It would be nice

[R_Daneel]

… to have a Catholic equivalent of the Skepic’s Annotated Bible. You know, to list every chapter and verse and have the official, unchangable and infallible Catholic teaching attached to them, saying "this verse is to be taken literally, and that verse must be taken allegorically, and this is the way how the allegory is to be understood. A whole lot of misunderstandings could be avoided. It happens all the time that the defenders of the Bible try to argue on perfectly clear and unambiguous verses that they do not mean what they say. Of course those apologists never add just “how” those verses should be understood. Looks like that despite those 2 thousand years the Church never attempted to undertake such an important task. After all, it would help their own clergy, too. So why is there no such writ? I have my own suspicions.

What do you think?

 

[Della]

There are only a very few Bible verses the Church has said must be interpreted in a way that supports Church teaching. Why is that? Because the Church does not use the Bible as a proof text for doctrine/dogma. ** The Bible is the witness to the truths of the Church, not the proofs of those truths.**

As to biblical interpretation the Catechism says it best:

The four ways of interpreting Scripture: #s 115-119.

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
   118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
   The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
   The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

The Church does not interpret verses using just one mode of interpretation. It uses four. It doesn’t go verse by verse trying to discern what is literal and what isn’t. That’s a fundamentalist trap that the Church has never fallen into. History is read as history, and parables are read as parables, poetry as poetry, instruction as instruction, etc… Each style of writing is read for what it is. The intent of the author is taken into account,as is the historical context and literary context. It’s a study all its own, really.

 

[Black_Rose]

… to have a Catholic equivalent of the Skepic’s Annotated Bible. You know, to list every chapter and verse and have the official, unchangable and infallible Catholic teaching attached to them, saying "this verse is to be taken literally, and that verse must be taken allegorically, and this is the way how the allegory is to be understood. A whole lot of misunderstandings could be avoided. It happens all the time that the defenders of the Bible try to argue on perfectly clear and unambiguous verses that they do not mean what they say. Of course those apologists never add just “how” those verses should be understood. Looks like that despite those 2 thousand years the Church never attempted to undertake such an important task. After all, it would help their own clergy, too. So why is there no such writ? I have my own suspicions.

What do you think?

There are definitely Catholic commentaries on the bible, although I doubt any of them use simple notion, such as coloring text, to say whether a verse is didactic, allegorical, prophetic, etc.

 

[Della]

There are definitely Catholic commentaries on the bible, although I doubt any of them use simple notion, such as coloring text, to say whether a verse is didactic, allegorical, prophetic, etc.

Right, because most verses can be read in more than one way. It would be too limiting to color each verse according to only one method of interpretation.

 

[fhansen]

Catholic dogma doesn’t come first of all from the bible, the way Protestant dogma does. Catholic dogma comes from the revelation of God, via the life of Jesus. The role of the bible is more along the lines of supporting evidence rather than directly authoritative, as if we could be certain of Gods will by reading it alone. The purpose of the Catechism, OTOH, is to spell out more clearly the teachings of the Church.

 

[tonyrey]

… to have a Catholic equivalent of the Skepic’s Annotated Bible. You know, to list every chapter and verse and have the official, unchangeable and infallible Catholic teaching attached to them, saying "this verse is to be taken literally, and that verse must be taken allegorically, and this is the way how the allegory is to be understood. A whole lot of misunderstandings could be avoided. It happens all the time that the defenders of the Bible try to argue on perfectly clear and unambiguous verses that they do not mean what they say. Of course those apologists never add just “how” those verses should be understood. Looks like that despite those 2 thousand years the Church never attempted to undertake such an important task. After all, it would help their own clergy, too. So why is there no such writ? I have my own suspicions.

What do you think?

Your suspicions are unfounded! You think the Church does not want to commit itself but you don’t realise:

1. The Church has never claimed to interpret every single verse of the Scriptures infallibly.
2. There could not have been a development of doctrine over the centuries in the light of theological investigation, philosophical analysis, scientific discoveries and archaeological
   evidence if the Church had made the mistake of doing what you expect…
3. The fundamental truths of Christianity are far more important than the exegesis of every verse in the Bible.
4. The very fact that there are differing interpretations of certain texts is inevitable given the
   wide range of topics that are covered.
5. If there were uniformity of opinion one would be justifying in suspecting not only that the Church is excessively dogmatic and authoritarian but also that the texts were carefully selected to avoid the inclusion of inevitable discrepancies in the eye-witness accounts of historical events.

