Fundamentalism and the Bible

[FightingFat]

Thanks for that link! I read it. I mean it makes sense that only Jesus, the Holy one could come from Mary’s body, and nothing will ever be as perfect as Jesus, so that’s why she had to say yes to remain a virgin.
Like you said, it’s my journey and I have to stand before God one day, not my parents. It’s just hard on me to think I’m hurting my parents in any way. They are very understanding…but it’s still difficult. It’s something I have to work through!! I’ll be fine.ha

Are you arguing with them? Are they upset because you’re going to another Church? Or just because you’re interested in Catholicism?

 

[gatorgirlnr]

No, we don’t argue about it… My dad just says I need to align the Catholic doctrine up with the Word of God. He just has major issues with some of the Catholic doctrine. Baptist believe you can’t lose your salvation, they believe you repent and then get baptized, like John the Baptist preached. They feel we should be submurged like Jesus was. I bring that up b/c we discussed this the last time I went to visit them with my boyfriend. He feels that my dad believe his baptism is not valid b/c he was baptized as a baby, and not after he was old enough to understand that he needed to repent, and ask Jesus in his heart, etc. They feel that the no where in the Bible does it say to pray to Mary or the Saints. That there is only one mediator b/w God and man and that Jesus Christ. They of course don’t believe in purgatory. I’m just trying to let you know where my dad comes from when it comes to the Catholic doctrine. He told me there will always be differences b/w the faiths, or denominations. He said as long as you believe in the gospel and belive Jesus died for our sins, was raised on the 3rd day, then that’s what matters. He, as well as I believe that a person must have a personal relationship with Jesus.So, to answer your question, we don’t argue about it at all, he just tells me whatever I am learning, that I had better line it up with the Bible. But a lot of it is tradition, and he doesn’t feel that should be equal to the Bible. We both went to Florida Baptist Theological college, so we learned a lot about the reformation, John Calvin and Martin Luther! As I have studied, I’ve realize they were the ones who broke off from the Catholic church!
I love my parents very much and they are glad I am searching, but they just worry I guess…

 

[FightingFat]

No, we don’t argue about it… My dad just says I need to align the Catholic doctrine up with the Word of God. He just has major issues with some of the Catholic doctrine. Baptist believe you can’t lose your salvation, they believe you repent and then get baptized, like John the Baptist preached. They feel we should be submurged like Jesus was. I bring that up b/c we discussed this the last time I went to visit them with my boyfriend. He feels that my dad believe his baptism is not valid b/c he was baptized as a baby, and not after he was old enough to understand that he needed to repent, and ask Jesus in his heart, etc. They feel that the no where in the Bible does it say to pray to Mary or the Saints. That there is only one mediator b/w God and man and that Jesus Christ. They of course don’t believe in purgatory. I’m just trying to let you know where my dad comes from when it comes to the Catholic doctrine. He told me there will always be differences b/w the faiths, or denominations. He said as long as you believe in the gospel and belive Jesus died for our sins, was raised on the 3rd day, then that’s what matters. He, as well as I believe that a person must have a personal relationship with Jesus.So, to answer your question, we don’t argue about it at all, he just tells me whatever I am learning, that I had better line it up with the Bible. But a lot of it is tradition, and he doesn’t feel that should be equal to the Bible. We both went to Florida Baptist Theological college, so we learned a lot about the reformation, John Calvin and Martin Luther! As I have studied, I’ve realize they were the ones who broke off from the Catholic church!
I love my parents very much and they are glad I am searching, but they just worry I guess…

I have to say your dad sounds like a great bloke! I’ve been studying the Bible hard the last few months as part of BA in Divinity. It’s fascinating when you understand it in context. Have you ever read anything about John Henry Newman? Avery Dulles wrote a great book about him that explains a lot of his thinking. He was a Protestant who came to the Church through study. He came to realise that if God gave a revelation of the truth through his Word, it could only be with a garuntee that it wouldn’t get twisted through history. We know that protestantism leads to schism, splits and divisions, and Newman came to see the stoic presence of the Catholic Church as the entity committed to the fides quae; that is the deposit of faith. Everything the Church does it looks to the Apostles, it is Apostolic in nature.

