I’ve passed over several comments on this blog and on BeingFrank about biblical inerrancy – so many comments and so little time! I hope this post goes some way to providing that lack.
As far as I can gather, the argument has these major steps.
- God knows everything
- God wrote the Bible
- Therefore everything in the Bible must be true (with ‘true’ meaning historically and scientifically factual)
- If 3. is incorrect (as shown through a scientific error, a moral error, or a contradiction), this proves that either 2 or 1 (or both) are false.
- Therefore there is no God.
Leaving aside any discussion of the logical flow of the argument, points 2 and 3 are just not consistent with Catholic understanding of the Bible.
The early Church also placed more emphasis on the message of scripture over actual words on pages. This is why early Christians almost unanimously read the Old Testament typologically (finding allegorical, hidden, references to Jesus and other New Testament truths), rather than only literally. St. Paul often read the scriptures this way (Galatians 4:21-31), as did the author of Hebrews. Most Church Fathers read the Old Testament this way (see the Epistle of Barnabas, written about 120 AD). Thus, early Christians were not so much concerned with the words per se, but rather with what the text told us about Jesus and the Christian faith. In this way, they often found multiple layers of meaning in the text, which of course included, but was not limited to, the literal one. Nonetheless, they had a high view of Scripture as uniquely divinely inspired and accurate writings. However, the Bible was never officially declared inerrant to the letter before the Reformation, and even then, it was declared as such in some Protestant denominations only. No early creed says one must believe the Bible is inerrant to the letter to be a true Christian.
The early Fathers held that the Bible was inerrant. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches affirm this as well. However, this is the case only when the Bible is properly understood, interpreted by the Church. This is inerrancy by ancient standards and not modern, fundamentalist standards. The early Fathers did not think that minor contradictions rendered the Bible errant, nor did they insist all stories were meant to be interpreted literally. For instance, the creation stories were often allegorized, interpreted in ways so as to prefigure Christ, or interpreted through the lens of the science of the day (or all three!). Thus St. Augustine could say each day in the Genesis creation story was equal to a thousand years, or that the science of the day should shape our understanding of the creation stories, without ever denying the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. So when a Catholic affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, the idea has far less baggage than the fundamentalist understanding.
For example, many early Christian writers were well aware of minor contradictions within the Scriptures, even in the gospels, and did not seem too bothered by it. Tertullian (AD 200) said, “Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of the [gospel] narratives. What matters is that there is agreement in the essential doctrine of the Faith” (Against Marcion, IV:2). St. John Chrysostom (AD 390) was even bolder (at least to modern ears) to suggest that contradictions in the gospels actually strengthen the conviction that Christianity is true. If the gospel authors agreed in every small detail, then it was obvious that the stories were forgeries by a group of dishonest early Christians in collusion with one another. He even says, “the discord which seems to be present in little matters shields [the authors] from every suspicion and vindicates the character of the writers” (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, I:6). Even today, we Christians are far more credible if we admit to minor Biblical contradictions rather than trying come up with absurd, non-realistic stories designed to make the gospel accounts completely harmonize. So without denying the Bible’s inspiration or essential accuracy, many Church Fathers recognized minor contradictions and variants in the text.
Thus the view of the early Church is that the Bible is an accurate, God-inspired testimony, the written document accurately reporting the foundations of the faith, but not necessarily inerrant as defined by modern criteria, and the Old Testament is certainly not inerrant when exclusively interpreted literally. (David Bennet)
Actually, the term ‘Biblical inerrancy’ is not precisely defined in the Church, though this could change. But it is very clear that the Catholic way of reading the Bible is to read it as a whole, and to read it seeking what it reveals about Christ.
Since Scripture is inspired by God, it must be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was written (Catechism, No. 111). Here, the Pope calls on biblical scholars to avoid a myopic reading of Scripture that focuses only on the historical. He reminds us of the three criteria from Vatican II for authentic interpretation of the Bible: (1) one must read individual biblical texts in light of all the books of the Bible, since the same Holy Spirit coauthored them all; (2) one must read Scripture in light of the living Tradition of the Church, since the same Spirit that inspired the Scriptures is animating the Church’s tradition; and (3) one must interpret Scripture in light of the coherence of truths revealed by Christ and taught by the Church, which also is guided by the same Spirit (see Catechism, Nos. 112-114).
