Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII
Got an example? Hmmm?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Amen. And while we continue to hope this will be the last time this is tried, only to be proven wrong AGAIN, by their own CCC, we can keep your perfectly worded post in file, just in case it needs to be posted again. Thank you for this most wonderful reminder to those who need to be reminded often, it seems..
Catholics believe that the pope, the Magisterium, the Holy Tradition and the Scripture all reflect and serve the Word of God. God is the author of all Truth, whether or not it is entrusted to Scripture. The Catholic Church teaches:
Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which He fulfilled in His own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.
In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways;
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".
The words of a Bishop, whether a pope, a disciple or an Apostle, never supersede or contradict the actual words or deeds of Jesus. Even when divinely inspired as part of Revelation, they must be considered and interpreted in the context of the Word promulgated by Christ himself.
Do you reject all books that I can demonstrate historical errors in or will you concede that the genre of Biblical historicity was not a precise science like modern history and archeology? Historical flaws can be found within Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers? Kings? Chronicles, and numerous other Books, but whether you recognize this, or ignore or rationalize them away, they nevertheless remain inerrant.
Accounts in the Old Testament relied upon a modification of the nonessential portions of the message to preserve and protect the sacred content within. The Old Testament is an oral tradition. In the Old Testament we often find a lack of attention to strict chronological sequence, frequent inclusion of mnemonic gimmicks, we see few attempts to demonstrate the reliability of their accounts by identifying sources or footnoting, the lack of a standard or common calendar, we see reconstructed speeches done out of necessity since they were given extemporaneously, modifications numbers, dates and ages meant to characterize rather than accurately quantify their objects because the accuracy of the numbers is secondary to the message.
Yea right.
Catholic Church:
“Mary is the New Eve and Most Blessed Among Women”
Jesus:
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Nay rather, (Greek Menounge: nay surely, nay rather) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
The words spoken to Mary were no different then were spoken to Jael in Judges. In fact, Jael was called blessed above women. Mary was called blessed among women.
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be,
Those words were also spoken of Noah, Moses, and David.
The Catholic Church directly contradicts Jesus words. I’ve seen all the dancing Catholics do to try to explain it but when studied it becomes crystal clear that the Catholic Church does indeed contradict scripture and Jesus own words. This is only one example along with many others where the Catholic Church is in error.
Prove it.
You can prove anything if you use the wrong standard to compare something to.
If you start with the presupposition that *history* and *science* are correct and see that Scripture doesn’t agree, then you will conclude that Scripture is what’s wrong.
When you realize that Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed Scripture is never wrong, then when history or science doesn’t agree, then you rightly acknowledge the flaw in your data or thinking about history or science and keep looking.
It says a lot about a person when they don’t believe that God is being truthful when His word tells us things.
We have all been 'round this mulberry bush many times before. Menounge is used about 4 other times in the New Testament (Phil 3:8, Rom 9:20, 10:18, and Phil 3:8) it was a way to compare and contrast, and in none of those cases does it negate what precedes it. In Phil 3:8 it is translated as "what is more", in Rom 9:20 it is translated as "But hwo are you", and in Rom 10:18 it is translated as "Of course".
"The words spoken to Mary were no different then were spoken to Jael in Judges."
In her day Jael was most blessed for her charity and compassion, but that was not a prophecy that she would remain the most blessed forever. Furhter, Jael was never acknowledged by an Angel as "kecharitomene". Kecharitōmĕnē translates as the perfect passive participle of charitŏō (“Full of Grace”). It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.
"I’ve seen all the dancing Catholics do to try to explain it but when studied it becomes crystal clear that the Catholic Church does indeed contradict scripture and Jesus own words."
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" - John 6:53–56.
I don’t care what you English translation says. It’s the Greek that needs inspection in each case.
Let’s look at the Philippians 3:8 usage. ἀλλὰ (alla - But) μὲν (men – yes rather) οὖν (oun - therefore) γε (ge - indeed)…
Notice the men-oun-ge translates to “yes rather and not “what is more”. The “what is more in that verse is then referring to the rest of the verse.
Now let’s look at Romans 9:20.