 

[FightingFat]

Here’s a link to that book amazon.co.uk/Henry-Newman-Outstanding-Christian-Thinkers/dp/0826476805/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196960508&sr=1-1 I think it would be interesting for someone on a journey like yours to read!

 

[gatorgirlnr]

His name sounds very familiar! Thanks for the link…I’ll have to get that book. I’ve been reading a lot and loving every minute of it! I want to get more book about the history of the church. BTW, I’ve been attending RCIA classes, which has been helpful, somewhat! I’ve only been to a couple of them, so I’m excited to learn more. Although, I don’t like to believe something, just b/c I hear it, so after they go over something, I try to research it myself, especially if it’s something I have a hard time understanding.
Where are you getting your BA at?

 

[puzzleannie]

The Bible is meant to be interpreted by the literal sense, not the literalist sense.

no, it is meant to be interpreted in the sense in which it was written, always beginning with the literal sense but also in the spiritual, moral and eschatological sense. Someone bound up with the literal sense only misses the richness and depth of divine revelation and limits themselves to human understanding only, and in fact denies that there is a deeper sense.

 

[FightingFat]

His name sounds very familiar! Thanks for the link…I’ll have to get that book. I’ve been reading a lot and loving every minute of it! I want to get more book about the history of the church. BTW, I’ve been attending RCIA classes, which has been helpful, somewhat! I’ve only been to a couple of them, so I’m excited to learn more. Although, I don’t like to believe something, just b/c I hear it, so after they go over something, I try to research it myself, especially if it’s something I have a hard time understanding.

Sounds like the best way to do things to me!

Where are you getting your BA at?

Here maryvale.ac.uk/

 

[FightingFat]

no, it is meant to be interpreted in the sense in which it was written, always beginning with the literal sense but also in the spiritual, moral and eschatological sense. Someone bound up with the literal sense only misses the richness and depth of divine revelation and limits themselves to human understanding only, and in fact denies that there is a deeper sense.

She’s great isn’t she?

 

[Michael_G]

Have you ever read the Gilgamesh epic Michael?

Not at all. These stories were based on facts, but they are myth and they are used to explain something. This is the way the Israelites and other people of the time used literary epic.

The great Biblical Scholar, Dr. Gerhard Von Rad describes the way that some scholars only analyse the historical veracity of the Torah as “historical materialism” in his book *Genesis (*Von Rad, G. Genesis (SCM Press, Bloomsbury, London, 1961) p.31) Designating this kind of narrative as “saga”, Von Rad explains that the expectation that the saga should either contain historical fact, or else it can be described as merely a product of poetic fantasy is an extremely crass misunderstanding of its essence. It is true, however, that this scepticism has been the attitude prevalent since the 19th Century. The saga then offers a product born of a completely different kind of intellectual activity from that of history (historie), although history (Geschichte) is what it is concerned with.

What then are these narratives? How can they be concerned with fact and yet not be tied to fact by their contents? Von Rad answers by stating:

“Whatever saga we examine, we find with respect to its simplest and most original purpose that it narrates an actual event that once and for all occurred in the realm of history. It is therefore to be taken quite seriously – it is to be believed. In all that follows, therefore, let us hold fast to this: by no means is a saga merely the product of poetic fantasy; rather it comprises the sum total of the living historical recollection of peoples. In it is mirrored in fact and truth the history of a people. It is the form in which a people thinks of its own history.” (Ibid)

The Old Testament sagas then are concerned with Israel itself and the realities the people of Israel found in themselves. In this way they contain a much more real history, a history with much more truth in it than a purely factual historical writing would. They contain the “secret contemporary character of apparently past events”.(Ibid) This character is more than a list of the achievements, wars, political struggles, victories and defeats experienced by a people. It takes place on another level and speaks of inner guidance working and maturing in life’s mysteries. It is a history with God.

