New Testament Scripture, do you agree or disagree?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Reading in a history book I have [Church History in Plain English, Bruce L. Shelley], I came across this.Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?
------------
200 - New Testament used in the church at Rome (the "Muratorian Canon")
Four Gospels - Acts - Paul's letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) - James - 1 & 2 John - Jude - Revelation of John - Revelation of Peter - Wisdom of Solomon
** To be used in private, but not public, worship
The Shepherd of Hermas
--
250 - New Testament used by Origen
Four Gospels - Acts - Paul's letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) - 1 Peter - 1 John - Revelation of John
** Disputed
Hebrews - James - 2 Peter - 2 & 3 John - Jude - The Shepherd of Hermes - Letter of Barnabus - Teaching of Twelve Apostles - Gospel of the Hebrews
--
300 - New Testament used by Euseblus
Four Gospels - Acts - Paul's letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) - 1 Peter - 1 John - Revelation of John (authorship in doubt)
** Disputed but well known
James - 2 Peter - 2 & 3 John - Jude
--
400 - New Testament fixed for the West by the Council of Carthage
Four Gospels - Acts - Paul's letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) - Hebrews - James - 1 & 2 Peter - 1, 2, & 3 John - Jude - Revelation of John
** To be excluded
The Shepherd of Hermes - Letter of Barnabus - Gospel of Hebrews - Revelation of Peter - Acts of Peter - Didache
------------
The Muratorian Canon was written about 190, discovered and published by L.A. Muratori in 1740.
Hebrews faced some opposition in the western regions of the empire and Revelation was unpopular in the east.
The first complete list of books, as we have them today, came in an Easter letter written in 367 by Bishop Athanasius from Alexandria. Shortly thereafter conucils in North Africa at Hippo (393) and at Carthage (397) published the same list.
-------------
In doesn't really go into detail of why each book was choosen and not choosen, but I do have one question. Since the Catholic's consider Peter to be the firt pope - why was two of his books not included? [Revelation of Peter - Acts of Peter]
God Bless!
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 19, 2002
I just posted this, since there has been so much discussion on it in different post.Do you have something to add or disagree with?
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 19, 2002.
I would guess it's because there's no proof that those books were actually written by Peter. :-)
-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 19, 2002.
Who is Bruce R. Shelley? Is this plain English? And, why doesn't Bruce ''go into detail'' on why each book was chosen?Is it possible the ''Acts of Peter'' was not written by Peter at all? It wasn't written by Peter at all, but by a disciple. There may have been discrepencies for which the book couldn't be accepted into the canon. It was seen as a holy book; but not the inspired Word of God. Why bring judgments of Catholic Church history here written by other than the sources?
Once more, let's reiterate: Peter was chosen by Jesus Christ as his apostle and given primacy over the Church on earth immediately after the Ascension of the Lord. He died crucified upside-down in Rome, and his bones are entombed under the altar of St Peter's Basilica in Rome today. The first Catholic Pope.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.
The New Testament canons you listed, which date from before the Council of Carthage, were only a few examples of many which existed, all of which were merely personal opinions of specific individuals in the church. The only official Canon of Scripture is the 73-book Canon which was finalized at Carthage in 397 AD, through the collective discernment of the bishops of the Catholic church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (after much of the preliminary work had been done at the Council of Hippo). This list, and this list alone comprises the Holy Bible. No-one before that time had authority to define an official Canon of Scripture, and no-one after that time had authority to change it in any way.Peace! Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 19, 2002.
In rereading this post, I noticed this from Eugene in reply to my question "Since the Catholic's consider Peter to be the firt pope - why was two of his books not included? [Revelation of Peter - Acts of Peter]":"It wasn't written by Peter at all, but by a disciple. There may have been discrepencies for which the book couldn't be accepted into the canon."
At first I didn't pay any attention to this, but then I thought, if this were so, then why is the Apocrypha [deuteroncanonical books] included in the Scripture then? Doesn't it contain contradictions to both history and the Old and New Testament? How can an inspired book have errors in it?
Help me out!
If I don't reply before Christmas, I will!
God Bless!
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 23, 2002.
Dear Tim:Q: Help me out!
A: Gladly!
Q: Since the Catholics consider Peter to be the firt pope - why was two of his books not included?
A: A practical reason that jumps out is that those works were likely not written by Peter, as already stated. But that is not really the essential factor. Some reliable scholars today suggest that certain other New Testament works may not have actually been penned by the Apostle whose name they bear. Maybe so. Maybe not. It doesn't matter. The reason that 27 specific New Testament writings were included, and many others were not included, is that the Holy Spirit directed that it be so. That's the whole story, regardless of who did or didn't write a particular text. Unless the selection of the texts is just as inspired as the writing of the texts, the Bible cannot be said to be the Word of God.
Q: How can an inspired book have errors in it?
A: No book of the Bible has revelational errors in it. Incidental inaccuracies on matters of historical trivia, scientific issues, etc. may be present, but are totally irrelevant to the message God intended to convey. When we say the Bible is inerrant, we mean that the Word of God revealed to men through these writings is inerrant. Matters which have no bearing on the actual message of the text may or may not include errors. Remember, the Bible itself says that our prophecy is imperfect - precisely because it is a joint effort of the perfect God and imperfect man. So, the fact that one gospel writer says there were two angels at the tomb after the Resurrection, and another writer says there was one is absolutely irrelevant to the divine truth revealed in those accounts.
Q: why is the Apocrypha [deuteroncanonical books] included in the Scripture then? Doesn't it contain contradictions to both history and the Old and New Testament?
A: The seven sacred books rejected by Luther were included in the Bible for exactly the same reason as all the others - the Holy Spirit directed that it be so. It is extremely important to recognize this. Either the Church followed the Holy Spirit in selecting the writings of the canon, or it did not. If it did, then we know with certainty that there are 73 books of inspired sacred scripture, all of them rightfully called the Word of God. On the other hand, if the Church erred seven times in following the Holy Spirit's inspiration, then there is no reason to think it did not err other times, so we have no way at all of knowing that ANY part of the Bible is divinely inspired. It's all or nothing. You can't pick and choose.
The seven books in question may include incidental inaccuracies as described above - no more so or less so than any other scriptures. But they cannot conflict with the New Testament on any matter of divine revelation, because both Old and New Testament are the inspired Word of God. And obviously they cannot conflict with the Old Testament, since they are part of the Old Testament by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have been so since the very beginning, and will be so until the end of time.
Peace! Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 24, 2002.
Hello, Paul.For the most part, I strongly support what you have told Tim. Once again, you have put forward arguments (e.g., against rejecting the seven deuterocanonical books) to which Tim will not have a believable answer.
However there are two things that I need to discuss with you. In one case [point "A", below], I would suggest the use of different terminology, but in the other case [point "B", below], it is something more substantive.
A. You wrote: "The reason that 27 specific New Testament writings were included, and many others were not included, is that the Holy Spirit directed that it be so. ... Unless the selection of the texts is just as inspired as the writing of the texts, the Bible cannot be said to be the Word of God."When you use the words "directed" and "inspired" to refer to the action of the Holy Spirit on the Catholic bishops and pope who approved the canons of the Testaments, some readers may mistakenly think that you are saying that the Spirit spoke to the bishops (assembled in Council) by mental telepathy or by a loud booming voice. Some readers may mistakenly think that you are saying that the Spirit "directed/inspired" the bishops in the same way that he acted on the authors of Scripture themselves. None of these mental pictures that readers may have is correct. I think that it would be better to mention two actions of the Holy Spirit on the bishops, one positive, one negative:
(1) that He granted them special graces and wisdom to be able to form helpful criteria for determining which ancient writings were inspired, and ...
