Are There Errors in the Bible?

[astralis]

Basically, Bible confusions are not a valid reason for distrusting the Bible, but they do give reasons for distrusting heretical sola scriptura views on it.

Yes!

This is pretty much what I said in my post above as well. Catholics should not interpret the Bible like those who believe in Sola Scriptura and some of these posts that I’ve read seem to fall into this trap.

Once again, as it has been mentioned several times in this post. Dei Verbum should be read to understand inspiration.

 

[Catholic_Cadet]

Didn’t you get banned from TWeb?

 

[astralis]

Catholic-Cadet,

Are you speaking to me? I don’t know what TWeb is and I don’t recall being banned from any Protestant site. On one site that I was part of, all the Catholics had their posts deleted but they were still able to post - that’s the only one I can remember.

 

[Jason_Gastrich]

kman025:

Hey Jason,

I think you may be getting closer to the Catholic interpretation of inspiration than you think. I certainly agree that either Mark or John “forgot their watch” or miswrote the time years later when they wrote. This passage plus Paul’s forgetfulness in 1 Cor 1:16 show beautifully that the authors of the Bible did not merely take a dictation of the inspired text word-for-word from God.

9 am and 12 noon are quite different times of day. Also, Mark has Jesus on the cross at 9 am, whereas John still has Jesus being examined by Pilot around noon, which is obviously still sometime before crucifixion. So, one account places crucifixion in mid morning, the other in early afternoon. Personally, that creates too much cognative dissonance in my mind to call it “close enough”. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church has had thousands of men and women, especially monks, devote not just thousands of hours but their entire lives to researching the Bible. They’ve been doing so for about 2 millenium, and our view of inspiration is a product of all their hard work. I look forward to further chats, and I invite you to read the links on the Parasceve that I posted above, as they explain the differences between Nisan 14 and 15.

Thanks,
Chris

Chris,

This Greek word for “about” is used 24 times in the New Testament. I’m content with the Bible authors giving us an estimate. When we have passages of scripture that give us certain and precise details, then we can interpret the approximate details with the ones that are certain.

When we do not have a passage with an exact detail and we only have one with an approximation, we’ll have to accept it. What else can we do? Surely, this isn’t a case against inerrancy, though. The Bible never claims to contain every word spoken by every person in it; or every fact under the sun.

God bless,
Jason

 

[Jason_Gastrich]

SHEMP:

Did you look at this timeline? clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Bible/Jesus_Death.htm

If you disagree with the above time line, then why?

Hi Shemp,

I just looked at the timeline. It looks very suspect.

Instead of pointing out all the problems in this timeline, it would be wise for me to study the scriptures and make my own timeline based on the biblical accounts. This will take a little time, but I will put it on my list of things to do.

Thanks,
Jason

 

[Catholic_Cadet]

astralis:

Catholic-Cadet,

Are you speaking to me? I don’t know what TWeb is and I don’t recall being banned from any Protestant site. On one site that I was part of, all the Catholics had their posts deleted but they were still able to post - that’s the only one I can remember.

No, talking to Jason.

 

[Jason_Gastrich]

Catholic Cadet:

No, talking to Jason.

No. I can post at TWeb as I wish. I have voluntarily left because I felt that the lines between the unbelievers and believers were far too blurred and that the Christians in there were being unequally yoked. It became a poor place for me to come and post. Nonetheless, there are some good and intelligent Christians that post at TWeb.

Sincerely,
Jason

P.S. If you’d like to see a chronology that I have already written (as you wait for the Passover chronology), here is my chronology of the post-resurrection accounts. Link: jcsm.org/biblelessons/Barker17.htm

 

[Hananiah]

kman025:

I think it is very important for anyone reading this thread to have a firm knowledge of Mother Church’s understanding of Inspiration and Inerrancy, because it would help you to understand that confusions by the writers of the New Testament do not constitute errors in validity or inspiration.

Chris, Holy Mother Church’s understanding of Biblical innerancy is exactly the same as Mr. Gastrich’s. The Bible contains no errors on any subject whatsoever, sacred or profane. All alleged contradictions are either possible to reconcile, or are the result of transmission errors. You should not take Dei Verbum by itself in this matter. Dei Verbum’s statement that the Bible teaches innerantly those things which God wanted us to know for the sake of our salvation can be interpreted in one of two ways.

(1) The Bible teaches innerantly on subjects relating to salvation, but contains errors in other matters e.g. history, science, geography, etc.

