Posted on 07/22/2009 10:39:38 PM PDT by bdeaner
thanks for the post
You’re welcome!
There are some good downloads here:
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?SeriesID=1485508684&T1=
They're just not supposed to believe it.
I doubt that.
And Catholics love the Bible and its Truth.
Catholics love "modern scholarship." Is there a "Catholic bible" in existence that contains traditional commentary from fathers or doctors of the church rather than "modern scholarship?" I doubt it.
Without Catholic Church, the Bible as we know it today would not exist.
Nope. G-d wrote the Torah, the Men of the Great Assembly canonized the Na"KH. All the Catholic Church did was to add a "new testament" that "spiritualized" the Hebrew Bible, which ultimately led to "modern scholarship" teaching that it is mere didactic mythology.
Really? Who said so?
"Nope. G-d wrote the Torah,"
Really? Who said so?
Immemorial Tradition. You have heard of Tradition, right? I mean, you aren't going to ask me for a "proof text" like a silly, naive Protestant would, are you?
Nice to know that an old timer like you is as hostile to the literal text of the Bible as a "scientist" like bdeaner.
Nope. J*sus love Eskimos and voodoo practitioners and Mayan peasants but he doesn't love "rednecks" because we won't exchange our Bible for Charles Darwin. J*sus accepts totem poles and voodoo cults but not the Bible.
You will find many, many commentaries using Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Just one example is the Navarre Bible. Go to just about any bookstore, and you will see many recently published work on the Church Fathers. Search online at somewhere like Amazon. It would not be possible to read it all, there is such a volume.
Then why does the article you posted echo "modern scholarship" rather than the classic commentators?
The Catholic Church didn't write the Bible -- and I never claimed it did. God inspired it. The Catholic Church canonized and preserved it, as commanded by Christ. I'm talking about the collection as a whole, not individual sections of the OT, such as the Torah, which obviously long pre-dated Christ.
G-d wrote the Torah (974 generations before the Creation, as a matter of fact). The Men of the Great Assembly canonized the rest of the Hebrew Bible. And that's all there is to it.
Why do you find it impossible to accept the literal historical sense of the first eleven chapters of Genesis while accepting without question such things as the virgin birth, transubstantiation, and the resurrection of the dead? Didn't you know that these things are just as scientifically impossible as anything recorded in the Torah? So how do you defend your glaring inconsistency?
Thank you. I guess if Jesus loves me, he can love anyone.
An exquisitely putrid smear of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, the article at the head of this thread isn't talking about D-R but rather bibles with commentaries based on "modern scholarship" (all this "the Bible is not a textbook of science" "genres of literature" stuff). And yet more literalistic Catholics (such as, I assume, yourself) never find any fault whatsoever with your more liberal brethren. Perhaps I wouldn't spend so much time attacking liberal Catholic attitudes toward the Bible if more conservative Catholics did so. Unfortunately, they do not, so it is left to non-Catholics to defend the Word of G-d.
Thanks. I will print out the list and start reading my Bible in a more meaningful way.
Lamentable but essentially correct.
What, pray tell, is "reason?" Does "reason" somehow tell us that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are didactic mythology? In what way is this viewpoint the work of "reason?"
What if "science" were to start making claims about the "new testament," such as that people can't be born without fathers or that dead people can't come back to life? Would you then be as flip as you are when it is the Hebrew Bible that they are attacking?
You Catholics are such hypocrites. You use "science" to discredit the Hebrew Bible because you fear and loathe it. But you slam the dogmatic door shut when "science" starts making claims about your precious "holy book." If that isn't the dictionary definition of hypocrisy I don't know what is.
You'll never understand, will you, that there is a culture in Rural America whose devotion to the historicity of the "old testament" is as great as your devotion to the historicity of the saints? But Catholic literature, which is so understanding toward totem poles and indigenous paganism, condemns rural American Biblicism with full force. Evidently there is room in your religion for everything but the Bible (except as didactic or chr*stological mythology).
Why don't you tell that to "bdeaner" and your other Bible-hating co-religionists who are willing to baptize almost any pagan ritual and make it chr*stian but who are engaged in a war against "Biblical literalism?" Obviously, according to them, this is the one thing J*sus will not tolerate.
THANK YOU!!!
Why don't you Catholics who are more traditional with regard to the Bible take a greater role in attacking Biblical modernism when your co-religionists shoot off their big bazoos about "we Catholics believe in evolution!" "We Catholics believe the documentary hypothesis!"??? What do you think it says when only non-Catholics and anti-Catholics object to these things? How could an impartial observer not conclude that the Bible simply is not important to Catholics?
Two possible ways that could happen:
Oh, you said how could they “NOT conclude?”
Simple honesty.
Some Protestant comments...