(2) that he protected them from making an error of omission or commission.
When explained in this fashion, readers could not get fanciful mental images of what happened, and no one could complain that you are ignoring our belief that public revelation ended with the death of St. John. (If we say that the Holy Spirit "inspired" the bishops in the 4th century, some will accuse us of falsely claiming that a new public revelation occurred at that time.)
B. Paul, you stated certain things that I myself once believed about the Bible -- for example, "Incidental inaccuracies on matters of historical trivia, scientific issues, etc. may be present [in the Bible], but are totally irrelevant to the message God intended to convey. ... Matters which have no bearing on the actual message of the text may or may not include errors."I used to base my similar thinking to yours on this statement in Vatican II's "Dei Verbum:"
"... the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."
I reasoned that, those things in the Bible that seem minor and tangential, not really present "for the sake of salvation," may contain errors. (You mentioned "historical trivia, scientific issues" as examples.) However, Paul, in the past decade, I have repeatedly encountered orthodox Catholic writers who state that, as Catholics, we must believe that the Bible is completely inerrant. [The only "errors" are those in quoted statements made by mere humans that contain lies or mistakes (e.g., Herod saying that he would worship the newborn king).]In other words, these writers say (1) that there does not exist a single case of confirmable error in the Bible, (2) that everything that seems to be an error [e.g., in science or history] can be explained or shown to be correct, and (3) that [most important of all] past popes have taught that the Bible is wholly inerrant. In support of this last (third) point, these writers cite passages from Pope Leo XIII's 1893 encyclical "Providentissimus Deus" and Pope Pius XII's 1943 encyclical "Divino afflante Spiritu." I am not a theologian, qualified to determine if these writers are judging the situation correctly. Also, I don't have a definitive ruling from a very recent magisterial text on this subject. Therefore, I am not able to state with certainty whether or not you and I have been mistaken in our thinking about "minor errors." However, I would just like to quote portions of the two papal encyclicals, so that you can see that this is a serious matter that could use a good resolution today.
[First, from "Providentissimus Deus:]"... it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. 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. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.
"This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the [First] Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last [i.e., Vatican I]: 'The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.'
"Hence, 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. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them -- that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. ...
"It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance ... for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true."
[Second, from "Divino afflante Spiritu:]"When ... some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine [by Vatican I], by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as 'obiter dicta' and -- as they contended -- in no wise connected with faith, our predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII ... justly and rightly condemned these errors ... The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order 'went by what sensibly appeared' as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either 'in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.' ... Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if 'copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible,' or, 'if the real meaning of a passage remains ambiguous.' Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden 'either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,' since divine inspiration 'not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.' This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously. No less earnestly do We inculcate obedience at the present day to the counsels and exhortations which he, in his day, so wisely enjoined."
Paul, my encounter with these passages made me take another look at Vatican II's "Dei Verbum." Earlier, I quoted these words from it: "... the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." But I realized that I should have paid attention to the beginning of the sentence, which says, "Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows ...". Wow! "EVERYTHING" asserted by the writers was asserted by God, so it cannot contain even tangential errors. Interestingly, this sentence in "Dei Verbum" has a footnote pointing directly to the encyclicals of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII. Very interesting!Paul, I notice that you stated: "Remember, the Bible itself says that our prophecy is imperfect -- precisely because it is a joint effort of the perfect God and imperfect man." While it may be true that "our prophecy" is imperfect, the words of the Bible are not "our prophecy."
I notice that you also stated: "So, the fact that one gospel writer says there were two angels at the tomb after the Resurrection, and another writer says there was one is absolutely irrelevant to the divine truth revealed in those accounts." Presumably, you are saying that one of the two writers made a mistake in giving the number of angels. I would say that this conclusion does not follow. As one of the popes (above) stated that the Fathers of the Church had reconciled the seemingly varying accounts of events, I feel sure that one of the Fathers must have considered the very matter that you raise about the angel(s). If I may make a conjecture ... One writer may have noticed only one of the two angels. There may have been one angel at one time, but two at another time. Either way, to say that there was one angel is not an error.A merry and blessed Christmas to you and all.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 24, 2002.
Thanks for the info, but I must reply with more questions.I will return hopefully this weekend.
God Bless and Merry Christmas!
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 24, 2002.
Tim AND John, Please check out the following website. It has been very helpful to me in finding answers/information such as you seek.http://www.bennoah1.freewebsites.com/secondpage.htm
Blessings in Messiah, Debi, the Truthsearcher
-- Debi Rochelle (debirochelle@yahoo.com), December 26, 2002.
Thanks, Debi, but I already have a source that I trust on this subject. It is an INFALLIBLE source. The site you mention is FALLIBLE.
Merry Christmas.
JFG
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 26, 2002.
Dear John,I follow your line of thought here, but I guess I take a broader view of divine inspiration than you seem to be claiming here. The writings which the Church defined as scriptural, and therefore divinely inspired, are surely not the only examples of inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit inspires every member of the Church to do what God has called that person to do, and provides the graces necessary to do it. Certainly the graces provided to the scriptural writers and the definers of the canon were distinct and unique, because the tasks to which these men were called were distinct and unique; but I certainly believe that the definition of the canon of scripture was divinely inspired. Otherwise how could it be inerrant? I don't see why referring to it as "inspired" would lead anyone to think that God spoke to the bishops "in a loud booming voice", since God did not speak to the scriptural writers in a loud booming voice, and they were surely inspired. It seems to me that using the term "inspired" in both circumstances would suggest that God worked in a similar fashion in both circumstances, which in fact He did - by quietly guiding the minds and hearts of those who were writing or discerning, so that the perfect will of God might be done through them. The two alternative expressions you suggested - (1) that He granted them special graces and wisdom to be able to form helpful criteria for determining which ancient writings were inspired, and ... (2) that he protected them from making an error of omission or commission - could just as appropriately be applied to the original writers - (1) that He granted them special graces and wisdom to be able to write only that which God intended to convey, and ... (2) that he protected them from making an error of omission or commission. I see no difference .....continued .....
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox,.net), December 27, 2002.
In reference to your part B ...I too have encountered essentially orthodox Catholic writers who seem desperate to prove that every word of the Bible is not only theologically sound, but also scientifically and historically accurate to the letter; and I always have to ask myself ... WHY? Given the profound depth of theological truth revealed through the Ressurection of Jesus Christ, WHY would anyone concern themselves about how many angels were present in the empty tomb? Would it make a difference? If not, then why worry about it? And more to the point, why would Almighty God guarantee the absolute inerrancy of trivia which has absolutely no effect either upon the purity of His message, or upon the hearers of His message? Your suggestion that perhaps one of the writers saw only one of the two angels doesn't address the issue. That only offers one possible explanation as to WHY his written statement was objectively wrong. And that's just the point - human imperfection is the source of any and all irrelevant errors that may appear in scripture. The miracle is that in spite of the human imperfection of the writers, and no matter how many mistakes they may have made, the Holy Spirit still ensured that nothing they set down compromised the message God intended to convey. That message is contained in the text, undefiled and inerrant, and nothing else that appears can in any way negate, confuse, or detract from the essential messsage of the passage ..... continued .....
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox,.net), December 27, 2002.