ὦ (O) ἄνθρωπε (anthrōpe – man) μενοῦνγε (menounge – yes rather)
Again notice the “yes rather which is followed again by the rest of the verse.
Then Romans 10:18
ἀλλὰ (alla – But) λέγω (lego – I ask) μὴ (me – no) οὐκ (ouk – not) ἤκουσαν ? (ekousan – did they hear?) μενοῦνγε (menounge – yes rather…
So it says “But I ask no not did they hear. Yes rather… So again we see that the writer was saying that he was rather (instead) asking if their words went into all the world.
The Greek word “menounge” in every verse is used to contradict what came before it. In each case it was used in a way to correct what had been said before.
I understand that many concordances give what the Greek word was translated to in verses but that doesn’t necessarily reflect what the Greek word really means. If you want to follow error that’s your business. I choose not to.
And parroting someone else’s words who were in error doesn’t expunge the person repeating them from that error. I think I hear either crickets or desperation trying to find the errors in those passages.
First, I am not concerned with the verifiable historical accuracy of the Old Testament accounts because they are theological works, and not no modern standards of historicity. However, if I accept your premise that every book that contains an historical error should be rejected then do I need only point our one error in any of the Old Testament Canon to reject the entire Old Testament or simply reject the book containing the error? Here are a few examples, but there are quite a few more, most attributable to style, translator or transcriber errors.
The Book of Chronicles claims that the Samaritan King Baasha was alive in the thirty-sixth year of the reign of King Asa, and that he built Ramah. It says, " In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah". This is wrong because the King Baasha died nine years before this date. (see 2 Chronicles 16:1)
Proving that is easy. King Baasha reigned in the third year of the rule of Asa, and remained as a king for twenty-four years; that means that he died in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of King Asa. The Book of Kings says, “In the third year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son of Ahijah to reign over all Israel in Tirzah, twenty and four years" ( see 1 Kings 15:33)
Similarly, Judith asserts that Nebuchadnezzar reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh when in fact he was king over the Chaldeans in Babylon. (see Judith 4:3)
"And there was a young man out of Bethlehemjudah of the family of Judah, who was a Levite." A male could not be both a descendant of Judah, and a descendant of Levi at the same time. (see (Judges 17:7)
Should I go on or can we just drop the nonsense regarding holding the Book of Tobit to a different standard?
How then do you rationalize using "History and Science" to reject of the Book of Tobit?
Neither do I. I do, however, care what the Early Church Fathers, those who spoke Koine Greek as a first language, believed it meant and how it was reflected in their writings and teachings. I don't care how 16th century "theologians", 19th century "scholars", or 21st century "FReepers and bloggers portray it.
So you don’t believe the Old Testament is inspired by the Holy Spirit and can not contain errors? How could the Holy Spirit inspire error in writing and history?
>>However, if I accept your premise that every book that contains an historical error should be rejected then do I need only point our one error in any of the Old Testament Canon to reject the entire Old Testament or simply reject the book containing the error?<<
If the writer was inspired by the Holy Spirit it will not contain error. If it contains error either of history it isn’t of the Holy Spirit and cannot be trusted.
I think you need to do more study on your own. I would suggest your read this site through (http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP4.htm )and then begin your study.
I do have one question for you as far as the authenticity of Scripture. In Matthew 2 it says Jesus was born “King of the Jews”. When has He been that? Is scripture in error about that?
Hint; there are no errors in scripture.
Yes, it says that they have ulterior motives for instilling doubts about the truthfulness, trustworthiness and reliability of the word of God. It says they have a "higher" authority, or think they have, than the word of God. It says that this presumed "higher" authority can overrule the word of God whenever and where ever they deem necessary. It says, "Why depend upon an 'inferior' (in their minds) authority when there is a better choice?". Finally, it says even the need for the word of God is questionable as long as this "superior" authority exists. The ulterior motive is obvious, "Trust us to tell you what God says.". Scary!
All the way back to the Garden. You would think that by now, that question would be deemed antiquated. But no. It's alive and still achieving its goal: create doubt about God's Word. Each generation of man presents its "brilliant minds" of the day, declaring they have found the truth, they know what others have missed. They are praised, celebrated, followed, quoted and imitated. Their words are carefully protected and guarded to be presented to the next generation of "seekers" of truth.
