The Church And Scripture

[CatherineM]

I'm sorry if I have offended. I can be difficult to understand at times. Again, I do not believe the bible has any error in matters of faith or theology. I also do not believe the world was created in 6, 24 hour blocks. I am too insignificant to attempt to tell God how long a day is to him. I actually picture that as having been inspired to the ancient writer of Genesis in 7 days of dreams, much like those that Joseph received. I think he wrote what he was inspired to write in blocks of days because that was the way he received it. I do not know that is what happened, and would of course never teach that as a valid interpretation of scripture.

I only repeat what I have been taught. All my sacred scripture professors, both undergrad and graduate school, have had doctorates in sacred scripture from places like the pontifical university. I don't read Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic. I can do no original research in the area, and have no ability or desire to interpret the bible myself. I'm a moral theologian, not a scripture scholar. So, I can only repeat what I have been taught. My seminary trains almost all the priests in Western Canada. I simply accept in faith that I am being taught the truth. Since the Pope is not likely to sit down with me any time in the new future, all I can go on is what comes down from my bishop and the priests who are my professors. If they are in error, and I guess that means I am too, and if so, I guess I'll spend more time in purgatory. As it is, I'll probably be there so long, that they'll have to put me on the clean up crew. I can only follow those put in authority over me, and am grateful everyday that I'm not the one in authority making the decisions.

[Guest]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1689647' date='Oct 30 2008, 11:48 PM']Since the Pope is not likely to sit down with me any time in the new future, all I can go on is what comes down from my bishop and the priests who are my professors. If they are in error, and I guess that means I am too, and if so, I guess I'll spend more time in purgatory. As it is, I'll probably be there so long, that they'll have to put me on the clean up crew.[/quote]

[Guest Jon]

[quote name='mortify' post='1689593' date='Oct 30 2008, 10:08 PM']You have to understand the "two Genesis accounts" are inspired and exist exactly the way God wanted them to appear in scripture. It's not like He permitted error to enter sacred scripture. The error is in how we interpret them. Saying God literally created the world in six 24-hour blocks contradicts what contemporary science understands of world, but it doesn't contradict scripture because scripture doesn't say "six 24-hour blocks" nor does it necessarily imply that. That is an [b]interpretation outside of scripture[/b], and such an interpretation can be said to be in error, but never can we say Scripture is in error.

Just trying to clarify, I know my own unfortunate limitations in explaining things.


God bless,
Mort[/quote]

[color="#000080"]This is a wonderful thread - I have much respect for you all. I am not a scholar so can't get into a converstaion with you all.

I thought came to mind you all may like...[i]Days didn't even exist when it said it took 6 days.[/i] I don't think. Talk amounst yourselves...

Thanks,
Jon[/color]

[Slappo]

Days did not exist until the third? day when the sun and moon were made... 6 literal days as we know them of creation is absurd.

Boy does taking latin classes help here. For a stronger and more faithful translation of Dei Verbum you must look to the Latin text itself, which is the text the council came out with and therefore the one promulgated and taught by the Church.

Cum ergo omne id, quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt, retineri debeat assertum a Spiritu Sancto, inde Scripturae libri veritatem, quam Deus nostrae salutis causa, Litteris Sacris consignari voluit, firmiter, fideliter et sine errore docere profitendi sunt.

This is article 11 which you quoted as "Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation."

My latin isn't perfect so it comes out sounding a little funny, but this is a more literal translation.

(Cum ergo omne id, )Therefore since every thing, (quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt) which the inspired authors or hagiographer assert, (retineri debeat assertum a Spirtu Sancto) must be upheld as asserted to be from the Holy Spirit, (inde Scripturae libri veritatem) thenceforth the book of Scripture is true, (quam Deus nostrae salutis causa) which God for the cause of our salvation, (Litteris Sacris consignari voluit) wanted to establish the Sacred Letters, (firmiter) firmly, (fideliter et sine errore docere profitendi sunt) faithfully and without error to teach they must be declared.

without all the latin mixed in "Therefore since every thing, which the inspired authors or hagiographers assert, must be upheld as asserted to be from Holy spirit, thenceforth the book of Scripture is true, which God for the cause of our salvation, wanted to establish the Sacred Letters, firmly, faithfully and without error to teach they (the sacred letters) must be declared"

God inspired scriptures for the sake of our salvation, but the without error has nothing to do with the salvation part in the Latin.

It is a common mistake EVEN among orthodox schools to not read the full meaning of Dei Verbum here. This is as taught by Dr. Scott Hahn... well.. and the original Latin text. Dr. Hahn showed me the poor translation, and my two years of Latin studies most definitely confirm it.

Dei Verbum is saying scripture is without error in ALL matters, and God provided scripture for the sake of our salvation.

[mortify]

Slappo, ty for the insight.