The Problem and the solution!

[twinc]

So you think the Church is making excuses and subterfuges? You think that they talk about the senses of Scripture to “hide” something from you? You can’t even pick out the literal sense if you do not have an understanding of the spiritual sense, this is proven by all of the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who claim to be uses the literal words, yet come up with stuff like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. I’m not sorry to tell you that you are wrong twinc, the Church has been studying Sacred Scripture for 2 thousand years, much longer than you have.

I am not faulting the Church but those through excuses and subterfuges try to get round what the Church really teaches as regards total inerrancy of Scripture and the literal and obvious interpretation etc and that the Bible is unreliable and not trust worthy but full of fairy stories and errors and lies etc - please try and read my posts correctly - twinc

 

[twinc]

Hi twinc,

Let me try to reword your original post:

It is clear that on this forum the Bible presents major problems to Catholics. In fact, some Catholics seem to resist the Church’s teaching that the Bible is totally, and in all its parts, inerrant—a doctrine which, to them, smacks of Protestantism. This resistance in turn leads to a rejection of the literal and obvious sense of Scripture; instead of believing that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, these Catholics think it is full of errors, lies, contradictions, exaggerations, myths and fairy-tales.

If this rewording is accurate, I have a couple observations to make. First, it’s not clear to what extent an ancient Semitic document can have an obvious meaning. There are all sorts of things about Abraham, for example, that should strike us as odd. Why was he prepared to sacrifice his son? Why would he put his hand under another man’s thigh when he was making a promise?

Second, you seem to be in the grips of a false dilemma. “Either the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, or it is a pack of errors and lies.” But there is actually broad scope for recognizing the scientific errors of the Bible while moving beyond them to discover the truth that God wanted to express. For example, whether or no there was a real Flood, the story of Noah has a clear, christological significance; i.e., it tells us the truth about Jesus and the divine life He gives us.

That, at any rate, is what I make of the problem you mention. Perhaps a few concrete examples would clarify the exact point that’s bothering you.

there are too many ifs and buts,anything goes,stop bothering your head or those of others,just say you accept what the Church teaches and dont forget to say an Our Father,a Hail Mary and a Glory Be and everything will sort itself out = twinc

 

[twinc]

no doubt,but that is not in dispute,but the bible and the average Catholic - one has only to take this forum as an example - twinc

the way to get nowhere fast is now to also deny that once upon a time the Bible was on The Index [forbidden Protestant[bombshell] reading as unfit for Catholic consumption] - twinc

 

[twinc]

We would do well to keep one thing in mind referring to your statement above. What was literal to those who lived during the times of the scriptural writings is not necessarily correct when taken in today’s literal contexts.

If someone writes a letter in which they say “John hooked up with sue and they went to the theater together. The show was cool and John’s date Sue was hot!

What do you think someone reading that 2000 years or so from now will understand it as?

What is literal should be taken literal but it is recommendable to review notations and interpretations to see what references may be made. That is always the best approach, IMO.

The biggest problem I find with Catholics who question the validity of their faith is they do not know their faith as they should and a large precentage have never really gotten involved in scripture.

The problem is and as i keep repeating is borne out here for some leave out the most vital ingredient viz God - twinc

 

[zach_dunn]

I am not faulting the Church but those through excuses and subterfuges try to get round what the Church really teaches as regards total inerrancy of Scripture and the literal and obvious interpretation etc and that the Bible is unreliable and not trust worthy but full of fairy stories and errors and lies etc

What are you talking about? We Catholics (especially the one here at CAF) do not “try to get around” what the Church teaches; I have shown you what the Church teaches: that there are four senses of Scripture, not just the literal. You are the one who is trying to get around Church teaching. Please show me where a Catholic states that the Bible is not inerrant, and that it is “full of fairy stories and errors and lies,” you won’t find it (at least not from and orthodox Catholic).

• please try and read my posts correctly - twinc

It would be much easier if they were written better.

 

[zach_dunn]

the way to get nowhere fast is now to also deny that once upon a time the Bible was on The Index [forbidden Protestant[bombshell] reading as unfit for Catholic consumption] - twinc

Item: “Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia . . . [A.D.] 1229.”

This looks rather damaging, but Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.

The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.

Taken from here.

Why are Catholics attacking their own Church?

 

[thistle]

I am not faulting the Church but those through excuses and subterfuges try to get round what the Church really teaches as regards total inerrancy of Scripture and the literal and obvious interpretation etc and that the Bible is unreliable and not trust worthy but full of fairy stories and errors and lies etc -** please try and read my posts correctly **- twinc

We would love to but its hard reading something incoherent.

