The Old Testament

[teak421]

Hi Michael,

I am looking for “subject verb object” type clarity. I am not interested in wrapping it round with clauses about God’s goodness etc or how wonderful God is, I know that. What I want is clarity, such as you get from the “Plain English Society”. In England we have been having a fight for 20 - 30 years with legaleese, where retailer and manufacturers have been wording small print in their contracts so that only solicitors, and not always them, can understand it. I’m dyslexic BTW. The OT is like obscured glass in comparison to the NT crystal clear. I am looking for the crystal clear. I am also looking for logic, and by that I mean that anything that is said to come from God must not conflict with the attributes that we know of, of God.

Frinders

Frinders… We’ll have to disagree here… that document is very plain and simple… that along with the CCC section on the subject really puts forward what the Church believes.

I’ve got a document (from my grad theology course work) that has commentary to the CCC section. You are more than welcome to review… Maybe it will provide some clarification??? email me at gaskinml@gmail.com if you are interested.

• Michael

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Hi Michael,

I am looking for “subject verb object” type clarity. I am not interested in wrapping it round with clauses about God’s goodness etc or how wonderful God is, I know that. What I want is clarity, such as you get from the “Plain English Society”. In England we have been having a fight for 20 - 30 years with legaleese, where retailer and manufacturers have been wording small print in their contracts so that only solicitors, and not always them, can understand it. I’m dyslexic BTW. The OT is like obscured glass in comparison to the NT crystal clear. I am looking for the crystal clear. I am also looking for logic, and by that I mean that anything that is said to come from God must not conflict with the attributes that we know of, of God.

Frinders

Subject verb object: God is love.

Happy to help.

But seriously folks. I wonder if you can be more explicit about your Old Testament concerns. You’ve mentioned innocent babies, presumably in reference to the Egyptian plagues or the conquest of Canaan. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but is it approximately on target to say that you’re afraid these stories call God’s benevolence into question?

 

[Barbkw]

Frindon,

I’d suggest that you refer your aethist “friends” to the website Reasons to Believe, a Protestant ministry headed by an astrophysicist, who was once an atheist himself.

Many times, it takes a like minded person to encourage belief in like minded people.

According to Dr. Ross, most of the aethists whom his center works with, are concerned about pain, suffering, death, war, killing of groups in war, etc. and why a “good” God would allow people to live through these problems.

You yourself are concerned about the same (God in the Old Testament questions).

You can not have these doubts about the Trinity while at the same time attempting to 'convince" proof of God with atheists and agnostics.

reasons.org/

reasons.org/contact-us

The Reasons to Believe staff take calls a couple of hours a day from people with questions. A hint at what you might hear, involves salvific suffering (a very Catholic concept) and the world in which we and Christ will exist in after the 2nd coming.

I’d suggest as well that you contact your priest and talk with him about your concerns involving the Trinity both in the Old Testament and in the New.

 

[Frindon]

Subject verb object: God is love.

Happy to help.

But seriously folks. I wonder if you can be more explicit about your Old Testament concerns. You’ve mentioned innocent babies, presumably in reference to the Egyptian plagues or the conquest of Canaan. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but is it approximately on target to say that you’re afraid these stories call God’s benevolence into question?

Yes, exactly, God is Love. So why would God tell a Jewish general to tell his troops, “Kill them all, men, women, and children(which includes babies”. I believe God, I don’t believe the General. It is inerrent, the story is 100% true, but the general was a liar. That is how I see it.

Frinders

 

[Frindon]

Frindon,

I’d suggest that you refer your aethist “friends” to the website Reasons to Believe, a Protestant ministry headed by an astrophysicist, who was once an atheist himself.

Many times, it takes a like minded person to encourage belief in like minded people.

According to Dr. Ross, most of the aethists whom his center works with, are concerned about pain, suffering, death, war, killing of groups in war, etc. and why a “good” God would allow people to live through these problems.

You yourself are concerned about the same (God in the Old Testament questions).

