B
buffalo
Guest
The infancy narratives?
- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
There are five problems with this position:
- inerrancy applies only to the divine message of salvation
and they are: - it has been explicitly condemned
- it is unworkable in practice
- it contradicts the teaching, repeated as recently as 1998, that the the Bible is without error in all its parts
- it is at least materially heretical
- it has never been the faith of the Church
Apart from that, it’s fine. The Instrumentum has a certain weight, but it is not that of the authentic teaching of the CC; save insofaras this is expressed for reasons independent of such weight as the Instrumentum possesses in it itself.
J
jfhh
Guest
The human author ultimately intends to do God’s will. The human author’s imperfections, limitations and errors in his world view, memory, and so forth – these are all in an incarnational principle, if you will, subsumed whole under the primary author God who leaves the human author as his instrument, completely free and free to in imperfect writing nevertheless communicate the message God wills to communicate through it.
I think everyone would acknowledge there is no problem with grammar errors on the part of the human author. Neither is there a problem with memory mistakes or any other kind of error, including even theological (in terms not of the divine message but the backdrop of the divine message; so you have to look past the human canvass which is imperfect and has error and look to the unstained glory of God and his message) The human author more than intending to assert any particular thing, wills to communicate – to assert – what God wills to communicate.
Let’s give an analogy.
I tell you a little child a truth, maybe some hard to understand truth. The little child intends to communicate that truth to another little child. He uses some analogies to do that. Maybe some of those anlaogies are imperfect or even erroneous a little. But the message is not erroneous at all. The little child isn’t intending to assert the aptness of an analogy so much as intending to assert and communicate the message I told him to share. Get it?
So that’s the way I see the relationship between God and the human author.
I wish the CDF and others in leadership would go with that kind of approach. Does anyone know if an idea like mine has been proposed by theologians or biblical scholars? I hope so (and that the CDF is open to it) There’s no chance anyone would listen to poor little me
I think everyone would acknowledge there is no problem with grammar errors on the part of the human author. Neither is there a problem with memory mistakes or any other kind of error, including even theological (in terms not of the divine message but the backdrop of the divine message; so you have to look past the human canvass which is imperfect and has error and look to the unstained glory of God and his message) The human author more than intending to assert any particular thing, wills to communicate – to assert – what God wills to communicate.
Let’s give an analogy.
I tell you a little child a truth, maybe some hard to understand truth. The little child intends to communicate that truth to another little child. He uses some analogies to do that. Maybe some of those anlaogies are imperfect or even erroneous a little. But the message is not erroneous at all. The little child isn’t intending to assert the aptness of an analogy so much as intending to assert and communicate the message I told him to share. Get it?
So that’s the way I see the relationship between God and the human author.
I wish the CDF and others in leadership would go with that kind of approach. Does anyone know if an idea like mine has been proposed by theologians or biblical scholars? I hope so (and that the CDF is open to it) There’s no chance anyone would listen to poor little me
J
juliamajor
Guest
Good try- but not quite. not everyone thinks infancy narratives are midrashic. Those one who do are the ones you hear about- all they non-controversial scholars get no press at all.
“Jesus Seminar” perfect example of self aggrandizing “scholarship” You seem to think all biblical scholars think the same- that is certainly not the truth. The “minimalist” school has certainly pushed their agenda- but they have punished back many times. I think it is very wrong to believe that modern scholarship is monolithic in it’s ideas. It’s not.how much a scholar believes and trusts these disciplines is not universal- and varies as much as any other human endeavor.
J
jfhh
Guest
ISTM, my idea is in spirit if not in detail, similar to Benedict’s idea here
Benedict XVI:
That encapsulates the spirit of my idea.
For some reason the English text is on ewtn, but not on the Vatican
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_index.htm
Though other languages are there. O well.
Benedict XVI:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm
That encapsulates the spirit of my idea.
For some reason the English text is on ewtn, but not on the Vatican
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_index.htm
Though other languages are there. O well.
B
buffalo
Guest
Ok - then share with me the new findings.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Which is true - but illogical. If the Holy Spirit is concerned to get stats for plague-victims & ages spot on, why can’t He get the grammar right ? There is not much use in inerrant inspiration, if the language, the means of expressing it, is wonky: there’s a difference in meaning between “Sin on more”, & “Sin no more”, & God needs to look after this. Grammar is basic to meaning, otherwise the Bible might as well not be inerrant. Even the shape of letters can make a difference to meaning. God has to be concerned about Daleth & Resh, (= D & R), because they make the difference between Edomites & Aramaeans in the OT. Total inerrancy must be total - or not be at all.
See above
Let’s give an analogy.
I tell you a little child a truth, maybe some hard to understand truth. The little child intends to communicate that truth to another little child. He uses some analogies to do that. Maybe some of those anlaogies are imperfect or even erroneous a little. But the message is not erroneous at all. The little child isn’t intending to assert the aptness of an analogy so much as intending to assert and communicate the message I told him to share. Get it?
So that’s the way I see the relationship between God and the human author.
I wish the CDF and others in leadership would go with that kind of approach. Does anyone know if an idea like mine has been proposed by theologians or biblical scholars? I hope so (and that the CDF is open to it) There’s no chance anyone would listen to poor little me
The IP is accepted 
- the 1970 NAB has an appendix which includes (among other things) an essay on inspiration which incorporates the IP. The IP is one reason that I don’t believe in total inerrancy: total inerrancy makes the Bible (& Jesus) inhumanly perfect.
J
juliamajor
Guest
new findings- in what- I don’t get what you mean. Do mean advances in archaeology, linguistics what? How about Dead Sea scrolls. Giving insight into the Messianic expectation and people in the desert that waited for it. Or connection between the Essenes and John the Baptist’s baptism. That was in 1948(I think). Or the Library of Nag Hammadi. Or the libraries of Mari and Ebla- giving insight into lives of the patriarchs.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Yes, a number of Popes have taught definitively on the subject, clearly stating that total inerrancy and total inspiration is a required belief, and that any opposing ideas are condemned. I believe that this repeated defintive teaching of the same doctrine by successive Popes causes the doctrine to fall under the infallibility of the Universal Magisterium. I also believe that Providentissimus Deus, n. 20, meets all of the conditions for an infallible papal statement.
The Fathers of the Church were also clear on the total inerrancy of Scripture.
What is the citation from 1998?
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Hello Gottle!
I just wanted to point out that the examples you gave would only be relevant in a discussion about translations and copies, but not in a discussion about the originally inspired and inerrant text.
As you have said, “Grammar is basic to meaning.” Consequently, if you ever find yourself able to hold to total inerrancy, you would first find yourself holding – by the gift of faith that no man can muster – that the original text was preserved free from any grammatical errors that would affect the meaning of the text.
May God bless you with this faith!
C
CathPhilosopher
Guest
)
As pointed out, the Instrument Laboris was a working document. Several persons involved objected to the statement made there as stated “with certainty,” on the grounds that it was impossible, since Scripture is the Word of God. They decided they did not have time to work out the question among themselves, so they resolved to pass on the question to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
On the Inerrancy of Scripture
- Status