Commentaries are a great way to find out how others have interpreted or applied scripture. I assume there are Catholic ones available. A number of good & free online commentaries can be found here:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bible/features/commentaries.html
http://deeperstudy.com/link/commentaries.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html
Church Fathers: http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
Hundreds of online books and commentaries here: http://www.ccel.org/index/author-A.html
Strong’s Concordance, in a great & free format: http://www.tgm.org/bible.htm
Although many Catholics won’t do handsprings, Martin Luther’s writing - many of them - are available here:
http://www.martinlutheronline.blogspot.com/
Personally, I find it much easier to study the Bible when I read stuff I don’t expect to agree with (bdeaner’s posts!), and then need to seek out the meaning for myself.
A website that looks interesting, but I just found today & haven’t explored: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/
Cheers to all. It is always good to see folks reading scripture, but it is also worth remembering that no scripture was intended for intellectual one-up-manship...it is intended to draw us to God, thus changing how we live.
One extra comment - we have access today to study aids that would have made me weep with joy just 10 years ago. It is a terrible thing that many Christians prefer “American Idol” to reading God’s Word.
**They’re just not supposed to believe it.**
Why do you say that?
**Catholics love “modern scholarship.” Is there a “Catholic bible” in existence that contains traditional commentary from fathers or doctors of the church rather than “modern scholarship?” I doubt it. **
Yes, you can find a Jerusalem Study Bible with traditional thoughts, references to the Church fathers, and extensive footnoting. Also other commentaries are available with traditional language.
Six translations of the Daily Readings are posted on the Daily Mass Readings thread. I think we have it covered.
I forgot about that one. Thanks.
**. It is a terrible thing that many Christians prefer “American Idol” to reading God’s Word.**
You nailed it there!
**They’re just not supposed to believe it.**
Why do you say that?
::Sigh:: Did you not read the article at the top of this thread? The one that has all the buzzwords for "the Bible is full of errors?" Or have you not read the comments of the poster, bdeaner--the man who rejects the events of Genesis 1-11 because they contradict "science" but who stubbornly maintains a belief in such "unscientific" things as the resurrection of the dead?
I know that you're fairly literal when it comes to Genesis. But I don't understand why you don't challenge your more anti-literalist co-religionists on this forum. I don't understand how people who believe Genesis and people who don't believe Genesis can form one big happy religious family. It's as if the issue simply isn't that important. How can this be so? How can anything be more important?
Please forgive me for repeating something for the umpteenth time. But I don't get it. You regularly confab on the friendliest of terms with people whose opinions on the Bible are despicable--and yes, they post them--but you never see it. And when I call them on it, you ask where in the world I get these ideas. How is it that you miss all the posts that I see? I don't get it.
Is there anything a fellow Catholic could say against the truth of the Bible that would cause you to object?
Please forgive me. I know you're a nice person. But so help me, I do not and cannot understand you.
Translation: if you believe all that stuff actually happened.
Yes, I believe all that stuff actually happened. Just as you hypocritically (and in utter contradiction to your own position) believe J*sus was born to a virgin mother, multiplied loaves and fishes, walked on water, and rose from the dead. Did you not know that each and every one of these alleged events contradicts science? They couldn't have happened! If you believe they did, you are obviously reading the new testament as a "science book!"
BTW, for what it's worth, cosmogony isn't science at all. Science has nothing to say about cosmogony at all. It is wholly a Theological subject and the Torah is certainly theology.
To be honest with you, I think the physical sciences so overwhelmingly support a view of the origin of the universe that is at odds with Genesis taken literally, I would sooner give up my belief in the Bible than my belief in physics if a literal interpretation was the only valid interpretation. Fortunately that’s not the case. On the contrary, physics overwhelmingly, via circumstantial evidence, supports the belief in a Creator. Science has strengthened my faith, not weakened it.
Also, transbustantiation does not violate the principles of science, because the transformation of the Eucharist into Christ’s body is not a change in the substance of the host — the material aspect of the host examined by science — but rather a change in its essence, which is not in the realm of science, but taken for granted by it.
There are however miracles such as the Virgin Birth that are singular events that violate scientific principles, but that is the very nature of a miracle, without which it would not be a miracle. They are miracles because they are singular and non-repeatable, and therefore outside the realm of science, which is the examination of measureable and repeatable events. Science does not contradict the belief in the miraculous, rather, the miraculous is outside the limits of science.
Amen to that. It’s a good ‘reminder’ from the Bishops, even if we already do.
I'm not surprised.
There are however miracles such as the Virgin Birth that are singular events that violate scientific principles, but that is the very nature of a miracle, without which it would not be a miracle. They are miracles because they are singular and non-repeatable, and therefore outside the realm of science, which is the examination of measureable and repeatable events. Science does not contradict the belief in the miraculous, rather, the miraculous is outside the limits of science.
The only thing more palpably oppressive in your post than your hypocrisy is your apparent ignorance of it.
You insist that "singular miracles" are outside science--yet you also insist that the Creation of the Universe, an event which by the very nature of things is the most singularly miraculous non-repeatable "outside the laws of science" event that ever happened, is subject to the laws of uniformitarian, naturalistic science, and you would sooner reject the Bible than that science. Pray tell how the ex nihilo Creation of Everything from Nothing comes within the purview of science while the virgin birth does not.
