Unanswered problem #1 (Scripture interpretation)

[inkaneer]

I am going to start with a simple question. (There will be more later on. )

We all know that interpreting the Bible is not obvious. There are passages which are supposed to be taken as literal descriptions of events, and there are other passeges which are understood in an allegorical fashion.

It is the Catholic stance that only the Catholic church is qualified to interpret the Bible. For the sake of this conversation I will accept this. So the question is: “if the Catholic Church is the only authority to interpret the Bible, then why doesn’t the CC do it?”. Let me make sure the question is clear:

Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?

In many conversations I saw that an atheist quotes something for the Bible, and the believer immediately retorts: “you are misinterpreting it”, or “you should not take one verse, look at the whole picture” or “you are not qualified…” or something along these lines. Of course these believers cannot give a “proper” interpretation, since there is none. It would be the Church’s duty to officially interpret the Bible.

I don’t give a specific example, because it is the nature of these conversations that the big picture gets forgotten and people start to concentrate on the example.

First of all you must realize that the church sees the bible as the Written Tradition and constitutes only one of the two sources of teaching. The other being the Oral Tradition. They must be taken together so as to not contradict each other. Just as the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts could not understand the scripture and needed the church in the form of Phillip to properly explain the Written Tradition so too we today need the Oral Tradition to fully understand the Written Tradition.

One more thing it is well to keep in mind that the Bible was never intended to be a self study guide to Christianity as the protestants have perverted it. Rather its purpose was liturgical, to be used as readings in the Mass, so that the Catholic Church in every art of the world would have the same readings and thus be universal in liturgy.

 

[TommyWommy]

Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?

Scripture can (and is) interpreted in more than one “sense.” One verse, indeed, one word, can be interpreted in a literal sense, a literalist sense, an historical sense, an allegorical sense, etc. To compile a comentary that listed and exhaustively “interpreted” every word and verse of Scripture would simply be prohibitive, particularly in light of the ongoing, developing way in which Scripture is approached. Volumes could be written on “Jonah and the great fish” alone. We have what we need for matters of faith and practice. If we need more, God will provide it through the teaching authority He established, the Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Most people do not count. The argument is fallacious, and have been proven to be fallacious for a very long time. If that is the best the CC can do…

No one has ever proven it to be “fallacious” - they have merely rejected it outright and without consideration, because it requires a conclusion that they are not prepared to accept, and doesn’t leave any room for “intelligent doubt.”

A more ambiguous argument would certainly be preferable to the atheist, so that he can meander out of it while seeming to consider it, but this one doesn’t allow for that - so it is simply labeled “fallacious” (without showing how it is fallacious - we are to simply accept by faith that it is, in fact, fallacious) and then rejected.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The argument is fallacious, and have been proven to be fallacious for a very long time.

Please then.Post this proof.

 

[Spock]

Doesn’t scripture say the same thing? Or, more correctly, isn’t the Catholic Church simply stating what the Bible and the Church have always taught in this regard?

Perhaps. But the point is different. The catecism and the dogmas are just empty assertions. What “proof” are they referring to, I have no idea. When I first encountered it, I was very upbeat and expectant. Wow, the Church actually tells us how does one ascertain God’s existence without resorting to faith! And then I saw the empty space. No meat at all.

That is what started me to think about the need for an annotated bible. What the article says may be some of the reasons, but it cannot be the whole reason. After all we “know” that some places really existed “back then”, and some events really occurred. At least they have been substanitated by external sources to our satisfaction. But these places and events are of minor consequence. There are all those “supernatural”, miraculaous, magical things, too. There are two possibilities here:

1. all the alleged “supernatural” events in the Bible are just legends, or
2. there are some “supernatural” events which are historically valid.

Now the second possibility needs a tad more substantiation then “the church said so…”, at least when you talk to unbelievers. That is why at least some partial list of historically valid verses are needed. What the article insinuated is that there is nothing in the Bible, which could be declared “already researched to the extent that it can be said to be valid”.

Of course, my personal opinion is different. The Church does not dare to go out on a limb. The members do not wish to take the risk. But that is my personal opinion only, which can safely be disregarded.

 

[ignatius777]

I am going to start with a simple question. (There will be more later on. )

We all know that interpreting the Bible is not obvious. There are passages which are supposed to be taken as literal descriptions of events, and there are other passeges which are understood in an allegorical fashion.

It is the Catholic stance that only the Catholic church is qualified to interpret the Bible. For the sake of this conversation I will accept this. So the question is: “if the Catholic Church is the only authority to interpret the Bible, then why doesn’t the CC do it?”. Let me make sure the question is clear:

Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?

In many conversations I saw that an atheist quotes something for the Bible, and the believer immediately retorts: “you are misinterpreting it”, or “you should not take one verse, look at the whole picture” or “you are not qualified…” or something along these lines. Of course these believers cannot give a “proper” interpretation, since there is none. It would be the Church’s duty to officially interpret the Bible.

