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

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1276176898' post='2126736']
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?[/quote]

While the human authors of holy Scripture were indeed allowed to use their own styles in writing the word of God, it must be noted that every single part of holy Scripture that the human authors wrote was inspired by God, as the Church teaches: "In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, [b]consigned to writing[i] everything and only those things[/i] which He wanted[/b]." (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, [i]Dei Verbum[/i], 11). Since all and everything contained in the books of Scripture is divinely inspired such that the inspired books have God as their "primary author" (Pope Leo XIII, [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i], 20), one cannot assert that there is any error whatsoever in holy Scripture without making God out to be the author of that error.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1276176898' post='2126736']
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.[/quote]

The holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church made frequent use of what you would call "mental gymnastics" to reconcile what appeared to be discrepancies. Do you think a problem existed in the rationality of the holy Fathers and Doctors?

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1276176898' post='2126736']
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.[/quote]

If some of the greatest biblical scholars of recent memory have supported the idea that there is any error in holy Scripture, then, quite frankly, said scholars have held a view condemned by the teaching authority of the Church as heretical. If a biblical scholar holds that there are errors in holy Scripture, that does prove that his opinion is correct; rather, it merely proves that the biblical scholar in question lacks orthodoxy. The position that there is error in holy Scripture does not resolve any problem, rather, it just creates more problems by spreading false doctrine.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1276176898' post='2126736']
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.
[/quote]

There are plenty of books with imprimaturs that contain doctrinal errors. One prominent example that comes to mind is the [i]Breaking Bread Hymnal[/i], which contains numerous doctrinally erroneous hymns. An imprimatur is of little value in determining whether a book is doctrinally correct.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='10 June 2010 - 08:33 AM' timestamp='1276180426' post='2126748']
. . . If a biblical scholar holds that there are errors in holy Scripture, that does prove that his opinion is correct; rather, it merely proves that the biblical scholar in question lacks orthodoxy. . . .
[/quote]
I think you meant to say: "If a biblical scholar holds that there are errors in holy Scripture, that does [b]not[/b] prove that his opinion is correct; rather, it merely proves that the biblical scholar in question lacks orthodoxy."

[Laudate_Dominum]

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!

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='10 June 2010 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1276180426' post='2126748']
The position that there is error in holy Scripture does not resolve any problem, rather, it just creates more problems by spreading false doctrine.
[/quote]

My position is that there is apparent error (fact) and that the apparent error could be actual without compromising the doctrine of inerrancy as handed down by Church by means of the interpretation of inerrancy that has indeed been gaining ground in scholarly Catholic circles. Raymond Brown advocated my position and he was not only never condemned, but twice honored by appointment to the Pontifical Biblical Commission (first by Paul VI, then by John Paul the Great). From what I gather, our Holy Father was also a fan of Brown. I do believe we should work for resolutions, but I simultaneously acknowledge that they are a stretch and, on the objective level, we form them because we implicitly recognize a problem. I think we should call a spade a spade and, where there remains serious difficulties, refer to them as probable textual errors rather than deny that these problems exist. If a proposed resolution becomes seriously credible, then we can lift that uncomfortable label. But in any case, if we recognize the difference between the revelation itself and the inspired conveyance of it, I do not view it as calling God the author of error when acknowledge textual errors. God is Author in relation to the revelation contained in Scripture and the Inspiration by means of which the revelation was conveyed. God is not Author in relation to the written words and methods used to convey revelation; if you deny this then you absolutely remove the humans from the picture and make God not just the primary, but the only true Author.


By the way, was it you or Kafka that claimed "there are no problems in Scripture"?

To quote Divino Afflante Spiritu:

"44. Nevertheless no one will be surprised, if all difficulties are not yet solved and overcome; but that [b]even today serious problems [/b]greatly exercise the minds of Catholic exegetes. We should not lose courage on this account; nor should we forget that in the human sciences the same happens as in the natural world; that is to say, new beginnings grow little by little and fruits are gathered only after many labors.
...
46. But this state of things is no reason why the Catholic commentator, inspired by an active and ardent love of his subject and sincerely devoted to Holy Mother Church, should in any way be deterred from [b]grappling again and again with these difficult problems, hitherto unsolved,[/b] not only that he may refute the objections of the adversaries, but also may attempt to find a satisfactory solution, which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will at the same time satisfy the indubitable conclusion of profane sciences."

Thought you might like that, since you quote DAS with obvious affection.

[Ziggamafu]

[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]

LD, what do you think? You, Apo, and Aloysius have quite a bit of pull on my theological persuasions. If you think I am espousing something heretical and blasphemous, as Rex seems to think, then I will pause for some serious reconsideration, rather than continue braying my opinion.