(2) The Bible is innerant in its entirety, and God wrote everything in it for the sake of our salvation.

Interpretation #1 is that of Fr. Raymond Brown, but it stands in direct contradiction to the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church.

Clement of Rome: You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and of the Holy Spirit. You know well that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in them.

Irenaeus: If, however, we are not able to find explanations for all those passages of Scripture which are investigated, we ought not on that account seek for another God besides Him who exists…Things of that kind we must leave to God…knowing full well that the Scriptures are certainly perfect…The true knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles…and the very complete tradition of the Scriptures, which have come down to us by being guarded against falsification, and are received without addition or deletion; and reading without falsification…

Justin Martyr: If a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and there be a pretext for regarding it as contradictory, since I am totally convinced that no Scripture is contradictory to another, I shall admit instead that I do not understand what is spoken of…

Athanasius: Now it is the opinion of some, that the Scriptures do not agree together…but there is no disagreement whatever, far from it, neither can the Father, who is truth, lie; ‘for it is impossible that God should lie,’ as Paul affirms.

Gregory Nanzianzus: We who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to every letter and serif will never admit, for it is impious to do so, that even the smallest matters were recorded in a careless and hasty manner by those who wrote them down.

Epiphanius: And nothing of discrepancy will be found in Sacred Scripture, nor will there be found any statement in opposition to any other statement.

Jerome: I am not, I say it again, so ignorant as to suppose that any of the Lord’s words are either in need of correction or not divinely inspired. But the Latin codices are proved to be faulty by the discrepancies which they all exhibit among themselves; and it was my desire to restore them to the form of the Greek original, from which my detractors do not deny that they have been translated.

 

[Hananiah]

Augustine: Be not wanton to accuse either the obscurity or seeming contradiction of Scripture. There is nothing in it contradictory: somewhat there is which is obscure, not in order that it may be denied you, but that it may exercise him that shall afterward receive it. When then it is obscure, that is the Physician’s doing, that you may knock. He willed that you should be exercised in knocking; He willed it, that He might open to you when you knock.

Pope Leo XIII: Providentissimus Deus, “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred;”

Pope Pius X: Lamentabili Sani: Condemns the following notion: “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error;”

Pope Benedict XV: Spiritus Paraclitus: “…the divine inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture without distinction, and that no error could occur in the inspired text;”

Pope Pius XII: Divino Afflante Spiritu, repeats Pope Leo XIII’s decree: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred;”

Pius XII: Humani Generis: Condemns the following notion: “…immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters”;

Vatican Council 1: “Further, this supernatural revelation…is contained in the written books…from the apostles themselves by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand” (Denz. 3006).

Pope Leo XIII: Providentissimus Deus (I, B, 2, b): “For the Sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Spirit, it contains things of the deepest importance, which, in many instances, are most difficult and obscure…For all the books in their entirety…with all their parts, have been written under the dictation of the Holy Spirit” (Denz. 3292).

Vatican I: “But the Church holds these books as sacred and canonical, not because, having been put together by human industry alone, they were then approved by its authority; nor because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself…God inspired the human authors of the sacred books…it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever He wanted written, and no more.” (Denz 1787).

catholicintl.com/epologetics/FrRayBrown.asp

 

[trogiah]

Socrates4Jesus:

Do you think Jesus was saying that Deuteronomy 24 is in error, or was He saying that God really had no choice but to have Moses write: “When a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, is later displeased with her because he finds something indecent, and therefore he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house…” (verse 1).

Maybe i’m wrong, but what i see there is NOT a command TO DIVORCE a wife. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that a man may do the evil of divorcing his wife, but if he does, he must do it in a way that brings the least harm to her. Without a certificate of divorce, a woman would not be able to remarry. Since she would likely not be able to work to support herself in ancient Jewish society, she might become homeless, or worse, a prostitute.

But what do you think, Trogia?

I understand the issue of divorce is a challenge in itself and the discussion could easily digress that way but my point was that Moses didn’t give the complete answer on the issue = just as he didn’t on several other issues which Jesus addressed in the sermon on the mount and in other places. Does this mean the Bible is in error? I guess it depends on what you call an error.

I think all the authors and figures of the bible were, overall, inspired by God but all of them, except Jesus, had limited vision and understanding. I believe those limits are apparent in the words they put on paper. I believe that without the Gospel, the rest of Scripture is, at best, incomplete. Again, does that mean it is in error? I guess I would say that, although the authors were inspired, scripture can be misinterpreted. And some can be more easily misinterpreted than others. If we really don’t want to say “the Bible has an error” than at least we should be able to say this: “We can read scriptures and become convinced of the truth of something that is actually not true.”

