That would be extensive, but Help yourself. Get the free E-sword program for more. And which contrary to your charge, testifies to a overall strong unity in basic truths and thus contentions against those who deny them, and limited disagreement in others.
And contrary to the fantasy many RCs seem to have, the official teaching of Rome is neither so extensive or clearly consistent so that Catholics cannot validly have extensive things they can disagree on. Nor was comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized.
.if 2,000 different interpretations come in to your blog, doesn't that tell you that you should let those, far more capable than you, interpret scripture?
Which does not prevent the extensive things Catholics can disagree on, and the various interpretations we see here by Catholics. Nor were so-called "church fathers " all unified, nor does Rome doctrines actually have the stipulated “unanimous consent ”
However, as there are those called and gifted to be teachers, thus we have helps such as in depth comprehensive classic evangelical commentaries, the likes of which Rome has not. Even sincere RCs who esteem Scripture can find Matthew Henry edifying, esp in practical application.
Meanwhile, your polemic infers that Rome solves the problem of various interpretations of Scripture, and inaccurate ones, with assuredly true interpretations. Thus we must ask,
1. How many texts of Scripture has Rome infallibly defined?
2. How many official comprehensive commentaries has Rome produced?
3. Is the teaching of Romes such as to prevent RCs from having great liberty to variously interpret Scripture to defend Rome?
4. As regards sanctioned Roman interpreters as being more capable than evangelicals, would you agree we must agree with the RC sanctioned commentary in your own official American Bible which teaches :
that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.
the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson.
Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional."
It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.”
On Gn. 1:26 states that “sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth,” thus negating this as literal, and God as referring to Himself in the plural (“Us” or “Our”) which He does 6 times in the OT. Likewise, the current footnote regarding the Red Sea (Ex. 10:19) informs readers regarding what the Israelites crossed over that it is literally the Reed Sea, which was “probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters!
t likewise explains as regards to the sons of heaven [God] having relations with the daughters of men, as “apparently alluding to an old legend.” and explains away the flood as a story that “ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood.” Its teaching also imagines the story as being a composite account with discrepancies. The 1970 footnote on Gen. 6:1-4 states, “This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology.” It goes on to explain the “sons of heaven” are “the celestial beings of mythology.”
All of which impugns the overall literal nature the O.T. historical accounts, and as Scripture interprets Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit refers to such stories as being literal historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac, Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14). Indeed “the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and if Jonah did not spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale then neither did the Lord, while Israel's history is always and inclusively treated as literal.
it states under "Reading the Gospels,
“The Church was so firmly convinced that the risen Lord who is Jesus of history lived in her, and taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus’ sayings. The words are not Jesus but from the Church.” “Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus, as for example those put together by Matthew in chapter 5, 1-12”
It does allow that the slaughter of the innocents by King Herod, was “extremely probable,” and that people leaving Bethlehem to escape the massacre, is equally probable, but outside the historical background to this tradition, “the rest is interpretation.” This means is taught as justified due to the authors intent.
It additionally conveys such things as that Matthew placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel, and may have only represented Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, to show that Jesus wa the s like Moses who received the law on Mount Sinai. (St. Joseph edition, 1970; How to read your Bible, "The Gospels," 13e, f, g. and i)
The “Conditioned thought patterns” (7) hermeneutic also paves the way for the specious argumentation of feminists who seek to negate the headship of the man as being due to condescension to culture, a very dangerous hermeneutic, and unwarranted when dealing with such texts as 1Cor. 11:3.
In addition, the current edition will not use render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1; 6:13; 7:2; 10:8; 2Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; Gal. 5:19; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; but simply has “immorality,” even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.
It is a slippery slope when historical statements are made out to be literary devices, and Muslims have taken advantage of the NAB's liberal hermeneutic to impugn the veracity of the Bible, http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/nab.htm.
The NAB has gone through revision, but a Roman Catholic apologist lists some of the above errors from the 1992 version, and is likewise critical of the liberal scholarship behind it (though he elsewhere denigrated Israel as illegally occupying Palestine), while the online NAB also reflects liberal “scholarship.” A Roman Catholic cardinal is also critical of the NAB on additional grounds.
Folktales?
Did God REALLY say....?
Catholicism impugns the word it claims it wrote.