The "Conservative Bible Project" ... Dumbest Thing Ever?

[shadron]

And God's inerrant word, too, apparently.

or all the reverence and authority Christians place in the bible, they treat it like last week's grocery list.

There seems to be some confusion about Andy being able to "translate" the innerant Bible to his own taste. It is important to note that Andy is not one of your evangelistic Christians; he is Catholic, and that is a whole different brand of conservatism from Falwell or Robertson, et al. RC doesn't consider the text of the Bible to be inerrant; it didn't even officially enumerate the books of the Bible until the 14th century. You can get a feel for this style of conservatism from this web page:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/cath-intro.html

Catholics don't generally see the Bible as inerrant; they see it combiined with the collected works of the doctors of the church, like Jerome, Augustine and Aquinas as the basis of catholicism and referred to as "tradition". I imagine that Andy would like to see himself considered as a modern doctor of the church. I wonder whether his bishop will grace his effort with an Imprimatur, or if perhaps he will name his bishop as an editor.

 

[HansMustermann]

What does that say about people who think God is 'evil'?

Depends.

Do they still use God to justify their actions, even while being convinced that it's evil? If so, it would be a rare case of someone who's very much aware that they're doing evil.

If they think God is evil and that's why they don't follow him, well, then all respect.

 

[Tumblehome]

There seems to be some confusion about Andy being able to "translate" the innerant Bible to his own taste. It is important to note that Andy is not one of your evangelistic Christians; he is Catholic, and that is a whole different brand of conservatism from Falwell or Robertson, et al. RC doesn't consider the text of the Bible to be inerrant; it didn't even officially enumerate the books of the Bible until the 14th century. You can get a feel for this style of conservatism from this web page:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/cath-intro.html

Catholics don't generally see the Bible as inerrant; they see it combiined with the collected works of the doctors of the church, like Jerome, Augustine and Aquinas as the basis of catholicism and referred to as "tradition".

That sheds a little more light on the story for me. Thanks for that, and the link. Now I know what Schlafly means by "liberal bias".

It makes me wonder, though, what Catholics base their belief on. I assume they consider the word of God to be inerrant and absolute, but if the text of the bible isn't God's word, what is?

I wonder whether his bishop will grace his effort with an Imprimatur, or if perhaps he will name his bishop as an editor.

Or give him a cut of the movie rights.

 

[Mojo]

It makes me wonder, though, what Catholics base their belief on. I assume they consider the word of God to be inerrant and absolute, but if the text of the bible isn't God's word, what is?

There's always the Pope, on the rare occasions when he invokes infallibility.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

It makes me wonder, though, what Catholics base their belief on. I assume they consider the word of God to be inerrant and absolute, but if the text of the bible isn't God's word, what is?

...snip...

It's based on what the RC Church says are the beliefs and doctrines, the RC Church is the source of authority of what God wants and does not want.

 

[quadraginta]

It's based on what the RC Church says are the beliefs and doctrines, the RC Church is the source of authority of what God wants and does not want.

Nice work if you can get it.

Saves all that confusion about conflicting references and whatnot.

When the fundies figure out that they're missing big bucks with all this inerrancy silliness they'll put together their own team of editors.

 

[Tumblehome]

It's based on what the RC Church says are the beliefs and doctrines, the RC Church is the source of authority of what God wants and does not want.

At least somebody's around to put that God guy in his place, thank God.

 

[shadron]

It's based on what the RC Church says are the beliefs and doctrines, the RC Church is the source of authority of what God wants and does not want.

Quite so. Consider that for the first 1200 years of the church after about 400 CE they maintained the official Bible in a dead Latin version (the Vulgate, translated by Jerome), and forbade translation into any vernacular language. It so much easier on the interpreters when they can't be argued with by the rabble. The church still maintains the trappings of ecclesiastical law in their hierarchy. Canon law and the Roman curia.

 

[shadron]

That sheds a little more light on the story for me. Thanks for that, and the link. Now I know what Schlafly means by "liberal bias".

Perhaps it does, but I have little doubt that his definition of liberal owes a lot to the modern political definition as well.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Not in the UK you can't.

Oh. What's all this about a world-wide web then?

Bummer.

 

[Piggy]

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Have you tried Viagra?

 

[arthwollipot]

There's always the Pope, on the rare occasions when he invokes infallibility.

Wait - you mean the Pope's infallible only when he wants to be?

Wow, that's a sweet gig.