Your missing the main points one cannot start contradicting the history of the church for 1800 years, church fathers etc.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Just what part of Noah flood is not real from what is written down in the Bible. By the way I am Catholic. I do find it amazing, how repeatable this occurs with modernist thinking of denying certain scripture as literal, something that has been taught as literal for 1800 years and before.

**As I understand it there is no possibility that the entire planet could have been under water at one time. The impossibilty of how species from australian, the south pole etc could have gotten to the Middle east for loading, the astronomical amount of manure which would have been produced, the millions of species of insects that must be accounted for…I do understand that of course there is plenty of evidence of various areas have rather severe localized flooding which may well account for the stories told in various religions of the day. I believe some work is being done in the area attempting to find and date evidence of major flooding. Some say a major shift caused a rent in the black sea which no doubt wrecked havoc in surrounding areas. **

I firmly believe all need to follow the following rules as attested too by three Popes

Rules for interpreting Scripture: Established by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) seconded and confirmed by Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) and by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) Pope Pius XII declared in Divino… that Leo’s encyclical Providentisisimus for interpreting the bible to "the supreme guide in Biblical studies"
**Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church
**1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church
2. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.
3. Always to be guided by what the **Bible has to say as a whole **(not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote). One must take into account all of Scripture which pertains to a given doctrinal truth.
4. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable

Do note rule four. Do note that both the Haydock commentaries from the 1800 and the Navarre commentaries that everyone here raves about attest to a literal interpretation of Noah’s flood. Do note that Jesus, and Peter attest to a literal Noah’s flood, and if Noahs flood was local all God had to do was tell Noah to MOVE…

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

2Pet 2:world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

**The same type of not literal interpretations occur for Jona yet Christ attests to this. When one starts insuating the Christ was not portraying an accurate picture we have got problems.
**

These are rather old and outdated pronoucements. there are many much newer statements. It’s clear that Pope JPII relied on the much newer tools available to the critical scholar when he wrote Theory of the Body which makes it most clear he understood there were 2 creation stories, written by different people, composed at different times and during the time of Samuel , finally gathered edited and set down in writing for the first time.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Now, this is all quite logical, yet one will use this as their basis to state that noahs flood is fiction, non literal, but one is denying 1800 years of professing noahs flood as literal, one is stuck with stating that Christ did not know what he was talking about than Christ is not the triune God.

**There is no requirement to comclude that because one doesn’t take Noahs’ story as a worldwide flood, one is forced to conclude Jesus didnt know what he was talking about? That simply has no logical transition. It has nothing to do with Jesus as all. The value of teh story re Noah was and still is the lessons to be learned not the adherance to the “factual” allegations. **

No the culture stories support the reality of Noahs flood not under cut.

Given of course that no one of that time had a clue that the earth was a round thing including other continents, its unlikely that other flood stories support a world wide flood. They may indeed support that in that general area a rather large and well remembered flood occured.

 

[war_eagle]

Hey guys, on a recent thread I was really suprised to see the majority of people posting believed that the Noah’s Ark story was a factual account. I’m not in any way being disrespectful to those who choose to believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, but I am very interested in how many posters here take that line and why you feel like that!

Thanks in advance!

Because the Bible says so.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Because the Bible says so.

Yes but that would be a fundamentalist approach and catholics are not fundamentalist in their approach to scripture. We follow the learned scholars at the Vatican who guide us in understanding what is factual what is alegorical, metaphorical, myth, story, etc.

 

[war_eagle]

Yes but that would be a fundamentalist approach and catholics are not fundamentalist in their approach to scripture. We follow the learned scholars at the Vatican who guide us in understanding what is factual what is alegorical, metaphorical, myth, story, etc.

So, do these experts say that the Bible is right or wrong when it teaches that the story of Noah’s ark is true?

