The Accuracy of Scripture

Catholic Culture ^ | 12/05 | James Akin

[bdeaner]

Not a straw man if I leave the term "literal" open to other possible meanings.

I explicitly wrote (above),

However, there may be other ways to understand the word "literal" that are different than the way I am using it, in this case specifically to mean an objective record of natural science or history void of figurative significance.

I'm not reducing "literal" to only this one meaning, but simply pointing out that this is how I was using the term with regard to Genesis in the context of this discussion. Seven days is not literally seven 24-hour days, not literally seven revolutions of the earth on its axis. It must be read on a different level.

More later...

[kosta50]

God's love never fails. And His Word is true

How do you know that?

The Bible is a 'threat' to you?

I am not threatened by a book that describes talking donkeys. But, the Bible, just like the Koran, does contain threats.

You feel you can't live in peace wondering 'what if it is the inspired Word of God?

I live in peace wondering why do people believe in assumptions and then speak of them as if they were facts?

Don't take that as a threat but wisdom working

Whose wisdom? Yours?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Not a straw man if I leave the term “literal” open to other possible meanings.”

Which you didn’t do UNTIL AFTER you had put forward the straw man. Too late.

“I’m not reducing “literal” to only this one meaning,...”

You said that a literal view of Genesis would be the same as viewing it as science or history. How is that NOT reducing it to one meaning?

Again, I’m not attacking you, but I think you need to be more careful with how you word things.

[presently no screen name]

......Don't take that as a threat but wisdom working
Whose wisdom? Yours?

I meant wisdom working within you.

YOU say..I am not threatened by a book that describes talking donkeys.
And then you say..I live in peace wondering why do people believe in assumptions and then speak of them as if they were facts?

So, therefore, the why do people includes you.

[Mr Rogers]

“Or do you believe just an assumption?”

By definition, assumptions are not proven. It is up to the other side in a discussion to decide if they will agree on the assumption.

Most people who say, “Scripture is true” are using shorthand for “I believe Scripture is true”.

The idea that God is provable is contrary to faith.

Hebrews 11 says, “1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”

The word translated faith means:

“1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it

a) relating to God - 1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ

b) relating to Christ - 1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God

c) the religious beliefs of Christians

d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same”

People regularly say they ‘know’ something, when what they really mean is that they have full confidence in it. If you wish for faith, ask God for it. If you do not wish, then do not ask.

[bdeaner]

From the beginning of the thread, I was using the term "literal" to mean a scientific or historical reading of Genesis. You came along and criticized this position. I clarified what I meant by "literal" as a way to avoid allowing you to reduce my argument to a straw man (not assuming you were doing so intentionally). At the same time, I was generous and left the meaning of literal open to interpretation, as I was not sure how you were using the term. Then you turned around and said I was mounting a straw man argument. On the contrary, I was attempting to avoid a battle of straw men. I am not interested in fighting a straw man, ok? That was the whole point of clearly define my terms, precisely to avoid boxing your position into a straw man -- why would I want to do that if I am sincerely interested in what you have to say? And I am. And I do not assume you are interested in mounting a straw man either -- unlike a lot of the Protestants who seem to make it their business to create straw man at the drop of a hat. So let's move on without the presumption of anyone intentionally mounting fallacious arguments and stick as best we can to rigorous logical procedure, as best as we can.

[bdeaner]

Sorry for the cheap shot at Protestants in the last post. I meant to say that there are certain particular Protestant posters—who shall go unnamed—who seem to love mounting straw man arguments as a matter of habit. Catholics are not immune to fallacious arguments.

[bdeaner]

Apart from confusion over the term literal, which we really just need to move past, what I am saying follows from Vatican II:

"In determining the intention of the sacred writers, attention must be paid, inter alia, to 'literary forms for the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts,' and in other forms of literary expression" (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 12).

The Bible needs to be interpreted as inerrant, but inerrant within its appropriate literary context. To take Genesis and read it as a science book is to misappropriate the creation story within a literature genre that did not exist at the time Genesis was written, which was directed at an audience for whom scientific language as we know it had no meaning. To unveil the true meaning of Genesis, we must adopt the text within its cultural and historical context, and the literary genre of the text, and read it accordingly. With those lenses on, Genesis is completely consonent with contemporary scientific evidence, which is not to say the materialistic assumptions that often go unquestioned by many scientists, but only the scientific evidence, which take to its limits, in fact undermine the assumptions of materialism.

You have agreed that Genesis should not be read as a science book, and we agree it should be read within its appropriate literary gentre, and as such reveals inerrant theological truths.

So, in that case, what do you object to in what I have said? Are we now on the same page?

[Iscool]

The point I'm making is that numbers in the Bible often have symbolic significance, and are not necessarily to be taken literally. Seven, forty, twelve, etc., are numbers that appear repeatedly, and have symbolic significance representing holiness or a great multitude, etc, and are not to be taken as an exact 'head count,' per se.

