How about 1600 years of church tradition about the sun revolving around the earth? Or how about the church tradition that human life didn’t begin until you could detect movement in the womb (only changed in 1867)? Or lots of other things. Some things change, others don’t. Biblical interpretation is one of those things that changes–based on new information.
So…what do you do about the fact (!) that each of the four Gospels has differing versions of what happened Easter morning? Or the fact that one Gospel talks about “the poor” and another about “the poor in spirit” when it talks about the Beatitudes? Or Acts contradicts itself: which is it–the bystanders heard the voice of God or not? Did they see the light or not? Two different versions–by the same author in the same book!!! I could go on and on.
Just as I replied above, it depends on what you mean by “supernatural.” If you mean that you have to believe every single “supernatural” thing mentioned in the Bible, I would argue against you. For example casting out demons. Were they demons in the sense of fallen angels or demons in the sense of some mental disease? How does it harm faith if you believe that “casting out demons” meant healing the mentally ill? Is it necessary to believe that God somehow carved a tablet with the 10 commandments in Heaven and somehow transported it down–beam it down, Scottie–to Mt. Sinai? Why not believe that God inspired Moses to carve the tablet? Can’t God work indirectly? Are you telling God what He can and cannot do? Or causing the dumb to speak…is it necessary to believe that Jesus said the magic words and poof…or could you believe that the inability was some psycho-somatic illness that was cured by the excitement of the dumb man seeing Jesus? It’s still Jesus curing the dumb man, it’s just that one way is more indirect. And you should keep in mind that Catholics are only commanded to believe in two miracles: the Incarnation and the Resurrection. The others are all optional. This is by no means “removing” the supernatural from the Bible. Sending a rocket to the moon is a miracle. An iPhone is a miracle. An automobile is a miracle. Man is a miracle. All are–indirectly–the work of God. And God–demonstratively–does most of His work indirectly.
No, but it is certainly beyond dispute that the Church accepts that as one possible view. I would argue, based on the writings and commentary of the past several Popes, and the make up of the Pontifical Commission, that the methodology employed by the NAB scholars and Fr. Brown (and his contemporaries) is the prevailing Catholic view of Scripture.
The other poster was talking about footnotes “that ignored 1500 years of Church positions.” I’m simply pointing out that the Church has held a lot of positions longer than that and has changed its mind. As far as “scientific” vs. “theological” I think if you transported yourself back to 1600 and tried to argue that point with an inquisitor who thought that holding that the earth revolving around the sun was heretical, you would end up in some dungeon (best case scenario).
I said this:
Addressing your misconception that the Church’s Tradition held a scientific position on the workings of the solar system. The Church would have accepted the scientific understanding in place at that time.
And I think you probably have an overly vivid imagination fueled by popular anti Catholic stereotypes.goout:
The other poster was talking about footnotes “that ignored 1500 years of Church positions.” I’m simply pointing out that the Church has held a lot of positions longer than that and has changed its mind. As far as “scientific” vs. “theological” I think if you transported yourself back to 1600 and tried to argue that point with an inquisitor who thought that holding that the earth revolving around the sun was heretical, you would end up in some dungeon (best case scenario).
Not sure where that came from. I not trying to “enforce” anything. I’m offering my opinion.
Ok cool…goout:
Not sure where that came from. I not trying to “enforce” anything. I’m offering my opinion.
Hello Erikaspirit16, believing every jot and tittle of Scripture is trustworthy in what it records and asserts doesn’t require twisting oneself and logic into pretzels. Any account of multiple witnesses to an event, even when each of those witnesses is completely honest and accurate, will require some degree of effort to collaborate. None of the items you have listed, nor the many alleged “contradictions” you have omitted from your list discounts the absolute accuracy and reliability of the Gospels and all Sacred Scripture.
I don’t have to claim that two of each animal that existed at that time went on to the ark. The Scripture simply asserts that representatives of each kind (e.g. only two representatives of the dog/wolf kind) were brought on to the Ark. There is no evidence that it would be impossible for representatives of each created land-dwelling “kind” to fit on the Ark. Rather, it appears there would be plenty of room given the dimensions of the Ark, with some room to spare.
Augustine:
All that said, I’m just a Protestant who holds to foolish Christian notions such as every “jot and tittle” of Holy Writ being the word of our Omniscient Triune God, and therefore absolutely true in every respect…
This is an argument against an assertion that the Gospels are different because they are fabricated. But it is also an argument against literal inerrancy - it makes the simple point that eye witnesses often disagree and are not always reliable, which cuts against inerrancy, obviously.
It does? Can you provide a quote from Scripture, because I can not find this.