
Maybe it is inerrant - & maybe not; why should it matter ? “The Church teaches it is inerrant” is all very well - but why does the Church teach this ? What made the Church think the Bible is inerrant in the first place ? One can hardly defend a doctrine when speaking to the unconvinced if all one can offer is a “The Church says…”.
It would be a fine thing to see some explanation of these not unimportant points. ##
R
Rebecca_New
Guest
If you mean translation errors, maybe, but the Holy
Spirit will enlighten you are you grow in wisdom and holiness. At best you will learn what you need to know at the time you need to know it. This is why Catholics didn’t read the Bible for a long time, the Mass was the reading and an explaination of the Word. Keep reading and praying-the Lord is Mercy and the Light.
Spirit will enlighten you are you grow in wisdom and holiness. At best you will learn what you need to know at the time you need to know it. This is why Catholics didn’t read the Bible for a long time, the Mass was the reading and an explaination of the Word. Keep reading and praying-the Lord is Mercy and the Light.
V
Verbum
Guest
Everything that God says in the Bible is true. However His message is not always obvious.
Verbum
Verbum
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
There are a lot of sources of information about the historical critical method. Check the internet.
I like how people use h.c.m. to say things like such-and-such a book was not meant to be historical.
I’ve got a 1:45 a.m. type opinion to add to that: The Bible was never meant to be read as if it had errors in it.
I like how people use h.c.m. to say things like such-and-such a book was not meant to be historical.
I’ve got a 1:45 a.m. type opinion to add to that: The Bible was never meant to be read as if it had errors in it.
C
coyote
Guest
Just an item of trivia. Although a rabbit does not eructate and re-chew a bolus of pre-swallowed food, it does reingest a certain portion of fecal pellets. This behavior is incumbent upon rabbits for adequate nutrition.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Rebecca New:
But thanks anyway
##
I don’t mean translation errors - I mean that that the formulation that “The Bible is inerrant - as originally given”, is unsustainable, because it is meaningless. If it is not meaningless - let someone who can see clearly why it appears to be meaningless but is not, explain how it is not. A doctrine that is without meaning, can scarcely be a true doctrine, because truth presupposes meaning, and conveys meaning.
I don’t think God expects us to believe what is meaningless. If the Bible is inerrant; then a different way of saying what this inerrancy involves needs to be found. If - or when - that is done, it should help a lot of people.But thanks anyway
##
U
USMC
Guest
Very interesting thread. I thought I would bring it back up to the top for others to read.
M
MrS
Guest
And now some Catholic bishops enter the fray…
comments anyone?
www.timesonline.co.uk or:
timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c13509-1811332%2c00.html
comments anyone?
www.timesonline.co.uk or:
timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c13509-1811332%2c00.html
M
Marian_Carroll
Guest
.
**There is an existing thread on the UK Bishops Statement: let’s keep their statement and this poll as separate threads as this poll is initiated in 2004 and until the statement was issued this week, reflects the feelings of participants in the thread…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=78729**
T
trth_skr
Guest
amdraeger said:
Ye of little faith:
bibleprobe.com/pi.htm
Here is a quote (my emphais):
"God makes no mistakes, mathematical or otherwise. The Scriptures do not contain error. By the way, Solomon built this sea in 1000 B.C., long before the Greeks rediscovered Pi (p). We may not understand some things at first glance, but the problem is with us, not with the Bible. "
At least look for the answer before condemning the inerrancy of the Scriptures. I found this answer in about 10 minutes on the internet. Is it not worth 10 minutes or even 100 to preserve the reputation of the Scriptures?
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
H
Holly3278
Guest
I believe that the Bible, when properly interpreted by clergy, contains more truth than contained in the entire universe.
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
Tantum ergo:
The catchy words that were inserted in Dei Verbum and quoted in the Catechism are those highlighted above. The distinction to them {liberals in the Church } is, that only those things in scripture which have to do with salvation are without error. Everything else in the Bible may be subject to error of some sort.
L
LSK
Guest
I believe that there are no errors in Holy Scriptures; however, I certainly believe there have been errors in interpretation and there have been errors in translations. I also believe that, because God is the author of All Truth, that He cannot err - but the we, as fallible humans, can err in our understandings. I believe that, also, our understanding can grow and develop and that our Holy Mother Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, can properly lead us in our understanding and application of God’s Holy Scripture.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
There are at least four possible interpretations of that passage:
- Some things in the Bible are inerrant, namely, those which relate to our salvation - but not those things that do not relate to our salvation
- All things in the Bible are inerrant, even those not related to salvation; as well as those that are - this latter class of things is what the words highlighted in that quotation refer to.
- All things in the Bible are inerrant - because all of them are for the sake of our salvation
- Some things in the Bible are inerrant, namely, those which relate to our salvation - those things that do not relate to our salvation, may, or may not, be inerrant
T
trth_skr
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
The only interpretation that fits with the 2000 year tradition of the Church (thus can be valid) is:
All things in the Bible are inerrant - because all of them are for the sake of our salvation
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
P
patg
Guest
You should probably mention that this is only your opinion because that is not what the church teaches.
Is the 3-tiered universe of the bible inerrant? Is it an abomination to God to eat shellfish, wear clothing of blended fabrics, have a rare steak, or plant 2 different crops in the same field? Some things are best left as misunderstandings from a more primitive time…
T
trth_skr
Guest
Yes it is my opinion. It is also the opinion of Leo XIII and Pius XII (amongst others):
Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus, “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”
Pope Leo XIII: Providentissimus Deus: “For the sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Spirit, it contains things of the deepest importance, which, in many instances, are most difficult and obscure” (I, B, 2, b). He also says: “For all the books in their entirety…with all their parts, have been written under the dictation of the Holy Spirit” (DS 3292).
Pope Leo XIII: Providentissimus Deus: “It is futile to argue that the Holy Spirit took human beings as his instruments in writing, implying that some error could slip in…For by his supernatural power he so stimulated and moved them to write, and so assisted them while they were writing, that they properly conceived in their mind, wished to write down faithfully, and expressed aptly with infallible truth all those things, and only those things, which He himself ordered; otherwise He could not Himself be the author of the whole of Sacred Scripture” (DS 3293).
Pope Pius XII, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, repeats Leo XIII decree: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”
Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu: “Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis. Not infrequently – to mention only one instance – when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else then those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients [e.g., the sun rises], which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctions by common usage.” In addition, in Humani Generis, Pius XII condemns the notion: “…immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”
From The Inerrancy of Scripture, Robert Sungenis.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
- Status