But God did not physically write the text. Imperfect human beings did. And further, God did not "dictate" the text - that is an error made in one of the encylicals you quoted. If God had dictated the text, we would not see the differences in form and style which we see between various scriptural writers. God inspired the writers, just as He inspired Peter to get out of the boat and walk on the water. But the writers themselves had to pick up a pen and write, just as Peter had to get up and step out in faith. And nothing that human beings are part of, whether inspired or uninspired, is ever absolutely perfect, because human beings are never perfect.That's why I referred to 1 Cor 13:9, about our prophecy being imperfect. Prophecy is given by divine inspiration - but inspiration of an imperfect human being who is incapable of doing anything to perfection. You said that the words of the Bible are not prophecy. Actually, the definition of prophecy is "God speaking to His people through selected human instruments". I think that definition applies very well to the writers of scripture; and scripture itself acknowledges that fact, when Peter writes "no prophecy of scripture is of human interpretation". Certainly scripture is a unique example of God's prophetic Word, and ordinary prophecy can not be taken as inerrant the way scripture can. Still, both represent collaboration between the perfect God and His imperfect creatures, and both thereby reflect both God's input, which is perfect, AND that of his chosen instruments, who are imperfect ..... continued .....
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox,.net), December 27, 2002.
When a writer, Catholic or Protestant, claims "that everything that seems to be an error [e.g., in science or history] can be explained or shown to be correct" he usually ends up proposing such weak and far-fetched arguments that his own reasoning just serves to highlight the untenability of his position. Genesis states that green plants and fruit trees appeared before the sun was created. That is simply wrong. We know this through scientific discovery, and there is no way to reasonably interpret your way around it - nor is there any need to. Given the ignorance of the Old Testament writers concerning such basic scientific phenomena as photosynthesis, it isn't surprising that such a blunder might appear. Does this in any way lessen the impact or the credulity of Genesis Chapter 1? Of course not! Because God's purpose in inspiring the writer of that chapter was not to give us an infallible lecture in Botany 101, but to reveal that He alone is the source and creator of all that exists. The chapter reveals that truth powerfully and flawlessly, by divine inspiration, regardless of any scientific inaccuracies that are present. The degree of hyperliteralism that would lead a person to attempt to reconcile Genesis with modern scientific knowledge is the same sort of thinking that has given us snake-handling cults, which are similarly based on the erroneous supposition that every word of the Bible must be taken as literal truth.In Christ, Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox,.net), December 27, 2002.
JmjHello, Paul.
I have read your comments about our two areas of disagreement, and thought about them carefully. I find that I can partially agree with you on the first subject, but on the other one, we still have a serious disagreement. Here are some specific points:[to be continued]
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2002.
[continued]I. You wrote: "The Holy Spirit inspires every member of the Church to do what God has called that person to do, and provides the graces necessary to do it. ... It seems to me that using the term 'inspired' in both circumstances would suggest that God worked in a similar fashion in both circumstances, which in fact He did -- by quietly guiding the minds and hearts of those who were writing or discerning, so that the perfect will of God might be done through them."
I'll agree with you, Paul, that "God worked in a similar fashion," but "similar" does not equal "same." I think that there was a significant difference between the two divine actions. To claim that there was no significant difference would be tantamount to denying the doctrine that public revelation ended with the death of St. John. As I tried to tell you last time, that was the key point I was trying to make. At this forum, in the past, some non-Catholics have accused us Catholics of believing that God continues his public revelation to us. I don't want to give them reason to continue such accusations by agreeing to use the misunderstandable word, "inspiration," to refer to what happened in the 4th century (scriptural canonizations). I realize, though, from reading the Catechism, that we ourselves can speak of being "inspired" by God -- in a subsidiary or figurative sense of the word
The Church teaches us that God was the "primary author" of scripture, but she doesn't teach us that he was the "primary author" of the canons. Yes, canonization was infallibly done, but by men, not by God -- just as the Assumption was infallibly defined by a man, not by God. Because of the difference in the ways God worked on the authors, and the canonizers, the Fathers, and ourselves, I think that we should be very careful about how we use, or avoid using, the word "inspire."
[to be continued]
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2002.
[continued]II. Paul, you wrote: "I too have encountered essentially orthodox Catholic writers who seem desperate to prove that every word of the Bible is not only theologically sound, but also scientifically and historically accurate to the letter; and I always have to ask myself ... WHY?"
Well, first, I must be more generous and say that those writers were not "desperate to prove" something. There was no "despair" involved. They were just doing what seemed natural and appropriate. And they included some of the Fathers of the Church.
Second, the reason for their action was not to prove something scientific or historical per se. No, they did this for an excellent reason -- and one that I am sad to realize was not taught to you in the seminary. Here's what I mean ...
If "John Doe" is permitted to say that (historical/scientific) verse "n" of chapter "m" of book "X" is (or could be) an error, then there is nothing to prevent "Mary Roe" from claiming that various verses in John 6 contain (or could contain) errors. Once you open the door to any possibility of error, you open the door to every verse in every book being doubted as "potentially in error."Paul, you wrote: "Your [John's] suggestion that perhaps one of the writers saw only one of the two angels doesn't address the issue. That only offers one possible explanation as to WHY his written statement was objectively wrong."
Ah, but the statement was not objectively wrong. It would only have been wrong if the writer had stated, "There was only one angel at the tomb." Since he didn't use the word "only," he did not err.
You continued: "And that's just the point -- human imperfection is the source of any and all irrelevant errors that may appear in scripture."
[to be continued]
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2002.
[continued]Paul, I am nearly at the point of being sure that there could be no errors, relevant or irrelevant. I think it's much more probable that the "human imperfection" is on the part of us readers, not on the part of the writers. I think it much more probable that the Holy Spirit prevented any imperfection of the writers from being incorporated into the text. I think that this is what we are being told in "Verbum Dei" (and perhaps in the quoted papal texts).
You stated: "... God did not 'dictate' the text -- that is an error made in one of the encylicals you quoted. If God had dictated the text, we would not see the differences in form and style which we see between various scriptural writers."
I disagree. If we understand the word "dictate" the way I think the pope meant it -- rather than the way it is used today (about a boss and a stenographer) -- then one can say that God "dictated" the text. The divine words were not "taken down verbatim," though, but were "filtered" through the writing talents, preferred genre, environmental influences, etc., of the writers -- accounting for "the differences in form and style."
[to be continued]
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2002.
[continued]Meaning no disrespect, Paul, but I think that a person is skating on thin ice -- maybe even giving bad example -- to say that there was an error in the papal encyclical. The pope was very clearly teaching the Church (not just expressing an opinion), and we are required to give assent even to his "ordinary magisterium" -- not to call his teaching "an error." A couple of sentences before using the phrase, "dictation of the Holy Spirit," the pope showed that he was earnestly teaching his people by saying this: "... it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred." As I said, I am not qualified to make a final interpretation of an old encyclical. (I will leave that up to today's pope and bishops.) However, I think that the safe thing to do is to believe the pope's words, understood correctly.
You wrote: "And nothing that human beings are part of, whether inspired or uninspired, is ever absolutely perfect, because human beings are never perfect."
I agree with you almost 100% -- but I believe that divine revelation is the single exception, for therein, God probably helped human beings to be "perfect."[to be continued]
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2002.
[continued]You wrote: "... I referred to 1 Cor 13:9, about our prophecy being imperfect. Prophecy is given by divine inspiration -- but inspiration of an imperfect human being who is incapable of doing anything to perfection. You said that the words of the Bible are not prophecy."
I didn't say that the "words ... are not prophecy." Here is what I said last time, with emphasis added now:
"Paul, ... you stated: 'Remember, the Bible itself says that our prophecy is imperfect -- precisely because it is a joint effort of the perfect God and imperfect man.' While it may be true that 'our prophecy' is imperfect, the words of the Bible are not 'our prophecy.'"
