Scripture and Historical Truth

[diggerdomer]

Quite the contrary, on the thread “Biblical Scholarship”, I provided an interpretation of PeterDawson’s first challenge regarding Paul’s companions in Acts 9:7 and 22:9 from the Navarre Bible Acts of the Apostles. This interpretation is consistent with the Tradition of the Church, but was rejected as “mental gymnastics”. Furthermore, I pointed out that the contradiction was a result of reading the passages from a literalistic or fundamentalist approach, which by the way was not denied. I do not have the time (with nine children) to provide interpretations for a multitude of Scriptural passages, only to have them rejected as “mental gymnastics”. There are a number of solidly Catholic commentaries you may use if you want a proper interpretation. Perhaps you could ask the apologists from Catholic Answers for suggestions.

I suggest again that you read the article I cited in a previous post, “Is Everything in the Bible True?”. This article was not written by Fr. William Most, but by Karlo Broussard. Mr. Broussard does quote Fr. Most from his book Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics. Fr. Most has also written another book on Scripture titled, Free from All Error. Neither the article nor the book are op-ed pieces. Interpretation is the key to Dei Verbum (and the phrase you quoted in particular). The question is whose interpretation most accurately reflects the Teaching of the Catholic Church. Is it Mr. Broussard (or Fr. Most’s ) interpretation, or is it your interpretation? Mr. Broussard (and Fr. Most) present a well reasoned and well documented argument that Dei Verbum is not a break from Sacred Tradition and does not limit the inerrancy of Scripture. It is not sufficient to make an assertion without providing evidence which supports it. It is now your burden to provide a well reasoned and well documented argument that Dei Verbum is a break from Sacred Tradition and does limit the inerrancy of Scripture.

It would have taken you less time to simply answer my question as I respectfully requested.

There’s no need to suggest again, I already told you I read it as you requested. I realize the article was not written by Fr. Most. I at least recognize his name, and he was authoritatively cited by Mr Broussard whom I’ve never heard of and don’t know what if any theological education he has.

But since Mr Broussard and Fr. Most are not (to my knowledge) part of this thread, why don’t you tell us what YOU think they are saying, or how YOU understand the passage from the Catechism I refer to? Or, if you’d prefer to continue neglecting others’ questions that’s fine too, just please say so and we can move on.

Dei Verbum does not break with Tradition.

 

[patg]

Dei Verbum does not break with Tradition.

Not in respect to the concept of scripture containing “inspired inerrant truth”. However, both Dei Verbum and its predecessor Divino Afflante Spiritu changed the course of scripture study radically from the traditional literallistic approach. As Raymond Brown S.S. stated, these documents were the Magna Carta of biblical scholarship. The acceptance of historical-critical study and literary form analysis allowed a great break form the studies of the past.

The inerrant truth is still there but inerrant truth depends on the customs of the time and can be expressed in works of fiction as well as writings which are lliteral history. It is quite acceptable to analyze the birth stories of Jesus as well as the story of Jonah as works of fiction serving as solid vehicles for theological revelation.

 

[DeannaMarie]

It would have taken you less time to simply answer my question as I respectfully requested.

There’s no need to suggest again, I already told you I read it as you requested. I realize the article was not written by Fr. Most. I at least recognize his name, and he was authoritatively cited by Mr Broussard whom I’ve never heard of and don’t know what if any theological education he has.

But since Mr Broussard and Fr. Most are not (to my knowledge) part of this thread, why don’t you tell us what YOU think they are saying, or how YOU understand the passage from the Catechism I refer to? Or, if you’d prefer to continue neglecting others’ questions that’s fine too, just please say so and we can move on.

Dei Verbum does not break with Tradition.

To answer your question, I DO NOT KNOW! I do not interpret Scripture, but seek the interpretation of the Church. I am anxiously awaiting the publication of the Navarre Bible Genesis in June so that I can begin a study on Gensis. I plan to study the other Historical Books as well. All I can reference right now in regards to these passages is the Catechism of the Catholic Church because I do not own any commentaries on Genesis. See CCC 289 and 390. The Companion to The Catechism of the Catholic Church: A Compendium of Tests Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Churchpublished by Ignatius Press provides the references in full, which I find most helpful. So again, to answer your question, I do not know.