When, however, biblical scholarship fails to interpret the Scriptures theologically — from the standpoint of faith in its inspiration and faith in the God who acts in history — two tragic consequences follow. First, “the Bible becomes solely a history book.” Instead of being experienced as God’s divine words spoken personally to each individual, “the Bible remains in the past, speaks only of the past.”
Second, interpreters tend to deny the divine acting in history. Consequently, when miracles, prophecy or anything else supernatural is found in the Bible, it is automatically discredited as not being even possibly historical. Benedict critiques this bias toward the supernatural: “When there seems to be a divine element [in the Bible], the source of that impression must be explained, thus reducing everything to the human element. As a result, it is the grounds for interpretations that deny the historicity of divine elements.” (Edward Sri)
So let’s look at the five steps again from a Catholic understanding:
- God knows everything
- God inspired certain people to write historical accounts, legends, poetry, and other records that progressively revealed the relationship between God and humankind
- These people worked within their own historical context and their own intellectual abilities to produce their accounts
- God inspired the Church to select those texts which made the best fist of revealing Him as appropriate for reading in Church
- The image of God revealed in the Bible, as interpreted by the Church, is inevitably incomplete (given our human understanding) but without error.
Yes. I can live with that.
“Actually, the term ‘Biblical inerrancy’ is not precisely defined in the Church, though this could change…”
Then BI is meaningless, and it is meaningless to require people to believe in it – as this Ratzionger Note of 1998 does, calling it heresy to deny the freedom of the Bible from all error. If “cheese” is not defined, it could meany anything from a lap-dancer to a spigot to a pituitary gland to a piano sonata. But these things are totally non-identical, so such a requirement is meaningless.
There is would be no point in talking about God’s Love, if its content were what most sane people understood to be sadism. Only a very sick person would glorify the Divine Sadism, or see the Shoah as an example of Christian charity at its most convincing. If we don’t talk in that way about God’s Love, or about ethical questions – & most peple don’t – what justification can there be for having a content-free doctrine, or dogma, of BI ?
Besides, the defenders of BI never ever ask how BI would be possible given the way in which the texts are written. If a word can been written in a sinfgle way that gives two or perfectly intelligible & contextually possiuble & appropriate meanings:which is the uniquely God-willed, inerrantly true, intended meaning. Does *echete* in Romans 5 mean “ye do have” or does it mean “have ye !” ? The Greek is accurately translated in both ways. But the meaning is different. Defenders of BI behave as though God wrote the Bible, in English, personally. How can anyone have patience with such foolishness, or believe that suyuch follishness is a truth revealed by God, to be believed on pain of committing heresy & ceasing to be a member of the Church ? How is this not the worst kind of spiritual tyranny ?
Did you have a link to go with your “Ratzinger note of 1998”?
Sorry. The Adoremus edition is abbreviated – eugh ! – but it’s available from EWTN, among other sites:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
Title: DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
By: Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
See in particular paragraphs 5, 8 & 11:
———————-
“5. The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.” The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.11
These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.12
…..
8. With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).
……
11. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.
To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas21 and Marian dogmas;22 the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace;23 the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist24 and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration;25 the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;26 the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff;27 the doctrine on the existence of original sin;28 the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death;29 the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts;30 the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.31″
———————-
The phrase “truths of the first paragraph” in par.11 refers matters discussed in paragraphs 5 & 8; put the contents of the paragraphs together,and denying “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” turns out to be rather difficult if one wants to stay Catholic.
It appears to be heresy to deny “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” – which is too close to Fundamentalism for comfort, and implies an untruth, that the Bible is free of all error. It’s no good quoting the Fathers, because they did things like resort to allegory in order to preserve the meaning they thought the texts had or should have – but that is not the same as a Bible which is investigated with the help of archaeology, comparative religion, & the languages of the Ancient Near East. No historian now would preserve the truth of the Book of Judith by saying Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria as well as of Babylonia, because he was not; Assyria was defunct by the time he began to reign, even though Judith calls him its king. The Fathers, lucky men, did not know that, so they and their successors for many generations could try to identify different people, or harmonise conflicting facts, in a way that is now impossible, because far more info is now available than they had. So they could believe in the inerrancy of the Bible by using arguments which no honest & competent scholar can possibly use today. So the fact that the Fathers are quoted as saying the Bible is free of error prompts the question, “What led them to think that ?”
