Fundamentalism and the Bible

[war_eagle]

In this case, there is a fair amount of scientific evidence that would repute the possibility of a worldwide “flood”

OK. Give me your best three examples.

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

And this is a very common misunderstanding.

Remember, the Bible doesn’t say that the ark had two of every animal, but two of every kind of animal .

In other words, two dogs, not two collies, two poodles, two labs, etc.

If this is an example of the Vatican’s ability to interpret scripture, I’m glad I didn’t side with them.

science suggests that like creationism, this too is more myth than fact.

Actually, science screams very loudly that a creation requires a Creator.

What you refer to as right or wrong is merely the failure to understand what the text was meant to convey.

So, if you get a ticket for running a stop sign, do you go to court and tell the judge, “Well, you can’t find me guilty because a stop sign isn’t right or wrong. There are just different opinions about what it means”?

It is becoming quite clear that those who heard and read these texts early on may not have understood them factually either.

Jesus understood them to be factual.

Although folks continue to argue this point, the vatican position has been quite clear for some time.

This is what is commonly known as an appeal to authority. Sorry, but “because the Vatican says so” isn’t a very convincing argument. I see no reason to believe them over my own study or the study of so many Godly men who’ve proven themselves to be reliable in their study.

 

[war_eagle]

Who are "our leaders’ ?

Priests, Cardinals, popes, etc.

Where do you get your cultural context or historical context from?

By studying history and culture.

what do you learn by knowing the orginal text language?

What was said.

What is the analogy of scripture please?

It is a hermeneutic principle that says that the Bible is to be taken as a whole, and that we can interpret a verse or passage of scripture by examining other, similar verses and passages.

Where do you learn the original intent?

By studying the scriptures.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

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.

The Haydock notes are over 200 years old - the first edition of the Haydock Bible was published in 1812-14, not 1859; the later edition is a reprint. The notes in the 1812-14 edition are based largely on Calmet, Challoner, Witham (all of them 18th-century expositors) & older authors. For interpretation in 2007 this is not enough, because a great deal has happened since the 18th century; we don’t wear knee-breeches or travel by sedan chair, nor do we dispose of human waste by throwing it out of a window - so what is the justification for relying on the exegesis of our fathers who did have such things ?​

There are good things in those notes - that does not alter the fact that knowledge of the Bible’s background has increased immensely in the last two centuries, & it would be remiss of the Church to ignore this; so it doesn’t. Haydock could no more read Babylonian cuneiform hymns than Dom Calmet could, or than St. Jerome could: this is no fault of theirs - nobody could, & nobody imagined that such texts even existed. This is no longer so, & such texts have thrown light on the Bible’s background: so modern scholars do read them.

The learned men of the past are valuable, as are those of today - but neither can be final. Fundamentalists canonise the past, so that dialogue between it & the future becomes impossible; asthough God could not work except in the past & had nothing to say in the present or future.

The critical approach to Psalm 72 does not stop it being ultimately Christological - this approach looks at the psalm & its text from every angle, in an attempt to understand more fully what it meant when composed.

Fundamentalism OTOH is so concerned with the NT use of the psalm that it does not allow the OT writings to mean anything in their own setting. This ignores the economical character of God’s ways with men: He speaks to men in their historical setting, not in an ahistorical, incarnation-free way. The Bible is not written in our thought-forms, but in those of the men of old among whom it came into being. The men of the pre-critical era had no way of knowing this, except in principle - we do them little honour by keeping to their positions when we have no reason to do so & much reason not to: that’s obscurantism, not faithfulness to Tradition. We should use what is available to us, just as they did. Fundamentalism is not pre-critical - it is anti-critical; the men of the eighteenth century were not anti-critical, but pre-critical: they were not Fundamentalists.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Just as there are bible fundamentalist, there are tradition fundamentalists too…

That’s a fact ​

I think there can be fundamentalist attitudes in any & every form of scholarship - any position can be corrupted into being used as a defence against God & neighbour

 

[inthecloud]

I had come to see things as a process.

Big Bang cosmogenesis is a process.
The Earth formation is a process.
Evolutionary biogenesis is a process.
Human history is a process.
The writting of the Bible was a process.