Nope...While many of the numbers have symbolic or even prophetic significance, they are to be taken literally as well...

The Church is in a crisis because many young people would sooner give up belief in the Bible than dispense with belief in the overwhelming evidence the sciences have collected on the cosmogenesis of the universe and evolution.

Overwhelming evidence of evolution??? Science has never proven the scriptures to be wrong and never will...The scriptures on the other hand, have proven science to be wrong on more than one occasion...

When the Bible is understood on the appropriate literary terms, and not taken as a science text, it can be understood to be entirely consistent with current scientific understanding, and in fact the sciences imply the necessity of a Creator.

You may be right on that one...IF you want to read the scriptures as tho it is a novel or a cookbook, you may be able to come to that conclusion...

Was Ahasiah 22- (2 Ki. 8:26), 32- (2 Ch. 21:20), or 42-years-old (2 Ch. 21:20) when he began to reign? etc. But since they are usually more symbolic in value than an actual record of exact numerical measurements, then that is not something to be concerned about.

With a little research you will find that there are two Ahasiahs involved...One is a son, the other is a son-in-law or step-son...God did not just throw in random numbers to fill up space...

[kosta50]

I meant wisdom working within you

My wisdom?

I am not threatened by a book that describes talking donkeys. And then you say..I live in peace wondering why do people believe in assumptions and then speak of them as if they were facts? So, therefore, the why do people includes you.

I am not sure I follow you. I made no assumptions. I read the thread and saw statements like "God wrote the scripture through man..." Is that a fact? If so, please provide proof. Facts are provable; assumptions are not. I wonder why people believe that a donkey can talk rationally, or that diseases are caused by 'demons' just because someone wrote that in the Bible.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Sorry for the cheap shot at Protestants in the last post. I meant to say that there are certain particular Protestant posters—who shall go unnamed—who seem to love mounting straw man arguments as a matter of habit. Catholics are not immune to fallacious arguments.

LOL! I'm not even a chr*stian, much less a Protestant! Of course I've told you that before and you didn't see it. So much for "empirical science!"

[bdeaner]

Sorry for the cheap shot at Protestants in the last post.

You can't be so narcissistic as to believe everything I post on this thread is for you? It was for PROTESTANTS. I know you are not a Protestant. Mr. Rogers and other Protestants have posted on this thread.

[MarkBsnr]

***I read the thread and saw statements like “God wrote the scripture through man...” Is that a fact? If so, please provide proof.***

We appear to be a little shy on proofs. There are many people who claim knowledge still. Yet, this Gnostic wisdom, although differing amongst most all of our our friends, does not appear to have any defined source.

[Zionist Conspirator]

***I read the thread and saw statements like “God wrote the scripture through man...” Is that a fact? If so, please provide proof.***

We appear to be a little shy on proofs. There are many people who claim knowledge still. Yet, this Gnostic wisdom, although differing amongst most all of our our friends, does not appear to have any defined source.

How do you know the bread and wine become "body and blood?" Gnostic knowledge of some kind?

While I of course as a non-Catholic don't accept the decrees of the First Vatican Council, I find it interesting that as a Catholic, neither do you.

[bdeaner]

Note: Mr. Rogers is exemplary as a Protestant on this thread, and on other threads, who usually avoids fallacious reasoning, including straw man arguments. I did not intend to implicate him in my comment. I need to quit sticking my foot in my throat on this thread...

[bdeaner]

Nope...While many of the numbers have symbolic or even prophetic significance, they are to be taken literally as well...

According to what infallible authority?

The scriptures on the other hand, have proven science to be wrong on more than one occasion...

LOL! This makes no sense. Do even understand what the scientific method is?

[MarkBsnr]

***How do you know the bread and wine become “body and blood?” Gnostic knowledge of some kind? ***

Did I ever say that I know? Proofs, please.

***While I of course as a non-Catholic don’t accept the decrees of the First Vatican Council, I find it interesting that as a Catholic, neither do you.***

Which decree do I not accept?

[MarkBsnr]

***Nope...While many of the numbers have symbolic or even prophetic significance, they are to be taken literally as well...

According to what infallible authority? ***

The Church of Iscool (population 1) has come up with astounding theology. And very novel interpretations of Scripture.

***The scriptures on the other hand, have proven science to be wrong on more than one occasion...

LOL! This makes no sense. Do even understand what the scientific method is?***

When one confuses knowledge with belief, what importance does the scientific method have?

[MarkBsnr]

***While I of course as a non-Catholic ***

Given your posts here, would you not say anti Catholic?

[MarkBsnr]

Oops; I meant to post this to you.

***While I of course as a non-Catholic ***

Given your posts here, would you not say anti Catholic?