Enjoy the link 🙂
“suyuch follishness” = “such foolishness”
“But it is very clear that the Catholic way of reading the Bible is to read it as a whole, and to read it seeking what it reveals about Christ.”
A good approach – but one that is totally irrelevant to Biblical inerrancy. The most rabid “liberals” “read the Bible as a whole”; doing so does absolutely nothing to prove the real historicity of Adam & Eve, of Methuselah’s 969 years, of the debating serpent which spoke to Eve, or of a thousand other such details. Any text can be read as a whole – Tolkien’s legendarium is an excellent example. Most of the usual arguments for BI would be equally applicable to his books, or to any other well-written story.
.
This one will run and run, thinks Toad.
I see no reason to doubt that LOL
The claims of Biblical Inerrancy are only the start of the problem though. Even if we accept that the bible is not inerrant (which it most clearly is not), the fact (yes fact) that the bible contains epistles and other later additions that were clearly intended to mislead people makes the whole concept of the ‘truth’ of Christianity a nonsense. Biblical inerrancy or not, the bible is so full of lies as to make it not even the ‘inspired’ word of god, let alone inerrant!
KA
But KA, I’m saying that the Bible is inerrant – for a given meaning of the word inerrant.
I take it you are referring to your repeated claim that many of the New Testament epistles were written by people other than the people to whom they are usually attributed. Last time we discussed this, I think ‘many’ turned out to be 2 Peter.
The letters of John, James, and Jude don’t claim to be by the apostles, 1 Peter is arguably of the right age to be by Peter, Hebrews makes no authorship claims, and scholarly opinion is divided on some of the Pauline letters. The reasons for rejecting Pauline authorship are all arguable, and have indeed been argued: differences in language and style, perceived differences in doctrine from the accepted letters (that is, that certain doctrines are more developed than the opposing scholars think they should be), and (in the case of the Pauline pastorals) Church structures that the opposing scholars think are not likely to have developed before Paul’s death.
So we come back to 2 Peter. At present, most non-evangelical biblical scholars reject Peter as the author. Below, in brief, I summarise their arguments with my comments.
The early Church was suspicious of it – yes, but the Church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries were suspicious of anything claiming to be by Peter because there were a number of forgeries around; nonetheless, they eventually accepted this one
It wasn’t in the earliest known lists – yes and neither were other books that were later accepted, and that are now accepted by modern scholars; and, of course, we have only fragments of the documents from that time, so it may have been in lists we don’t have
It refers to false teachers, and they didn’t yet exist – no, false teachers were there from the beginning, and are mentioned in other New Testament documents that are accepted.; this is just a case of modern scholars shoehorning later understandings onto the references
It refers to the death of the apostles so must have been written in the 2nd century – no, it refers to the death of the fathers, which in context probably means what Jewish writers usually meant at the time by the fathers: Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph (the remainder of the sentence refers to Creation)
It refers to the letters of Paul, so it must have been written after Paul died – this is a particularly silly point. In essence, the verse refers to a point Paul made, and says ‘he always writes like this’. If I said that Peter Jackson, in his movies, always has a long set piece full of narrow escapes, that doesn’t mean he’s finished making movies, or even that I’ve seen all his movies.
It refers to Peter’s own coming death, so it must have written after he died – because, of course, if he was in a Roman prison awaiting execution, he would be expecting to live, right?
It is stylistically different to 1 Peter – this is true, but on the other hand, it is likely that Peter used a secretary or at least a scribe – indeed, in 1 Peter he mentions Silvanus as the ‘hand’ by which he wrote. 2 Peter could have been written by another secretary. Even today, personal assistants will be told – go and write a letter to so-and-so and tell them such-and-such – and the letter is then presented to the boss for his/her signature. Who wrote the letter?
My conclusion? Case not proven. Your ‘fact’ is a theory. And just one among a raft of theories.
After writing the above, I came across this: http://bible.org/seriespage/second-peter-introduction-argument-and-outline – which has a few arguments I left out.
I take it you are referring to your repeated claim that many of the New Testament epistles were written by people other than the people to whom they are usually attributed. Last time we discussed this, I think ‘many’ turned out to be 2 Peter.
Actually, no. I suspect you skim read what I wrote, but more importantly, you must have decided to ignore everything Mr Seeker wrote on this subject the other week (month?). There are many instances of forgery in the bible, many transcriptions errors, many examples of later additions to text (Mark is a fine example of this) and so on, so your rather dismissive statement above does you no justice.