My point was that the Bible was God's own prophecy (perfect), while "our prophecy" (imperfect) is done in our own lives today.You continued: "... the definition of prophecy is 'God speaking to His people through selected human instruments.' I think that definition applies very well to the writers of scripture; and scripture itself acknowledges that fact, when Peter writes 'no prophecy of scripture is of human interpretation.'"
In my opinion, this supports my position, rather than yours. Paraphrasing the verse from St. Peter: "God speaking to his people" (prophecy) in scripture is not a product "of human interpretation" -- so it seems impossible that it could contain errors. Otherwise, God would be "speaking" errors "to his people."
[to be continued]
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2002.
[continued]You wrote: "Genesis states that green plants and fruit trees appeared before the sun was created. That is simply wrong. ... Given the ignorance of the Old Testament writers concerning such basic scientific phenomena as photosynthesis, it isn't surprising that such a blunder might appear. ... The degree of hyperliteralism that would lead a person to attempt to reconcile Genesis with modern scientific knowledge is the same sort of thinking that has given us snake-handling cults, which are similarly based on the erroneous supposition that every word of the Bible must be taken as literal truth."
[to be continued]
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2002.
[continued]Paul, I am definitely no fan of "hyperliteralism." It was only few days ago that I explained to a fundamentalist here that angels do not eat bread, despite the phrase, "bread of angels." In the Catechism, the Church has told us that we need not take the opening chapters of Genesis literally. I would say that is a good reason not to say that Moses made "a blunder" in writing about the plants and trees. I don't believe, though, that the Church has made similar statements about the parts of the Bible that are non-fictional in nature. In fact, I believe that the Church has spoken of the "historicity" of those books, especially the gospels.
Paul, it troubled me greatly that you said a pope taught "an error" in an encyclical, but now you have said also that there is "a blunder" in Genesis? I think that's going far beyond what is permissible for any Christian, ordained or not, to say. You are a brilliant man, Paul, who has written many outstanding answers here, even in just a short time. But even brilliant men are wrong sometimes. I think that this is one of those times for you. I have learned things from you already, and I expect to learn more -- but not on this topic.
God bless you.
John PS: I apologize for the multiple posts, but the forum's software is accepting only very short messages.
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2002.
Dear John,Thanks for your considered responses. Apologies in advance for my multiple postings - this looks like another long one :-) This situation is rather inconvenient. I wonder why it is so? Does anyone know? It seems to be a recent development. Anyway - a few responses to your recent responses (your words in brackets) ...
[I think that there was a significant difference between the two divine actions. To claim that there was no significant difference would be tantamount to denying the doctrine that public revelation ended with the death of St. John]
Certainly not! "The end of Public Revelation" refers to the content of Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition only. It does not mean that God would never reveal another thing to the Church! The revelation of the canon of scripture to the Church through divine inspiration involved only the selection and arrangement of pre- existing writings. It did not involve the slightest alteration of, or addition to any written work. Therefore, the suggestion that divinely inspired decisions regarding the canonicity of existing writings constituted an addition to Public Revelation is totally without reasonable basis. continued .............
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2002.
[At this forum, in the past, some non-Catholics have accused us Catholics of believing that God continues his public revelation to us. I don't want to give them reason to continue such accusations by agreeing to use the misunderstandable word, "inspiration," to refer to what happened in the 4th century (scriptural canonizations)]Though I was not on this forum at the time of those past discussions, I am no stranger to Protestant accusations of "ongoing public Revelation". However, in my experience, such accusations are unrelated to the fact of scriptural canonization (the fruits of which are largely accepted by them, and form the very basis of their faith), but rather are a reaction to "unscriptural" Catholic doctrines like the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.
[I realize, though, from reading the Catechism, that we ourselves can speak of being "inspired" by God -- in a subsidiary or figurative sense of the word]
John, of course inspiration is subsidiary, from our perspective, since inspiration always originates from God, and He alone decides when, where, and how that inspiration will occur. We are only the recipients of it. As for our inspiration being "figurative", I don't know what that means. At face value, it sounds as though you are saying that being "inspired by God" actually doesn't mean being "inspired" by God, but symbolizes something else, that is not actually inspiration?? The many times I have experienced divine inspiration, it was actual, not figurative. continued ................
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2002.
[The Church teaches us that God was the "primary author" of scripture, but she doesn't teach us that he was the "primary author" of the canon.Yes, canonization was infallibly done, but by men, not by God -- just as the Assumption was infallibly defined by a man, not by God]The Assumption was infallibly defined, ex-cathedra, by the one human being on earth who possesses a personal gift of infallibility. The men who defined the canon had no such charism. Even the Pope's infallibility is a work of the Holy Spirit. How much more so for a group of men who have NO defined gift of infallibility, yet still are involved in the production of a work that is infallible. The term "primary author" is not used in reference to the canon, because the canon is not a written work per se, but simply an arrangement or listing of pre-existing works, and therefore has no distinct "author". However, the canon is clearly a work of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise it could not possibly be infallible.
[If "John Doe" is permitted to say that (historical/scientific) verse "n" of chapter "m" of book "X" is (or could be) an error, then there is nothing to prevent "Mary Roe" from claiming that various verses in John 6 contain (or could contain) errors.]
Exactly right! Which is why John and Mary are NOT authorized interpreters of scripture! However, the Magisterium of the Church of God, by inspiration of the the Holy Spirit, IS the authorized interpreter of scripture, and CAN define the meaning of passages, including the possibility of irrelevant inacuracies; and that Magisterium has never declared authoritatively that every incidental word of scripture is accurate from the perspective of every realm of human knowledge. continued ...............
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2002.
[Once you open the door to any possibility of error, you open the door to every verse in every book being doubted as "potentially in error"]Yes, again, if YOU do that, or if I do that, error is highly probable. But if the Magisterium does that, under the inspiration of the one who inspired both the writing and the canonization of the text, error is not possible.
[Ah, but the statement was not objectively wrong. It would only have been wrong if the writer had stated, "There was only one angel at the tomb." Since he didn't use the word "only," he did not err.]
Oh come on now John, "one" means "one". If I say there is "one Lord and Savior", or there is "one Pope", or there is "one True Church", but I neglect to say "ONLY one", does that mean there might be more than one?? I mean no offense, but I must say this is precisely the kind of far-fetched, illogical arguments I referred to in my last posting, when writers grasp at straws trying to prove what doesn't need to be proven, and can't be proven in the first place! One writer said "one" angel. The other writer said "two" angels. Neither of them said "only one" or "only two"; but at least one of them made a statement that was factually WRONG. Who cares!? That is NOT what the passage is about! The passage delivers its message PERFECTLY, because of its divine author, in spite of such irrelevant imperfections, the product of human writers. continued ...........
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2002.
[You stated: "... God did not 'dictate' the text -- that is an error made in one of the encylicals you quoted. If God had dictated the text, we would not see the differences in form and style which we see between various scriptural writers." I disagree. If we understand the word "dictate" the way I think the pope meant it -- rather than the way it is used today (about a boss and a stenographer) -- then one can say that God "dictated" the text.]Ok, IF the meaning of "dictate" at the time the Pope used it was different from the meaning of the word today (I don't know if this is so, but would welcome any authoritative information to that effect), then the Pope's opinion expressed in His encyclical may have been valid at the time he wrote it. However, since you quoted that encyclical to support your opinion that every word must be exactly accurate, I have to assume that you were viewing "dictate" in terms of its current usage - and IF that is the case, then the use of the word contradicts the teaching of the Magisterium on the subject of scriptural inspiration. Also, excuse my bluntness, but why would I interpret the Pope's words in light of the way you, or any other individual Catholic, "thinks the Pope meant it"? Private interpretation of non-scriptural Church documents is just as risky a business as self-interpretation of scripture. continued ............
