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

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 June 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1276473316' post='2128288']
By supporting the idea that the inspiration of holy Scripture only extends to matters of faith and morals, you are supporting an idea expressly condemned by the Church.

"For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated." (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 20)



It is certainly heresy to claim that there are errors in the divinely inspired sacred text.
[/quote]


I never [i]restricted [/i]inerrancy to faith and morals. That is a misrepresentation of me on your part and therefore slanderous. I'm eager to see how you will excuse this one. The best you can do is drop a quote of me saying that faith and morals are innerrant. But I never say they are the "only" inerrant aspects of Scripture as you have said. I suggested that the doctrine of inerrancy - throughout the Tradition of the Church - could refer to the message intended by God rather than the individual words used to convey that message; that is, the theology ([i]which often involves history[/i]) is inerrant, but not the human aspect of the text.

Could you please answer the following questions?

1. How does your interpretation of inerrancy allow for the writers of Scripture to be [i]true [/i]authors?

2. And what would constitute an error or contradiction in, say, the Koran?

3. Also, do the two creation stories present any textual contradictions? (Again, I am not referring to contradictions in message or theology)

4. Do the two flood stories present any textual contradictions, and do both refer to literal history?

5. The Da Vinci Code is complete fiction, but deals with historical elements. Is it wrong to point out errors in this fictional work? If not, then how is it wrong to point out apparent errors in a fictional work such as Judith?

6. Is God Truth? Did God gift us with reason? Is it reasonable to assume that Truth Himself, if He dictated the words and methods of revelation, would dictate confusing or "hard to understand" passages that present apparent discrepancies or problems?

7. Does the Church ever understand her beliefs with a greater clarity and understanding? Are dogmas always perfectly worded and perfectly understood when they are offered to the world?

8. Have even the greatest of saints and doctors of the Church - say, Thomas Aquinas, whose work was praised with some extraordinary endorsements that probably don't need to mention - ever erred in their interpretation of dogma?

...I whole-heartedly affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. I stand by our Fathers who urge us to find resolutions to apparent problems. Yet if the Scriptures are inerrant, and there are [i]apparent [/i]errors in the text, then I must resolve the apparent contradiction by interpreting inerrancy as applying to something more basic than the literal words (which makes sense since our God - Truth, Himself - is absolutely simple). Otherwise, I commit an affront to Truth by checking my brain at the door and disregarding my God-given reason. If my faith was not guided by reason, I would never have left atheism and would never have left Protestantism.

[Ziggamafu]

Once again, LD, Apo, Al, and Revpro (forgot to mention you), do any of you think that my position is blasphemous and / or heretical? I respect Res for his passion for tradition and orthodoxy, but I simply disagree with his interpretation of the limits on inerrancy. Likewise, I admire Kafka's passion for scriptural studies, but I still disagree. I don't expect you guys to lumber through the whole thread, but if you read my first post and then the last three or four before this, I think it should sum up what I'm trying to say. You four have earned the kind of clout in my book that would get me to shut up (and spare myself a bunch of -1's; I already lost 5-star status on my profile over this thread) if you side with Res and Kafka on this. Apo, you didn't really take a side.

I would never deliberately disobey the Church (although of course I stumble from time to time); certainly not in an on-going manner, such as a doctrinal position. I simply think that there is more interpretational leeway than Res or Kafka allow in this matter, and certainly a large number of faithful Catholic scholars agree with me. But I trust you four more than I trust myself when it comes to the limits of orthodoxy. So can you tell me what you think? Even if you think I should merely adjust my position, that would sure help.

Also, Res: regardless, I await your answers to my questions.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1276645640' post='2129557']
Apo, you didn't really take a side.[/quote]
As I said earlier . . . I approach scripture differently, and so the present debate is not a concern for me.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1276645640' post='2129557']
Once again, LD, Apo, Al, and Revpro (forgot to mention you), do any of you think that my position is blasphemous and / or heretical? [/quote]
In answer to your question: I think it is unfair of others in this thread to call you a heretic or say that you are committing blasphemy when - whether more traditionally minded individuals want to admit it or not - you are approaching the texts of scripture in a way that has been encouraged by the hierarchy of the Western Church for several decades (see the [i]Pontifical Biblical Commission's[/i] Document: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm"]The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church[/url]). In my opinion accusations of heresy in this area are counterproductive.