 

[Piggy]

Just the latest wrinkle in the "King James Only" movement,which has been around for a while.
Describing the NIV as a "Liberal" translation is drop dead funny, though, since it was pretty much done by fairly conservative Evangelicals,and is the translation used by that ultra liberal firebrand Billy Graham.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

In fact, I had to use an NIV to find some scripture earlier this week, and was struck by just how manipulated the language was. Compared to the KJV -- which I did, verse for verse -- it's clearly skewed to a "conservative" view.

For example, any instance of anyone telling God what to do has been re-written to portray them instead beseeching God for help, or praising God for helping them.

It was quite odd.

But in any case, attempting to apply the modern concepts of "liberal" and "conservative" to legitimate Bible scholarship is patently bizarre. It's like talking about "liberal" and "conservative" building codes.

 

[Tumblehome]

Perhaps it does, but I have little doubt that his definition of liberal owes a lot to the modern political definition as well.

I don't doubt that. To a modern day conservative, I'm sure the terms "religious liberal" and "political liberal" are cut from the same cloth.

This religion stuff can really get your head spinning. Usually, when you learn more about something, you get a better understanding of it, but with Christianity, I'm more mystified than ever.

 

[HansMustermann]

Wait - you mean the Pope's infallible only when he wants to be?

Wow, that's a sweet gig.

The pope is only infallible when he explicitly invokes the infallibility, making an official pronouncement ex cathedra. That means he's been on the phone with the Holy Spirit and absolutely that's the truth. Anything else, is just his personal reading of the Bible and opinion. A very educated opinion, mind you, but still just his opinion.

They're actually very careful with what they invoke infallibility about, because it's exactly what it sounds like. Once an infallible pronouncement ex cathedra has been made, it can't even be undone by another pope. You can't use your own infallibility to override a predecessor's infallibility. (Though you can override a previous pope on something that was just his educated opinion.)

It's only been used 7 times total, in 449 AD, 680, 1336, 1653, 1794, 1853 and 1950. And technically only for the last one a formal and official definition and dogma of papal infallibility existed. Though it had been kinda assumed all along that a pope could do that.

So, yes, it's not something the pope does every day. In fact most popes had never been infallible in their whole lives.

 

[Darat]

And the idea of "infallibility" is only a doctrine because the RC Church says it is...

 

[arthwollipot]

The pope is only infallible when he explicitly invokes the infallibility, making an official pronouncement ex cathedra. That means he's been on the phone with the Holy Spirit and absolutely that's the truth. Anything else, is just his personal reading of the Bible and opinion. A very educated opinion, mind you, but still just his opinion.

They're actually very careful with what they invoke infallibility about, because it's exactly what it sounds like. Once an infallible pronouncement ex cathedra has been made, it can't even be undone by another pope. You can't use your own infallibility to override a predecessor's infallibility. (Though you can override a previous pope on something that was just his educated opinion.)

It's only been used 7 times total, in 449 AD, 680, 1336, 1653, 1794, 1853 and 1950. And technically only for the last one a formal and official definition and dogma of papal infallibility existed. Though it had been kinda assumed all along that a pope could do that.

So, yes, it's not something the pope does every day. In fact most popes had never been infallible in their whole lives.

I did not know that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Have you tried Viagra?

Don't need it. Hope never to.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I did not know that.

IIRC, it was 8 times, with 1870, First Vatican Council, pronouncement of dogmatic infallibility being number 8, sort of. As Hans noted, only the 1950 pronouncement was subsequent to that.

I'd check Catholic Encyclopedia to be sure. Some definitional statements from them:

In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.

The Pope : Explanation of papal infallibility
The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent

In summary: When the Pope speaks ex cathedra in the exercise of his office, he defines spells out an irrevocable doctrine concerning faith or morals [/B]to be held by the whole Church.

The Pope holds that he speaks for All Christians when he does this, many/most non RCC Christians don't care for that presumption.

That isn't the whole of it, but its enough to get the gist.

DR

 

[shadron]

The pope is only infallible when he explicitly invokes the infallibility, making an official pronouncement ex cathedra.

It's only been used 7 times total, in 449 AD, 680, 1336, 1653, 1794, 1853 and 1950. And technically only for the last one a formal and official definition and dogma of papal infallibility existed. Though it had been kinda assumed all along that a pope could do that.

Yeah, in fact the on in 1853 defined infallibility. So ex cathedra was actually used to auto-reference itself into being, including ex post facto. Who says god isn't omnipotent?

The one in 1950 defined the Assumption, the event where Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, without death, though there is no mention of whether her taxes were paid up to date.