Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Colin,
Hi Carson, I actually enjoy studying the human side of Scripture very much. Jeremiah, cut off from family, temple, marriage, funerals and parties, becomes the prohpet of the New Covennt where God will be personal to all, Eziekiel, in Exile, is brought back to the land and the Temple etc.
This is not what I mean by the "human" aspect of Scriptures. What I am referring to is the fact that the Fundamentalist hermeneutic does not allow enough room for the instrument in explaining the inspiration of Scripture.
Catholicism believes that the human authors were fully authors themselves just as much as God is the author in the same way that Christ is 100% divine and 100% human. This means that the Scriptures are inerrant as Jesus was sinless, but it means that only what the human authors themselves intended to convey to their audience is considered the literal sense of Scripture.
I find the best way to view the written word is just like the living Word, fully human, fully divine, and utterly sinless. Psuedo authorship says scripture claims one thing, but is another. It is just a fancy word for lying. To say this does not imply that I ignore the human side of scripture, rather that I believe Scripture to be sinless.
Take, for instance, Mark 2:24-28:
And the Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?"
And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abi'athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?" And he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath."
If you turn to the Old Testament, you'll notice that 1 Samuel 21:1ff records this incident, and Abi'athar was not the high priest; Ahim'elech, his father, was.
Now, this is a blatant discrepancy regarding the affirmation of Abi'athar's position as high priest of Israel.
So, either:
(1) Mark is lying
(2) Jesus is lying
or.. Mark or Jesus have a reason for making this switch in this Gospel account and it is this affirmation of the author that is inerrant, not the historical accuracy because the author doesn't mean to make a historical statement.
or.. the original manuscript has been altered over time to the degree that what he have now is errant, though the original piece was inerrant.
God bless,
Carson
Hi Carson, I actually enjoy studying the human side of Scripture very much. Jeremiah, cut off from family, temple, marriage, funerals and parties, becomes the prohpet of the New Covennt where God will be personal to all, Eziekiel, in Exile, is brought back to the land and the Temple etc.
This is not what I mean by the "human" aspect of Scriptures. What I am referring to is the fact that the Fundamentalist hermeneutic does not allow enough room for the instrument in explaining the inspiration of Scripture.
Catholicism believes that the human authors were fully authors themselves just as much as God is the author in the same way that Christ is 100% divine and 100% human. This means that the Scriptures are inerrant as Jesus was sinless, but it means that only what the human authors themselves intended to convey to their audience is considered the literal sense of Scripture.
I find the best way to view the written word is just like the living Word, fully human, fully divine, and utterly sinless. Psuedo authorship says scripture claims one thing, but is another. It is just a fancy word for lying. To say this does not imply that I ignore the human side of scripture, rather that I believe Scripture to be sinless.
Take, for instance, Mark 2:24-28:
And the Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?"
And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abi'athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?" And he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath."
If you turn to the Old Testament, you'll notice that 1 Samuel 21:1ff records this incident, and Abi'athar was not the high priest; Ahim'elech, his father, was.
Now, this is a blatant discrepancy regarding the affirmation of Abi'athar's position as high priest of Israel.
So, either:
(1) Mark is lying
(2) Jesus is lying
or.. Mark or Jesus have a reason for making this switch in this Gospel account and it is this affirmation of the author that is inerrant, not the historical accuracy because the author doesn't mean to make a historical statement.
or.. the original manuscript has been altered over time to the degree that what he have now is errant, though the original piece was inerrant.
God bless,
Carson