Hey Fellow Theology Students/graduates....help Please!

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' date='10 June 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1276201204' post='2126934']
are you referring to copyist errors Zigamaffu?
[/quote]

I am fine with the idea that the original autographs were textually inerrant, if that is what you mean. And I think it is fairly obvious that things like the discrepancy of a reign beginning when a person was 8 or 18 is a slip of the pen that went unchecked. Same with Solomon's chariots (the difference of a few zeros). I am not fine with the idea that it is heretical or blasphemous to regard certain books or passages in the Bible as divinely inspired fiction (and thus acknowledging that they contain "errors" when compared to historical or scientific reality).

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='10 June 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1276190317' post='2126796']
We remember how you loved us to Your death,
And still we celebrate for You are with us here.
And we believe that we will see You when you come in Your glory, Lord.
We remember, we celebrate, we believe!
[/quote]
That was the most deserved -1 of my career. For once I am not upset about it.

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1276221645' post='2127061']
I am fine with the idea that the original autographs were textually inerrant, if that is what you mean.
[/quote]
One thing I am getting at that you may not have considered is that the Holy Spirit guides the transmission of Sacred Scripture. It is no mistake that the Council Trent infallibly defined the canon as all 73 books and all their parts in the 'old Latin Vulgate'. At those times there was no one standard edition of the Latin Vulgate and the ones used during those times could not be considered old. So the Council was referring to the Latin scriptural tradition, independent of any one edition, as this scriptural tradition has been used in the Church, by the Living Magisterium and the Living Tradition.

The question as to which parts of each book are in the Canon, and are therefore inspired and inerrant, is determined by the Latin scriptural tradition.

Recent modern scholars seem to have rejected the teaching of Trent that the Canon is determined by the Latin scriptural tradition. They use the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew while ignoring the Latin tradition. And so they omit words, phrases, even whole verses on the basis of scholarship. There has been a great erosion, but that is a new approach of mainly Protestant scholars. And they reject the Magisterial teachings.

In my opinion the Holy Spirit is involved in the transmission of Sacred Scritpure in the Latin sciptural tradition. He guides any copyist errors, and corrects them through the centuries so that no assertions are lost, and the Sciptural tradition as a whole is inspired and inerrant despite not being the original autographs.

Edited June 11, 2010 by kafka

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' date='11 June 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1276267431' post='2127181']


Recent modern scholars seem to have rejected the teaching of Trent that the Canon is determined by the Latin scriptural tradition. They use the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew while ignoring the Latin tradition.
[/quote]

...now that is a very good point, the implications of which I had not fully considered. However, haven't there been several magisterial statements to the effect that the original autographs hold precedence over the Vulgate?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='10 June 2010 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1276196371' post='2126896']
Surely I miss the days when the majority of your posts were driven by intellect, and long thoughtful posts in love defense of Mother Church and her Sacred Tradition. I hate billy bass and what he has lock away from us in your great mind. It is truly a loss. =( The L_D of the past would not have let a heresy go unchallenged.

Knowing the actual topic you could at least give us a brief summary. Is there error is Holy Scripture?
[/quote]


I love you bro.

Brief summary? It is a vast topic. In a debate I'd defend unrestricted inerrancy but don't have all the answers, and I reject a fundamentalist or fideistic approach to inerrancy.

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='11 June 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1276270320' post='2127216']
...now that is a very good point, the implications of which I had not fully considered. However, haven't there been several magisterial statements to the effect that the original autographs hold precedence over the Vulgate?
[/quote]
Not that I know of. Not precedence. The thing is the the Latin sciptural tradition is immersed in the Living Tradition and Living Magisterium for centuries. The discernment of the Canon, the discernment of what is inspired and inerrant is drawn from Sacred Tradition (since the writing of Scripture is a Deed wrought by God in history with and through the writers). And the transmission of Tradition and discernment and definition of the Canon is the fruit of millions and millions of Catholics living the Faith and meditating on the word of God. There is a dynamic which transcends mere reason and scholarship. There is the transcendent aspect of Faith beyond reason which the post-modern era seems to disregard. But in God we live and move and exist.