"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."2Tim.3:7. Because their first mistake is to ask that age-old question: "Yea, hath God said...?"
What I believe is that there is abundant hypocrisy in rejecting Tobit because it contains inconsistencies and then claiming nearly identical inconsistencies in other books are validated by your choice of Canon.
What I also believe is that none of the original texts are available to analyze. While the original documents and manuscripts were indeed inerrant we fight daily as to the accuracy (inerrancy) of the subsequent translations and interpretations. It all comes down to authority again, doesn't it. I have 2,000 years of continuity directly from the human authors. You don't.
"I would suggest your read this site through (http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP4.htm)and then begin your study."
Why on earth would I look first to the Far Eastern Bible College to "begin" my education? My professor for Historicity of the Old Testament was Edith Black. Professor Black received her M. Div. degree from Union Theological Seminary, (a Protestant Seminary) and has done extensive post graduate studies on ancient Near East languages. Between the lectures and required reading I think I have this area pretty well covered.
This excellent site, http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html#otapoc, discusses the "Apocryphal" books and the reasons why they were excluded as Canonical. It says this about these books:
David and Solomon's books, and Joshua, would have been included because of their own special relationship to God.[ibid., 174]
I would add that Job may have been included by attributing it to Moses; Ruth and Judges were probably by the same author as the Samuel books, and Esther is included because it offers the origin of the Jewish holiday of Purim.
Now, let us consider briefly some Apocryphal books. Rost is our primary source for information, along with Metzger's book on the Apocrypha.
Additions to Esther - These additions are of nine parts: 1) a dream of Mordecai; 2) the conspiracy against Artaxerxes; 3) the edict ordering extermination of the Jews; 4) the prayer of Mordecai; 5) the prayer of Esther; 6) Esther before Artaxerxes; 7) the edict in favor of the Jews; 8) interpretation of Mordecai's dream; and 9) naming of the translator.
They are simply embellishments, and may be dated to the first century BC. Some parts of this work conflict with the canonical book of Esther. It was probably originally written in Greek [Comf.OrB, 87], which takes it further from the events it purportedly describes.
Additions to Daniel - There are three of these. Susanna tells how Daniel saves a woman from execution by trapping those who falsely accuse her. Her accusers are punished by "having them thrown from a precipice and struck by a divine thunderbolt." The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men is an embellishment upon the "fiery furnace" story in Daniel. Bel and the Dragon is a double narrative, both stories focusing on Daniel's cleverness. The first story has Daniel outwitting the priests of Bel, who are ordered slain by the king of Babylon, and their temple destroyed.
The second story has Daniel defeating a monster serpent by throwing cakes of pitch, fat and hair into its mouth. Daniel is then thrown into a lion's den, where he lives seven days, being miraculously fed by Habakkuk.
1 Baruch - This book is allegedly by Jeremiah's faithful scribe, but clearly contradicts the Book of Jeremiah itself, inasmuch as it has Baruch present in Babylon during the Exile. Indications are that Baruch was not put together in final form until about 70 AD, although parts of it may be dated earlier. It is notable for "lacking in originality" and was popular in the NT church.
Letter of Jeremiah - This book is a sermon against idolatry. A late date (c. 300 BC) and rather clumsy construction makes it impossible to have been penned by Jeremiah.
Tobit - This book contains medical oddities such as the title character going blind when sparrow droppings fall in his eyes, and using the internal organs of fish for medicine. It shows no familiarity with the geography and political situation of eastern Mesopotamia, where the story is alleged to have taken place, and "teems with chronological, historical, and geographical improbabilities and downright errors." It is dated c. 190-170 BC.
Judith - A Jewish heroine, Judith, deceives Nebuchadnezzar's general, Holofernes, and assassinates him, saving Jerusalem from certain doom. The book contains a gross historical error, identifying Nebuchadnezzar as king of Assyria rather than Babylon - an error so obvious, may we suggest, that it is intended as a hint to the reader that the contents are not to be taken seriously. It also does not reflect what we know of the general Holofernes. Minor internal evidence dates it after 300 B.C.