[kafka]

what I meant was no problems with what the Sacred Authors (and thus God) are asserting. Not our own problems in understanding what is being asserted by them which is what Divino Afflantu is describing above. For example the whole Abiathar problem I am now grateful you brought up. There is no inaccuracy or error in what Mark is asserting (or Jesus). Abiathar was officiating as high priest at the time his father Ahimelech (who was also a high priest) gave David the Bread of the Presence. Abiathar was anointed high priest and took the office before his father Ahimelech died. Christ described David taking the Bread of Presence while Abiathar was high priest. He did not describe who personally gave the Bread to David. He attributed the event as happening during the office of Abiathar. So there is no contradiction.

Why did Jesus decide to say 'under the high priest Abiathar', or 'when Abiathar was high priest' instead of simply saying Ahimelech gave David the Bread? First as Son of God he had additional information than what the Old Testament (which is not clear who was high priest at the time) asserts. Second, he wanted to proclaim a spiritual teaching on the second level above and beyond the historical assertion.

Edited June 10, 2010 by kafka

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1276192187' post='2126827']
LD, what do you think? You, Apo, and Aloysius have quite a bit of pull on my theological persuasions. If you think I am espousing something heretical and blasphemous, as Rex seems to think, then I will pause for some serious reconsideration, rather than continue braying my opinion.
[/quote]
Wow, cool. I think I'm being overrated here but I do appreciate the compliment. [[i]insert notworthy smiley and a bit of groveling[/i]] I do have a lot of opinions on the topic of inerrancy, Dei Verbum, historicity, et cetera, but believe that I should read more of this thread before spouting off. I've only skimmed about 20% of the posts, at the most, and with a limited attention span. The problem is that I phatmass in little bursts so most of my posts end up being spammy and my reading comprehension level is highly retarded. Back when I was a full fledged basement nerd I was all over the debates, and long, thoughtful posts. I still love it, but... Oh, I'll just blame Web 2.0, it has given me ADHD.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='10 June 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1276194854' post='2126868']
Wow, cool. I think I'm being overrated here but I do appreciate the compliment. [[i]insert notworthy smiley and a bit of groveling[/i]] I do have a lot of opinions on the topic of inerrancy, Dei Verbum, historicity, et cetera, but believe that I should read more of this thread before spouting off. I've only skimmed about 20% of the posts, at the most, and with a limited attention span. The problem is that I phatmass in little bursts so most of my posts end up being spammy and my reading comprehension level is highly retarded. Back when I was a full fledged basement nerd I was all over the debates, and long, thoughtful posts. I still love it, but... Oh, I'll just blame Web 2.0, it has given me ADHD.
[/quote]

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?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='10 June 2010 - 12:18 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]
Quote Hagen around here, and people will start throwing holy hand grenades.

[Ziggamafu]

[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]

Rather, is it [i]permissible [/i]to:

1. allow for

2. the possibility of

3. (and, in cases where no realistically credible solution exists, acknowledgment of)

4. "errors"

5. in the [i]written text itself[/i] of Holy Scripture,

6. that is, in the words employed to convey Divine Revelation, and not in the holistic message (the revelation itself) intended by God,

7. in areas not directly pertaining to our salvation.

*where "errors" refer [i]not to the revelatory assertions of Scripture,[/i] but those discrepancies that exist due to genre choices, writing techniques, or cultural deficiencies on the part of the human authors (who, it may be added, in some cases did not even know they were writing under Divine Inspiration).

Further, that it is dishonest or self-deceiving not to acknowledge apparent errors as such in relation to the role of the human authors (while nevertheless insisting on the inerrancy of "Scripture" insofar as Scripture refers to the a written conveyance of perfect revelation by inspired texts) in any subsequent attempt to explain a hypothetical solution to a biblical problem. And, that failure to do this leads to scandal (as evidenced in the initial article I posted from Skeptic magazine and in the cartoon videos made by the atheist).

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1276198933' post='2126918']
Rather, is it [i]permissible [/i]to:

1. allow for

2. the possibility of

3. (and, in cases where no realistically credible solution exists, acknowledgment of)

4. "errors"

5. in the [i]written text itself[/i] of Holy Scripture,

6. that is, in the words employed to convey Divine Revelation, and not in the holistic message (the revelation itself) intended by God,

[b]7. in areas not directly pertaining to our salvation.[/b]*

*where "errors" refer [i]not to the revelatory assertions of Scripture,[/i] but those discrepancies that exist due to genre choices, writing techniques, or cultural deficiencies on the part of the human authors (who, it may be added, in some cases did not even know they were writing under Divine Inspiration).

