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

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1276101933' post='2126350']
Nevertheless, I deem it dishonest to say "there is no discrepancy".
[/quote]

Then you deem the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church dishonest. It's as simple as that.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 June 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1276102282' post='2126353']
Then you deem the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church dishonest. It's as simple as that.
[/quote]

Are you sure about that statement? Do you see the fallacy in what you've claimed regarding what I actually said?

Hint: I did not say all of the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church were dishonest, nor did I say that Bede was dishonest; only that a particular line within a great explanation was dishonest. And I don't even know that I could have any business saying that even that line was dishonest relative to the verbiage of that time. I contend that in the verbiage of our time, it is dishonest for us to look at a discrepancy and say that it isn't one.

Unbelievable.

Edit: Actually, I think you owe me an apology for that one. Your accusation was slanderous.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 11:59 AM' timestamp='1276102784' post='2126359']
Are you sure about that statement? Do you see the fallacy in what you've claimed regarding what I actually said?[/quote]

No fallacy was present.

You claim that a person who asserts that there are no discrepancies in holy Scripture is dishonest.
The holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church assert that there are no discrepancies in holy Scripture.
Ergo, you claim that the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church are dishonest.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 11:59 AM' timestamp='1276102784' post='2126359']
Edit: Actually, I think you owe me an apology for that one. Your accusation was slanderous.
[/quote]

My accusation was not slanderous at all; I was merely showing you the conclusion that logically follows from your premise that it is dishonest to say there are not discrepancies in Scripture.

[kafka]

another thing to consider. Jesus gives us additional information from his knowledge as Son of God. There are other examples of this. So although it is not clear in the Old Testament, Jesus knew Abiathar was high priest at the time his father Ahimelech gave David the Bread of the Presence. This I just got this point from Conte, since we are discussing at his forum too.

Here are some of my additional thoughts

Abiathar, son of Ahimelech (son of Ahitub) also had a son whose name was Ahimelech. This Ahimelech's grandfather was the Ahimelech who gave the Bread of the Presence to David, when his son Abiathar was high priest. Zadok came from a different line (a different father Ahitub). He was not in Nob at the massacre of Doeg.

In 2 Samuel 8:17 it is recorded:

{8:17} And Zadok, the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, were the priests. And Seraiah was the scribe.

By this time it seems the office of high priest was not held by any one person for a lifetime. The office also seems to be shared in this case. So the office of high priest though generally passed down from father to son seemed to have be taken up by father or son (or another) in different years or at different times or even on different occasions within a year, though ultimately the father-son the succession would remain intact. This seems to be implied in the events of David's reign and implicit in the Gospel of John:

1 Kings
{4:4} Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, over the army; and Zadok, and Abiathar, priests;

John
{11:51} Yet he did not say this from himself, but since he was the high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation.

There is no law set by God in the Pentateuch concerning the length of time a high priest is to officiate or when succession is to take place. Eleazar succeeded Aaron just before he died.

By the time David passed away Abiathar and not his son Ahimelech was fulfilling the office of high priest again, but then Solomon deposed him and permanently set Zadok in his place. And with Abiathar being deposed in favor of Zadok, the succession in his house (of Eli) ended as prophecied by Samuel. And so his son Ahimelech is never described as high priest again in the records. This seems to be the sole case of deposition of a high priest in Scripture:

{2:26} Also, the king said to Abiathar, the priest: “Go into Anathoth, to your own land, for you are a man worthy of death. But I will not put you to death this day, since you carried the ark of the Lord God before David, my father, and since you have endured hardship in all the things, for which my father labored.”

But ultimately Jesus knew who was high priest at the time David took the Bread of Presence, and working from this the rest may be explained. I am going to put this to rest in my mind.

so I guess I agree with Saint Bede that there is no discrepancy or inaccuracy, but I disagree with his explanation.

Edited June 9, 2010 by kafka

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 June 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1276103730' post='2126365']
No fallacy was present.