Dei Verbum:

22. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones [b]especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate[/b].

So here the Council Fathers are emphasizing the Latin Vulgate.

I do not feel like reviewing Divino Afflante right now. But those are my initial thoughts.

Edited June 11, 2010 by kafka

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 09:00 PM' timestamp='1276221645' post='2127061']
I am not fine with the idea that it is heretical or blasphemous to regard certain books or passages in the Bible as divinely inspired fiction (and thus acknowledging that they contain "errors" when compared to historical or scientific reality).
[/quote]

When did I say that it was heretical or blasphemous to regard certain parts of the Bible as divinely inspired fiction? I would say that the parables of Christ are most certainly an example of divinely inspired fiction (though I would not put Judith or Job in that category). Parables are not false; they are merely a particular way to illustrate a moral.

What I did say was that it is heretical and blasphemous to assert that there are errors in holy Scripture. The position that you have asserted throughout this thread, namely, that there are errors in the Bible in topics not related to faith and morals, has been vehemently condemned as heretical by the teaching authority of the Church. By claiming that holy Scripture is both divinely inspired and filled with errors, one blasphemes by calling God a liar.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='11 June 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1276271052' post='2127220']
I reject a fundamentalist or fideistic approach to inerrancy.
[/quote]

What do you mean?

I defend an unrestricted view of inerrancy in regards to the message of Scripture - that is, the revelation it contains in [i]any [/i]matter - but not inerrancy of the literal text we have today in relation to every jot and tittle that regards numbers, "history", or science. For example, I acknowledge errors in divinely inspired fiction, such as Judith. It is fiction, but it nevertheless (deliberately, seemingly) uses obvious historic error as a literary device. I think that numerical discrepancies such as 8 vs 18 are copying errors.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='11 June 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1276271052' post='2127220']


I love you bro.

Brief summary? It is a vast topic. In a debate I'd defend unrestricted inerrancy but don't have all the answers, and I reject a fundamentalist or fideistic approach to inerrancy.
[/quote]

I love you too broham. I think I agree, fundamentalist approach to inerrancy would be in error. IE A Baptist believes the translation of the King James is free from error. Which of course the translation is not.

[Apotheoun]

I am a fideist.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 June 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1276288324' post='2127428']
I am a fideist.
[/quote]

Religious knowledge does depend on the gifts of faith and revelation. I do not consider the existence of God and the human spirit to be "religious knowledge", however. I believe that the existence of the spirit and of God may be known without faith or revelation.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='11 June 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1276283447' post='2127361']
What do you mean?

I defend an unrestricted view of inerrancy in regards to the message of Scripture - that is, the revelation it contains in [i]any [/i]matter - but not inerrancy of the literal text we have today in relation to every jot and tittle that regards numbers, "history", or science.
[/quote]

The things in the Bible that you consider to be in error are part of the message of Scripture.

[Ziggamafu]

Apo, do you think I am right or wrong in this thread? Do you think the Fathers are frowning at me as we speak?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='11 June 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1276289275' post='2127436']
The things in the Bible that you consider to be in error are part of the message of Scripture.
[/quote]

If you could convince me of that, I would be on your side. But I do not think that the fictional accounts themselves or numerical values themselves or the scientific misunderstandings themselves are part of the message of Scripture.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='11 June 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1276289377' post='2127438']
Apo, do you think I am right or wrong in this thread? Do you think the Fathers are frowning at me as we speak?
[/quote]
I take a different approach to sacred scripture than what is being presented in this thread.

My own approach can be summarized by saying that . . . I accept by faith that sacred scripture is the living word of God when it is sung during the liturgy, and that it can only be properly understood by being experienced through faith in divine worship.