M
mikeledes
Guest
Why must the Bible be inerrant? Why must it be free of error?
Thanks and God Bless,
Michael
Thanks and God Bless,
Michael
- Status
Q
quasimodo
Guest
First, what do you mean by “inerrant?” A lot of people have chosen that word to mean what they want it to mean and wind up with a fundamentalist understanding or a modernist understanding - not a Catholic one. It does not mean that the bible is an infallible history or science text. For example, the sky is not a beaten metal bowl holding back the water in the heavens - complete with windows to allow it to rain.
Inerrant means that the truth that the author meant to convey is in fact true. Inerrancy says nothing about the style or mode of his expression.
It is important that the bible be inerrant because it is God’s word and God is truth.
Inerrant means that the truth that the author meant to convey is in fact true. Inerrancy says nothing about the style or mode of his expression.
It is important that the bible be inerrant because it is God’s word and God is truth.
M
mikeledes
Guest
Why? I ask because a friend of mine wants a detailed explanation.
God Bless,
Michael
Q
quasimodo
Guest
if it is God’s word (and it is) and it teaches something that is not true, then God is a liar. This is an untenable position - truth cold not exist.
This is also why we are careful to read the Book the way atheist and fundamentalists do on the one hand and the way modernists do on the other.
This is also why we are careful to read the Book the way atheist and fundamentalists do on the one hand and the way modernists do on the other.
P
patg
Guest
You have to be very careful discussing the word “inerrant”. The first issue is exactly what is inerrant? The originals? Well, we don’t have any of those. The translations? Which translations? From which sources? The Church gets around this by stating that: "…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." Note the words “for the sake of salvation” - not “to teach history, biology, or science”.
A second point is that a work of total fiction is perfectly able to teach inerrant truth. The Church states that the bible contains many forms of writing: “For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.” Thus inerrancy does not imply any requirement for a strict literalistic reading.
Inerrancy is strictly a matter of faith - we can no more prove that the bible is the inerrant word of God than we can prove that all the works attributed to Shakespeare were actually penned by him.
J
Jade_Tiger
Guest
If God wrote it,(which he did through the Holy Spirit guiding the writers) then nothing in it can be wrong, because God is truth.
S
sandusky
Guest
Inerrancy Essential For Biblical Authority
We are faced with a basic choice in the matter of biblical authority. Either we receive the Scripture as completely reliable and trustworthy in every matter it records, affirms, or teaches, or else it comes to us as a collection of religious writings containing both truth and error.
If it does contain mistakes in the original manuscripts, then it ceases to be unconditionally authoritative. It must be validated and endorsed by our own human judgment before we can accept it as true. It is not sufficient to establish that a matter has been affirmed or taught in Scripture; it may nevertheless be mistaken and at variance with the truth. So human judges must pass on each item of teaching or information contained in the Bible and determine whether it is actually to be received as true. Such judgment presupposes a superior wisdom and spiritual insight competent to correct the errors of the Bible, and if those who would thus judge the veracity of the Bible lack the necessary ingredient of personal inerrancy in judgment, they may come to a false and mistaken judgment - endorsing as true what is actually false, or else condemning as erroneous what is actually correct in Scripture. Thus the objective authority of the Bible is replaced by a subjective intuition or judicial faculty on the part of each believer, and it becomes a matter of mere personal preference how much of Scripture teaching he or she may adopt as binding.
In contrast to the view of the Bible as capable of error in matters of science, history, or doctrine (certainly such doctrine as is contained in a historical or scientific framework), we find that the attitude of Christ and the apostolic authors of the New Testament was one of unqualified acceptance. Christ may have illumined the basic intention of the Ten Commandments by setting forth their spiritual implications (“But I say to you…”), but never did he suggest that any affirmation or teaching in the Old Testament required validation by modern critical scholarship. He clearly presupposed that whatever the Old Testament taught was true because it was the infallible Word of God. It needed no further screening process by human wisdom in order to be verified. “For truly, I say to you,” said Jesus, “till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law [Old Testament until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18). His statement in John 10:35, “The Scripture cannot be broken,” carries the same implication.
Those apostolic authors whom he taught or inspired proclaim the same full authority of all Scripture. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” In Hebrews 1:1, 2 we read, “God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” This asserts the same infallibility for the writings of the Old Testament as for the words of Jesus himself. In 1 Peter 1:10, 11 the apostle states: “The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory.” This clearly implies that the Holy Spirit was within the Old Testament authors as they composed the books of the Hebrew Scriptures and that he guided them into words of infallible truth sure of fulfillment, even though the human authors themselves may not have fully understood all that these words predicted. Especially instructive is 2 Peter 1:20, 21: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” As they wrote down God’s revelation, the Old Testament authors were supernaturally borne along (like sailing vessels impelled by the wind, *pheromenoi) to record God’s truth, which is not to be manipulated or perverted by one’s own personal interpretation or preference. Despite all the imperfections of the human writers of Scripture, the Lord was able to carry them along into his infallible truth without distortion or mistake.