You claim that a person who asserts that there are no discrepancies in holy Scripture is dishonest.
The holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church assert that there are no discrepancies in holy Scripture.
Ergo, you claim that the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church are dishonest.
[/quote]

This is evidence that you couldn't care less what I post or link to:

[quote]Tertullian (AD 200) said, "Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of the [gospel] narratives. [b]What matters is that there is agreement in the essential doctrine of the Faith[/b]" (Against Marcion, IV:2). St. John Chrysostom (AD 390) was even bolder (at least to modern ears) to suggest that contradictions in the gospels actually strengthen the conviction that Christianity is true. If the gospel authors agreed in every small detail, then it was obvious that the stories were forgeries by a group of dishonest early Christians in collusion with one another. He even says, "the [b]discord [/b]which seems to be present in [b]little matters[/b] shields [the authors] from every suspicion and vindicates the character of the writers" (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, I:6). Even today, we Christians are far more credible if we admit to minor Biblical contradictions rather than trying come up with absurd, non-realistic stories designed to make the gospel accounts completely harmonize. So without denying the Bible's inspiration or essential accuracy, many Church Fathers recognized minor contradictions and variants in the text.[/quote]

Both of the little quotes from the article I linked to are nice little summaries of what I've been saying: fallible words, infallible Word. In a sense, Kafka was agreeing with the principle I have been emphasizing when he admitted the "flaws" of human language. My point exactly. Nobody is saying that God's Word errs. Nobody is saying that Divine Revelation errs. I am saying that it is probable that insignificant errors occur in the written text that communicates inerrant revelation.

Fallible words, infallible Word. Errors may occur - and certainly are at least [i]apparent [/i]- in the fallible words that convey the inerrant Word. While we should work toward plausible explanations, that doesn't mean that we should deny the reality of an apparent discrepancy as such. It is a self-deceiving scandal.

[kafka]

I said (or meant) human language is sometimes inadequate to express the fullness of truth, not flawed or inaccurate. Human language may be used to express truth, if it could not it would lose its value. And anything could be twisted. I'm not a deconstructionist

Yet ultimately what the author is intending and the sequence and choice of words he is using to assert the truth is immune from error and this is retained in the transmission of Living Scripture.

I dont think words in themselves cannot be called fallible. 'Fallbile words' seems like a misnomer. Assertions (using words) may only be called fallible or the mind from which assertions proceed may be called fallible. Yet the minds of the Sacred Writer are under inspiration, so what is contained and asserted in their writings is inerrant and infallible.

Edited June 9, 2010 by kafka

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='09 June 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1276062341' post='2126242']
This has been interesting to read.

Rex, thank you for sharing you extensive knowledge of the Scriptures and the Church - it is refreshing that one does not need a degree in order to deeply understand the particulars and facts of our faith and I hope that others respect you for your orthodox and disciplined study.
[/quote]

Sad that this post lost its positive. I suppose we are not supposed to build each other up.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='09 June 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1276121711' post='2126476']
Sad that this post lost its positive. I suppose we are not supposed to build each other up.
[/quote]

Wasn't me!

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1276117486' post='2126451']
This is evidence that you couldn't care less what I post or link to:[/quote]

No, I do not read everything to which you link (nor do I expect you to read everything to which I link). I also don't read ridiculously long articles. Out of consideration to you and anyone else reading this, I did not post any such long articles, even though I could have.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1276117486' post='2126451']
Both of the little quotes from the article I linked to are nice little summaries of what I've been saying: fallible words, infallible Word. In a sense, Kafka was agreeing with the principle I have been emphasizing when he admitted the "flaws" of human language. My point exactly. Nobody is saying that God's Word errs. Nobody is saying that Divine Revelation errs. I am saying that it is probable that insignificant errors occur in the written text that communicates inerrant revelation.