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1276645640' post='2129557']
Once again, LD, Apo, Al, and Revpro (forgot to mention you), do any of you think that my position is blasphemous and / or heretical? I respect Res for his passion for tradition and orthodoxy, but I simply disagree with his interpretation of the limits on inerrancy. Likewise, I admire Kafka's passion for scriptural studies, but I still disagree. I don't expect you guys to lumber through the whole thread, but if you read my first post and then the last three or four before this, I think it should sum up what I'm trying to say. You four have earned the kind of clout in my book that would get me to shut up (and spare myself a bunch of -1's; I already lost 5-star status on my profile over this thread) if you side with Res and Kafka on this. Apo, you didn't really take a side.

I would never deliberately disobey the Church (although of course I stumble from time to time); certainly not in an on-going manner, such as a doctrinal position. I simply think that there is more interpretational leeway than Res or Kafka allow in this matter, and certainly a large number of faithful Catholic scholars agree with me. But I trust you four more than I trust myself when it comes to the limits of orthodoxy. So can you tell me what you think? Even if you think I should merely adjust my position, that would sure help.

Also, Res: regardless, I await your answers to my questions.
[/quote]
I think what you may be trying to express is that language in and of itself is limited. Language (words) is/are created so they contain metaphysical evil which is basically a lack of the Infinite Goodness who is God. Only the Word proceeding from the Father is Infinite Goodness and a true fullness of Infinite expression since God is the Word.

An error may be a moral or a physical evil. Physical evil is basically a harm or disorder not intended by God in creation. So if the error is asserted deliberately it is a moral evil (a lie, a lack of truth, false assertion, etc.). If the error is being asserted and spread without guilt it is a harm or disorder due to fallen and limited human nature. The Sacred Writers not contain or express any moral evils and there intended assertions do not express any physical evils which would be errors, inaccuries, etc. due to fallen and limited human nature. This is due to the special charism of inspiration.

Now when you look at some of these interpretations like the one's in some of those articles you posted, those interpretors are misunderstanding (deliberately or undeliberately) the intended assertion of the author which is free from error or inaccuracy. Like for example Psalm 93. I am working on a commentary on this, but for now let's look at the verse that people use to illustrate the inerrancy and acurracy of Sacred Scripture on a scientific matter:

{92:3} The Lord has been clothed with strength, and he has girded himself. Yet he has also confirmed the world, which will not be moved.

'Yet he has also confirmed the world, which will not be moved' does not refer to the rotation of the earth or the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The author is asserting the truth that the Earth will always be. It will stand forever. And we now this since after the general resurrection and general judgment God will purge and transform the first Earth into the New Earth. Whether or not the first Earth is completely destroyed or figuratively destroyed is a matter of speculation, yet the truth remains that this New Earth God creates in the future will stand firm forever. And this is a matter of faith and in a limited sense of science. Science predicts that in so many billions of years the Earth will be destroyed sometime after the Sun transforms into a Red Giant. Yet this will never happen because of the new creation of the next age will prevent the scientific prediction from ever occuring. So you see science is limited. And faith transcends science and offers a holistic view to science. Psalm 93 contains eschatological elements.

And this is also how one explains the seeming contradiction that in one place Scripture asserts Heaven and Earth will pass away, yet in other verses Scripture asserts that the Earth stands forever. What is even more bizarre and ironic is that I have learned from other verses of Sacred Scripture and a private revelation that the New Earth will not rotate nor seemingly orbit the Sun. This I am adding to my full commentary later, but this is a purely scientific assertion yet it is fully understood with another matter of faith. So Sacred Scripture is a little more complex on face value than it seems.

With love-faith-hope enlivening reason one should be able to work out any apparent problem or contradiction. Yet without faith-love-hope one's understanding of Scripture is stunted. The problem is that people misinterpret Scripture.

Do you have any other scientific problems with Scripture that bother you Ziggamafu? I will give the best answer I can. I would prefer scientific problems at this point.

[kafka]

bad spelling and grammar. Not able to edit here, but you should be able to understand what I am saying.

Sacred Scripture and the three types of evil:

Metaphysical evil: Lack of Infinite Goodness in created things. Sacred Scripture is not God so it is limited in its expression of truth, yet this limit is not error or inaccuracy.

Physical evil: harm or disorder not intended by God in creation. This would include inculpable and un-deliberate errors and inaccuracies, anything lacking in truth, due to fallen human nature. The unique gift of Inspiration preserves the Sacred Writers from any harms or disorders in expression, since Inspiration is of God who is Truth and cannot inspire error.

