What do you think?

[MoreCoffee]

Watch it or don't. Think about it or not. Accept it or reject it. The bible gets to people. And people get to the bible.

 

[Josiah]

Pretty bad.

 

[hedrick]

I think his proposed resolution is a bit oversimplified. I don't think we can really take all the varying facts and perspectives and just accept them all equally. But overall it's reasonable.

 

[Lamb]

I like what Luther wrote on the subject:

"The Holy Spirit has been blamed for not speaking correctly. He speaks like a drunkard or a fool. He so mixes things up and uses wild, queer words and statements. But it is our fault, who have not understood the language nor known the manner of the prophets. For it cannot be otherwise; the Holy Ghost is wise and makes the prophets also wise. A wise man may be able to speak correctly; that holds true without fail."

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think his proposed resolution is a bit oversimplified. I don't think we can really take all the varying facts and perspectives and just accept them all equally. But overall it's reasonable.

I agree, the last two minutes (more or less) are pleading for "mystery" and "faith" as an alleged solution to errors, inconsistencies, and contradiction that exist in the holy scriptures. But I will grant him praise for recognising that the holy scriptures do not fit the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy description. He's likely reflecting what his professors taught but how accurately he reflects their views is a little questionable. At least he's raised the issue and given a hint about how a Christian might profitably think about solutions.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Pretty bad.

How so?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I like what Luther wrote on the subject:

"The Holy Spirit has been blamed for not speaking correctly. He speaks like a drunkard or a fool. He so mixes things up and uses wild, queer words and statements. But it is our fault, who have not understood the language nor known the manner of the prophets. For it cannot be otherwise; the Holy Ghost is wise and makes the prophets also wise. A wise man may be able to speak correctly; that holds true without fail."

Martin Luther seeks a solution in the alleged faults of humankind; in short we get it wrong and the holy scriptures are right. Such is one approach; is it a safe and secure one when you discuss the matter with an atheist or a Christian who has awakened for the first time to the errors, contradictions, and difficulties in the holy scriptures?

Last week I had a brief discussion with an 86 year old lady who took out her KJV bible (she's KJV only) and asked me "Philip, did you know that Exodus tells about (she is Danish so her English can be slightly eccentric despite being in an English speaking land for 50 years and more) Moses and the elders seeing God? But John says no one has ever seen God how do you explain that?" I will not offer my answer here but it is interesting how people can read the holy scriptures for decades and one day, after a long time of reading and familiarity, they notice something that just doesn't square with their previous attitude towards holy scripture.

Of course, Atheists and people from non-Christian religions might notice errors in the holy scriptures as soon as they encounter them in book form. It is no easy thing to offer serious and significant comment on what they find.

 

[Lamb]

Martin Luther seeks a solution in the alleged faults of humankind; in short we get it wrong and the holy scriptures are right. Such is one approach; is it a safe and secure one when you discuss the matter with an atheist or a Christian who has awakened for the first time to the errors, contradictions, and difficulties in the holy scriptures?

Last week I had a brief discussion with an 86 year old lady who took out her KJV bible (she's KJV only) and asked me "Philip, did you know that Exodus tells about (she is Danish so her English can be slightly eccentric despite being in an English speaking land for 50 years and more) Moses and the elders seeing God? But John says no one has ever seen God how do you explain that?" I will not offer my answer here but it is interesting how people can read the holy scriptures for decades and one day, after a long time of reading and familiarity, they notice something that just doesn't square with their previous attitude towards holy scripture.

Of course, Atheists and people from non-Christian religions might notice errors in the holy scriptures as soon as they encounter them in book form. It is no easy thing to offer serious and significant comment on what they find.

"Awakened to the errors"? Those errors are man's errors. Not God's.

 

[MoreCoffee]

"Awakened to the errors"? Those errors are man's errors. Not God's.

That is one view, yes; perhaps it is what Martin Luther was thinking but the errors in the holy scriptures are human errors too being the result of the human beings who wrote the holy scriptures.

 

[psalms 91]

sigh when you call Gods word into question you also call into question everything about God a slippery slope. Either you accept it by faith and diligently seek the truth by searching His word and you will find out that it is right but you need the Holy Spirit leading you, not your wisdom

 

[Lamb]

That is one view, yes; perhaps it is what Martin Luther was thinking but the errors in the holy scriptures are human errors too being the result of the human beings who wrote the holy scriptures.

God is never wrong. So if something is wrong...then it's because man messed it up. Not God.

 

[Josiah]

How so?

I wasn't going to get into this, but since you asked.....


1. This Roman Catholic spends a lot of time insisting that the Bible errs. With friends like that, who needs enemies? With the RCC spreading that, I guess the Devil can take the day off.

2. The examples he gives are absurd. Yes - there are sometimes multiple accounts of the same thing, but if they record DIFFERENT things, that's not CONTRADICTIONS but simply different things. Yes, there's two accounts of the Cleasing of the Temple but there's no reason to assume there was ONE and two errant records, the more reasonable conclusion is that there were TWO and they were not IDENTICAL and did not happen at the same time. Most of the "errors" Satan (and perhaps also the RCC) dwell on are different spellings (there were no dictionaries! There was no correct spelling!), or different names (There were no official names for anyone - except Roman citizens and they rarely used their legal name!). Yeah there are MINOR issues hard to understand but not contradictions.

3. While I get his point of none of this impacts Law and Gospel (and I agree), his insistence that the Bible is full of errors is wrong. And seems to have one and only one purpose: To undermine the authority of God and demand on the authority of the RCC to tell you when the Bible is wrong and when it is right.