Seen salvation as a process fits into that cosmovision (sorry Ludwig, cannot spell well Welttanschaung) so no OSAS for me.
To paragraf Martin Luther:
We had evolved, we are evolving and we HOPE we will be evolving.
So our understanding of the Bible. Advances in linguistic and literary criticism and archeology do change our knowledge of the Bible.
Some places that were thought as fiction were proved real.
Not even the atheist doubt of Jesus existance now. I think that Abraham, Moses and David were real characters, they do not fit the mitical founders of other peoples model.
But in other cases science have demostrated that a woldwide Flood was unlikely and the Flood story does remember the stories of other tales in the region so the Noah story might have been a morality play based on the oral tradition of a vast regional flood in prehistoric times that the Genesis authors made into a morality history. And in my opinion is better to be read in that way. The Vatican and the mainstream protestants Iike those in the Ivy League and Oxbridge are correct in allowing modern methods to undertand the Bible.

Fundamentalism is a intelectual suicide. B16 is correct.
BTW SpiritMeadow, I do not invented the abrevation Fundangelical for fundamentalist evangelicals, is well known in other forums.

 

[juliamajor]

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?

oh Lord here we go again

 

[adam_in_ohio]

I suppose it might be. It depends upon one’s point of view. I used to be a fundevangelical and was very proud of it!

I’d never seen fundevangelical as one word before. I thought it was a slang term.

 

[FightingFat]

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

Why not?

 

[pnewton]

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

This article is not a Vatican teaching, but the view of a single astronomer.

I chose the “other” option, because some things are not literal, by the nature of the genre used, so I shied away from the first choice. However, I believe most of the Bible is literal, including the historical account of Genesis. Also, the authors of the Bible, like all writers of that era, did not write a step by step chronology. They often organized materials by subject and emphasis, not chronologically. Taking this into account, I do not buy the young Earth theory. But I believe the accounts to be literal, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve, their children, Noah, Abraham, all existed as told in the Bible. Sodom and Gomorrah were really destroyed in fire and brimstone by God. There really was a tower of Babel.

 

[pnewton]

Actually, science screams very loudly that a creation requires a Creator.

Science has come out with all sorts of creative ways to X out God; white holes, membranes colliding, multiuniverses. I find it more telling that the design we see requires a designer and that every effect needs a cause equal to, or greater than the effect. For those who wish to find an alternative to God, there will always be a creative answer.

 

[FightingFat]

So moving on with this- What do posters think about source criticism, the authorship and formation of the Pentateuch? How do these realities fit in with the idea of a book which is in fact a library- a number of books drawn together?

When we study the Bible in light of these developments, they surely serve only to deepen our faith and make more clear the hand of God working throughout history and man’s journey towards him. When we hang on to the idea that Genesis is a factual account of pre-history, surely we do a dis-service to this spiritual reality and dis-credit our great faith?

 

[Michael_G]

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.

One cannot make alacart blanket statements like this you need to cite these newer statments and site the sources. Secondly you need to show that any newer rules supercede the foundational rules. Right now you have nothing but renegade modern scholars which Pius XII warned against. You are in violation of the entire history of the church which has always maintained as one of a three legged stool the patristic fathers, Sacred Oral tradition which you are willy nilly throwing out the windopw.

These rules have never been superceded by anything.
They stand like the rock:

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

 

[Michael_G]

The Haydock notes are over 200 years old - the first edition of the Haydock Bible was published in 1812-14, not 1859; the later edition is a reprint. The notes in the 1812-14 edition are based largely on Calmet, Challoner, Witham (all of them 18th-century expositors) & older authors. For interpretation in 2007 this is not enough, because a great deal has happened since the 18th century; we don’t wear knee-breeches or travel by sedan chair, nor do we dispose of human waste by throwing it out of a quote]​

You attack one source I cited, as to old, you forgot the Navarre which is recent. The navarre is loyal to church teachings loyal to sacred oral teachings loyal to the Patristic fathers

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

 

[Michael_G]

Originally Posted by Michael G forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*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.
**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. ***

"Jesus didnt know what he was talking about? That simply has no logical transition. "

no logical transiction. I beg your pardon, but it seems one does not understand the english language. Jesus words are clear that Noahs flood is real, Peters words are clear to the same testimony, you are creating error of the NT it is clear.

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;**

---

**Your loosing all credability now.

**

 

[OldRedleg]

Growing up as a United Methodist, I remember our Pastor saying during a bible study, “Everything in the Bible is true…and some of it actually happened.”