Moral evil: deliberate false assertions. The Sacred Writers did not make deliberate false assertions. This is clear enough.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1276636470' post='2129460']
I never [i]restricted [/i]inerrancy to faith and morals. That is a misrepresentation of me on your part and therefore slanderous. I'm eager to see how you will excuse this one. The best you can do is drop a quote of me saying that faith and morals are innerrant. But I never say they are the "only" inerrant aspects of Scripture as you have said. I suggested that the doctrine of inerrancy - throughout the Tradition of the Church - could refer to the message intended by God rather than the individual words used to convey that message; that is, the theology ([i]which often involves history[/i]) is inerrant, but not the human aspect of the text. [/quote]

I still find your interpretation to be contrary to the teachings of the Church because, as the Church teaches, the human authors of holy Scripture wrote all and only what God inspired them to write ([i]Dei Verbum[/i], 11).

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1276636470' post='2129460']
1. How does your interpretation of inerrancy allow for the writers of Scripture to be [i]true [/i]authors?[/quote]

The human authors of holy Scripture, writing "at the dictation of the Holy Spirit" (Providentissimus Deus, 20), were allowed to use their own style in writing down all that God willed them to write.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1276636470' post='2129460']
2. And what would constitute an error or contradiction in, say, the Koran?[/quote]

I am not familiar enough with the Koran to say.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1276636470' post='2129460']
3. Also, do the two creation stories present any textual contradictions? (Again, I am not referring to contradictions in message or theology)[/quote]

No.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1276636470' post='2129460']
4. Do the two flood stories present any textual contradictions, and do both refer to literal history?[/quote]

There are no contradictions in holy Scripture. The account of the Deluge refers to real history.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1276636470' post='2129460']
5. The Da Vinci Code is complete fiction, but deals with historical elements. Is it wrong to point out errors in this fictional work? If not, then how is it wrong to point out apparent errors in a fictional work such as Judith?[/quote]

This point is irrelevant since I reject the idea that Judith is fictional.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1276636470' post='2129460']
6. Is God Truth? Did God gift us with reason? Is it reasonable to assume that Truth Himself, if He dictated the words and methods of revelation, would dictate confusing or "hard to understand" passages that present apparent discrepancies or problems?[/quote]

I do not claim to know everything about God. Perhaps He allowed there to be passages difficult to understand in holy Scripture so that His Church could clear up any doctrinal misunderstandings at some point in the future.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1276636470' post='2129460']
7. Does the Church ever understand her beliefs with a greater clarity and understanding? Are dogmas always perfectly worded and perfectly understood when they are offered to the world?[/quote]

There are not problems in the way dogmas are worded since the Church is endowed with infallibility.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1276636470' post='2129460']
8. Have even the greatest of saints and doctors of the Church - say, Thomas Aquinas, whose work was praised with some extraordinary endorsements that probably don't need to mention - ever erred in their interpretation of dogma?[/quote]

Certain saints may have erred individually, but the Church as a whole has never fallen into dogmatic error.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='19 June 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1276921296' post='2131236']
I still find your interpretation to be contrary to the teachings of the Church because, as the Church teaches, the human authors of holy Scripture wrote all and only what God inspired them to write ([i]Dei Verbum[/i], 11). [/quote]

Was what you said of me accurate? Were you accurate in your public representation of me in that post? I still find no dogmatic restriction of every word's inspiration as referring to the inspiration of the written word rather than the word being written under the presence of inspiration. There is a difference; in the first example, there is no room for human authorship (if each word is itself inspired then the writing styles and everything else is inspired too; "dictated") while in the second example, the inspiration to convey theological truths and historical truths pertaining to that theology is active while every word is written, but the words themselves are written by the true human authors. The Tradition, the revelation that was actively inspiring the authors of Scripture, is inerrant. If I say that there was a car crash and another guy describes the same accident as a telephone pole falling over, we both may refer honestly to the same incident. In our intended assertion - the meaning of what we say - there is no contradiction, for what really happened was that a telephone pole fell over into oncoming traffic. But the two statements themselves certainly pose a problem and are certainly contradictory. Likewise, if I want to convey the truth that George Washington was honest and do so by telling the story of the cherry tree, the story is certainly erroneous even though the messaged conveyed is not.

Take the example of the two accounts of Judas' suicide. In one he hangs himself. In another, he falls off a cliff and bursts open. The assertion is that he killed himself. The message is that his spiritual condition was detrimental to his physical condition. And it could very well could be that Judas hung himself on a tree at the edge of a cliff, the branch broke, and his rotting body burst open in the field below. Nevertheless, the two accounts present contradictory suicides on the surface - on the textual level.