 

[Gamera]

I can’t vote because I don’t know what the question means by “literally.” For instance, if i say it’s raining cats and dogs outside, is the “literal” interpretation that animals are falling, or is the “literal” interpretation really the proper “literary” interpretation, that it’s heavily raining?

Anyway, it never occured to me that Noah and the flood story had not happened. I believe Noah was a real person and the Great Flood really happened, especially since Jesus Himself described Noah and the Flood as real.

 

[juliamajor]

So, do these experts say that the Bible is right or wrong when it teaches that the story of Noah’s ark is true?

It has nothing to do with right or wrong-your looking at scripture and reading it with 21 st century mindset. That will never do. just like you read different book genres differently (you don’t read a kid’s book in the same way you would a narrative, or a poem or scifi) you read each book of the bible differently.You can take the creation story or noah’s ark , or the Tower of Babel. Why did the author write it ,why did he write it in that way, and what did he mean when he wrote it. Genesis is a series of myths(not a bad word ,really)taken from numerous sources(epic of gilgamesh,Atraharsis, Ennuma Elish(sp?) To mention a few. Did he use these because they were kick butt stories? or to help man understand his relationship to God. Genesis is mythical and also etiological- the origins of things. How did God create the world, why do men do sinful things? If your good , like Noah is life a liitle better-? why is there a rainbow? IF God created all mankind why do we look act and talk differently?- this is all a trail to the most important beginning- Israel & Yahwehism-How the Hebrews became the chosen people:thumbsup:

 

[war_eagle]

It has nothing to do with right or wrong-your looking at scripture and reading it with 21 st century mindset.

Actually, you really don’t know how I interpret scripture.

There are several things that I take into account, including cultural and historical context, the language of the original text, context, the analogy of scripture, and original intent.

Now, naturally, you don’t think that your leaders who tell you what it says are reading it with a “21st century mindset”, do you?

 

[Clovis]

I picked to ‘Other’ option:

Christ went out of his way to beat it into the ground that ‘the golden rule is the spirit of the prophets’. All of the bible before the New Testament is prophecy about God in relation to his creation. This is why I view the bible spiritually. When I view Isaiah or the proverbs of Solomon, I look at the goodness in them, that they were concerned about poverty, injustice and so on.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So, do these experts say that the Bible is right or wrong when it teaches that the story of Noah’s ark is true?

The bible is neither right nor wrong, and is not considered in that fashion at all. Those who are trained in appropriate biblical exegesis use the numerous hermeneutical tools now available to examine the texts. In this case, there is a fair amount of scientific evidence that would repute the possibility of a worldwide “flood” as well as obvious problems with collecting specimins from diverse places around the globe, the size of the ark to accomodate millions of animals insects, birds, the enornmous manure that would be generated which I’m told is mathmatically impossible to dispose of by the number of family members available…All these suggest to a rational person that this didn’t happen, literally. There may of course and in all likelihood was a major flood in the region that was orally known from earliest times. There is some archeological evidence for that I believe near the Black Sea. I know of nothing stating that folks cannot believe in a literal noah and ark but there is no requirement that one so believe since the science suggests that like creationism, this too is more myth than fact.

What you refer to as right or wrong is merely the failure to understand what the text was meant to convey. It is becoming quite clear that those who heard and read these texts early on may not have understood them factually either. Oral stories were often taught in story form to convey the theological lesson.

For the same reason we do not treat Genesis as a literally true story of how the universe and the earth were created. Although folks continue to argue this point, the vatican position has been quite clear for some time. See very recently:

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55172

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Actually, you really don’t know how I interpret scripture.

There are several things that I take into account, including cultural and historical context, the language of the original text, context, the analogy of scripture, and original intent.

**Where do you get your cultural context or historical context from? what do you learn by knowing the orginal text language? What is the analogy of scripture please? Where do you learn the original intent? **

Now, naturally, you don’t think that your leaders who tell you what it says are reading it with a “21st century mindset”, do you?

Who are "our leaders’ ?