Well, you saw the criticisms I had of the OP article in post #43. I, for one, thought that the author should have simply pulled an actual example of a Fundamentalist literalist interpretation of Scripture and demonstrated how the Fundamentalist exegesis was flawed...and that this would be a whole lot more effective than doing what he did.
But I don't see how he attacked the belief in the facticity of the Biblical events.
And I certainly don't see how the narrative I quoted from the Pontifical Biblical Commission attacked the facticity of those events. Having said that, perhaps you could provide me with a quote from #43 where an attack is made.
I will, without apology, concede that post #43 was an attack on the fundamentalist method of interpretation. But an attack on that method has nothing to do with an attack on the Scriptures...just the way that fundamentalists read those Scriptures.
Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission endorses "higher criticism" and condemns Fundamentalists for rejecting it.
As the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation, equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics.
Translation: the literalism of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and their immediate successors (up until Pius XII) was not in line with traditional Catholic Biblical interpretation but the influence of an alien adulteration.
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human.
Translation: the incarnation implies that the Bible is a mixture of Divine Truth and human error. To insist on an inerrant Bible is to deny the "incarnation" (which is probably true, and another reason why Fundamentalists should be Noachides, though they refuse to rethink their groundless devotion to J*sus).
It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.
Translation: the writers of the Bible were stone age savages who believed in the supernatural, whereas we now know that stuff like that can't happen.
It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
Ditto. Plus the Torah evolved slowly over time and was not dictated by G-d to Moses.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Translation: The Bible contains scientific and historical errors.
In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.
Here the PBC attacks Fundamentalists for believing in the historical truth and inerrancy of the "new testament" itself, which is all right with me. I'm just surprised that it's all right with you. I guess you're more consistent than I gave you credit for.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view.
Translation: outdated prejudices against homosexuality need to be "re-thought."
It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith.
The PBC endorses evolution.
Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.
Translation: "chr*stian Zionism" is condemned.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life.
Translation: There is no black and white; there are only shades of gray.
I fail to understand how you can claim that these passages do not almost explicitly attack and reject belief in the facticity of Biblical events. Unless . . . well, you know.