I don’t give a specific example, because it is the nature of these conversations that the big picture gets forgotten and people start to concentrate on the example.

Its fascinating how you want proof of things which requires examples yet you dont want your “big picture” to get mucked up by examples.

 

[evylynn]

I am going to start with a simple question. (There will be more later on. )

We all know that interpreting the Bible is not obvious. There are passages which are supposed to be taken as literal descriptions of events, and there are other passeges which are understood in an allegorical fashion.

It is the Catholic stance that only the Catholic church is qualified to interpret the Bible. For the sake of this conversation I will accept this. So the question is: “if the Catholic Church is the only authority to interpret the Bible, then why doesn’t the CC do it?”. Let me make sure the question is clear:

Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?

In many conversations I saw that an atheist quotes something for the Bible, and the believer immediately retorts: “you are misinterpreting it”, or “you should not take one verse, look at the whole picture” or “you are not qualified…” or something along these lines. Of course these believers cannot give a “proper” interpretation, since there is none. It would be the Church’s duty to officially interpret the Bible.

I don’t give a specific example, because it is the nature of these conversations that the big picture gets forgotten and people start to concentrate on the example.

Isn’t the St.Ignatius bible something like that?

 

[Spock]

Its fascinating how you want proof of things which requires examples yet you dont want your “big picture” to get mucked up by examples.

I do prefer examples. The trouble is that the conversations tend to get derailed and start to refer to the examples only.

Just look at the thread, and you will see that I complain about the lack of substance behind the claim that “God’s existence can be proven rationally, without resorting to faith” - because there is no “meat” there, it is an empty claim. I simply mentioned that I hope it does not refer to Aquinas’s five “proofs”, and all of a sudden some people started to concentrate on those “proofs”. Instant derailment attempt! And that is what I want to avoid.

Now, since you insist, here are a few specific questions: Is the description of the “original sin” a literal enumeration of the events there? Or is it just a legend? Was there a literal Garden of Eden? Was there a talking snake? Some people say that it “does not matter”. Hogwash! It matters a lot. A fairy tale remains a fairy tale, even if the story describes a morally significant problem.

 

[DianaCC]

I do prefer examples.

Give an example of something you believe on the the strength of argument alone.

 

[fhansen]

Now, since you insist, here are a few specific questions: Is the description of the “original sin” a literal enumeration of the events there? Or is it just a legend? Was there a literal Garden of Eden? Was there a talking snake? Some people say that it “does not matter”. Hogwash! It matters a lot. A fairy tale remains a fairy tale, even if the story describes a morally significant problem.

The Catechism claims as actual fact that 1) a single pair of human parents existed from whom all other humans alive today descended 2) these humans were in some sort of direct communion and harmony with God and, 3) they disobeyed or acted against Gods will. This not an exhaustive list, but, in order to arrive at these teachings on salient points of the creation account in Genesis, the CC had to interpret the passages in question.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

All the alleged “proofs” of God’s existence contain logical fallacies (usually the fallacy of composition).

Wow! I have seen you claim that there is literally no “problem of induction”. I have seen you claim that things can be proven inductively.

Now here you claim that the arguments for for G-ds existence usually fail by the “fallacy of composition”. Don’t you know that the fallacy of composition is not much different than the problem of induction?

Whats the word for people who do, the very thing they condemn?

But I don’t want to derail the thread by going into the details. All the “proofs” have been debunked and discredited zillions of times.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdcjfRlFHUwGbhXkFJmBCczaEq4OFJpws7C7el8FJktVUJVusP

There is only one way to convince me: by using logically valid arguments based upon a rational foundation.

Do as I say not as I do, huh?

I am not inclined to accept magical, talking snakes. This is the difference between us.

We don’t believe in magic either. Much less magical talking snakes. Care to back up that claim? Of course not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No one has ever proven it to be “fallacious” - they have merely rejected it outright and without consideration, because it requires a conclusion that they are not prepared to accept, and doesn’t leave any room for “intelligent doubt.”

A more ambiguous argument would certainly be preferable to the atheist, so that he can meander out of it while seeming to consider it, but this one doesn’t allow for that - so it is simply labeled “fallacious” (without showing how it is fallacious - we are to simply accept by faith that it is, in fact, fallacious) and then rejected.

Yup!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I do prefer examples. The trouble is that the conversations tend to get derailed and start to refer to the examples only.

Just look at the thread, and you will see that I complain about the lack of substance behind the claim that “God’s existence can be proven rationally, without resorting to faith” - because there is no “meat” there, it is an empty claim. I simply mentioned that I hope it does not refer to Aquinas’s five “proofs”, and all of a sudden some people started to concentrate on those “proofs”. Instant derailment attempt! And that is what I want to avoid.