Fallible words, infallible Word. Errors may occur - and certainly are at least [i]apparent [/i]- in the fallible words that convey the inerrant Word. While we should work toward plausible explanations, that doesn't mean that we should deny the reality of an apparent discrepancy as such. It is a self-deceiving scandal.
[/quote]

The quote from Chrysostom does not express that holy Scripture is composed of fallible words at all. He merely states that there sometimes seem to be errors present in the Bible, which I think everyone will admit. This does not mean the divinely inspired words of holy Scripture are in error; it means that they are not being understood correctly. "Because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author." (Pope Leo XIII, [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i], 20). Your continued claim that there are errors present in the inspired sacred text is not only scandalous and offensive to pious ears, but contrary to the dogmas of the faith as well.

[KnightofChrist]

Vatican II wrote, in <On Revelation> #11: "Since all that is
asserted by the human author should be considered as asserted by
the Holy Spirit, therefore the books of Scripture are to be held as
teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error, the truth <which
God wanted to be confided to the sacred letters for the sake of our
salvation>."

We note the Council says whatever the human writer asserts is
asserted by the Holy Spirit. We just saw that word <assert> in
connection with genre. The Council means to use that framework.
[b]
Some foolishly take the underlined words as restrictive and say
only things needed for salvation are free of error - all else,
science, history, even religion, may be in error. But those who
make this mistake do not notice that the Council itself added some
footnotes. Note 4 sends us to a text of Leo XIII which excludes
errors of every kind. And other notes cite Vatican I (DS 3006)
saying the principal author is the Holy Spirit. But He cannot be in
error. Therefore. Pius XII, in His <Divino afflante Spiritu> said
that these words of Vatican I are a <[u]solemn definition[/u]>. So the
foolish commentators think Vatican II is contradicting a solemn
definition![/b]

- [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/ERRORS.TXT"]Father William Most[/url]

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 June 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1276133675' post='2126561']
Your continued claim that there are errors present in the inspired sacred text is not only scandalous and offensive to pious ears, but contrary to the dogmas of the faith as well.
[/quote]

I point out that "apparent" discrepancies [i]are [/i]discrepancies, properly speaking, despite hypothetical solutions. I further point out that the message conveyed by Scripture - regardless of subject matter - is inerrant, and that the text itself is inerrant where it pertains to salvation.

Where you and I disagree is that I believe that it is dishonest to say that there "are no errors or problems" in Scripture, when volumes of proposed solutions suggest the opposite. It would seem to be an action contrary to the nature of the God Who is Truth, if He dictated an absolutely perfect text of human authorship, to allow even apparent discrepancies. If God willed inerrancy of message, and desired that the humans involved be true co-authors, then I would expect the kinds of problems that we see and are forced to deal with.

I also do not believe that I am unfaithful to the Church's teaching on inerrancy by interpreting the many quotes you have thumped as referring to the perfection of message contained within the text - and the perfection of the text in essential matters - rather than to the text in isolation from the message. This is where I find leeway to tolerate discrepancies, that they exist within the human component of authorship in nonessential matters. Notice that all of the apparent problems are trivial and inconsequential to salvation; I do not see this as coincidental, but providential.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1276139760' post='2126606']
I point out that "apparent" discrepancies [i]are [/i]discrepancies, properly speaking, despite hypothetical solutions. I further point out that the message conveyed by Scripture - regardless of subject matter - is inerrant, and that the text itself is inerrant where it pertains to salvation. [/quote]

I point out that just because something seems to be a discrepancy, that does not mean that it necessarily is. I further point out that the human authors of holy Scripture wrote the inspired text as instruments of God, such that it is impossible to claim that there is an error in the inspired sacred text making God out as a liar and a deceiver.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1276139760' post='2126606']
Where you and I disagree is that I believe that it is dishonest to say that there "are no errors or problems" in Scripture, when volumes of proposed solutions suggest the opposite. It would seem to be an action contrary to the nature of the God Who is Truth, if He dictated an absolutely perfect text of human authorship, to allow even apparent discrepancies. If God willed inerrancy of message, and desired that the humans involved be true co-authors, then I would expect the kinds of problems that we see and are forced to deal with.[/quote]