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2002.
[The divine words were not "taken down verbatim," though, but were "filtered" through the writing talents, preferred genre, environmental influences, etc., of the writers -- accounting for "the differences in form and style." ]Yes!!! Precisely!!! Which is why the term "dictated" is inappropriate! If someone in authority "dictates" a message, they expect it to be "taken down verbatim" by the dictatee (if that is a word). Several writers receiving the same dictation would be espected to write it the identical way. However, several writers inspired with an idea, then allowed to put it down in their own words and style, would produce essentially the same message, yet in distinctly different format and vocabulary - and not always in precisely the words the originator of the message might have used himself. The scriptures clearly demonstrate that this must have been the case, and the Church has never taught otherwise. [I think that a person is skating on thin ice -- maybe even giving bad example -- to say that there was an error in the papal encyclical. The pope was very clearly teaching the Church (not just expressing an opinion), and we are required to give assent even to his "ordinary magisterium" -- not to call his teaching "an error."]
continued .........
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2002.
Papal encyclicals do not necessarily fall in the category of "authoritative teaching on matters of faith and morals, binding on the universal Church" (though some of them clearly do), and therefore are not necessarily infallible in nature. The matter of absolute scriptural literalness is not a moral issue, and is only marginally a doctrinal issue. Therefore, I believe the Pope was indeed expressing his well-considered opinion here, a view which seems to be supported by the fact that subsequent Popes and Magisterium have not adopted his rather extreme position on this matter as official teaching; and also by the fact that you had to go so far back to find any statement by any Pope that would lend support to your own interpretation of this matter. While I consider a published opinion by the Vicar of Christ something to be taken seriously and greatly respected, I do not confuse such statements with the official teaching of the Church.[I am not qualified to make a final interpretation of an old encyclical. (I will leave that up to today's pope and bishops.) However, I think that the safe thing to do is to believe the pope's words, understood correctly.]
Indeed, neither of us is qualified to make such an interpretation. Therefore, the safest way to understand that particular Pope's words correctly is to look at the historical response to those words by the Magisterium and subsequent Popes. John, I do not see any of them supporting your opinion, and it appears to me that your opinion is based primarily upon two sources - your own reasoning; and your own interpretation of an old encyclical which we just agreed we are not qualified to interpret.
continued ..........
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2002.
[You wrote: "And nothing that human beings are part of, whether inspired or uninspired, is ever absolutely perfect, because human beings are never perfect." I agree with you almost 100% -- but I believe that divine revelation is the single exception, for therein, God probably helped human beings to be "perfect."]For me, it is miracle enough that the message God wanted to deliver was delivered, in spite of the imperfections of men. The only way absolute perfection, right down to the last comma, could have occured would be for God to completely override the humanity of the authors, using them essentially as mechanical devices, divine typewriters so to speak, in which case they could not even be called human "authors". The Church teaches that God is the supreme author, but that the human writers are subservient and secondary AUTHORS - therefore they must have provided personal input, not directly inspired by God. Obviously such input would not have included revealed truths of faith and morals, since the writers did not possess such information, and had to receive it from God. Still, their secondary co-authorship is wthe reason we find various little inconsistencies within the texts.
[While it may be true that 'our prophecy' is imperfect, the words of the Bible are not 'our prophecy.'" My point was that the Bible was God's own prophecy (perfect), while "our prophecy" (imperfect) is done in our own lives today.]
continued ............
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2002.
John, there is no such thing as "our prophecy". Prophecy is a charism of the Holy Spirit. When Paul speaks of "our prophecy" being imperfect, his implicit meaning is "God's prophecy spoken through us by divine inspiration"; and the reason it is imperfect is that little phrase "through us". In the same way, when we speak of "John's gospel", we realize it is really "God's gospel, given to us through John, by virtue of his cooperation with divine inspiration". And while we know that the accuracy of the scriptural message is protected by a unique outpouring of grace, different from the grace of "ordinary" prophecy, the fact remains that imperfect humans were co-authors, though secondary in nature, and something of them must therefore be in the text. We know this is so by their personal styles of writing, and therefore we should not be surprised by any minor inaccuracies on irrelevant points.[In the Catechism, the Church has told us that we need not take the opening chapters of Genesis literally. I would say that is a good reason not to say that Moses made "a blunder" in writing about the plants and trees.]
continued ..........
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2002.
Of course we do not take all of Genesis literally. For example, the six "days" of creation are certainly not 24-hour "days" as we know them (though some fundamentalist Christians would argue otherwise). However, a correct explanation for the use of that term is easy to find by looking to the authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium. I am not speaking of literalness here however. I am speaking of outright statements that we know are historically or scientifically false. Genesis Chapter 1 says that all kinds of green plants and flowering trees appeared on the "third day". Then the sun, moon, and stars appeared on the "fourth day". Regardless of how you interpret "days", the statement is that the earth was in full bloom with photosynthetic plants, long before the sun existed. That is incorrect. Also, we know that the stars, including our star, the sun, existed for a very long time before the simplest life forms appeared on earth, let alone fruit trees! Call it a "blunder", call it a "point of misinformation", or "an error", or whatever term you prefer. The point is, such statements are categorically untrue - but also categorically irrelevant, and do not detract in the slightest from the inerrancy and reliability of the inspired Word of God.Peace!
Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2002.
-- (^@^.^), December 31, 2002.
Okay, Paul - I have returned after my Christmas "vacation"...Let me post here a few questions and concerns toward your post of the "deuteroncanonical" books.
Let me point out a few of your statements:
[[A] - this is how I will note these words of yours.]"The reason that 27 specific New Testament writings were included, and many others were not included, is that the Holy Spirit directed that it be so. That's the whole story, regardless of who did or didn't write a particular text. Unless the selection of the texts is just as inspired as the writing of the texts, the Bible cannot be said to be the Word of God."
I like these statements, but the further I read into your post, the more you move away from these very statements you claim. Let me show you.
I asked, "How can an inspired book have errors in it?"
You reply, "No book of the Bible has revelational errors in it. Incidental inaccuracies on matters of historical trivia, scientific issues, etc. may be present, but are totally irrelevant to the message God intended to convey."
This blows my mind that you would say [A], then say "No book of the Bible has revelational errors in it. Incidental inaccuracies on matters of historical trivia, scientific issues, etc. may be present, but are totally irrelevant to the message God intended to convey."
How can you say that the Holy Spirit directs and inspires errors? That is contradictory to God - He is not the author of confusion, nor can He lie.
I personally believe their are NO errors in the Word of God - why? Not because men wrote it, but because the Holy Spirit directed those men. And what does the Scripture say?
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
All things, means all things - there is NO room for error with God.
If the Catholic Church "chose" which books to put in the Bible, what about Melito, the bishop of Sardis, not including them in 170 or Athanasius, a bishop of Alexandria, in 367? And what about Origin, Jerome, and Cyril of Jerusalem also dening the books?
"The seven books in question may include incidental inaccuracies as described above - no more so or less so than any other scriptures. But they cannot conflict with the New Testament on any matter of divine revelation, because both Old and New Testament are the inspired Word of God. And obviously they cannot conflict with the Old Testament, since they are part of the Old Testament by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have been so since the very beginning, and will be so until the end of time."