 

[awatkins69]

Well, the Church tends to describe what the verses *can’t *mean, rather than what they must mean. Many times, a single verse may have more than one meaning. And there are Catholic Bible versions which comment on just about every verse, such as the Navarre Bible.

 

[Slowlearner]

… to have a Catholic equivalent of the Skepic’s Annotated Bible. You know, to list every chapter and verse and have the official, unchangable and infallible Catholic teaching attached to them, saying "this verse is to be taken literally, and that verse must be taken allegorically, and this is the way how the allegory is to be understood. A whole lot of misunderstandings could be avoided. It happens all the time that the defenders of the Bible try to argue on perfectly clear and unambiguous verses that they do not mean what they say. Of course those apologists never add just “how” those verses should be understood. Looks like that despite those 2 thousand years the Church never attempted to undertake such an important task. After all, it would help their own clergy, too. So why is there no such writ? I have my own suspicions.

What do you think?

If you really wanted to avoid misunderstandings and come to better understanding of the bible and Church teaching, you could simply study and become more knowledgeable yourself. I warn you, however, that people who immerse themselves in understanding Church teachings, usually end up joining the Church.

 

[R_Daneel]

There are only a very few Bible verses the Church has said must be interpreted in a way that supports Church teaching. Why is that? Because the Church does not use the Bible as a proof text for doctrine/dogma. ** The Bible is the witness to the truths of the Church, not the proofs of those truths.**

The Church does not interpret verses using just one mode of interpretation. It uses four. It doesn’t go verse by verse trying to discern what is literal and what isn’t. That’s a fundamentalist trap that the Church has never fallen into. History is read as history, and parables are read as parables, poetry as poetry, instruction as instruction, etc… Each style of writing is read for what it is. The intent of the author is taken into account,as is the historical context and literary context. It’s a study all its own, really.

Unfortunately this is not helpful at all. What is supposed to be taken as literal and what is not, is a very important distinction.

Take, for example, Isiah 45:7

New International version:

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
King James version:

I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.

This is perfectly clear. God himself proclaims to be the personal author of all good and evil. So is it a literal transcript of God’s words, or is it a personal musing of some unknown author, whose “intent” is obviously unknown?

When apologists proclaim that God never, ever commits something evil, they cheerfully disregard this verse, as if it were not there. If they would say that it is allegorical, then they should be able to give some explanation, just what is allegorical about it, and what does it refer to?

On one hand you are right that the fundamentalist view embraces all sorts of scientific nonsense, however, on the other hand Catholics engage in cherry-picking. If they like the way the Bible describes something, then it is “literal”, if they do not, it is “allegorical”.

Of course my suspicion is that the Catholic Church does not want to “commit” to clear-cut distinction. It would make the usual hide-and-seek played the apologists impossible. And this hide-and-seek game makes the credibility of those people literally (and not allegorically) nonexistent.

 

[R_Daneel]

Catholic dogma doesn’t come first of all from the bible, the way Protestant dogma does. Catholic dogma comes from the revelation of God, via the life of Jesus. The role of the bible is more along the lines of supporting evidence rather than directly authoritative, as if we could be certain of Gods will by reading it alone. The purpose of the Catechism, OTOH, is to spell out more clearly the teachings of the Church.

And, pray tell, where is the life of Jesus described, other than the Bible, specifically in the New Testament?

 

[dskysmine]

Unfortunately this is not helpful at all. What is supposed to be taken as literal and what is not, is a very important distinction.

Take, for example, Isiah 45:7

New International version:

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
King James version:

I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.

This is perfectly clear. God himself proclaims to be the personal author of all good and evil. So is it a literal transcript of God’s words, or is it a personal musing of some unknown author, whose “intent” is obviously unknown?

When apologists proclaim that God never, ever commits something evil, they cheerfully disregard this verse, as if it were not there. If they would say that it is allegorical, then they should be able to give some explanation, just what is allegorical about it, and what does it refer to?

I don’t think that is true. Many times I have said that evil cannot come from God but from situations where God is not accepted (usually called by atheists as “gratuitous evil”) or followed.
The word in that sentence “rah” is used in many other parts of the Old testament and it can go from “evil” to “wicked,” “bad,” “hurt,” “harm,” “ill,” “sorrow,” “mischief,” “displeased,” “adversity,” “affliction,” “trouble,” “calamity,” “grievous,” “misery,” and “trouble”. In the context you cited, when we see the words being used with “light” “darkness” and “world” it seems that “rah” would be better translated as “disaster” like hurricanes and tidal waves… etc. It doesn’t mean the moral “evil” or “gratuitous evil” that you would like to call it.

