How Do We Explain The Doctrine Of Biblical Inerrancy And In What Does

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='10 June 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1276192915' post='2126838']
Again it depends on how you define terms. There are two different versions of the flood, one says a pair of animals, the other seven animals. Is it important?
[/quote]

Never heard this... where's the second flood?

Edited June 11, 2010 by LouisvilleFan

[Brother Adam]

Wow. Mistranslations of ecclesial texts, misunderstanding of basic Catholic dogma, confused scriptural reading. So far Rexi is doing the best on this thread. Let me give an example to help clear up a textual discrepancy when we see them.

Jane Doe was driving her car yesterday day when she was in a terrible accident at noon. An ambulance picked her up and was driving her to a hospital when a truck hit the ambulance and killed her instantly.

Your knowledge of the event only comes from these three newspapers:

Newspaper one reported: "Jane Doe was driving in her car one day when she was in a terrible accident and was killed."
Newspaper two reports: "Jane Doe was killed while being transported to a hospital in an ambulance."
Newspaper three reports: "Jane Doe was killed yesterday."

Which newspaper is wrong?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1276199998' post='2126929']
YES. Brown can definitely have a bad effect on someone who doesn't already know how Catholic theology works, what Church teaching is, and the relationship between the two. But Brown had the respect of Paul VI and John Paul the Great (and, at least from at least one quote that I recall, of then-Joseph Ratziner), and even conservative Protestant scholars like F.F. Bruce, who endorsed Brown's [i]Introduction to the New Testament[/i].
[/quote]

Brown is useful in a limited sense, but one has to know where those limits lie. There are few scholars no matter where on the spectrum of orthodoxy they lie, that are truly useless.

[Brother Adam]

Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paracletus, and Divino Afflante Spiritu are the three most important source texts to Dei Verbum. Dei Verbum as Carinal Bea describes, does not limit inspiration or inerrancy on the text. The Abbott translation tries to be sneaky by placing "for the sake of our salvation" at the end of the phrase, instead of in the middle, leading many scholars to believe that DV has backpeddled and changed all that the church believed and wrote in the previous three documents, but the Church has clarified over and over that this is not the case. DV in no way restricts inerrancy in scripture.

[kafka]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='10 June 2010 - 10:07 PM' timestamp='1276222066' post='2127068']
Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paracletus, and Divino Afflante Spiritu are the three most important source texts to Dei Verbum. Dei Verbum as Carinal Bea describes, does not limit inspiration or inerrancy on the text. The Abbott translation tries to be sneaky by placing "for the sake of our salvation" at the end of the phrase, instead of in the middle, leading many scholars to believe that DV has backpeddled and changed all that the church believed and wrote in the previous three documents, but the Church has clarified over and over that this is not the case. DV in no way restricts inerrancy in scripture.
[/quote]


and yet it seems most scholars do not want to be corrected and start working in favor of total inspiration and total inerrancy. Why not accept the teaching in love-faith-hope and start working to solve our problems in understanding what the Sacred writers and God intended? Why not have use total inspiration and total inerrancy as the point of departure for scholarly work/research?

But instead there is a whole rift created over the past hundred years. Confusion, errors being spread. Disunity, discontinuity. Academic settings gone astray. And so on.

Edited June 11, 2010 by kafka

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='10 June 2010 - 10:02 PM' timestamp='1276221761' post='2127063']
Wow. Mistranslations of ecclesial texts, misunderstanding of basic Catholic dogma, confused scriptural reading. So far Rexi is doing the best on this thread. Let me give an example to help clear up a textual discrepancy when we see them.

Jane Doe was driving her car yesterday day when she was in a terrible accident at noon. An ambulance picked her up and was driving her to a hospital when a truck hit the ambulance and killed her instantly.

Your knowledge of the event only comes from these three newspapers:

Newspaper one reported: "Jane Doe was driving in her car one day when she was in a terrible accident and was killed."
Newspaper two reports: "Jane Doe was killed while being transported to a hospital in an ambulance."
Newspaper three reports: "Jane Doe was killed yesterday."

Which newspaper is wrong?
[/quote][quote name='Brother Adam' date='10 June 2010 - 10:04 PM' timestamp='1276221857' post='2127065']
Brown is useful in a limited sense, but one has to know where those limits lie. There are few scholars no matter where on the spectrum of orthodoxy they lie, that are truly useless.
[/quote][quote name='Brother Adam' date='10 June 2010 - 10:07 PM' timestamp='1276222066' post='2127068']
Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paracletus, and Divino Afflante Spiritu are the three most important source texts to Dei Verbum. Dei Verbum as Carinal Bea describes, does not limit inspiration or inerrancy on the text. The Abbott translation tries to be sneaky by placing "for the sake of our salvation" at the end of the phrase, instead of in the middle, leading many scholars to believe that DV has backpeddled and changed all that the church believed and wrote in the previous three documents, but the Church has clarified over and over that this is not the case. DV in no way restricts inerrancy in scripture.
[/quote][quote name='kafka' date='11 June 2010 - 10:54 AM' timestamp='1276268044' post='2127192']


and yet it seems most scholars do not want to be corrected and start working in favor of total inspiration and total inerrancy. Why not accept the teaching in love-faith-hope and start working to solve our problems in understanding what the Sacred writers and God intended? Why not have use total inspiration and total inerrancy as the point of departure for scholarly work/research?

But instead there is a whole rift created over the past hundred years. Confusion, errors being spread. Disunity, discontinuity. Academic settings gone astray. And so on.
[/quote]

+4

You guys are cool.

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/applause.gif[/IMG]

[ardillacid]

Seems to me among 'it's an approximation', 'you misunderstand what the author meant', and 'it's a poor translation', there is an excuse for everything

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='12 June 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1276321690' post='2127662']
Seems to me among 'it's an approximation', 'you misunderstand what the author meant', and 'it's a poor translation', there is an excuse for everything



[/quote]
I'ma call you to discuss this.


not really. flamebait.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='12 June 2010 - 02:06 AM' timestamp='1276322765' post='2127666']
I'ma call you to discuss this.


[/quote]
There's not ever anything to discuss since my posts are always right on the mark.

[quote]
not really. flamebait.[/quote]

Are you calling me/mypost flamebait? or are you admitting to flaming in your post?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='12 June 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1276323025' post='2127667']
Are you calling me/mypost flamebait? or are you admitting to flaming in your post?


[/quote]
i furget. maybe it is just my thing atm.

[kafka]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='12 June 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1276323025' post='2127667']
There's not ever anything to discuss since my posts are always right on the mark.
[/quote]
you are infallible and inerrant?