Mind you, with faith you can believe anything, right?
KA
I’m not even bothering to reply as the decision to be unwilling to listen is reflected in the summary of major steps which bear little relation to the actual arguments as enumerated countless times in this blog, and serve only to erect a straw man that can be smugly knocked down.
I often wonder why theists won’t listen. Perhaps, Mr Seeker, as an ex-theist, you could shed some light on the issue?
KA
Because of a total and unyielding belief that they are right and others are wrong – therefore it’s not necessary to pay any but token attention to what they say.
On a slightly more bizarre note – http://tinyurl.com/3wjdjpf
Not, apparently, a characteristic of our two favourite atheists?
So have I over simplified or just got it straight wrong?
Two points.
First, since most of the post is only marginally about the major points list at the start of the post, it isn’t accurate to call it a straw man. I haven’t, in fact, attempted to knock it down.
Second, if I’m wrong about your – and more particularly KA’s – view of the relationship between biblical inerrancy and belief in God, please feel free to correct my main points. And I’ll change them.
Actually, I’d be happy to just drop points 1 and 5, though 5 is at least implied by the context in which the other three arguments are offered.
It’s easier to discuss vague remarks about forgery & so forth if they are not vague. If people have no way of working from the words of KA & yourself what you are referring to, it’s not really possible to have a discussion.
Is Isaiah (for example) a “forgery” ? No – it is written by several authors, but that means only that ithas several authors; which does not in itself count against it; there is no reason, except Fundamentalist dogma, why it must have only one. It doesn’t have to the work of a single author – to dismiss it because it has more than one author is a misunderstanding of the book & one that is based on Fundamentalist presuppositions. When atheists on YouTube argue against the books of the Bible, they almost always do so on Fundamentalist presuppositions. To cut a very long story short, this amounts to treating the books as something they are not. To find out the meaning of the Bible, it must be taken literally. That is how Biblical criticism works. Not by (say) forcing texts to say the same thing when they do not, but letting them say what they do, & then trying to see why that is.
We shouldn’t need to have this discussion, & if people read the books called “the Bible” in an intelligent manner we would not be having it. It’s necessary only because of the – totally unBiblical – notion that the Bible “must be” inerrant if it is “inspired” or “of God”. There is no *Biblical* reason why Moses “must have” written a word of Genesis. There is no *Biblical* reason why Ephesians must be by St. Paul. A lot of the kerfuffle arises not from the Bible at all, but from what people have at various times, & with different degrees of justification, insisted the Bible must be. And people will insist on expecting an Iron Age creation myth to be the last word in cosmology & biology; so they compare evolution with Genesis 1, which is almost as intelligent as comparing “Moby Dick” with the Gettysburg Address: comparing two things that have little in common, illuminates neither. IMO, there is much better reason to think that God uses an imperfect, flawed, sin-filled, externally unimpressive Bible to speak to man, than a perfect, inerrant, flawless, obviously Divine Bible. And the reason I think this is that His supreme Self-revelation is in the Person of a crucified & accursed Jewish gallows-bird, & not of an “obviously” important person. It’s quite well known that Luther objected to what he called a “theology of glory” which he saw in the CC of his time; unfortunately, Protestants in particular have built up another theology of glory, applying not to God (as it should), but to the Bible, which is as much the work of man as of God, & is as marked by sin as any other work of man.
One of the saddest things about discussion of the Bible between Christians & atheists is that the discussion is always Fundamentalist – people never ask whether their approach is valid. If the books are not meant to be read in a Fundamentalist way, then that is no way to read them; they will not make sense that way.
Here’s a very detailed, thoughtful, and charitable response to Bart Ehrman’s “Forged”.
http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/04/10/forged-chapters-seven-and-eight-collateral-damage
It has links to his comments on each chapter in Bart’s book.
God Bless
A response to a book you refuse to read? Maybe you’re out of your depth?
.
“The image of God revealed in the Bible, as interpreted by the Church, is inevitably incomplete (given our human understanding) but without error.”
Joyful says she can live with that. But how can we know if a thing is without error when we don’t even know the half of it maybe?
How can we judge the veraciy of what we admit we don’t even fully know?