On one hand you are right that the fundamentalist view embraces all sorts of scientific nonsense, however, on the other hand Catholics engage in cherry-picking. If they like the way the Bible describes something, then it is “literal”, if they do not, it is “allegorical”.

It’s not “cherry-picking” because we don’t know what is literal and what is not a priori. If we did, then it would be “cherry-picking”. The thing is that we consider, before reading the scriptures, that God is perfect and the Bible describes what His relationship with the Hebrew people was like. We know that the people who wrote the Bible are Hebrews (in this context) and that the Hebrew language isn’t the same as the english language so we have to be careful with how we interpret these texts.

Of course my suspicion is that the Catholic Church does not want to “commit” to clear-cut distinction. It would make the usual hide-and-seek played the apologists impossible. And this hide-and-seek game makes the credibility of those people literally (and not allegorically) nonexistent.

The Catholic Church cannot “commit” to such a distinction because the Catholic Church does not know infallibly what every single verse of the Bible regards to, just like Paul explained that there are a lot of rules in the Old testament regarding what to eat that are mostly meant with our motives and relationship towards God, the Catholic Church is always addressing different parts of the Bible with new eyes as we keep developing our society.

And, pray tell, where is the life of Jesus described, other than the Bible, specifically in the New Testament?

There are documents from the early church Fathers that relate to the life of Jesus for example. Don’t forget the Catholic Church does not agree with the principle “sola scriptura”.

Take care,
Daniel

 

[fhansen]

And, pray tell, where is the life of Jesus described, other than the Bible, specifically in the New Testament?

The life of Jesus was recorded in NT docs but the faith He started had begun before that was done and has been continuously held by the church since that time, i.e. the church wrote the book.

 

[R_Daneel]

I don’t think that is true. Many times I have said that evil cannot come from God but from situations where God is not accepted (usually called by atheists as “gratuitous evil”) or followed.
The word in that sentence “rah” is used in many other parts of the Old testament and it can go from “evil” to “wicked,” “bad,” “hurt,” “harm,” “ill,” “sorrow,” “mischief,” “displeased,” “adversity,” “affliction,” “trouble,” “calamity,” “grievous,” “misery,” and “trouble”. In the context you cited, when we see the words being used with “light” “darkness” and “world” it seems that “rah” would be better translated as “disaster” like hurricanes and tidal waves… etc. It doesn’t mean the moral “evil” or “gratuitous evil” that you would like to call it.

You say: “it seems”. I certainly agree that natural disasters cannot and should not be called “morally” evil - if one does not accept that God is benevolent, and if one accepts that there are “natural” events. But there is a catch here. A benevolent being does not allow meaningless or gratuitous harm to come indiscriminately to bad and good people, to adults and toddlers, to humans and animals. (One size fits all?) And how can anything be considered “natural” in a “created” world? The notion of “natural” vs. “artificial” presumes that there are some things, which are not “artificial”, which are not "created’. For an atheist the concept of a natural disaster presents no problem. But for a theist there should be no “natural” disasters.

As you say: “it seems” to you. But the word does have the other meanings as well. Besides, “light” and “dark” are also used as synomyms for morally good and morally bad actions - when someone says that “darkness” is the “privation of light” and “evil” is the “privation of good” ()which is, of course a lousy analogy). And there are many of those “evil” actions commanded and personally executed by God.

It’s not “cherry-picking” because we don’t know what is literal and what is not a priori. If we did, then it would be “cherry-picking”.

No, if you did, then it would be an outright lie. By claiming ignorance, you cannot lie, but the picking of those verses, which support your belief is still “picking”.

The Catholic Church cannot “commit” to such a distinction because the Catholic Church does not know infallibly what every single verse of the Bible regards to, just like Paul explained that there are a lot of rules in the Old testament regarding what to eat that are mostly meant with our motives and relationship towards God, the Catholic Church is always addressing different parts of the Bible with new eyes as we keep developing our society.

Let me tell you a secret. The Church may “claim” infallibility, but that is just a claim, and claims are dime a dozen. The Church’s authority is self-proclaimed, based upon circular reasoning.