Further, that it is dishonest or self-deceiving not to acknowledge apparent errors as such in relation to the role of the human authors (while nevertheless insisting on the inerrancy of "Scripture" insofar as Scripture refers to the a written conveyance of perfect revelation by inspired texts) in any subsequent attempt to explain a hypothetical solution to a biblical problem. And, that failure to do this leads to scandal (as evidenced in the initial article I posted from Skeptic magazine and in the cartoon videos made by the atheist).
[/quote]


There are no errors in Scripture, this is the solemn teaching of the Church. It will not changed it will not be redefined. It is heresy to suggest that there are errors in scripture. I do not allow atheistic propaganda to convert me into a doubting Thomas. Protestants in a like manner love to show what they believe to be the many errors, and conflictions between what the Church teaches, and what the Bible teaches. Just because one is unable for a time answer their charges, or just because their charges appear to be correct and the Church appears to be in error doesn't make it so. It means that I have not yet found the answer. But you appear to have fallen into that error. You have allowed atheistic propaganda to cause you to doubt. Rather than in faith believing the solemn teaching of Mother Church that the Holy Scriptures are free from any and all error.


*[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='09 June 2010 - 10:02 PM' timestamp='1276135327' post='2126568']
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]
[/quote]

Edited June 10, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[kafka]

are you referring to copyist errors Zigamaffu?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='10 June 2010 - 10:18 AM' 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]
so, so, so, not cool.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 June 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1276185697' post='2126778']
I think you meant to say: "If a biblical scholar holds that there are errors in holy Scripture, that does [b]not[/b] prove that his opinion is correct; rather, it merely proves that the biblical scholar in question lacks orthodoxy."
[/quote]

Thanks for the correction.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1276191939' post='2126818']
My position is that there is apparent error (fact) and that the apparent error could be actual without compromising the doctrine of inerrancy as handed down by Church by means of the interpretation of inerrancy that has indeed been gaining ground in scholarly Catholic circles. Raymond Brown advocated my position and he was not only never condemned, but twice honored by appointment to the Pontifical Biblical Commission (first by Paul VI, then by John Paul the Great). From what I gather, our Holy Father was also a fan of Brown.[/quote]

There have been many prominent clerics in the history of the Church who were never condemned for their unorthodox views. As far as I know, those who advocated the conciliarist heresy at the pseudo-Council of Constance (that is, the part of said council that was held without papal approval) were never excommunicated. That doesn't mean that their views were in line with Church doctrine.

As to your claim that the pope is a "fan" of Raymond Brown, I would like to point out that does not necessarily mean that Raymond Brown is correct. Pope Honorius was apparently a fan of monophysite terminology, but, as I am sure you are aware, monophysitism was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1276191939' post='2126818']
I do believe we should work for resolutions, but I simultaneously acknowledge that they are a stretch and, on the objective level, we form them because we implicitly recognize a problem. I think we should call a spade a spade and, where there remains serious difficulties, refer to them as probable textual errors rather than deny that these problems exist. If a proposed resolution becomes seriously credible, then we can lift that uncomfortable label. But in any case, if we recognize the difference between the revelation itself and the inspired conveyance of it, I do not view it as calling God the author of error when acknowledge textual errors. God is Author in relation to the revelation contained in Scripture and the Inspiration by means of which the revelation was conveyed. God is not Author in relation to the written words and methods used to convey revelation; if you deny this then you absolutely remove the humans from the picture and make God not just the primary, but the only true Author. [/quote]

If one accepts that the sacred writers wrote "everything and only those things" ([i]Dei Verbum[/i], 11) which God wanted them to write, then to state that there is any error whatsoever in holy Scripture is the same as saying that God is the author of that error. While the human authors of holy Scripture were allowed to use their own style in writing everything and only what God inspired them to write, God is still the "primary author," as the Church calls Him, because, as the Church says, they human authors wrote at the "dictation" of the Holy Spirit.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1276191939' post='2126818']
By the way, was it you or Kafka that claimed "there are no problems in Scripture"?

To quote Divino Afflante Spiritu:

"44. Nevertheless no one will be surprised, if all difficulties are not yet solved and overcome; but that [b]even today serious problems [/b]greatly exercise the minds of Catholic exegetes. We should not lose courage on this account; nor should we forget that in the human sciences the same happens as in the natural world; that is to say, new beginnings grow little by little and fruits are gathered only after many labors.
...
46. But this state of things is no reason why the Catholic commentator, inspired by an active and ardent love of his subject and sincerely devoted to Holy Mother Church, should in any way be deterred from [b]grappling again and again with these difficult problems, hitherto unsolved,[/b] not only that he may refute the objections of the adversaries, but also may attempt to find a satisfactory solution, which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will at the same time satisfy the indubitable conclusion of profane sciences."

Thought you might like that, since you quote DAS with obvious affection.
[/quote]

It seems to me that Pius XII is not saying that there are problems in the text of holy Scripture, but rather that there are problems in our understanding of holy Scripture.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Resurrexi