Regarding “Inerrant,” best to leave it to Humpty Dumpty, who is utterly inerrant:
“When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean, – neither more nor less.”
“The question is, ” said Alice, “Whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is, ” said Humpty, “which is to be master, that’s all.”
(Humpty is surely a Catholic. Joyful and the Church will agree)
Q; How do we know the Bible is the word of God?
A; Because it’s inerrant.
Q; How do we know it’s inerrant?
A: How could the word of God be otherwise?
There. That’s sorted.
‘Inerrant’ is not fundamentally a Catholic concept. So I’d put it more like this:
Q: How do we know the Bible is the word of God?
A: Because the Church tells us so.
Q: How do we know the Church is qualified to make that decision?
A: That’s a whole ‘nother blog post.
.
“Because the Church tells us so.” says Joyful.
Aye, and there’s the rub.
Toad, for one, is inclined to regard what the Church tells him with as much wary scepticism as, say, the pronouncements of Richard Dawkins or the man who runs Ace Used Cars Co., Surbiton.
Always ask, “What grounds have you for telling me that?” Is Toad’s motter.
.
Yes, I agree with that one. And ‘does he really speak for the Church or just for his own little theocratic oligarchy?’ is another good question
.
Would anyone else like to see a ‘think’ bubble on the picture of His Holiness above here, saying, “Wouldn’t I like to bring this down on Dawkins’ head!”?
No? Oh, well.
Toad, this Pope’s hi tech. There’s a laser built into the crystal on the front of the Bible. That way the Pope doesn’t have to chase him around the room to catch him first. Besides, Dawkins still uses a bike, which is probably faster than the Popemobile. Really, of course, the Pope is far too peaceful a man to zap Dawkins. And too smart. Why turn a liability into a martyr?
I love your little lists of Q & As, Toad, but logical positivism failed, didn’t it? You can’t bootstrap a world view based solely on ‘facts’. You need to make huge assumptions, many of them based on trust, to eat your breakfast and get out of the door in the morning. And I agree with JPs list – when you are talking about 1 billion people in the Church, they are entitled to define their own meaning.
Which is why Humpty Dumpty is clearly a freethinker or at the very least a Protestant. Were he a Catholic, he would say, “When the Church uses a word, it means whatever the Church choses it to mean, and nothing else … the question is, who has authority, that’s all”.
According to current thinking, shouldn’t we all be celebrating Humpty Dumpty expressing himself in ways that are meaningful to him? Isn’t his little speech a perfect prophecy of the spirit of our age?
.
“And I agree with JPs list – when you are talking about 1 billion people in the Church, they are entitled to define their own meaning.”
If it’s merely a question of the numbers game, Toad has read that there are now more Muslims than Catholics on the planet.
Who doubtless define a different meaning. Who IS one to believe?.
That makes H-D, or the Church, a Communist; or some kind of wrong sort of totalitarian.
H-D is prepared to alter reality so that it fits into whatever ideology he follows. And because the Party is the standard of all being & truth, no rights that oppose it are rights; no facts that deny it are facts; what the outsider calls unprovoked attack is really liberation: as when Hungary was liberated from deviationists in 1956. Communism is a Christian heresy, like Nazism; both are Fundamentalist forms of the Kingdom of God.
I really do wonder why JP put this post up. It’s clear to me that she is not prepared to accept rational argument. Simply put, if the Catholic Church doesn’t believe it, it simply can’t be true. To be honest, I wonder why I bother. Maybe the time has come for me to bow out gracefully, realizing that there are non so blind as those who refuse to see.
Goodbye cruel world, and please can I have my book back?
KA
.
Come on, KA – none of us take this seriously!
That’s what you get out of what I write?
No, that’s what I get out of your selective reading of the evidence that’s presented to you
We all make selections, KA. I do my best to recognise the preconceptions that influence my selections. I’ve made no secret of what those preconceptions are. You, likewise, have made no secret of your preconceptions.
With different preconceptions, we will naturally reach different conclusions.
In the case of the New Testament, for example, I conclude that there are contradictions, and minor transcription errors and interpolutions, but that they are irrelevant to the main message; I also conclude that a rational case can be made for authorship by those who – in the text – claim it. My preconceptions incline me to accept that rational case.