As far as numerical discrepancies, I would chalk those up to copying errors. I would presume that the autographs lacked the discrepancies, although I don't think that God's nature (Truth & Perfection) depends on His choice to preserve Scripture from such discrepancies. The inerrancy applies to the asserted message, the object of Divine Inspiration.



[quote][i]The human authors of holy Scripture, writing "at the dictation of the Holy Spirit" (Providentissimus Deus, 20), were allowed to use their own style in writing down all that God willed them to write. [/i][/quote]

I do not think that this Holy Father's choice of wording was prudential in this snippet of the encyclical.

[quote]I am not familiar enough with the Koran to say. [/quote]

Cop out. You know very well what I was getting at.


[quote]No.[/quote]

In Genesis 1.25-27, humans are created after all animals. In Genesis 2.18-19, "every" animal is created after humans. But [url="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm"]a better summary is provided here:[/url]
"In the six-day creation story, the order of creation is plants, birds and fish, mammals and reptiles, and finally man to reign over all created before him, while in the Adam and Eve story, the creation order is reversed, with man coming first, then plants and animals. The two creation stories also have different narrative rhythms, different settings, and different names for God. In the six-day story, the creation of humanity occurs through a single act and the creator, seeming more cosmic than human-like, is present only through a series of commands. In the Adam and Eve story, on the other hand, man and woman are created through two separate acts and God is present in a hands-on, intimate way. The pre-creation setting in the six-day story is a watery chaos, while in the Adam and Eve version, the setting before creation is a dry dessert. Finally, in the six-day story, the creator is called “Elohim,” while in the other version of events, the creator is “the Lord God” (“Yahweh”)."



[quote]There are no contradictions in holy Scripture. The account of the Deluge refers to real history. [/quote]
[url="http://failingtheinsidertest.blogspot.com/2009/03/two-flood-stories.html"]Good summary here:[/url]

"So here's a recap: Noah is introduced twice. There are two conflicting versions of the instructions about the animals. Verse 7:13 looks like it was written to come after something other than 7:12. The time is marked while switching between seven and forty day intervals and month-based time. Viewed together, the two systems are in tension. Viewed individually, the two systems make as much sense as should be expected from a narrative that coherently keeps track of time. After the ground dries up, water is all over the earth again. Noah redundantly sends out two birds. And after only one of the two sets of instructions prepared for a sacrifice, and the repetition of nearly every detail, we have but one account of a sacrifice.

Suppose someone tried to harmonize Luke and John by cutting up each Gospel and putting them together in what they thought was the best order, added little or no extra-biblical text to smooth over the transitions, and just left the surface contradictions in place. If you only read the final product, you may or may not be able figure out which story went with which author – but you certainly would notice things like Jesus saying “it is finished” and dying followed by saying “into your hands I commit my spirit” and then dying a second time. You also might notice switches between two different writing styles. If you could fully split it up into the two sources this would greatly add to the case for two authors, but it wouldn't be essential to an argument that there are two authors. That's what the Documentary Hypothesis says the Torah is – the splicing together of primarily four sources. In the case of the flood story, there are two different authors."

[quote]
This point is irrelevant since I reject the idea that Judith is fictional. [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08554a.htm"]New Advent has an excellent summary[/url] of the many discrepancies and problems that are present if Judith is considered literal history (if not divinely inspired fiction, I would have to say that Judith is at most mythologized history or a sort of creative non-fiction), and moreover does not hesitate to use the word "error" in relation to some of its discrepancies. Regardless, your response is another cop-out for the same reason that your response to my question about the Muslim claim to the Koran's inerrancy was a cop-out.

We can point out errors in their text and their doctrine of inerrancy is screwed because the text is all they have, like the Protestants. We can point out errors and still insist on inerrancy because the text is not all we have; we have the Tradition of the text as progressively interpreted and proclaimed with increasing understanding by an infallible Church.


[quote]I do not claim to know everything about God. Perhaps He allowed there to be passages difficult to understand in holy Scripture so that His Church could clear up any doctrinal misunderstandings at some point in the future.
[/quote]

The correct answers were "Yes" (dogma), "Yes" (dogma), and "No" (self-evident; common sense).

[quote]There are not problems in the way dogmas are worded since the Church is endowed with infallibility. [/quote]

I think that you are confusing infallibility with impeccability, in relation to Church teaching. If our understanding or wording of revelation was perfect, there would be no need for the dogmatic process.


