[NYer]

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College. He is a regular contributor to several Christian publications, is in wide demand as a speaker at conferences, and is the author of over 40 books including

[NYer]

For your consideratin and discussion.

[drstevej]

The presentation of fundamentalist's view literal interpretation is pure straw men. Fundamentalists believe in normal interpretation. Passages where the author intended a figure of speech are not to be forced to be literal. Passages intended to by the author as literal statements should not be made figurative.

The "this is My body" passage is an argument over the intent of the Savior in uttering the words. Did He intend them as literal or figurative? It is a legitimate hermeneutical debate.

This article is too shallow and biased to be helpful.

My 2 cents. On to better things. Like why the Roman Church venerates the Holy Prepuce. :-)

[aimhigh]

However, we don't even have the original autographs of any of the books of the Bible, so we're not absolutely sure what the exact words were.

Leave it to the Catholics to cast doubt on scripture. I've heard the above words out of atheists.

[chance33_98]

Bump for reading later today and thanks for posting.

[Salvation]

Wonderful article. Bookmarked!

[SoliDeoGloria]

Wow. I mean... Wow.

If this is how the RC Professors are explaining "Fundamentalism" to Catholics, no wonder there is a mass exodus to Protestant churches. Perhaps Kreeft's lack of knowledge concerning what Protestants actually believe is partly at fault (I assume it is a lack of knowledge rather than an intentional disingenuous attack). Indubitably, the first time a Catholic talks to a real "Bible Christian", they will be brought far back into the realm of realism. And, realizing the lack of verity in the protestant caricatures they were taught, they decide to listen and determine for themselves whether these "Fundamentalists" are really as idiotic as portrayed.

And once they've found the truth behind these "Bible Christians", the Catholic door is already swinging shut behind them.

[SoliDeoGloria]

** However, we don't even have the original autographs of any of the books of the Bible, so we're not absolutely sure what the exact words were. There were some minor errors in copying, for the earliest texts we have don't totally agree with each other-though there's 99 percent verbal agreement among different manuscripts, far more than for any other ancient writings. ** - Kreeft

Have any Catholic really thought through what Textual Criticism implies? Let me try...

Frequently, Protestants are attacked with an argument such as the following: "You don't have infallible knowledge of what Scripture Is! Unless you accept the Church's infallible role in determining the Canon, and thereby accept the Church's infallible authority to interpret scripture, you have no solid basis for any of your arguments concerning Scripture!"

My questions are along the following lines:

1) Do YOU have _infallible_knowledge_ of what Scripture Is? Tell me, is John 8:1-11 Canon? You know, the part where the woman is caught in adultery and Jesus writes in the sand. Or how about the end of Mark, or the end of Romans? Or perhaps the other myriads of verses and words that textual criticism has determined were not within the original texts? How has the Catholic Church "Infallibly" ruled concerning these cases?

2) Copying Errors indicate something bad... real bad. Let's quote Kreeft:

"Fundamentalists take Scripture out of the context of the historical Church that wrote it, canonized it, preserved it and now teaches and interprets it."

Ummm... If the church did not preserve it infallibly, then how can it assert that it wrote, canonized, and interpreted it infallibly? Please note: The fact that there are errors clearly show by Kreeft's own admission that the Church erred in copying it.

3) If the Church did not "infallibly" transmit scripture, why does it think it infallibly transmitted tradition? At least with scripture, we have early texts that we can go to and verify the differences that have crept in over the years. How about oral tradition?

4) The Vulgate, canonized by the RC church contains translations of many of these passages that were not originally apart of the canon. How did the infallible church propagate these errors?

5) Please also note: Kreeft stated "Sometimes you even find fundamentalists claiming divine inspiration for the King James version!" How exactly is this different than the Catholic Church's view of the Latin Vulgate? (BTW, I do not view the KJV in the way described by Kreeft)

Just some thoughts. Please feel free to respond.

[IGNATIUS]

Thousands of Christians were martyred in early centuries before we had a NT.Which books made the cut was based upon compatibility with Oral Tradition.Men (albeit inspired by the Holy Spirit) studied these books and decided---ie the Canon didn't hop off the floor onto a table all by itself.

So, how were those early martyrs converted? We're talking about men and women who'd not even pay perfunctory tribute to Caesar in order to avoid being sliced apart,burned alive, or eaten by beasts.Many couldn't read,no bible bookstores around the corner,no printing press for 1200 years,and the Canon not yet determined.

These Martyrs were converted to belief in God the Son via word of mouth-- ie Oral Tradition --which preceeded and guided the selection of our NT.

[HarleyD]

Wow! I'm exhausted! :O)