 

[dskysmine]

You say: “it seems”. I certainly agree that natural disasters cannot and should not be called “morally” evil - if one does not accept that God is benevolent, and if one accepts that there are “natural” events. But there is a catch here. A benevolent being does not allow meaningless or gratuitous harm to come indiscriminately to bad and good people, to adults and toddlers, to humans and animals. (One size fits all?) And how can anything be considered “natural” in a “created” world? The notion of “natural” vs. “artificial” presumes that there are some things, which are not “artificial”, which are not "created’. For an atheist the concept of a natural disaster presents no problem. But for a theist there should be no “natural” disasters.

As you say: “it seems” to you. But the word does have the other meanings as well. Besides, “light” and “dark” are also used as synomyms for morally good and morally bad actions - when someone says that “darkness” is the “privation of light” and “evil” is the “privation of good” ()which is, of course a lousy analogy). And there are many of those “evil” actions commanded and personally executed by God.

Actually that is incorrect. According to what I understood from the Church’s teachings “natural” disasters may not be “intended” by God directly, which makes it completely different for a “natural disaster” like “El Nino”, which is even cyclical, to be compared to the events that took place with Moses in the Red sea.
God created the Universe just like it is. He doesn’t need to be “creating” different “geological and climateric miracles” just for the universe to work. From what I can see in the Bible He interveened when He thought it was necessary to fulfill His ultimate will, which was ultimately expressed through Jesus. If He had not interveened in those times the world would possibly not have known Jesus like we did. He can still interveen, but it seems that He doesn’t interveen to the same extent because the major “Revelation” was already achieved. I suppose God’s interventions now would be mostly inside each one of us in guidance towards the ultimate end.
I hope this was intelligible.

No, if you did, then it would be an outright lie. By claiming ignorance, you cannot lie, but the picking of those verses, which support your belief is still “picking”.

It isn’t the same thing! Cherry picking is choosing a small amount of data. In the case of the Bible the Church doesn’t “choose” verses. It explains how all the related verses (or data) can in fact not be contradicting each other due to interpretation. Words are not quantifiable/immutable concepts (especially in this context where over 2000 years separate us from most of the Bible writings).

Let me tell you a secret. The Church may “claim” infallibility, but that is just a claim, and claims are dime a dozen. The Church’s authority is self-proclaimed, based upon circular reasoning.

It is a claim based in Scriptures and Tradition.

 

[Della]

You say: “it seems”. I certainly agree that natural disasters cannot and should not be called “morally” evil - if one does not accept that God is benevolent, and if one accepts that there are “natural” events. But there is a catch here. A benevolent being does not allow meaningless or gratuitous harm to come indiscriminately to bad and good people, to adults and toddlers, to humans and animals. (One size fits all?) And how can anything be considered “natural” in a “created” world? The notion of “natural” vs. “artificial” presumes that there are some things, which are not “artificial”, which are not "created’. For an atheist the concept of a natural disaster presents no problem. But for a theist there should be no “natural” disasters.

As you say: “it seems” to you. But the word does have the other meanings as well. Besides, “light” and “dark” are also used as synomyms for morally good and morally bad actions - when someone says that “darkness” is the “privation of light” and “evil” is the “privation of good” ()which is, of course a lousy analogy). And there are many of those “evil” actions commanded and personally executed by God.

Atheists know nothing about the nature of God. Whatever God orders is not evil, even if it may appear so to us. God made the toddlers, therefore he can decide which toddlers live and which die. Did you think no toddlers would die otherwise? And did you think that death is the worst thing that can happen to us? It only is if there is nothing beyond physical death. The “wholesale” killing of the OT was ordered by God because he had passed judgment on them as a people. Do you think he doesn’t know the evils a culture can allow itself to wallow in? Look at ours. It’s sex-soaked and vile–we are as bad as those OT societies that sacrificed their infants to Moloch–indeed we are doing the same thing through abortion on demand and the killing off of anyone we deem a burden to us. Why does God not send judgment upon us as we deserve? Because we live in the Age of Grace since the Incarnation of Christ. God is holding back his judgment upon us while his Catholic Church endeavors to bring the Good News of God’s forgiveness to the world. Otherwise, we’d be gone in a heartbeat, the lot of us.

Let me tell you a secret. The Church may “claim” infallibility, but that is just a claim, and claims are dime a dozen. The Church’s authority is self-proclaimed, based upon circular reasoning.