Since you mention that the Old and New Testament are inspired, where is it ever recorded that the "7 books" are inspired? And what about "they cannot conflict with the Old and New Testament?"
How can you believe that inspired books contain errors? How do we know what the errors are? By the same spirit that inspired errors?
Are you sure about this?
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 01, 2003.
Dear Tim,I did not say that the Holy Spirit directs or inspires errors. On the contrary, I said that the Holy Spirit provided perfect inspiration to imperfect men, allowing them to know precisely what truths He wanted them to express, but then allowing THEM to put those concepts into written form, using their own pens, their own vocabulary, their own literary style, and their own personal skills and/or lack of skills. Everything the Holy Spirit inspired them to write was included as instructed. Therefore the revelation of God is inerrant. But the structure of the text necessarily includes phrases, thoughts, incidental details, which provide the literary matrix in which the message is presented - words the apostle himself had to provide in order to convert the essential ideas received through inspiration into written text. Again, God did not directly dictate the text. Therefore, such ancillary features are the product of the human authors. Otherwise, as I said above, the human being was not intellectually involved at all, but a mere mechanical object used by God. It is correct to say that the Bible is inerrant, if by "the Bible" we mean the written record of the revealed Word of God. [You say: I personally believe their are NO errors in the Word of God - why? Not because men wrote it, but because the Holy Spirit directed those men.]
Then I say - Please explain how the example I provided from Genesis 1 does not constitute a factual error.
Peace! Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 01, 2003.
Hey Everyone and Glad Tidings for a Blessed New Year. I have somehow missed this entire post, so I intend to print it out to really give it a good read.Tim, you should be interested to know that there are those in the Protestant camp that are hoping to "revamp" the N.T. There is a push amongst some very liberal groups to disect the books they deem to be "uninspired." The Jesus Seminar, as you may or may not know, is a group of "scholars" who revel in their own wisdom, and who have concluded that there are many books that really don't belong in the N.T. And since the Oxford Press has expunged all references to homosexuality in their newest "translation," I suppose it is just a matter of time before they don their surgeon's attire, grant themselves the authority, and butcher away with scalpel and knife!
The Creeds are already under severe scrutiny, and are rejected even now by so-called evangelicals who simply cannot confess creeds that were formulated by "Catholics." My sister-in-law, an active member of an evangelical church, is a case in point. It does not matter to her that the Apostles Creed (Nicene) encapsulates and boldly sets forth the truth about Christ's diety, or that wars were fought over the issue of Christ's divine nature for decades, that this creed was written with the blood of men and women who were willing to die for the truth. She knows that it was formulated by Catholics and that is enough for her to protest! How utterly sad. She cannot tell you that Christ is God. When her son asked her, as a little boy some 20 years ago, whether God was ever a baby, she couldn't answer. "You know what," she says, "I still can't answer that."
Blessings for the New Year!
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 01, 2003.
Paul & Gail,This is a test, because I have been unable to add a post here.
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 02, 2003.
Paul,Let me break down my post, since I am unable to get it to work all together.
[1]
You amaze me by your post! All you are doing is running around in a circle trying to use both sides to prove your belief.
This is the statement that "helps" you choose what you want to be pure and what you want to be error.
"the Holy Spirit provided perfect inspiration to imperfect men, allowing them to know precisely what truths He wanted them to express, but then allowing THEM to put those concepts into written form, using their own pens, their own vocabulary, their own literary style, and their own personal skills and/or lack of skills."
So the Holy Spirit gave man the correct information, man just made some errors in some of the Scripture? What?
2pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
What about these verses?
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 02, 2003.
Paul,[2]
Now, as for your "I am speaking of outright statements that we know are historically or scientifically false." This is unbelief on your part and not error in the inerrant Word of God!
"Genesis Chapter 1 says that all kinds of green plants and flowering trees appeared on the "third day". Then the sun, moon, and stars appeared on the "fourth day". Regardless of how you interpret "days", the statement is that the earth was in full bloom with photosynthetic plants, long before the sun existed. That is incorrect."
DAY 1 - Ge 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
----
pho·to·syn·the·sis [ ft sínthssiss ] noun carbohydrate production using light and chlorophyll: a process by which green plants and other organisms produce simple carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and hydrogen, using energy that chlorophyll or other organic cellular pigments absorb from radiant sources
--
ra·di·ant [sources] [ ráydee nt ] adjective 3. physics emitted as waves: used to describe light, heat, or other energy emitted in the form of waves or rays radiant heat
4. physics emitting radiant energy: emitting light, heat, or other energy in the form of waves or rays
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 02, 2003.
Paul,[3]
As for "we know that the stars, including our star, the sun, existed for a very long time before the simplest life forms appeared on earth, let alone fruit trees!"
What do you mean we? I know creation happened just as God said it did in His Word!
Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Ex 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
-----
As for "Call it a "blunder", call it a "point of misinformation", or "an error", or whatever term you prefer. The point is, such statements are categorically untrue - but also categorically irrelevant, and do not detract in the slightest from the inerrancy and reliability of the inspired Word of God."
Are we to take man's word over God's? I doubt it! For you to say that errors in the Word of God "do not detract in the slightest from the inerrancy and reliability of the inspired Word of God" are not the words a Believer - they contradict one another - the Word of God is either inerrant or is not inerrant.
Ro 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Have you become your own god to determine what Scripture is inspired inerrant and which Scripture is "inpsired" with error?
You can't honestly believe this...
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 02, 2003.
Gail,I haven't heard of "The Jesus Seminar", I will have to check into that.
As for your sister-in-law, that is ashame. I have also heard of people not believing in the Trinity just because Catholics teach it. That is more a hatred of Catholics than a belief in Scripture. Ask her to take a look at the following verse:
NOTE: I am not comparing Catholics to devils, just making a point.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
We can't just choose not to believe something just because someone that we disagree with believes it. That is crazy.
That is what I keep telling people here that claim that I only want to disagree with whatever Catholics teach. That is simply not so. I believe Scripture, and where I disagree with Catholics, I believe it is Scripture based - not just because Catholics believe it.
As for "since the Oxford Press has expunged all references to homosexuality in their newest "translation,"" - I will still continue to use the KJV till I die or the Lord returns! Regardless of all the "books" they come out with.
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 02, 2003.
Hey Tim:I'll tell you what really grieves me to the core. Having been on both sides of the fence, so to speak, I feel that evangelical Christians have so much in common with Catholics, and even though we cannot come to complete agreement, surely the creeds could build bridges and restore some sense of unity.
What is even more troubling is the course in which some Protestant leaders of our times are taking, i.e., multitudes of blatant heretics on world-wide television who are teaching outright heresy on CHRISTIAN television! I REALLY hate that! When Creflo Dollar gets on T.V. and teaches that if you are a Christian, and if you aren't healthy and wealthy it is simply because you do not realize you are EQUAL with God (for over a year he's been teaching this) and people call him one of the "greatest Bible teachers out there." I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Now, he is teaching that Jesus "did not come as God," and anyone who teaches that is a "fantasy preacher." You can literally turn on the T.V. and "pick your heresy."
Gotta run, and may He bless you!
Gail
P.S. You should be able to just type in "Jesus Seminar" on your search engine and pull all kinds of stuff. NBC even did a special hosted by Peter Jennings several years ago, where he gave this crew the podium for an hour. I think the special was called "Who is Jesus?" or something like that. They are a formidable group of unbelieving heretics, who are devastating the faith of untold scores of people, particularly, I think, in Protestant denominations that USED to be orthodox, but have fallen under the enormous pressure of liberalism.
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 02, 2003.