It happens often but I think it happens least often when the scripture is from the Gospel.

 

[kman025]

I guess my point is that in Mark’s account he’s crucified at 9am, meaning he was before Pilate probably an hour or so beforehand, whereas in John he’s before Pilate “around” noontime. Just how much leeway are we willing to allow in the word “around”. It seems we’re alread offering 3+ and more like 4 hours, and the difference in the time of day from 8 am and 12 noon is enough to note that saying “around noon” may be a little discrepant. Yes, it’s not worth building a case for Inerrancy, at least not until we close the loop on whether it’s 8 am Nisan 15 vs. 12 noon Nisan 14. Thus our attention turns to John 19:14 and Mark 14:12 onwards.

Here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the matter: newadvent.org/cathen/11476a.htm

 

[Jason_Gastrich]

I have a large section in my book on the issue of divorce. The author of the SAB claimed that Jesus gave contradictory statements on divorce (e.g. statements of His own that were contradictory). Therefore, I didn’t need to address the possibility that Jesus contradicted Moses.

Frankly, I think it is absurd to say that Jesus contradicted Moses. The law was plain and obvious: marriage was codified by God as a permanent union between one man and one woman. When the Israelites were going to destroy themselves because of their inability to follow such a lofty principle, God gave them a way to separate. However, it was not His will that they separate.

Jesus said a variety of things on divorce, but He affirmed God’s ideal and God’s way to meet sinners where they were and give them grace if they felt they had to divorce. Jesus never contradicted Moses, though.

God bless,
Jason

 

[Jason_Gastrich]

“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.” --St. Augustine

Great quote!

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[agname]

Jason Gastrich:

I have a large section in my book on the issue of divorce. The author of the SAB claimed that Jesus gave contradictory statements on divorce (e.g. statements of His own that were contradictory). Therefore, I didn’t need to address the possibility that Jesus contradicted Moses.

Frankly, I think it is absurd to say that Jesus contradicted Moses. The law was plain and obvious: marriage was codified by God as a permanent union between one man and one woman. When the Israelites were going to destroy themselves because of their inability to follow such a lofty principle, God gave them a way to separate. However, it was not His will that they separate.

Jesus said a variety of things on divorce, but He affirmed God’s ideal and God’s way to meet sinners where they were and give them grace if they felt they had to divorce. Jesus never contradicted Moses, though.

God bless,
Jason

Hey Jason…I recommend the following read…it might help out with the CD…

Q: I believe the Bible when it says he who divorces and marries another commits adultery, as we see in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18. But isn’t Jesus leaving a loophole when he says in Matthew 19:9 “except for unchastity”?

A: What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.

The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage can not be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthews 19:6 says, “Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Biblical scholars, such as J. Bonsirven, have pointed out that the Greek word that is pivotal here is “porneia,” which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word “moicheia,” which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.

The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just “living together,” then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.

newadvent.org/almanac/thisrock92.htm

Be safe.

 

[Jason_Gastrich]

agname:

Hey Jason…I recommend the following read…it might help out with the CD…

Q: I believe the Bible when it says he who divorces and marries another commits adultery, as we see in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18. But isn’t Jesus leaving a loophole when he says in Matthew 19:9 “except for unchastity”?

A: What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce . . . .

Hi agname,

Quite an interesting thought! Thanks.

Jason

 

[Malachi4U]

Gods peace be with you Theophilus,

Jason,

You have a pretty good site with lots of information. You also have a great technique in redirecting members off this forum and to your protestant site. I enjoyed reading your site. Can’t say I agree with it but it was good and I shall go back to read more.

Questions:
Why are there no Catholic Bibles compared on your site?
Where did God command the Bible to be written?
Can we be saved without Bibles?
If Sola Scriptura is so vital, why is it not mentioned in the Bible?
What authority says the Bible is any more inspired then the Koran, both claim divine inspiration?
Why is the KJV considered the best?

Why is the KJV missing many Books of the original AKJV?

Why is the AKJV not the best?

Where in the Bible does it say the KJV is the best?

Why do you claim that Bibles like the NIV deleted verses when the evidence is that the KJV added them?

If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint shouldn’t it be in the Bible?

What authority approved the KJV?