The Church doesn’t claim infallibility for itself. Christ endowed it with that charism so it would stand unsullied through the centuries, bringing the Gospel to the world. It is of divine origin, not human origin, or the Church would have failed long ago. God has established the Church, not men. And whatever God establishes lasts as long as he says it will.

I see your issue isn’t biblical interpretation, but your own flawed reading of it. I don’t say that with any sense of “ah-ha” or “gotcha”, but as the plain truth. And if you think I would be any better at it than you, I certainly would not. I don’t interpret the Bible nor Sacred Tradition nor God’s will for mankind. I leave that to the Church which Christ established to do those things. Christ cannot be wrong, therefore his Church, which is his Body and of which he is the Head, cannot be wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

The Church’s authority is self-proclaimed, based upon circular reasoning.

Isn’t your authority self-proclaimed? On what do you base your beliefs?

 

[R_Daneel]

Isn’t your authority self-proclaimed? On what do you base your beliefs?

Except I do not claim to be an authority… I am presenting my opinion, nothing more.

 

[R_Daneel]

Atheists know nothing about the nature of God.

Guess what? Theists know nothing about it either. All they present is pure speculation, and their speculation does not conform with the observable facts.

Whatever God orders is not evil, even if it may appear so to us.

Yes, a standard reply, repeated ad nauseam. Millions and billions of actual events happen, which “seem” to be evil to us, but those are all “measurement errors”. Guess what? We must go by the data available to us. If God’s actions are justifyable, by all means, tell us about it, and we shall reconsider. Even better, let God come down and on trial. But don’t just appeal to our ignorance, because you are exactly as ignorant as we are.

Yes, we are not privy to God’s intentions, neither you, nor I. The same applies to Hitler’s, Stalin’s, Pol Pot’s intentions. You don’t know what their inner thought processes were. No one does. So we go by the available data, and say: “there is no visible justification for their actions, therefore we judge them accordingly, and declare that they were evil”. God does not get any preferential treatment, either. Justitia, the ancient goddes of justice is properly depicted with a blindfold, she does not look at the accused, her verdict is based upon the available information.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, looks like a duck, then it is very probably a duck.

God made the toddlers, therefore he can decide which toddlers live and which die.

Oh, yes, the good, old “might makes right” principle.

And did you think that death is the worst thing that can happen to us? It only is if there is nothing beyond physical death.

You are most welcome to present evidence, that this assumed “after-life” is real, and not just wishful thinking. But even in that case it does matter, how one dies, what kind of suffering happens in this life. And no reward in some assumed after-life can retroactively justify the injusticies in this world.

The “wholesale” killing of the OT was ordered by God because he had passed judgment on them as a people. Do you think he doesn’t know the evils a culture can allow itself to wallow in?

There is no collective guilt. Only individual one.

The Church doesn’t claim infallibility for itself. Christ endowed it with that charism so it would stand unsullied through the centuries, bringing the Gospel to the world. It is of divine origin, not human origin, or the Church would have failed long ago. God has established the Church, not men. And whatever God establishes lasts as long as he says it will.

Oh, come on. The longevity means nothing. Also, it is not supported by objective evidence, only an old mythical book.

I see your issue isn’t biblical interpretation, but your own flawed reading of it.

Another staple answer. Of course those who disagree are always at fault. They are unable (read: stupid) or unwilling (read: stubborn) to swallow mindlessly whatever the “authority” happens to dish out.

I don’t interpret the Bible nor Sacred Tradition nor God’s will for mankind. I leave that to the Church which Christ established to do those things. Christ cannot be wrong, therefore his Church, which is his Body and of which he is the Head, cannot be wrong.

Well, good for you. You are in a big crowd, just like all those who cheered when the emperor displayed his new, magnificent clothing. However, the street urchins are not blinded, and they are happy to point out: “The emperor has no clothes!”.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

When you’re infallible you can’t be too careful about what you say. You might paint yourself into a corner and then have a tough time explaining some new evidence or discovery. You want to leave all of your options open.

 

[R_Daneel]

When you’re infallible you can’t be too careful about what you say. You might paint yourself into a corner and then have a tough time explaining some new evidence or discovery. You want to leave all of your options open.

There you go! I would only make one little adjustment: "When you claim that you’re infallible… ". In other words you can expose yourself to be a fraud.