You can not have these doubts about the Trinity while at the same time attempting to 'convince" proof of God with atheists and agnostics.

reasons.org/

reasons.org/contact-us

The Reasons to Believe staff take calls a couple of hours a day from people with questions. A hint at what you might hear, involves salvific suffering (a very Catholic concept) and the world in which we and Christ will exist in after the 2nd coming.

I’d suggest as well that you contact your priest and talk with him about your concerns involving the Trinity both in the Old Testament and in the New.

You are wandering off message. This is not about the Trinity. Please do not post about your pet themes, post about the subject matter.

Frindon

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Yes, exactly, God is Love. So why would God tell a Jewish general to tell his troops, “Kill them all, men, women, and children(which includes babies”. I believe God, I don’t believe the General. It is inerrent, the story is 100% true, but the general was a liar. That is how I see it.

Frinders

The General was not a liar. If you look at also the stroies of Lot with Sodeum and Gamoorah and Noah with the Flood, though not spelled out in words we have to go that the children were also destroyed by these acts of God. The Question is why. A small child will retain memories of childhood events and things that it was told into adulthood. Gpd did not wnat anything to enter into the mist of his people that would bring the practises of the pagans that lived in the area. so all had to be removed. Now if we read Joshuah we know that he did not have everyone killed and that lead to trouble.

 

[Barbkw]

“You are wandering off message. This is not about the Trinity. Please do not post about your pet themes, post about the subject matter.”

Please check your Catechism, the copy I have states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One. Three “persons” in One God.

Sorry I did specifically address your “pet theme”.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Yes, exactly, God is Love. So why would God tell a Jewish general to tell his troops, “Kill them all, men, women, and children(which includes babies”.

Because death is not a bad thing. From God’s perspective, the statement you quoted above is equivalent to “Send them all, including babies, to a place of perfect eternal happiness.”

The fact that the passage is painful doesn’t diminish the value of the destination.

 

[Vince1022]

Morning Vince,

For the benefit of those without a Cathechism, could you copy and paste the relevant section here please. But people lets remain calm and see if we can get something definitive about what the church teaches.

My problem is that if you read the NT it is clear what it is saying. It is not wrapped around by reverance, which tends to blur the message, clarity is essential. You can get so near an object that you no longer see it. It was for this reason I loved the old catechism, simple question and answer. Admittedly it was written mostly for children, but is that not how we are taught to believe.

Frinders

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a1.htm

 

[Vince1022]

You are mistaken. See paragraphs 105-107 and 121-123 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.(there is no separate Catechism for the Roman [aka Latin, Western] rite of the Catholic Church. All rites of the Catholic Chgurch share the same doctrines.)

which quotes at length Dei Verbum, (Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation, Second Vatican Council) :

e.g. "11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)"

The clear teaching of the Catholic Church is that the books of the Old Testament are inerrant.

Where does the Catechism use the word “inerrant”? Where does Vatican II’s Dei Verbum use “inerrant”?

If they don’t, then how is such teaching, as you claim, clear?

Unless you can show me where “inerrant” appears in Church teaching in the Catechism or Vatican II, I’d suggest you use and understand what the Church actually teaches and avoid such words.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Where does the Catechism use the word “inerrant”? Where does Vatican II’s Dei Verbum use “inerrant”?

If they don’t, then how is such teaching, as you claim, clear?

Unless you can show me where “inerrant” appears in Church teaching in the Catechism or Vatican II, I’d suggest you use and understand what the Church actually teaches and avoid such words.

it say without error. now if you know of another meaning of inerrant than without error, it would be the say thing.

 

[Petergee]

Where does the Catechism use the word “inerrant”? Where does Vatican II’s Dei Verbum use “inerrant”?

If they don’t, then how is such teaching, as you claim, clear?

Unless you can show me where “inerrant” appears in Church teaching in the Catechism or Vatican II, I’d suggest you use and understand what the Church actually teaches and avoid such words.

Inerrant = without error.
Wiithout error = inerrant.

Are you suggesting that “inerrant” might mean something other than “without error”? I’ve never heard such a suggestion before. And neither have the editors of my dictionary.