That said, you are again making wild accusations about Catholics saying that they say (to use your own words) “the Bible is unreliable and not trust worthy but full of fairy stories and errors and lies”.

Let me ask you this then.

What do you understand the Church’s teaching to be on the inerrancy of the Bible?

Secondly, give us a few examples of the lies, errors and fairy stories that you say Catholics in thse forums have said are in the Bible.

As you raised these two points and made the accusations the onus is on you to provide us with answers to back up your assertions.

 

[twinc]

Bring back the index and put the Bibles, the few Catholics are now starting to read, after exhortation, on the index as misleading or liable to mislead and state the Bibles recommended for Catholic study that are free from errors,lies,contradictions,exagerrations etc and totally and utterly reliable and correct as regards history and science etc as God does not know his history or science and these books were written mainly by semi ignorant men, fot it seems according to some, for semi ignorant men - btw how is it or was it that all the Bible,so called,errors were not spotted and rectified and removed or explained by the thousands of Catholic scripture scholars to make the Bible fit for Catholic consumption - for example it seems that when God says days He means donkeys years but failed to say how long a day in a donkey’s ear is etc - twinc

 

[thistle]

Bring back the index and put the Bibles, the few Catholics are now starting to read, after exhortation, on the index as misleading or liable to mislead and state the Bibles recommended for Catholic study that are free from errors,lies,contradictions,exagerrations etc and totally and utterly reliable and correct as regards history and science etc as God does not know his history or science and these books were written mainly by semi ignorant men, fot it seems according to some, for semi ignorant men - btw how is it or was it that all the Bible,so called,errors were not spotted and rectified and removed or explained by the thousands of Catholic scripture scholars to make the Bible fit for Catholic consumption - for example it seems that when God says days He means donkeys years but failed to say how long a day in a donkey’s ear is etc - twinc

I can only assume you are somehow mentally incapacitated as again you have produced more incoherent babbling.
The drivel above most certainly is not answering my questions.
Either you are unwilling or unable to do so.

 

[twinc]

What is your point?
You may want to consider rephrasing the sentence that I have boldened because you seem to have tried to put two separate ideas into one sentence making the meaning unclear. As a matter of fact, if I were you, I would rephrase the entire post to clarify what you mean.
BTW, 1Peter 3:15 says " always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within you…" Not always be ready to give an answer. I may not always be ready to give an answer, but I can always give a reason…
CC

you are just quoting your favourite Bible - other Bibles say differently - please check them out and see for yourself - twinc

 

[thistle]

you are just quoting your favourite Bible - other Bibles say differently - please check them out and see for yourself - twinc

You still have not answered my questions on the accusations YOU made.
Are you incapable of directly and simply backing up your claims instead of babbling?

 

[zach_dunn]

Bring back the index and put the Bibles, the few Catholics are now starting to read, after exhortation, on the index as misleading or liable to mislead and state the Bibles recommended for Catholic study that are free from errors,lies,contradictions,exagerrations etc and totally and utterly reliable and correct as regards history and science etc as God does not know his history or science and these books were written mainly by semi ignorant men, fot it seems according to some, for semi ignorant men - btw how is it or was it that all the Bible,so called,errors were not spotted and rectified and removed or explained by the thousands of Catholic scripture scholars to make the Bible fit for Catholic consumption - for example it seems that when God says days He means donkeys years but failed to say how long a day in a donkey’s ear is etc - twinc

I echo what thistle said, you ask me to read your posts correctly:how can I do that when they are so poorly typed and worded? If you are such a great and true Catholic as you seem to imply, why do you not adhere to the clear and precise teachings of the Church? Namely that there are four senses of Scripture!

 

[juliamajor]

Sometimes I think I’m talking to Sam I Am or someother Suessian character

 

[St_Francis]

you are just quoting your favourite Bible - other Bibles say differently - please check them out and see for yourself - twinc

Can you point out another Bible that says this so differently that there is a difference in meaning? Because I have looked and even tho they use different words, the meaning is pretty much the same.

 

[St_Francis]

Bring back the index and put the Bibles, the few Catholics are now starting to read, after exhortation, on the index as misleading or liable to mislead and state the Bibles recommended for Catholic study that are free from errors,lies,contradictions,exagerrations etc and totally and utterly reliable and correct as regards history and science etc as God does not know his history or science and these books were written mainly by semi ignorant men, fot it seems according to some, for semi ignorant men - btw how is it or was it that all the Bible,so called,errors were not spotted and rectified and removed or explained by the thousands of Catholic scripture scholars to make the Bible fit for Catholic consumption - for example it seems that when God says days He means donkeys years but failed to say how long a day in a donkey’s ear is etc - twinc

Can you point out some of the errors you are talking about?