Your charges of hypocrisy and other over-inflated rhetoric makes it difficult to have a reasonable, sincere discussion with you about these issues. Can you have a conversation with me that gives me some benefit of the doubt, and in which you listen with some generosity before jumping to conclusions? I am not asking you to agree with me, just to hear me out. It seems to me that you box me into straw man positions that do not represent what I am actually stating. How do you suggest I deal with that problem so that you can understand where I’m coming from? Do you want to understand? I’m not asking for agreement, just an understanding before you disagree, so that you are clear about what you are disagreeing with.
You wrote:
“I doubt that.[that Jesus loves ZC]”
I don’t doubt that Jesus loves ZC for a single second.
“Is there a “Catholic bible” in existence that contains traditional commentary from fathers or doctors of the church rather than “modern scholarship?” I doubt it.”
You need to stop doubting.
Haydock DRV: http://www.catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/11341.html?gclid=CJm9j5P07psCFSQeDQodj1cKAA
The notes, by the way, are online here: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/
And there’s always this new DRV: http://www.tanbooks.com/news/holy-bible-douay-rheims.htm
Both of these Bibles are currently in print. The TAN DRV Bible is due to be released soon.
There’s also this: http://www.baroniuspress.com/category.php?wid=58&cid=1
Isaiah 7 (Hebrew Names Version)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, an almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu'el.
from the Hebrew
5959 `almah al-maw' feminine of 5958; a lass (as veiled or private):--damsel, maid, virgin.
1) virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married
++++However.... there is also no reason to disregard the other options for the use of the word almah, instead of the word bthuwlaw, which unlike the word used in Isaiah, has only one meaning. Virgin!
There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)
from the Hebrew
1330 bthuwlah beth-oo-law' feminine passive participle of an unused root meaning to separate; a virgin (from her privacy); sometimes (by continuation) a bride; also (figuratively) a city or state:--maid, virgin.
1) virgin
Had the author of Isaiah wanted to make sure that everyone knew the young woman was a technical virgin, he would have used the word that actually meant, a technical virgin, instead of a word that could be taken to mean, young woman, or lass.
'parthenos' is not used exclusively for 'a virgin', the LXX verse below refers to Dinah as 'parthenos' after she was raped by Shechem in Gen 34:3.
English Translation -- from the Greek 3933 virgin
Original Word -- parqevnoß
Transliterated Word -- parthenos
parthenos 1 from an online greek dictionary (you'll have to scroll down towards the bottom)
* I. a maid, maiden, virgin, girl, Hom., etc.
* 2. Parthenos, as a name of Athena at Athens, of Artemis, etc.
* II. as adj. maiden, virgin, chaste, parthenon psuchên echôn Eur.: metaph., p. pêgê Aesch.; parthenoi triêreis maiden, i. e. new, ships, Ar.
* III. as masc., parthenos, an unmarried man, NTest.
[deriv. uncertain] 1 parqe/nos, h(,
Not only that, but:
Justin Martyr admits that christianity offers nothing new, that the pagans and their pagan gods didn't already have.
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth45 of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.Justin Martyr gives a point, by point, by point, accounting of the similarities between paganism and the 'new religion'. Its the same thing under a new name.But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide
Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.
And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.
There is absolutely nothing reasonable or to be heard out about your absurd inconsistency according to which, apparently, the Creation was a natural/scientific event but later miracles were "singular exceptions" to the natural law that G-d couldn't interfere with during the Creation! I'm sorry.
It's simple logic. If (lehavdil!) the "virgin birth" was a "singular violation of natural law," then how much the more so the event that brought "natural law" into existence from nothing in the first place?
Why you can't see the obvious illogic of your position escapes me. You must be so enslaved to the uniformitarian natural-supremacist worldview that you have partial intellectual blindness.
My point is that the article at the top of this thread--an article on how Catholics are supposed to read the Bible--is committed to "modern scholarship" which replaces traditional commentaries with blasphemies by Wellhausen and his followers.
Preach it, Brother!
I do not think all modern scholarship can simply be lumped in with Wellhausen.
You wrote:
“The virgin birth is not only a mistranslation but something they borrowed from the pagans.”
Actually there’s no reason to believe it’s either.
“Justin Martyr admits that christianity offers nothing new, that the pagans and their pagan gods didn’t already have.”
No. What Justin Martyr did was try to show the pagan emperor that Christianity could be understood by someone who was already familiar with many pagan stories. Some would say that similar points can be made about the Old Testament as well.
“Justin Martyr gives a point, by point, by point, accounting of the similarities between paganism and the ‘new religion’. Its the same thing under a new name.”
No. The incarnation of the God man so that He could die on a cross and redeem all mankind and rise from the dead, is uniquely Christian. Yes, pagan religions reflect many or even most of those ideas. But no pagan religion has all that Christianity has.
End of discussion.
Most of the stuff in these Catholic bibles can.
I'll take the Perennial Tradition over "modern scholarship" of any type, thank you.
Obviously, since you refuse to consider the Creation as a "miracle" that takes place outside the "laws of nature."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.