Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Because The Bible Tells Me So
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 23 of 111 (388567)
03-06-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 11:34 AM


Re: Topic Synopsis
Ok, nemesis, here goes my little opinion on the difficulty surrounding inerrancy.
nemesis writes:
To be honest, I no longer know what it means to say whether the Bible is inerrant. I always understood the "inerrancy of the scriptures" to mean that it is free from textual error. I don't believe that it is free from error. However, if it means that the Bible is the true and inspired Word of God, then I am an inerrantist.
Inerrancy undoubtedly has to do with textual accuracy, but I do not believe that this means every word, or as they say, every jot and tittle, is perfectly preserved, BUT that all due care has been observed in preserving the authors' intentions and meanings, and thus, the texts which we use can be 'trusted' to the ultimate extent.
As you can see below, the 'human element' is noted, which involves discrepency in language and copying, presumably.
The big issue is translation, IMO. The church absolutely holds to the entire Bible as inerrant, not, as I would have thought, only those aspects pertaining to faith and morals. Yes, even the science! But therein is the gaping gigantic loophole...how literally do we interpret the parts having to do with science? The RCC, while holding to the doctrine of inerrancy, ALSO teaches evolution in its schools. So, how it can it hold to this hypocritic position? Not so much literalism, I think. Inerrancy and literalism have been linked up as synonomous over time, but very few of us are pure literalists. To be a pure literalist, you would for example, take the parables at face value alone, as 'real' events and nothing more. There are sects like this, but not common. We then have to question whether we will take Genesis, for example, at face value, if it contradicts what we know about science.
If you read the link, you see; genre, mode, poetic liberty, etc. Much of what we call 'science' in the Bible can fall into the category of some various genre, like myth, perhaps, or, the telling of a story through allegory, poetry, and so on.
There are also other parts, even possibly including Genesis, which, when not interpreted so literally, do not directly contradict scientific discovery.
I am not sure that this covers all that is thought to be scientific in the Bible, or if all stories will fit into a 'loop-hole' which allows one to have their inerrant view and eat it too.
Wiki writes:
The Roman Catholic position on the Bible is further clarified in Dei Verbum, one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, n. 11 & 12) This document states the Catholic belief that all scripture is sacred and reliable because the biblical authors were inspired by God. However, the human dimension of the Bible is also acknowledged as well as the importance of proper interpretation. Careful attention must be paid to the actual meaning intended by the authors, in order to render a correct interpretation. Genre, modes of expression, historical circumstances, poetic liberty, and church tradition are all factors that must be considered by Catholics when examining scripture. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the authority to declare correct interpretation rests ultimately with the church through its magisterium
When all is said and done, if it comes down to belief in the Bible or doubt of it, it IS the matters of faith and morals which save, (not the history or the science) and these are confirmed in their usefullness by daily life.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 11:34 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 03-06-2007 3:56 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 4:10 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 7:49 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 26 of 111 (388604)
03-06-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals
03-06-2007 4:10 PM


Re: Literal, metaphorical, allegorical, figurative interpretations.
AIG writes:
Annie, I once read (I don't recall where) that RCC doctrine considers that there are four levels for interpreting the bible:
We have discussed this elsewhere on the forum before, and I can give you a brief run-down from memory so that the others may weigh in on the parts I miss.
The four methods of interpreting scripture originate with the Hebrews, and vary little from what you have mentioned.
After Christ, there was a great deal of controversary regarding how scripture should in future be interpreted. A main part of this came from the idea that now we had fulfillment of some of the OT prophecies, and that they should therefore be read as both literal stories of events and also prefigurations of future events.
Another idea was to give up the old testament entirely as being unnecessary for future reference, since Jewish Law did not need to be consulted to the extent that it once had been.
During the first few centuries, this question evolved through stages. There were 3 modes of scripture, 4, or 5 at times...and the names and meanings of these various modes were also argued. Augustine had his version, which was re-thought much later by Aquinas, who produced what you said are the 4 modes? and these do, as far as I can tell, consist of just what the Hebrews had.
I am pretty sure that they are interchangeable from passage to passage...some passages have only one context in which they can be read. Most seem to have two or more possible interpretations. I am not talking meanings, exactly, when I say interpretations, because there are always alternate meanings. If you think about the debates on the Trinity or baptism, it is obvious that there are many meanings even if you are reading only one sense of scripture. But the modes, or senses of whatever, are something akin to tenses at times, as in past, present, future, and even eternal.
To answer what you asked precisely; no. Not every passage can be interpreted all four ways, and they are also not parsed into groups. Some will have one, some two, 3 or 4 of the senses at once.
The famous example is the story of Temple of Jerusalem.
The temple is an actual literal building. It is the body of Christ Himself as He refers to it. It is the body of the entire church, and also the body of the faithful in the life to come. Past, present and future.
I will have to do some refreshing to give you any more particulars about which categories these fall into. Figurative is sometimes called anagogical, and maybe means 'pre-figurative'.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 4:10 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 4:58 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 33 of 111 (388622)
03-06-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by AnswersInGenitals
03-06-2007 5:15 PM