1 Esdras - This book is a mix of verses from 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, along with a wisdom story concerning three guards who are challenged to decide what is the most powerful thing on earth. All three answer, "wine, the king, and women," but one guard wins by adding to this a fourth, "truth."
Metzger says of this book: "the list of repetitions, errors, and inconsistencies of the book is a long one." It was assembled c. 150 B.C and favored by Josephus, who apparently appreciated its superior Greek style.
2 Esdras - This book contains seven visions written of by Ezra while in Babylon. It dates to the end of the first century AD, and thus obviously cannot have been written by Ezra.
Ecclesiasticus - This is a book of wisdom, and is considered the most highly esteemed of the apocryphal literature. It contains nothing in the way of absurdities, but was clearly written around 190-180 BC.
Wisdom of Solomon - This book in three parts 1) shows that wisdom shall be granted to the righteous man; 2) contains Solomon's admonition to the kings to seek wisdom, and how his own wisdom has been beneficial to him; 3) recounts the actions God has taken in history to deliver His people and punish their foes. Since the work uses Daniel, Enoch, and Tobit, and contains some influences from Greek philosophy, it obviously cannot be from the hand of Solomon, unless the wise king was prescient as well as wise.
This, of course, immediately disqualifies the book for canonicity (though it is doubtful, in any event, whether the attribution to Solomon was meant to be taken literally). It is normally dated between 100 BC and 40 AD. It and Ecclasiasticus, however, are quite useful for establishing background data for the NT, especially Wisdom theology.
Prayer of Manesseh - This is based on the text of 2 Chronicles 23:11-14, and contrary to the book of Kings, has the wicked King Manasseh undergoing a conversion in Babylon. It was written in the 3rd century BC. [Beck.OTNT, 340]
I, II, III, and IV Maccabees - #1 of this set is a history from Alexander (c. 330 BC) to the death of Simon Maccabee (135 BC). It is useful as history, but is obviously written too late for canonical inclusion, as were the other three.
#2 of the set "takes considerable liberties with the actual course of history." There is therefore no grounds for including it in the canon.
#3 of the set recounts events from c. 217 BC concerning Ptolemy IV Philopater. This rotten fellow gets in a bad mood when, in response to his desire to enter the inner Temple, a prayer to God sends him into convulsions and paralysis.
After recovering in Egypt, he brings the Jews from throughout Egypt into a stadium where he plans to have them trampled by 500 elephants made mad with incense and wine. Ptolemy is thwarted from his purpose thrice: once when he oversleeps, a second when God blanks his memory, and the third when the elephants are turned on his own forces by the appearance of a pair of angels.
After that, Ptolemy wisely changes his mind about persecuting the Jews and instead honors them with a banquet - also giving them permission to slay apostate Jews.
#4 of the set is a philosophical treatise that examines the conduct of Jacob, Joseph, and David, and of Simon the high priest from the Maccabeean era.
Obviously, there is no good reason for any of these to have been included in the OT, as they are each subject to one of the following constraints: 1) they were written too late - and thus beyond the cessation of prophecy as determined by some (not all) Jews; 2) they were not written by the person to whom they are attributed; 3) they contain errors and absurdities; 4) they are of obviously lower literary quality than the canonical books.
It might be added that, unlike the NT situation, things here are pretty clear: Many like Philo do not cite the Apocryphal books as authoritative, and "there is no evidence whatever that any of the Apocrypha ever had a place in any of the three divisions." [Beck.OTNT, 385]
A final issue to address is that many Church Fathers regarded these books as Scripture, and certain important councils made them part of the OT canon. This is not a persuasive argument for a couple of reasons. The first is that the church fathers were not Jews and (unless they were considered infallible) did not have any authority to decide what, in what we now call the OT, was canonical.
The second is that the word "Scripture" does not mean "canonical" automatically. "Scripture" applies to any written document; so likewise, even a non-canonical document could be regarded as inspired. In that regard it is important to note, as we do in our article on the NT canon, that "non-canonical" does not mean "untrue" and we are not by any means prevented from judging a book on its own merits. The canon is more of a convenience than it is a contrivance.
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.