(continued below)
We are faced with a basic choice in the matter of biblical authority. Either we receive the Scripture as completely reliable and trustworthy in every matter it records, affirms, or teaches, or else it comes to us as a collection of religious writings containing both truth and error.
If it does contain mistakes in the original manuscripts, then it ceases to be unconditionally authoritative. It must be validated and endorsed by our own human judgment before we can accept it as true. It is not sufficient to establish that a matter has been affirmed or taught in Scripture; it may nevertheless be mistaken and at variance with the truth. So human judges must pass on each item of teaching or information contained in the Bible and determine whether it is actually to be received as true. Such judgment presupposes a superior wisdom and spiritual insight competent to correct the errors of the Bible, and if those who would thus judge the veracity of the Bible lack the necessary ingredient of personal inerrancy in judgment, they may come to a false and mistaken judgment - endorsing as true what is actually false, or else condemning as erroneous what is actually correct in Scripture. Thus the objective authority of the Bible is replaced by a subjective intuition or judicial faculty on the part of each believer, and it becomes a matter of mere personal preference how much of Scripture teaching he or she may adopt as binding.
In contrast to the view of the Bible as capable of error in matters of science, history, or doctrine (certainly such doctrine as is contained in a historical or scientific framework), we find that the attitude of Christ and the apostolic authors of the New Testament was one of unqualified acceptance. Christ may have illumined the basic intention of the Ten Commandments by setting forth their spiritual implications (“But I say to you…”), but never did he suggest that any affirmation or teaching in the Old Testament required validation by modern critical scholarship. He clearly presupposed that whatever the Old Testament taught was true because it was the infallible Word of God. It needed no further screening process by human wisdom in order to be verified. “For truly, I say to you,” said Jesus, “till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law [Old Testament until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18). His statement in John 10:35, “The Scripture cannot be broken,” carries the same implication.
Those apostolic authors whom he taught or inspired proclaim the same full authority of all Scripture. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” In Hebrews 1:1, 2 we read, “God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” This asserts the same infallibility for the writings of the Old Testament as for the words of Jesus himself. In 1 Peter 1:10, 11 the apostle states: “The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory.” This clearly implies that the Holy Spirit was within the Old Testament authors as they composed the books of the Hebrew Scriptures and that he guided them into words of infallible truth sure of fulfillment, even though the human authors themselves may not have fully understood all that these words predicted. Especially instructive is 2 Peter 1:20, 21: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” As they wrote down God’s revelation, the Old Testament authors were supernaturally borne along (like sailing vessels impelled by the wind, *pheromenoi) to record God’s truth, which is not to be manipulated or perverted by one’s own personal interpretation or preference. Despite all the imperfections of the human writers of Scripture, the Lord was able to carry them along into his infallible truth without distortion or mistake.
(continued below)
S
sandusky
Guest
(continued from post #7)
Both Christ and the apostles affirm, then, that what the Bible says, God says. All these passages add up to this: that accuracy inheres in every part of the Bible, so that it is to be received as infallible as to truth and final as to authority. When the Scripture speaks, it speaks as the living, operative Word of God (Heb. 4:l2 - zōn and energēs), which penetrates to man’s innermost being and sits in judgment on all human philosophies and reasonings with an authority that is absolutely sovereign. This, then, is what the Scriptures teach concerning their own infallibility. Not only are they free from all error; they are also filled with all authority, and they sit in judgment on man and all his intentions and thoughts.
This objective authority of the Bible carries with it an important consequence as to its interpretation. Scripture must never be construed according to a man’s personal preference or bias just to suit his own purposes. It must be carefully and reverently studied with a view to ascertaining what the human biblical author (guided by the divine Author) intended by the words he used. This makes historico-grammatical exegesis an absolute necessity. We fall into misinterpretation when we err in understanding the Hebrew or Greek words that compose the original Scripture itself, supposing them to mean something the ancient writer never intended, simply because the English words of our Bible translations might be so construed. We grievously err in our interpretation when we interpret figurative language literally; we likewise err when we interpret literal language figuratively.
The authority of Scripture requires that in whatever the author meant to say by the words he used, he presents us with the truth of God, without any admixture of error. As such it is binding on our minds and consciences, and we can reject or evade its teaching only at the peril of our souls.
.