Re: Confused in California.
AIG writes:
This passage confuses me greatly.
This passage, as far as it has been used throughout the thread, has never, as many times as I have read it, seemed confusing, ambiguous, contradictory, or controversial.
The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.
All that we can ever possibly learn is as nothing compared to what God knows.
Am I reading this wrong, in taking the words 'wisdom' and 'foolishness' to mean quantities of knowledge rather than opposites?
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 5:15 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 8:03 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 36 of 111 (388644)
03-06-2007 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by AnswersInGenitals
03-06-2007 8:03 PM


Re: Confused in California.
AIG writes:
Anyone know what the original language text said and its possible interpretations?
The original word used in the Greek of Corinthians, is moria; folly, absurdity, imbecility, foolishness.
It still works for me...compared to what God knows and His wisdom, I am sure that ours is foolish.
Or, you may take it another route, and ask what was really meant; it may be a simple notice of the duality of man. One part God talking, one part man. Try it the other way...the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world...and I think you will catch what I mean.
But if you remember, Ringo and others said that the wisdom of the world is all we have. That is the response which seems logical, but Paul was a religious man. In religion, there is not only one force at work in men, even though both speak through men. So we could say that all wisdom is of God, and without Him would be foolishness.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 8:03 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 38 of 111 (388654)
03-06-2007 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 7:49 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Inspiration of the Bible
The link above is very, very good, but the typos are atrocious!
You said;
The only real questionable piece of Scripture that has stumped me to this day is found in the Book of Acts. (I'm feeling lazy today, so please forgive for not fishing for the exact verses). Anyway, the subject is about Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus.
I know the story...I believe that you are conflating inspiration and textual inerrancy. If the Bible is inspired of God, why would there be disparate passages? To solve this, you need to determine what the church has to say about inspiration. Thus, the link above.
In brief, inspiration is the stirring of the author to write, and that, by the power of the Holy Spirit. This can be done via ecstacy, perhaps like Revelations, or through a normal human motive to write, whilst the author is not aware of the divine. At the very least, God guides the person into picking up the pen, and to writing faithfully what he or she recalls. As the link says, there is no ready-made document. We have in your question two different authors recalling the same event, Paul was at the scene, I forget if Luke was.
You may ascribe error to God, or to Luke, or to a copyist. Textually inerrancy, if I understand correctly, means that the book will be preserved in its original intentions and language as far as possible. Inspiration means that God 'caused' the person to write because He wished the story to be preserved. In either case, there is room for error.
For example, we can talk about copyist errors. Would God allow this? Sure. God allows people now to produce Bibles that are absolutely wrong in translation. There are countless purposeful and accidental mistakes in printing, etc.
What is vital, is that at some point, someone wrote the texts that are still with us, and under some inspiration of God. God wished them written. and God wished them preserved. There is one minor discrepancy between Luke and Paul, which could easily be a copy error, or a faulty memory on the part of one or the other. There is no teaching that says God dictated every word, or that He guided every copyist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 7:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-07-2007 12:10 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 41 of 111 (388703)
03-07-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taz
03-06-2007 10:51 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
Taz writes:
Well, you were the one that claimed there are specific christian guidelines and that you implied these guidelines are perfect.
You know that there are Christian guidelines, and just because people don't follow them, doesn't mean they don't exist. What Jesus said is what He said as far as we know, and what He said had nothing to do with any of the crimes that people have committed in His name when they were in reality concerned with their own fame and fortune.
There were definitely christians who came and stole land from the Natives, and their were also missionaries who never got involved in trading or trapping or politics or land-grubbing. I personally am not all about destroying a culture, and culture is largely due to the religion of the people, but I am not against preaching if the method is good.
You should look up Sicut Dudum, Dum Diversas, and Sublimis Deus. Read them (or read about them) and tell me what you think.
You do know that two of these are against enslavement of any nations?
Oh, so we still can't eat shellfish? What about wearing clothing made of different types of fabrics? The shirt I am wearing now is made of cotton and polyester. Am I going to hell for it?
And you do know that Jewish Law does not constitute Christian morality, and that much of it is legal and ritual, rather than moral?
Africans were regarded as subhuman (read the 3 I cited above) and enslaved.
That is false, and you are looking falsely at the documents. No one was thought of as sub-human, and only one document talks about moralizing slavery at all.
Sicut Dudum and Sublimis Deus are condemning slavery and calling for immediate and perpetual freedom of all who had been enslaved. I am sorry that some christians were not behaving properly, but I am not sure why you would cite two documents which were written in opposition to this behaviour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 10:51 PM Taz has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 43 of 111 (388741)
03-07-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Hyroglyphx
03-07-2007 12:10 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
nemesis writes:
The portion of the clip about inerrancy is right in the beginning.
Yes. I have noticed when it comes to the RCC at least, that many of the terminologies which have been used to describe very specific things are applied in a more universal and confusing way.
If you speak about the Bible as the Word of God, i.e., inspired in some way, it is logical to assume for the various books a certain infallible and inerrant quality. It is not logical to take this to the extent of assuming infallibility for all copyists. There could well be intentional or accidental mishaps in the scripts we have.
Assuming infallibility and inerrancy leads to great care in copying, as it had for the Hebrews, but the story of the early church is a bit different. There were no 'set' sacred manuscripts, no copyists appointed by a tradition. There was no 'set' Christianity, as in, different theologies could well have been promoted here and there as they sprang up from one manuscript. People may have been 'fixing' things which disagreed with what they had heard. And the mistakes, which are fairly small, involving geneology, or two tales where the details are reversed like the Road to Damascus story, are the types of things which a person can easily get switched in one's mind.
What you see is that even the mistakes, which have certainly been noticed not once or twice but countless times, are preserved in the books BECAUSE we do believe in inerrancy and infallibility, and we must therefore keep intact the best possible record of what was written. There is no claim to having the originals, but only of preserving the closest thing which we do have. In other words, it is The Word of God which is inerrant and infallible, and not such and such a piece of paper by such and such an unknown 100th copier, or your Bible, or my Bible. The Infallible Word of God is recorded, copied, interpreted, by very fallible men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-07-2007 12:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 51 of 111 (388872)
03-08-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by macaroniandcheese
03-08-2007 12:36 AM