As for:

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 is “the supreme guide in Biblical studies”

The most recent guidance from the Catholic Church on the proper way to read and intrepret holy scripture is Pope Paul VI’s, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum . This document pretty well spells it out and is what is being taught in our seminaries and formation programs. You can read it at the following link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html .

PAX
Tiber Swim Team 1996

 

[SpiritMeadow]

OK. Give me your best three examples.

And this is a very common misunderstanding.

Remember, the Bible doesn’t say that the ark had two of every animal, but two of every kind of animal .

In other words, two dogs, not two collies, two poodles, two labs, etc.

If this is an example of the Vatican’s ability to interpret scripture, I’m glad I didn’t side with them.

Actually, science screams very loudly that a creation requires a Creator.

So, if you get a ticket for running a stop sign, do you go to court and tell the judge, “Well, you can’t find me guilty because a stop sign isn’t right or wrong. There are just different opinions about what it means”?

Jesus understood them to be factual.

This is what is commonly known as an appeal to authority. Sorry, but “because the Vatican says so” isn’t a very convincing argument. I see no reason to believe them over my own study or the study of so many Godly men who’ve proven themselves to be reliable in their study.

Umm…this is a Catholic site. We are not discussing the efficacy of fundamentalist interpretations perse but of not falling into the fundamentalist trap. I have no intention of discussing this with a fundamentalist who is not even Catholic. We know what you think. You are free to believe whatever you wish.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This article is not a Vatican teaching, but the view of a single astronomer.

I chose the “other” option, because some things are not literal, by the nature of the genre used, so I shied away from the first choice. However, I believe most of the Bible is literal, including the historical account of Genesis. Also, the authors of the Bible, like all writers of that era, did not write a step by step chronology. They often organized materials by subject and emphasis, not chronologically. Taking this into account, I do not buy the young Earth theory. But I believe the accounts to be literal, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve, their children, Noah, Abraham, all existed as told in the Bible. Sodom and Gomorrah were really destroyed in fire and brimstone by God. There really was a tower of Babel.

yeah, I havent lost my mind yet. I KNOW its one astronomer. what others fail sometimes to remember is it is but the last in a long list of pronouncements both Papal and otherwise that are in agreement. It’s really time to stop this argument about Genesis, Big bang and evolution. It’s fair to say the Church has spoken.

I have no idea how you believe that Genesis is literally true and then say you don’t believe in YEC. But believe whatever you wish. I know that nothing on this earth will ever convince those that wish to adher to literalism in this manner. It’s not about logic its about psychology.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

One cannot make alacart blanket statements like this you need to cite these newer statments and site the sources. Secondly you need to show that any newer rules supercede the foundational rules. Right now you have nothing but renegade modern scholars which Pius XII warned against. You are in violation of the entire history of the church which has always maintained as one of a three legged stool the patristic fathers, Sacred Oral tradition which you are willy nilly throwing out the windopw.

These rules have never been superceded by anything.
They stand like the rock:

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

Sorry but you must have missed it. We have recounted the sources over and over on several threads. Basically read Benedicts “IN the Beginning…” and JPII Theology of the Body"
Both set out rather convincingly their basic acceptance of evolution and the fact expecially that JP understood that mythologoy of Genesis. He recognized that there were 2 different authors of the 2 creation stories, they were written at different times, they were edited and set to writing during Samuel, etc. We have progressed far beyond where you are apparently.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

"Jesus didnt know what he was talking about? That simply has no logical transition. "

no logical transiction. I beg your pardon, but it seems one does not understand the english language. Jesus words are clear that Noahs flood is real, Peters words are clear to the same testimony, you are creating error of the NT it is clear.

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;**

---

Your loosing all credability now.

You continue to miss the theological teaching of the stories and assume they were understood factually. There is nothing that would or need suggest that. The stories are meant as lessons of truths, not science classes.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Growing up as a United Methodist, I remember our Pastor saying during a bible study, “Everything in the Bible is true…and some of it actually happened.”

As for:

The most recent guidance from the Catholic Church on the proper way to read and intrepret holy scripture is Pope Paul VI’s, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum . This document pretty well spells it out and is what is being taught in our seminaries and formation programs. You can read it at the following link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html .

PAX
Tiber Swim Team 1996

I would only add the 1994 Pontifical Biblical Commission. It can be linked to from my blog under Church Documents.