I'm SO reminded of when I was young.... there was a presentation of some unique dogma of the RCC (I don't remember which)...and I asked I asked if the Bible actually taught that. The response I got was VERY CATHOLIC: "Josiah, of course it does, the Bible would be wrong if it disagreed with 'The Church' and that's impossible, so of course the Bible teaches that." I learned - so very clearly, so very foundationally - in the RC denomination, the Bible is correct because it agrees with the RCC NOT because the RCC agrees with the Bible. It STRESSES that it itself is inerrant while teaching the Bible IS errant.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Interesting replies. Is it possible to accept that there are errors in holy scripture and at the same time believe in God, do you think?

 

[Josiah]

Interesting replies. Is it possible to accept that there are errors in holy scripture and at the same time believe in God, do you think?

To the point, do you think a faithful and true Catholic can accept that the RCC has errors in its unique dogmas, denying CCC 87, 890, etc., etc.? That the RCC dogmatically errs but not the Bible? That the problem could be with the RCC and not the Bible?




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

To the point, do you think a faithful and true Catholic can accept that the RCC has errors in its unique dogmas, denying CCC 87, 890, etc., etc.? That the RCC dogmatically errs but not the Bible? That the problem could be with the RCC and not the Bible?

Of course.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It might be useful to apply scientific method to theology, but how does one test a doctrine by observation of predicted experimental outcomes?

 

[Michael]

Oh, there indeed appear to be many contradictions in the Scripture. But the Word of God is True.
As Jesus said, many things are taught so the people will not understand, because they refuse to repent and quit sinning.

“To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12 so that
‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand;
Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.’ ”
- Mark 4:11-12

So, even in the churches, many to do understand the Word of God, and misinterpret or twist the Scripture to come up with crazy doctrines such as OSAS, Eternal Forgiveness and a mythical escape to the spirit realm to avoid the necessary tribulation that will perfect them.
As Jesus said -
"Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.” - Matt 15:14

May we be among those who "hunger and thirst for righteousness" that we may be filled with all wisdom and knowledge of Christ through the Spirit, coming to maturity, until we enter in the fullness of God.

 

[Josiah]

Of course.

I was taught - and I think this is official - that if one accepts even the theoretical POSSIBILITY that the individual RCC errs in its official dogma, then that one is NOT Catholic at all.

I was taught that the Bible is correct for only one reason: the individual RC denomination SAYS it is, and it is because it agrees with the RCC (it would be wrong - and thus errant - if it disagreed with the RCC).

You may claim our Catholic teachers taught us wrongly (and I'd disagree with you) but a Catholic is one who accepts WHATEVER Catholic teachers say "with docility" (CCC 87) "As Jesus Himself speaking" so if you do so claim, it's irrelevant; a Catholic swallows it whole or is not Catholic. I had the honesty to admit I was not Catholic. I could not be like a LOT of folks I know (including a lot I'm related to) who CALL themselves "Catholics" and attend Mass every week but who agree with Catholicism a lot less than I do. I think of my brother-in-law, who is very involved in the RCC, but when he and I talk about Christianity - I'M the one defending Catholicism and the Catholic pov, HE'S the one rejecting it.

What this Catholic in the video is showing is that in Catholicism, the Bible is errant; he would follow this up with the point that we need an inerrant authority - and the RCC insists that it itself exclusively is that. Thus, the RCC will tell you when the Bible is right and when it's wrong.... or more correctly, the Bible is right when it agrees with the RCC..... Indeed, as we were taught in the RCC, the Bible is kinda, sorta reliable sometimes in some things BECAUSE the RCC determined what it is. But it is reliable ONLY as the RCC itself alone determines what it SHOULD say (even if it doesn't) so that it doesn't disagree with the RCC.

Yup. I "left" your denomination because I don't swallow whole - with docility - it's claims for it itself by it itself individually concerning epistemology and also ecclesiology. This video sure reminded me of that. SO sad when a Catholic religious feels the need to undermine the Bible.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was taught - and I think this is official - that if one accepts even the theoretical POSSIBILITY that the individual RCC errs in its official dogma, then that one is NOT Catholic at all.

I was taught that the Bible is correct for only one reason: the individual RC denomination SAYS it is, and it is because it agrees with the RCC (it would be wrong - and thus errant - if it disagreed with the RCC).

You may claim our Catholic teachers taught us wrongly (and I'd disagree with you) but a Catholic is one who accepts WHATEVER Catholic teachers say "with docility" (CCC 87) "As Jesus Himself speaking" so if you do so claim, it's irrelevant; a Catholic swallows it whole or is not Catholic. I had the honesty to admit I was not Catholic. I could not be like a LOT of folks I know (including a lot I'm related to) who CALL themselves "Catholics" and attend Mass every week but who agree with Catholicism a lot less than I do. I think of my brother-in-law, who is very involved in the RCC, but when he and I talk about Christianity - I'M the one defending Catholicism and the Catholic pov, HE'S the one rejecting it.

What this Catholic in the video is showing is that in Catholicism, the Bible is errant; he would follow this up with the point that we need an inerrant authority - and the RCC insists that it itself exclusively is that. Thus, the RCC will tell you when the Bible is right and when it's wrong.... or more correctly, the Bible is right when it agrees with the RCC..... Indeed, as we were taught in the RCC, the Bible is kinda, sorta reliable sometimes in some things BECAUSE the RCC determined what it is. But it is reliable ONLY as the RCC itself alone determines what it SHOULD say (even if it doesn't) so that it doesn't disagree with the RCC.

Yup. I "left" your denomination because I don't swallow whole - with docility - it's claims for it itself by it itself individually concerning epistemology and also ecclesiology. This video sure reminded me of that. SO sad when a Catholic religious feels the need to undermine the Bible.

Josiah, you are not a Catholic.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This post is just for information. So don't rely to it please. It contains the sections from the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentioned by Josiah in his post.

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.​

...

The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfil this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.​