brennakimi writes:
actually, no. the cooperate-iterate model always produces the best result.
Actually still no. The cooperative-iterate model only works when both parties agree to cooperate. There is not much gaming that can go on in that case. But in real-life, we don't have everyone cooperating either, so you still get royally screwed often when you give and don't get back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-08-2007 12:36 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2007 1:23 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 53 of 111 (388881)
03-08-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NosyNed
03-08-2007 1:23 PM


Re: The Model
I don't know all the particulars Ned. Maybe I jumped the gun in saying that brenna is wrong about the models.
I only mean to say that cooperative altruistic behavior is proved to be beneficial, but it isn't always the best game strategy for one player to be altruistic and not the other. I was being redundant in saying that cooperation must be cooperation. In religious belief, you must be altruistic regardless of what you expect from the other, so it would be a weak 'game strategy' in survival if you know the other isn't going to cooperate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2007 1:23 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2007 2:35 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 67 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-08-2007 5:24 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 70 of 111 (388927)
03-08-2007 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by macaroniandcheese
03-08-2007 5:24 PM


Re: The Model
brennakimi writes:
the importance to this game is the ITERATE which means repeat. this means you have a series of matches and a chance to demonstrate a pattern. now. in real life, it is possible that an antagonistic partner would take advantage of a pattern of cooperation. however, being antagonistic tends to get you bombed. further, if your opponent demonstrates a pattern of betrayal, you can also betray so that, while you still lose, your opponent doesn't win. also, one point is better than none.
Yes, sorry, I should not have said that you were wrong. What I should have said is that altruism doesn't always equal gain in real life, as that depends somewhat on the opposite player's cooperation, but in Christianity, the strategy must stay regardless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-08-2007 5:24 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024