 

[Spock]

The Catechism claims as actual fact that 1) a single pair of human parents existed from whom all other humans alive today descended 2) these humans were in some sort of direct communion and harmony with God and, 3) they disobeyed or acted against Gods will. This not an exhaustive list, but, in order to arrive at these teachings on salient points of the creation account in Genesis, the CC had to interpret the passages in question.

Ok, the Church did some interpretation. (How did it happen, we don’t know.) But the result is: Something happened way back and because of it, we all have the “stigma” of the original sin. Where did those “first” humans come from? Dust, rib, or evolution? The catecism does not say. What was that command that those humans suppsedly violated? The catecism does not say. Was there a “perfect” Garden of Eden? The catecism does not say. Was there a talking snake? The catecism does not say. And whatever the catecism says, is merely a “claim”, without any evidence. Or, am I mistaken? Is there any evidence?

I am sorry, but that is very vague. If you believe it, that is your business. Just don’t try to use it to convince anyone who does not believe it already. In other words, don’t try to use it in apologetics.

 

[ignatius777]

I do prefer examples. The trouble is that the conversations tend to get derailed and start to refer to the examples only.

Just look at the thread, and you will see that I complain about the lack of substance behind the claim that “God’s existence can be proven rationally, without resorting to faith” - because there is no “meat” there, it is an empty claim. I simply mentioned that I hope it does not refer to Aquinas’s five “proofs”, and all of a sudden some people started to concentrate on those “proofs”. Instant derailment attempt! And that is what I want to avoid.

Now, since you insist, here are a few specific questions: Is the description of the “original sin” a literal enumeration of the events there? Or is it just a legend? Was there a literal Garden of Eden? Was there a talking snake? Some people say that it “does not matter”. Hogwash! It matters a lot. A fairy tale remains a fairy tale, even if the story describes a morally significant problem.

A fairy tale may well be rooted in reality yet like the game “telephone” the mnay retellings bring fanciful external trappings. Nothing about the truth of the fairy tale is lost is the trappings though. Was there a Graden of Eden? I dont know what it was called by Yes there was aplace of perfection. Was there a talking snake? I dont know but something convinced Adam and Eve that they could be as powerful as God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Is there any evidence?

Yes, it was written down by the people who knew about it. The exact same evidence that you have for any historical event where you were not a witness.

Have you managed to think of a “logically valid” argument for your claim that it matters whether it is a literal or figurative story?

 

[fhansen]

Ok, the Church did some interpretation. (How did it happen, we don’t know.) But the result is: Something happened way back and because of it, we all have the “stigma” of the original sin. Where did those “first” humans come from? Dust, rib, or evolution? The catecism does not say. What was that command that those humans suppsedly violated? The catecism does not say. Was there a “perfect” Garden of Eden? The catecism does not say. Was there a talking snake? The catecism does not say. And whatever the catecism says, is merely a “claim”, without any evidence. Or, am I mistaken? Is there any evidence?

I am sorry, but that is very vague. If you believe it, that is your business. Just don’t try to use it to convince anyone who does not believe it already. In other words, don’t try to use it in apologetics.

The OP had nothing to do with apologetics directly-it asked whether or not the Church interprets scripture-and asserts that she should do so for every verse for some reason. My own reply was that the Church’s role was to understand and convey the gospel while the interpretation of scripture-which she alone is qualified to do as needed- is secondary and subservient to that primary role. So the short answer is that she doesn’t even need to know the meaning of every single verse. OTOH, as questions/controversies arise, as they always do, she may well find it beneficial and necessary to give an interpretation of verses that hadn’t been interpreted in the past in any official capacity.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

My opinion is different. All the alleged “proofs” of God’s existence contain logical fallacies (usually the fallacy of composition). But I don’t want to derail the thread by going into the details. All the “proofs” have been debunked and discredited zillions of times.

amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908

Might want to check that out, Dr. Edward Feser rebukes all of the “debunks” and reaffirms St. Thomas Aquinas stance as undisputed. That will answer your concerns of the 5 proofs.

Also another nice work of his:

amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314517/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252347460&sr=1-1

Enjoy

 

[DianaCC]

Don’t you know that the fallacy of composition is not much different than the problem of induction?

You beat me to the punch, Petey. Validity suddenly matters to Spock when it comes to religion. That’s special pleading and we all know it. He’s conflating composition, which is fallacious, with induction, which is valid. That in itself is another fallacy, ignoratio elechi. Spock like most smart people probably thinks that just because some effects have causes, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the universe as a whole has a cause. But that’s not what Aquinas’ argument is saying.

 

[Spock]

The OP had nothing to do with apologetics directly-it asked whether or not the Church interprets scripture-and asserts that she should do so for every verse for some reason.

Actually it had everything to do with it, but the connection was not obvious. The whole thing started with this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=545272 where I expressed my problems with the quality of apologetics in general. The others asked me to be specific, so I started this thread. It is not obvious for those who have not seen the original.