[quote]Certain saints may have erred individually, but the Church as a whole has never fallen into dogmatic error.
[/quote]

Duh. Yet you certainly toss around individual, non-dogmatic quotes as if they represent the perfect understanding of revelation that only exists for the Church Militant. The Church was not born full-grown, nor is she a statue to be examined.

Karl Adam, one of my favorite Catholic authors of the 20th century, tore down rebellious textual critics (Modernists) for the same reason that I dislike the quote-thumping approach:

"The textual critic assumes that Christianity and Christology are something finished and inflexible,, lying before us complete down to the last impulse and the last article, complete in the Bible and in Christian literature, in every Christian movement and institution from the early Fathers down to the present. They assume that Christianity poured all its vitality into its literature and other foundations, and became as it were fossilized in them. They go on to assume that only the historian acquainted with Christian literature and its monuments is capable of passing judgement on the nature of Christianity. According to this theory, the sole source of our faith, and its exclusive standard, would simply be the historical evidence for it. And therefore, they claim, it is up to the historian, the expert, to decide on the nature of Christianity, not to the living Church. What is wrong in these assumptions? They are wrong in regarding Christianity, not as a living movement, but as something frozen and extinct, something whose fossilization in the strata of history can and must be entirely uncovered. They misjudge the living, inward, invisible quality of Christianity, which can be comprehended only by inner experience, and not by external verification."

(Karl Adam, "The Christ of Faith")

Edited June 19, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[kafka]

Those textual differences you give in your examples Ziggamafu are not contradictory. They are complimentary (describing additions which produce completeness or perfection in something). That I think is the correct attitude one must have toward Sacred Scripture. That is how I view it. Sacred Scripture is like one word uttered from the mouth of God. It is an indestructable whole.

Edited June 19, 2010 by kafka

[cmotherofpirl]

"There are no contradictions in holy Scripture. The account of the Deluge refers to real history."


No one here claimed it wasn't real history.

Genesis 6:19 : two if each kind, a male and a female, two if every kind of bird, beast and reptile...

Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven pairs, male and female, of all beasts that are ritually clean, and one pair, male and female, of all beasts that are not clean; also seven pairs, male and female, of every bird - to ensure that life continues on earth.


However you cannot claim there are not differences unless you attempt to dance on the head of a pin. There are two different versions here: ritual cleanliness is not even introduced until Exodus and Leviticus.


Please do not post a quote, I am interested in an actual opinion Rexi, not cut and paste.

[kafka]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='22 June 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1277234860' post='2132884']
"There are no contradictions in holy Scripture. The account of the Deluge refers to real history."


No one here claimed it wasn't real history.

Genesis 6:19 : two if each kind, a male and a female, two if every kind of bird, beast and reptile...

Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven pairs, male and female, of all beasts that are ritually clean, and one pair, male and female, of all beasts that are not clean; also seven pairs, male and female, of every bird - to ensure that life continues on earth.


However you cannot claim there are not differences unless you attempt to dance on the head of a pin. There are two different versions here: ritual cleanliness is not even introduced until Exodus and Leviticus.


Please do not post a quote, I am interested in an actual opinion Rexi, not cut and paste.
[/quote]
Not sure who you were directing that post toward but I will lend some of what I have learned as well as my thoughts. I do not view them as different accounts. Same account, the latter verse perfects the former verse:

{6:19} And from every living thing of all that is flesh, you shall lead pairs into the ark, so that they may survive with you: from the male sex and the female,

This instructs that every living creature on earth should be taken into the ark in pairs for propagation. It does not instruct how many pairs. It also teaches us that humans as well as every living creature are meant by God to be in pairs (surely a reflection of God's relationship with creation as well as a pale reflection of the Father-Son relationship)

{7:2} From all the clean animals, take seven and seven, the male and the female. Yet truly, from animals that are unclean, take two and two, the male and the female.

This verse instructs Noah on how many pairs of each living creature to take onto the ark. Now as far as the ritual cleanliness is concerned I have not put any thought into it yet. My initial thought is that before Moses and Aaron and the Israelites delivered from Egypt, the good and just ancients practiced some form of ritual cleanliness or perhaps clean animals were discerned and used for sacrifice (think of Abel). And later God transformed these rites into the practices of the Hebrews set forth in Exodus and Leviticus.

The reason I suggest this is I learned in my studies of the Eucharist that the ancients before the Exodus had some sort of feast of unleavened bread at the harvest to purge the old batch of leaven and symbolize the passover into the new harvest. So the Israelites were familiar with this ritual and the symbolism yet God transformed it. And this in turn prepared for the Last Supper, the Eucharist.