Why was the “Apocrypha” deleted from the KJV by publishers in England in the 1800’s when the translators (AKJV) said it should be in the Bible?

What makes protestants better translators?

If Scripture is perfect why did God make his Word so confusing that it could not be interpreted correctly by all people?
If Sola Scriptura is true, why did it take 400 years for the Catholics to wirite, state canon and declare the Bible inspired?
If the KJV is the best, are the first 1,800 years of Christians still saved since they had no KJV?

Why should we believe in a Bible authorized by order of a homosexual King to preserve his own power?

If Bill Clinton had authorized and directed a Bible translation should it take preference in the USA to the KJV?

Do non English speaking people have to learn English to read the KJV to be saved?

This is a good start on questions though I could write volumes to you. You really do seem to have studied the subject but I could not find the answers on your web site.

Please answer the questions on this forum and not on another web site if possible.

A prisoner of Christ
**
“If, in the Mystical body of Christ, Jesus is The Head of the Church, the Clergy the organs, the Lay the blood, then converts have to be the adrenaline!” (Joao H. Machado)

 

[Jason_Gastrich]

Hi Malachi,

I hope you’re well.

I’m glad you liked JCSM. There is a lot of great information. Glory to God.

I’m sure you didn’t mean to do this, but you question bombed me. I’ve been in lots of debates and question bombing isn’t a nice thing to do. Plus, this thread was created to address alleged Bible errors.

Right now, I’d prefer to keep this topic as it was intended. Plus, I feel that we are getting off on the wrong foot since you question bombed me. I’m not sure what to tell you, but that you are approaching me incorrectly and (accidentally?) attempting to hijack this topic.

I’ve noticed a trend for some: to always bring the conversation to Protestant/Catholic issues. In a topic about alleged Bible errors, nothing I wrote indicated that I wished to address Protestant/Catholic issues. Therefore, you should probably go and discuss them with people in threads that are designed for those issues. Yes?

I hope you take this post in the spirit in which it was intended.

God bless,
Jason

 

[MooCowSteph]

Ok, this is a simple one. I am in a bit of an argument with an adamant atheist, and while I do not except to change his mind, I want to at lest feel like I out up a good fight. He claimed there are errors in the Bible, such as rabbits chewing the cud and other such insignificant mentions, and that this is proof that the Bible is false. I tried to explain that you need to read in context, that they didn’t know what we know today about science and that while God inspired the Bible, men wrote it and were susceptible to error. He then says we can dismiss the whole Bible if we can dismiss any of it. I am baffled and do not know what to say. It makes me want to do, well, this… :banghead:

 

[Br.Dan_OCD]

I will ask my little question again: did Jesus carry the cross “by himself” (as in St. John’s account) or did Simon help him (as in the other accounts)?

MooCowSteph: I would check the Catechism regarding what “inspiration” means and how the Scriptures are and aren’t “inerrant.” Also, look at the Vatican II document “Dei Verbum.” They give better answers than I can.

 

[Jason_Gastrich]

MooCowSteph:

Ok, this is a simple one. I am in a bit of an argument with an adamant atheist, and while I do not except to change his mind, I want to at lest feel like I out up a good fight. He claimed there are errors in the Bible, such as rabbits chewing the cud and other such insignificant mentions, and that this is proof that the Bible is false. I tried to explain that you need to read in context, that they didn’t know what we know today about science and that while God inspired the Bible, men wrote it and were susceptible to error. He then says we can dismiss the whole Bible if we can dismiss any of it. I am baffled and do not know what to say. It makes me want to do, well, this… :banghead:

Hi MooCowSteph,

Thanks for your post.

I’m glad you are reaching atheists with the truth of God! I pray that you have strength and perseverance. It’s not always easy, but you are planting seeds.

The “chewing the cud” issue is an interesting one. It is one that I address in my lectures. However, the answer is quite simple, but I hope you aren’t reading this on a full stomach. smile

In the 21st century, we consider “chewing the cud” regurgitating partially digested materials and chewing on it (like cows do). This is called “rumination.” However, this isn’t necessarily the same meaning and definition of this Hebrew word (“gerah”) that the ancient Israelites had.

Rabbits practice “refection.” They chew on their dung which consists of partially digested food and partially undigested food. Therefore, there is a similarity even between our current understanding of “chewing the cud” and an ancient understanding of it. They both chew undigested food. At any rate, the Israelites didn’t use different words for rumination and refection, so “gerah” (translated cud) had to suffice.

God bless,
Jason