Hello, Paul.I have read your long reply to my long message, and I haven't forgotten about you. I will be responding (because I'm convinced that you are quite mistaken), but I will temporarily "yield the floor" to Gail and Tim, so that they can have a chance to "bend your ear" (and vice versa). I think that it would be too confusing and too much of a burden for you to have to reply to three people simultaneously. If/when the conversation dies down, I'll be back to take you on!
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 02, 2003.
Dear Tim:[2pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. What about these verses?]
These verses say exactly what I have been saying - that the inerrant truth of scripture consists of men moved by the Holy Ghost, faithfully recording "whatsoever I have said unto you" - and that only! But they didn't just make a random list of the things God said unto them. They expressed those revealed truths by weaving them into a grammatical, meaningful, readable literary work. God gave them the truths they were to pass on. God did not give them every preposition, adjective and punctuation mark they were to use. These details were of there own choosing, which is why their writing styles differ so dramatically, and which is why these extrinsic details were subject to error. They were not an integral part of "whatsoever I have said unto you". They were simply necessary surrounding and supportive text.
continued ...............
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 02, 2003.
[DAY 1 - Ge 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.]Tim, this is just one more example of the literal text conflicting with what we know to be factually true. The terms "day", "night", "morning" and "evening" are directly related to both the existence of the sun, and the rotation of planets. There was no such thing as day and night before the solar systems existed, and even today these terms are meaningless except on the surface of a planet. Therefore this verse cannot be taken as literally true. To insist upon taking a verse literally when doing so will contradict the known truth is simply to make the verse untrue.
As for "we know that the stars, including our star, the sun, existed for a very long time before the simplest life forms appeared on earth, let alone fruit trees!"
[What do you mean we? I know creation happened just as God said it did in His Word!]
You have decided to believe that, but you cannot claim to know it, for knowing something requires access to the facts, and you ignore or reject the facts which, if you did know them, would guide you in making a reasonable and valid interpretation of the text.
continued ..............
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 02, 2003.
[Are we to take man's word over God's? I doubt it! For you to say that errors in the Word of God "do not detract in the slightest from the inerrancy and reliability of the inspired Word of God" are not the words a Believer - they contradict one another - the Word of God is either inerrant or is not inerrant.]I did not say there were errors in the Word of God per se, but only in the literary matrix which contains the Word of God, which was supplied by human authors.
[That is what I keep telling people here that claim that I only want to disagree with whatever Catholics teach. That is simply not so. I believe Scripture, and where I disagree with Catholics, I believe it is Scripture based - not just because Catholics believe it.]
I understand that you see it that way, and I don't think you deny anything just because it is taught by the original Christian Church. However, you cannot really "believe scripture" unless you have access to authoritative and accurate interpretation. Otherwise you simply believe your personal interpretation of scripture - just like the thousands of denominations whose personal interpretations conflict with yours.
Peace!
Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 02, 2003.
Tim,This issue should have died a long time ago. But it probably never will because people from both sides of the argument give false information and refuse to reconcile their interpretations of God's work. Scripture is God's Word and nature is God's Work, so they cannot contradict. For more on this I look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to the Bible.
continued...
-- Tom (tjb2_99@yahoo.com), January 03, 2003.
Dear Tom,Amen! That is exactly my point. You cannot interpret scripture in a way that conflicts with the God-given laws of nature.
Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 03, 2003.
Paul,1]"These verses say exactly what I have been saying - that the inerrant truth of scripture consists of men moved by the Holy Ghost, faithfully recording "whatsoever I have said unto you" - and that only! But they didn't just make a random list of the things God said unto them. They expressed those revealed truths by weaving them into a grammatical, meaningful, readable literary work. God gave them the truths they were to pass on. God did not give them every preposition, adjective and punctuation mark they were to use. These details were of there own choosing, which is why their writing styles differ so dramatically, and which is why these extrinsic details were subject to error. They were not an integral part of "whatsoever I have said unto you". They were simply necessary surrounding and supportive text."
So, where do the errors come in? ERRORS are "necessary surrounding and supportive text"?
2]"You have decided to believe that, but you cannot claim to know it, for knowing something requires access to the facts, and you ignore or reject the facts which, if you did know them, would guide you in making a reasonable and valid interpretation of the text."
You have decided to REJECT the account recorded in Scripture, and side with science. The Scripture is FACT, regardless of what science says! If you take science over Scripture, you are taking man over God.
continued...
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 03, 2003.
Paul,3]"I did not say there were errors in the Word of God per se, but only in the literary matrix which contains the Word of God, which was supplied by human authors."
This is EXACTLY what you are saying - you claim that although the Scripture is inspired and given by the Holy Spirit - it still contains error.
You are dancing around the FACTS Paul. You can't have it both ways. When someone asks "Is the Word of God inerrant?" - you must answer "No" by what you believe - BUT - I will forever answer "yes". It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to say "yes" because you do not believe it is inerrant, but choose what is error and what is not.
4]"However, you cannot really "believe scripture" unless you have access to authoritative and accurate interpretation. Otherwise you simply believe your personal interpretation of scripture - just like the thousands of denominations whose personal interpretations conflict with yours."
This is a LIE which you have invented to keep your own beliefs. The account in Genesis is an ACCURATE DAY BY DAY ACCOUNT OF CREATION and you refuse to believe it. It is you who has "simply believe your personal interpretation of Scripture" my friend, for I have decided that the Scripture is 100% accurate and inerrant from my new birth in Christ!
continued...
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 03, 2003.
Paul,5]"You cannot interpret scripture in a way that conflicts with the God-given laws of nature."
Which would you consider more FACT? Maybe it is man that misunderstands nature - which man uses to denie the Scripture.
I showed you in Genesis, that it only takes light - and the light was on day 1 - you didn't even comment on that FACT.
I now understand why you don't like Scripture only debats, because you do not believe that it is 100% inerrant, or you would side with Scripture everytime.
I just don't understand how you can claim the Scripture is both inerrant and has errors. That is IMPOSSIBLE!
God help you with this, honestly!
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 03, 2003.
Dear Tim,Perhaps a small non-Biblical parable will help you to see what I am talking about ...
Bob and Mary are press secretaries for the mayor. As they walk together past the mayor's office, the mayor and his City Manager are speaking in the hall, and bekon to them. The City manager tells them the mayor has just announced a $1,000 tax credit for every citizen with legal residence in the city. People need only come to Room 101 City Hall on Tuesday the 21st of May, show their social security card and one other form of ID, and fill out a simple form. Bob and Mary are to prepare press releases for the local media.
Mary goes back to her desk and writes: "At 3:30 tuesday afternoon, at the mayor's office, He informed me of a $1,000 tax credit available to every citizen with legal residence in the city. A simple application form must be filled out, and two forms of identification, including a social security card, must be presented. Application may be made at City Hall, Room 101, on Tuesday, May 21".
Bob immediately jots down the essentials, but is very busy the next few days. At home over the weekend, he gets out his notes and writes: "Shortly before closing time last wednesday, I spoke with the City Manager in the hallway at City Hall. He informed me of a $1,000 tax credit to be offered to all legal residents of the City who appear at Room 101 City Hall on Tuesday, May 21, with their social security card and one other valid ID, and fill out a simple form."
continued .................
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 04, 2003.