For one, it does seem that you have a problem with Genesis, where it says that God created the world in 6 days. Those who want to align Genesis with the current scientific theories suggest that the writer was talking about longer periods of time, that the word “day” should not be taken literally in that particular part.

And this aligns with the way the word is used in English today. If I tell my children, “Back in my day, kids didn’t do that,” I am not talking about a literal day, but my teen or childhood years, right? So this is clearly an area in which the word day as used in Genesis does not have to be taken literally.

Perhaps you could give a couple more examples of what is bothering you so that we can better understand the issue you are raising here.

 

[zach_dunn]

Can you point out some of the errors you are talking about?

For one, it does seem that you have a problem with Genesis, where it says that God created the world in 6 days. Those who want to align Genesis with the current scientific theories suggest that the writer was talking about longer periods of time, that the word “day” should not be taken literally in that particular part.

And this aligns with the way the word is used in English today. If I tell my children, “Back in my day, kids didn’t do that,” I am not talking about a literal day, but my teen or childhood years, right? So this is clearly an area in which the word day as used in Genesis does not have to be taken literally.

Perhaps you could give a couple more examples of what is bothering you so that we can better understand the issue you are raising here.

Plus God dodn’t seperate the lights to make 24 hour days until the third day; but that’s just something I’ve read somewhere. I don’t know why twinc is opposed to Church teaching on the matter, that it’s OK to believe either way.

 

[twinc]

Plus God dodn’t seperate the lights to make 24 hour days until the third day; but that’s just something I’ve read somewhere. I don’t know why twinc is opposed to Church teaching on the matter, that it’s OK to believe either way.

why you believe either way could be because you have been influenced by the Bible as the word of God that as God He creates in an instant,ex nihilo over six seperate days or because you have been influenced by a science book as the word of humans that God or no God it would require and take millions and billions of years even - btw light was created at the very beginning before any thing else and how could it be otherwise and it seems a 24hr day is the result of the rotation of sun and earth etc - twinc

 

[zach_dunn]

why you believe either way could be because you have been influenced by the Bible as the word of God that as God He creates in an instant,ex nihilo over six seperate days or because you have been influenced by a science book as the word of humans that God or no God it would require and take millions and billions of years even -

I’ll stick with the Church’s current teaching that I can believe either way. I don’t understand why you think tje Bible are opposed to each other, science was created by God and the Bible was authored by Him,this means that science and the Bible CANNOT contradict each other…so I’ll stick with my Church-OKed belief.

btw light was created at the very beginning before any thing else and how could it be otherwise and it seems a 24hr day is the result of the rotation of sun and earth etc - twinc

Yes, light was created right away, but it was just that:light. Genesis itself tells us that the light was not devided between the sun, moon, and stars until the third day. The earth could hardly revolve around the sun if the sun was not even created until the third day. See Father Haydock’s commentary on the matter. If you truly take the Bible literally, what do you believe about the earth revolving on its axis when the says, “…and the earth stood still…” or something to that effect?

 

[twinc]

I’ll stick with the Church’s current teaching that I can believe either way. I don’t understand why you think tje Bible are opposed to each other, science was created by God and the Bible was authored by Him,this means that science and the Bible CANNOT contradict each other…so I’ll stick with my Church-OKed belief.

Yes, light was created right away, but it was just that:light. Genesis itself tells us that the light was not devided between the sun, moon, and stars until the third day. The earth could hardly revolve around the sun if the sun was not even created until the third day. See Father Haydock’s commentary on the matter. If you truly take the Bible literally, what do you believe about the earth revolving on its axis when the says, “…and the earth stood still…” or something to that effect?

Catholics must,and quickly,accept that the Bible is inerrant and if it appears to be in error it is not and cannot be - here is something God via the Bible told us at the very beginning which if it had been understood and accepted would not have led to the Galileo episode.After centuries we are now starting to see and accept that Galileo was indeed wrong after all,for the earth does not revolve round the sun - twinc

 

[Petergee]

Second, you seem to be in the grips of a false dilemma. “Either the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, or it is a pack of errors and lies.” But there is actually broad scope for recognizing the scientific errors of the Bible while moving beyond them to discover the truth that God wanted to express. For example, whether or no there was a real Flood, the story of Noah has a clear, christological significance; i.e., it tells us the truth about Jesus and the divine life He gives us.

The Church teaches, as she always has, that there are NO “scientific errors” or any other errors of any kind in the Bible. If you see a “scientific error” in the Bible, the error lies in your own misunderstanding of the Bible or of science or of both. And that Noah’s Flood WAS a real historical event. The Bible does not say, and the Church has never taught, that the whole planet was covered in water up to above the height of Mt Everest - this is an invention of modern atheists.