This view of Creation Evolution.

[Catholico]

Hello everyone,

What dies this philosophy sound like?


12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

Sinc.

C.

 

[Larry]

Is this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

 

[Catholico]

Where this comes from has nothing to do with what this philosphy means in the creation/evolution scene.

Ca.

 

[ab1385]

Sounds like a good philosophy to me.

Basically, we should look for what God wants us to know from the passage, and try and figure this out from thinking about how the human writer would have used his own literary style to get this across. We need to look at scripture as inspired, rather than dictated. All the points, morals, truths etc are all 100% correct, yet the author (transcriber, whatever) may have his own style of illustrating what God inspired him to say. We need to look at the author and his circumstances to get the most out of our bible reading.

Is this essentially what you're saying?

 

[Bushido216]

Is this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

I don't think it's Cathecism, but I've definitely seen it before.

 

[Larry]

Where this comes from has nothing to do with what this philosphy means in the creation/evolution scene.

Ca.

Um, take a chill-pill dude. My question was completely innocuous. When I saw the "12." at the beginning of the text, it made me curious. That's all.

 

[Curt]

Prov 3:5
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
(KJV)
This is the opposite of what was said.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(KJV)
This is opposite of what was said.

Acts 10:34-35
34 And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him.
So God would Write it to men of every language according to their own way.

Josh 1:8-9
8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
9 Have not I commanded thee?
(KJV)
Note: not a suggestion. And it doesn't leave much time for that other foolishness

Ps 1:2
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
(KJV)
Just in case they didn't get it the first time.

Jesus told you who is to interpret God's truth to you, and There is not a Scripture anyone can post that will support any study of anything other than The Bible, nor to accept any private interpretation from any one other than The Holy Spirit. If you are doing any of this you are in error, and under deception.

 

[lucaspa]

Prov 3:5
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
(KJV)
This is the opposite of what was said.

Not really. Notice that your original wanted to figure out what God was saying, not what later people think God was saying. It is Biblical literalism that leans to a man-made understanding by presuming that the inspiration was not directed to a particular audience and stated in the terms of that audience.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(KJV)
This is opposite of what was said.

Again, not really. Here is a perfect example of missing the context. Who wrote this? Paul. When Paul wrote this, was there a New Testament? Were there Gospels? NO! Paul had to be referring to the OT. The OT does not mention Jesus explicitly, nor does it mention the theology of salvation that Paul is expounding. Yet Paul is telling people that the OT is still useful to them.

Acts 10:34-35
34 And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him.
So God would Write it to men of every language according to their own way.

Biblical literalism doesn't allow that last phrase, does it? Instead, it denies it.

Josh 1:8-9
8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
9 Have not I commanded thee?
(KJV)
Note: not a suggestion. And it doesn't leave much time for that other foolishness

Note the bolded parts. That is the "foolishness" you just condemned. Are you really reading the Bible, or are you trying to force the Bible to say what you want it to?

Ps 1:2
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
(KJV)
Just in case they didn't get it the first time.

BTW, what's the literary form here?

However, it is even worse than that. Once again Biblical literalists have taken the Bible out of context to have it mean the opposite of what it says.

Psalm 1:1 "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers, but his delight ..."

Did it ever occur to you that twisting the Bible puts the literalist in the "counsel of the wicked"?

Jesus told you who is to interpret God's truth to you, and There is not a Scripture anyone can post that will support any study of anything other than The Bible, nor to accept any private interpretation from any one other than The Holy Spirit.

Ah, Bibliolatry in all its mistaken glory! Let me post one verse that suports the study of something other than the Bible: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

 

[artybloke]

"Paul"

Well, that's one theory of the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, anyway.

Sorry, back to the serious discussion.

 

[lucaspa]

The quote comes from the writings of Pope Paul VI and is part of the Dogma of the Catholic Church. OH, Defenseorfidei, are you screwed!

http://www.journeywithbible.com/Dei%20Verbum.htm

"Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, On November 18,1965"

Now, Catholico, I think your last paragraph of your last post constitutes a violation of Rule #2, which is doubting the faith of fellow Christians. It is a terrible thing to say that someone as steeped in the Christian faith as a Pope is being duped. Catholico, your screen name implies that you are Catholic, yet here you are trashing a pronouncement from a Pope?

Isn't it just more likely that it is Biblical literalists who are being duped?

 

[lucaspa]

Hello everyone,

What dies this philosophy sound like?

It is the Dogma of the Catholic Church. Since your sign says you are Catholic, I presume you agree with it.

 

[lucaspa]

"Paul" Well, that's one theory of the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, anyway.

Sorry, back to the serious discussion.

All Biblical scholars agree that some of the letters were written by Paul. I don't remember offhand whether 2 Timothy is in the list. In dealing with Biblical literalists, I try to humor them and go with their convention as much as I can without distorting accuracy.