It is in no way dishonest to claim that holy Scripture is free from error. What is dishonest is claiming that holy Scripture is both inspired by God and filled with errors. By saying that that holy Scripture is the word of God, yet admitting that there are errors, you are calling God the author of error. This is not heresy, but blasphemy against God Who is the Truth itself.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1276139760' post='2126606']
I also do not believe that I am unfaithful to the Church's teaching on inerrancy by interpreting the many quotes you have thumped as referring to the perfection of message contained within the text - and the perfection of the text in essential matters - rather than to the text in isolation from the message. This is where I find leeway to tolerate discrepancies, that they exist within the human component of authorship in nonessential matters. Notice that all of the apparent problems are trivial and inconsequential to salvation; I do not see this as coincidental, but providential.
[/quote]

You are interpreting the quotes from the Fathers and the popes in a different sense than that in which they were written. By doing this, not only are [i]you[/i] being intellectually dishonest, you are falling prey to the the heretical notion of the evolution of dogma. You are claiming that it is possible to assign a different sense to the dogma of inerrancy than that which the Church understood.

As to the matter of quoting Leo XIII, I hope you realize that he probably intended to be quoted in the way in which I am quoting him. At the time when the encyclical [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i] was written, it was a common practice for theologians to take brief quotes from papal and conciliar documents in order to prove a point of doctrine. Unless Leo XIII was an idiot (which is very unlikely), he knew that he would be quoted in such a manner and wrote his encyclical with that in mind.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 June 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1276140770' post='2126612']
This is not heresy, but blasphemy against God Who is the Truth itself.
[/quote]

I made a mistake. I should have written, "That is not [i]only[/i] heresy, but [i]also[/i] blasphemy."

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='10 June 2010 - 04:55 AM' timestamp='1276160105' post='2126701']
I made a mistake. I should have written, "That is not [i]only[/i] heresy, but [i]also[/i] blasphemy."
[/quote]

The Word of God is conveyed by the written text of Scripture, but it is not the written text itself. The only reason Scripture is worthy of capitalization - the only reason it is sacred - is because of the inspiration under which it was written and because of the Tradition that it conveys. The Word is not made sacred by the words, the words are made sacred by the Word. Thus can the text itself err in nonessential areas while the Word it conveys remains inerrant. The God Who is Truth is not the author of confusion or deception, and is incapable of imperfection. God did not write the Bible. God inspired the Bible. His authorship is in His active inspiration, not in the words or methods employed by the human writers. God revealed the truths by His active inspiration, and the writers painted imperfect pictures of those truths. Which is greater, the icon or that to which the icon is a window?

I wonder if you would admit that your methods of excusing and explaining problematic passages in Scripture could be used by any other faith that claims inerrancy for its own book? Anyone can form hypothetical resolutions by means of interpretational gymnastics and historical guessing games. Doing so does not prove that the problem does not exist in the text, but rather proves a problem that exists in the rationality of the textual acrobat. If I did not put my surrender to Truth as the paramount aspect of my faith (or, years ago, the lack thereof), I would never have left atheism for Protestantism and I would never have left Protestantism for Catholicism. The Fathers and the Church in every age has taught that the Bible is inerrant and that all of its text was written under Divine Inspiration. Yet there are discrepancies in Scripture that require volumes of hypothetical explanations (proving the existence of the problems). These two facts must be resolved, and I find that my position (shared by some of the greatest biblical scholars of recent memory) resolves them.

If I wrote something up as a brief summary of my position and secured a nihil obstat, would that be enough for you? No, probably not. I'm sure all of the nihil obstats on the NAB notes and the continued promulgation of it as the official English text of Scripture is not enough for you to remove your label of heresy and blasphemy from those who share my position.