 

[Vince1022]

it say without error. now if you know of another meaning of inerrant than without error, it would be the say thing.

So you agree the Catechism does not use the word “inerrant”? Thanks!

And for what the Church teaches regarding “without error” one should really refer to the passage and context within with the Church teaches such, and not use some supposed synonym that the Church does not use.

So if anyone wants to know what the Church teaches, see for instance the Catechism 107 of course, but also all of 50-141. Don’t be lead astray by one simple word, e.g. “inerrant”, as if that’s all that needs to be said. The truth of Catholic teaching is not reducible to one word regarding Scripture.

 

[Vince1022]

Inerrant = without error.
Wiithout error = inerrant.

Are you suggesting that “inerrant” might mean something other than “without error”? I’ve never heard such a suggestion before. And neither have the editors of my dictionary.

No, I’m suggesting that we look to the Catechism and other official Church teaching with respect to what the Church teaches regarding Scripture and truth.

Not the dictionary.

Thanks anyway.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

So you agree the Catechism does not use the word “inerrant”? Thanks!

And for what the Church teaches regarding “without error” one should really refer to the passage and context within with the Church teaches such, and not use some supposed synonym that the Church does not use.

So if anyone wants to know what the Church teaches, see for instance the Catechism 107 of course, but also all of 50-141. Don’t be lead astray by one simple word, e.g. “inerrant”, as if that’s all that needs to be said. The truth of Catholic teaching is not reducible to one word regarding Scripture.

I am also saying that “without error”, which is what the Catechism does say, means inerrant. Now we know just from reading the first to chapters of Genisis that there are some things that are inconsistant as they give to different stories of creation. and both are inerrant.

 

[Petergee]

No, I’m suggesting that we look to the Catechism and other official Church teaching with respect to what the Church teaches regarding Scripture and truth.

Not the dictionary.

Thanks anyway.

Ok then.

You admit that the Church teaches us that the all the books of the Bible are, in their entirety, “without error”.

You claim, however, that the Church does **not **teach that the books of the Bible are inerrant. In fact you seem to be denying that the Church teaches that the books of the Bible are inerrant. If fact you seem to be denying that the books of the Bible are inerrant.

Obviously you think that “without error” and “inerrant” mean two quite diferent things.So would you please tell us what is the difference in meaning which you see between “without error” and “inerrant”?

 

[Vince1022]

I am also saying that “without error”, which is what the Catechism does say, means inerrant. Now we know just from reading the first to chapters of Genisis that there are some things that are inconsistant as they give to different stories of creation. and both are inerrant.

You mean “two” chapters of Genesis? What about chapters 3 and 4?

Again, the Catholic Church does not teach they are “inerrant” (see the Catechism).

 

[Vince1022]

Ok then.

You admit that the Church teaches us that the all the books of the Bible are, in their entirety, “without error”.

You claim, however, that the Church does **not **teach that the books of the Bible are inerrant. In fact you seem to be denying that the Church teaches that the books of the Bible are inerrant. If fact you seem to be denying that the books of the Bible are inerrant.

Obviously you think that “without error” and “inerrant” mean two quite diferent things.So would you please tell us what is the difference in meaning which you see between “without error” and “inerrant”?

Yes, as I’ve noted many times, read the Catechism. There you will see what the Church means, precisely (and as importantly, what she does NOT mean) regarding the truth of Scripture. I’ve referred to the applicable paragraphs many times.

If you find the word “inerrant” there, please let us know.

Thanks.

 

[Petergee]

Yes, as I’ve noted many times, read the Catechism. There you will see what the Church means, precisely (and as importantly, what she does NOT mean) regarding the truth of Scripture. I’ve referred to the applicable paragraphs many times.

If you find the word “inerrant” there, please let us know.

Thanks.

How about actually answering my question?
If you think inerrant does not mean “without error” then what do you think it means?

 

[Petergee]

Now we know just from reading the first to chapters of Genisis that there are some things that are inconsistant as they give to different stories of creation. and both are inerrant.

The two stories are different, but they are not inconsistent.