You conclude that the New Testament is full of forgeries, deliberately designed to mislead, and that it is a farragoe of fairy tales and lies. You claim that this interpretation is a fact. That’s a strong statement, and I don’t believe the evidence you (and Seeker – but he has not made the ‘fact’ claim) have presented supports such a strong statement. I think you reach this conclusion because of your preconceptions.
I’ve tested my basic axioms (insofar as such a thing is possible) to my own satisfaction. And I see no reason not to accept your word that you have done likewise. I have not sought to change your mind, but to explain my own. I find your reaction disproportionate.
KA and Seeker,
None of us are experts here. All of us are recycling arguments from more or less expert sources, putting our own slants on them to a greater or lesser degree. The practice of retaining your belief system in the face of some contradictory evidence is widespread and indeed sensible – again, look at Kuhn on science, or the failure of logical positivism – and is certainly not restricted to the religious.
Neither of you would claim to know scripture better than say N.T. Wright, or Henry Wansbrough, the General Editor of the Jerusalem Bible, would you? They will more familiar with arguments about scripture than either of you, and yet they retain their faith. I’ve been reading (at last!) a book by Wright – Virtue Reborn – and he is obviously an enthusiastic evangelical. Wansborough is a perfectly happy Catholic priest and monk.
Your suggestion that any intelligent person, challenged by evidence of scriptural difficulties, must conclude that Christianity is untenable, is thus demonstrated to be false. Sure, we all have to decide who to trust, and we all have to decide how far to investigate the things we choose to trust. And people from time to time change their minds. But all of this is a function of the human condition, and by no means a pathology restricted to religious believers. You weaken your own credibility by suggesting otherwise.
.
Yes, Manus, Logical Positivism failed. Quite right too. It couldn’t even measure up to its own criteria – that is, it couldn’t verify itself.
But what on earth has that got to do with pedophile priests, or Humpty Dumpty, Toad would like to know?
Another false dichotomy, my dear Toad: be on your own, or belong to the biggest group. But of course ‘Who to believe’ is one of the great challenges of the human condition, and there are no safe answers.
I rather thought you’d like the idea of a Bible with a laser in it – makes the Pope look a bit like a Bond villain. “Thank-you, Professor Dawkins, for our interesting little chat but now I shall have to kill you. Goodbye, Professor Dawkins.”
.
Toad would never dream of being so louche about the Dear Old Pope.
He’s way the best pope we’ve got. But he (Toad, that is, not His Holiness) supposes Mr. Bond is a shining example to all Catholics.
Though of what, God only knows.
In his youth, Toad preferred The Saint.
“”So let’s look at the five steps again from a Catholic understanding:
1. God knows everything
2. God inspired certain people to write historical accounts, legends, poetry, and other records that progressively revealed the relationship between God and humankind
3. These people worked within their own historical context and their own intellectual abilities to produce their accounts
4. God inspired the Church to select those texts which made the best fist of revealing Him as appropriate for reading in Church
5. The image of God revealed in the Bible, as interpreted by the Church, is inevitably incomplete (given our human understanding) but without error.
Yes. I can live with that. “”
## *In principle*, so could I. The catch is, is that these propositions ignore the detail of the texts, and of how the graphic signs, by which the relations of which the meaning is expressed, were written. The vowelpoints of the Hebrew Bible were not added to the consonantal text of the HB until between 600-900 AD – which makes difficulties for talking about an inerrant “original text” of the OT. For what, in such circumstances, is an “original text” ?
Those steps are concerned with the logic of a theological statement and doctrine – not with the detail of the history of the Biblical texts. Logic cannot dictate historical reality; even if the logic is that of a theological proposition.
.Reading the above torrent of, doubtless learned, comments regarding biblical ‘inerrancy,’ Toad falls back on Humpty, here discussing “words” again:
“They’ve a temper, some of them – particularly verbs: they’re the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say! “
“Would you tell me, please,” said Alice, “what that means?”
“Now you talk like a reasonable child,” said Humpty looking very much pleased. “I mean by ‘impeneteratability’ that we’ve had enough of that subject…”
Sage advice, thinks Toad.
Well now Toad, it occurs to me that as a Toad emerges from an egg, perhaps you represent the re-incarnated Dumpty – What Humpty did next – thus earning all the honor and dignity that such status entails. Congratulations.
And by the way, what I mean by “impeneteratability” is that Toad cannot spell. Perhaps with his verbal mastery he doesn’t need to.
.
Big word. Small Toad.