Question: Which of these two releases best conveys the fullness of the message they were intended to convey? Answer: Neither one of them! BOTH of them clearly relate every pertinent detail which the reader would need in order to fully understand the message, and to reap the benefits it offers. Therefore, the message is presented INERRANTLY by BOTH writers. However - one of them states that the mayor provided the information. The other says the City Manager did. One says it happened in the hallway; the other says at the mayor's office. One says the information became available at 3:30 on Tuesday; the other says close to 5:00 on Wednesday. Do these inaccuracies have the slightest effect on the inerrancy of the important message contained in the text? NO, they do not! The message, as presented by both writers, comes through loud, clear, and INERRANT, because the matters on which conflicts exist are utterly irrelevant to the message.Now, if one of the writers had told people to come on Tuesday the 28th instead of the 21st, or had failed to mention the required ID, there would have been a real problem. And the mayor - unlike the Holy Spirit - could not have prevented that kind of misquotation from occurring. But neither the mayor nor the Holy Spirit would have any reason to be concerned over trivial inaccuracies which are totally irrelevant to the intended message.
In Christ, Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 04, 2003.
JmjGene, you are right in your comment to Paul about Tim. However, for some reason, you didn't point out to Paul that he is not 100% correct either.
Paul, I don't accept your parable as a good analogy. The flaw is in the conclusion: "And the mayor - unlike the Holy Spirit -- could not have prevented that kind of misquotation from occurring. But neither the mayor nor the Holy Spirit would have any reason to be concerned over trivial inaccuracies which are totally irrelevant to the intended message."
The Holy Spirit DID have reasons to be concerned, the most important of which was that no "inaccuracy" in the Bible would be "trivial" nor in keeping with divine authorship.
I believe that the Church teaches that divine inspiration either directly protected a writer from even thinking of an error that might be penned, or, if a writer was about to err, prevented him from doing it.God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 04, 2003.
...continued from yesterdays post
CCC 159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a true scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and perservering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."
-- Tom (tjb2_99@yahoo.com), January 04, 2003.
...continued
CCC 299 ...Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his creation, though not without great effort and only in a spirit of humility and respect before the Creator and his work... CCC 302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying", toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it...
CCC 346 In creation God laid a foundation and established laws that remain firm, on which the believer can rely for confidence, for they are the sign and pledge of the unshakeable faithfulness of God's covenant. For his part man must remain faithful to this foundation and respect the laws which the Creator has written into it.
-- Tom (tjb2_99@yahoo.com), January 04, 2003.
...continuedThe study of the stars is a good place to look for the age and origin of the universe.
Psalm 19: 2-5
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the sky proclaims its builder's craft.
One day to the next conveys that message;
one night to the next imparts that knowledge.
There is no word or sound;
no voice is heard;
Yet thier report goes forth through all the earth,
their message, to the ends of the world.
God has pitched there a tent for the sun; So, Tim the Word of God tells us that studying the cosmos will tell us how God made it. If it appears that God is contradicting himself here, then you are obviously misinterpreting his Word, because truth cannot contradict truth. God bless,
-- Tom (tjb2_99@yahoo.com), January 04, 2003.
Dear John,As I believe my example clearly demonstrates, any written work, no matter how important, can include irrelevant inaccuracies without compromising in the slightest the quality, accuracy, reliability, and in the case of scripture, inerrancy, of the intended message, and therefore the work as a whole.
Peace! Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 04, 2003.
Yes, Paul, I understood that the first time.
However, it is not as clear-cut as you make it seem. In your attempted analogy, consider this:"Bob" was the second person to write an account, and he got some details wrong. It could happen that a person would be reading Bob's account and would know that he was wrong about one or more of those details. This could make the reader wonder how many other things (in the core message or in the "incidentals" or both) may be wrong.
So, the complete prevention of readers' uncertainty is one of the reasons why the Holy Spirit did not allow errors, not even in what you consider "[un]important" or "irrelevant ... matters." (I believe that you tried to reply to this kind of argument earlier. I recall that your comment could not withstand scrutiny, but that I didn't have a chance to explain why. I'll still waiting a while before I get into this more deeply with you again, because you may still need to talk some more to Tim and Tom.)
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 04, 2003.
Dear John,You say "the complete prevention of readers' uncertainty is one of the reasons why the Holy Spirit did not allow errors"
I agree completely! And if the Holy Spirit intended to provide such complete certainty through a simplistic fundamentalist insistence on God's preventing the human authors of scripture from contributing anything of themselves, He would have revealed to His Church, as part of the fullness of truth, that this was indeed His plan. So far, He has NOT revealed this, and the Church has NOT taught it.
What He DID say to the Church though, is "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven", and "the Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth". It is in these divine promises to His Church, not in God's heavy-handed domination of the human authors, that our complete assurance of scriptural truth is found. These guarantees, directly from the lips of God Himself, allow full confidence that what the church tells us is true in the scriptures IS in fact true, regardless of any literary imperfections that might exist in the text. All the questionable pronouns, ambiguous sentence structure, conflicting quantities, and scientific inaccuracies simply don't matter, because we don't have to figure it out for ourselves! Praise God! The Church infallibly defines the message, and we thereby have complete assurance that the message is inerrant. Nothing else matters.
Note that the one Church which approaches scripture from this perspective also possesses the fullness of truth; while those who insist upon the absolute inerrancy of every written word, yet reject the authority of the Church, are in a constantly deteriorating state of doctrinal chaos.
Peace! Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 04, 2003.
Dear Tom,As an ordained clergyman and a professional scientist, I have given more than a little contemplation to the matter of "faith vs. science" (a dichotomy I don't believe exists). However, the statement "there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason" is too general to be meaningful. First, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. You cannot have true faith without reason being involved. If you completely remove reason, all you have left is feelings, and feelings do not constitute faith. On the other hand, if you firmly believe something, but have no rational basis for doing so, that is simply jumping to conclusions; it is irrational, and nothing that is of God is irrational. Even if the depth of your reasoning goes no farther than "God said it, so I believe it", that is still an act of reason which provides a rational basis for faith.
The other problem with "there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason" is that it is impossible to compare the validity of faith and reason, except by comparing the products of the two; and both faith and reason can be faulty. Many people hold false beliefs with unshakable faith. And many people reason their way to objective untruth, even to the ultimate untruth - that there is no God. Consequently there can be a great deal of discrepancy between the results of faith and the results of reasoning. The result of faulty reasoning can conflict with the doctrines of true faith. Misguided faith can conflict with genuine truth arrived at through valid reasoning. And of course, invalid conclusions of reason can contradict invalidly held precepts of faith.
continued ..........
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2003.
So really, the best we can do is to say that "there can never be any real discrepancy between genuine objective truth accessed through faith, and geuine objective truth deduced through reason". Another way of stating this idea, which I think is clearer, is: "No genuine truth, regardless of its source, can conflict with any other genuine truth, regardless of its source".Peace! Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2003.
Paul,
Why are you picking apart my post? I'm on your side. My closing line was a direct quote of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Although I have gained respect for you since I have started coming to this forum, I think I will stick to what the CCC teaches.
CCC 159Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.
As a catholic clergyman, I certainly hope you agree with this statement.
God bless,
Tom
-- Tom (tjb2_99@yahoo.com), January 05, 2003.
Dear Tom,I appreciated that the statements you quoted were from the Catechism, and it was not my intent to refute anything you quoted, but simply to expand upon the ideas presented therein, some of which, I still maintain, are stated in terms too general to really be very meaningful without further development.
Peace! Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2003.
Hmmm...Is it just me, or did all of my most recent posts just disappear?
I don't remember stating anything that was worth getting erased?
Oh, well...
It still stands that light was in Day 1 and the creation account of Genesis can and should be taken literally.
God Bless!
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 07, 2003.
[Please keep any comments on the recent forum clean-up on the "Forum Moderation" thread. Moderator]
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 07, 2003.