Thank you for reading the article. Mr. Broussard presents an argument, not an opinion. An argument is a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion (see Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1987). This is not a matter of what I think he is saying,but rather a matter of what he is saying. I can do nothing more than retype his argument (which I do find consistent with reason and the Faith). It is up to you to follow the argument from the premise to the conclusion. I am interested in knowing what part or parts of Mr. Broussard’s argument you find fallacious.

Now I have answered your questions. It is your turn.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Please provide a well reasoned and well documented argument for your claim that Scripture is inerrant only in matters of faith and morals. Provide references from the Catholic Church to support your premises. I am a Catholic faithful to the Magisterial Teaching of the Church, and accept without qualification the Authority of the Church. It is useless to argue a point about Church Teaching without providing references from the Church.

Hi, Deanna.

I have read that Councilior decress on the issue of Biblical inerrancy are softening from sweeping generalizations to uninformative tautologies, along the lines of, “The Holy Spirit inspired Scripture to infallibly teach what the Holy Spirit wanted infallibly taught.”

So, Is the statement that a serpent spoke to Eve infallibly certain history?

How about the business about God trying to match Adam up with animals before God thought of “woman”? Is that infallibly certain history?

 

[diggerdomer]

To answer your question, I DO NOT KNOW! I do not interpret Scripture, but seek the interpretation of the Church. I am anxiously awaiting the publication of the Navarre Bible Genesis in June so that I can begin a study on Gensis. I plan to study the other Historical Books as well. All I can reference right now in regards to these passages is the Catechism of the Catholic Church because I do not own any commentaries on Genesis. See CCC 289 and 390. The Companion to The Catechism of the Catholic Church: A Compendium of Tests Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Churchpublished by Ignatius Press provides the references in full, which I find most helpful. So again, to answer your question, I do not know.

Thank you for reading the article. Mr. Broussard presents an argument, not an opinion. An argument is a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion (see Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1987). This is not a matter of what I think he is saying,but rather a matter of what he is saying. I can do nothing more than retype his argument (which I do find consistent with reason and the Faith). It is up to you to follow the argument from the premise to the conclusion. I am interested in knowing what part or parts of Mr. Broussard’s argument you find fallacious.

Now I have answered your questions. It is your turn.

Nope you never answered my question. Again.

Were birds created before humans, or vice versa, or both, or neither according to Genesis?

My turn: to what? If I missed or neglected to respond to a question you asked, I sincerely apologize. What question was it? I didn’t see any in your last posts. Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

To answer your question, I DO NOT KNOW! I do not interpret Scripture, but seek the interpretation of the Church. I am anxiously awaiting the publication of the Navarre Bible Genesis in June so that I can begin a study on Gensis. I plan to study the other Historical Books as well. All I can reference right now in regards to these passages is the Catechism of the Catholic Church because I do not own any commentaries on Genesis. See CCC 289 and 390. The Companion to The Catechism of the Catholic Church: A Compendium of Tests Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Churchpublished by Ignatius Press provides the references in full, which I find most helpful. So again, to answer your question, I do not know.

Thank you for reading the article. Mr. Broussard presents an argument, not an opinion. An argument is a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion (see Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1987). This is not a matter of what I think he is saying,but rather a matter of what he is saying. I can do nothing more than retype his argument (which I do find consistent with reason and the Faith). It is up to you to follow the argument from the premise to the conclusion. I am interested in knowing what part or parts of Mr. Broussard’s argument you find fallacious.

Now I have answered your questions. It is your turn.

HI again,

I’m sorry, I realize now that I may have misread what you said, and that maybe you did answer my question. I apologize if I misunderstood–was your “I don’t know” the response to my question about Genesis? Thanks.

Oh and by the way, I am not necessarily saying Mr Broussard’s opinion/argument is fallacious, I just want to know how someone advocating his interpretation would respond to the question I asked.