:tiphat:
Both Christ and the apostles affirm, then, that what the Bible says, God says. All these passages add up to this: that accuracy inheres in every part of the Bible, so that it is to be received as infallible as to truth and final as to authority. When the Scripture speaks, it speaks as the living, operative Word of God (Heb. 4:l2 - zōn and energēs), which penetrates to man’s innermost being and sits in judgment on all human philosophies and reasonings with an authority that is absolutely sovereign. This, then, is what the Scriptures teach concerning their own infallibility. Not only are they free from all error; they are also filled with all authority, and they sit in judgment on man and all his intentions and thoughts.
This objective authority of the Bible carries with it an important consequence as to its interpretation. Scripture must never be construed according to a man’s personal preference or bias just to suit his own purposes. It must be carefully and reverently studied with a view to ascertaining what the human biblical author (guided by the divine Author) intended by the words he used. This makes historico-grammatical exegesis an absolute necessity. We fall into misinterpretation when we err in understanding the Hebrew or Greek words that compose the original Scripture itself, supposing them to mean something the ancient writer never intended, simply because the English words of our Bible translations might be so construed. We grievously err in our interpretation when we interpret figurative language literally; we likewise err when we interpret literal language figuratively.
The authority of Scripture requires that in whatever the author meant to say by the words he used, he presents us with the truth of God, without any admixture of error. As such it is binding on our minds and consciences, and we can reject or evade its teaching only at the peril of our souls.
.
:tiphat:
T
Tyrel
Guest
Perhaps I’m jumping the gun here, but I’d like to put forward some thoughts and objections.
I’m perfectly comfortable with most of what’s been said. However, I wonder, where do our standards begin? What I mean by this is simply, by what rule do we determine error? The modernist Empiricist standard perhaps?
Let’s consider a few preliminary things before arguments are made. First, what shall we do about spelling mistakes, such as the spelling mistakes of st. Paul in 1 Corinthians? If you ask a Muslim apologist why there are miss-spelled Arabic words in the Qur’an, they will answer that it was because God was perfecting the Arabic language in his special way. However, I don’t think we as Christians ought to give such an answer concerning our Scriptures. So, what do we do about spelling mistakes? Are these ‘constituatory’ of error? I don’t think so, but we best ask ourselves then, where we draw the line.
What about how Matthew spells the name “jeremiah” three different ways throughout his Gospel? Copiest errors galore? The Manuscript evidence doesn’t support that position, and of courses the only option if Matthew was concerned, or indeed if God was concerned, is that there is some super-mystical exegesis of these passages waiting to reveal us greater depth of hidden truth. The problem with this is that it smacks of Gnosticism.
What, then, when the Apostolic and inspired writers misquote things by one manner or another? For instance, the Gospel of Mark begins with “The Prophet Isaiah said:” and then quotes Malachi instead of Isaiah (Mark 1:2). Mistake? sure, slight mix up for half the quote. Error? - I don’t think so.
What then do we do about discrepancies, such as numeric contradictions? For instance, how old Jehoichin was when he became king, either 8, or 18 (2 kings 24:8; 2 Chronicles 36:9). Or how many Syrian charioteers David slew, either seven-hundred, or else seven-thousand (2 Samuel 10:18; 1 Chronicles 19:18). Or again, did Solomon have four thousand horses, or forty thousand (1 Kings 4:26; 2 Chronicles 9:25)?
Another point altogether to add; I have with me over 100 contradictions in the Bible which Muslim Scholars have put forward. Most of them can actually be explained away, but I wonder, if God’s intent was to make us a book free from all human error in transmission to us, why would he make the book look as though it really had human error? Why would God reveal himself in disguise? If God puts his hand to something, it is obvious. I don’t think God has put his hand to making sure the Biblical authors made no mistakes of any kind, such as spelling. I don’t believe God inspired the Scriptures in their words and phrases, but inspired them in their entirety, being the one word behind every syllable jotted down.
If God had wished to preserve the Bible from all error, I don’t think we would have to bend over backwards to defend the Bible from apparent error. Mind you, I don’t think all the “error” is simply apparent. I’m also not so willing to accept that it’s only copiest error which accounts for various readings, because that means the Scriptures are almost lost in transmission given how much they’ve been mishandled. I also cannot see God putting his hand towards inspiring such a Scripture, and then not putting his hand also to keeping it, so that his purpose in inspiring it perfectly would be realized.
I should rather think that Scriptures are absolutely without err in all matters which they mean by point of principle to relate to us. I do not think that it is only on matters of salvation where it speaks infallibly, I’m not even sure what that would mean, but it’s far too loose for me. However, I mean that if the Scriptures mean to tell us something, that thing must be true, necessarily.
This tension in Scripture should be recognized and appreciated. This is, after all, God’s inspired word, a gift for the foundation of the Church. It is the constitution of the Holy City we live in as Catholics. I simply recommend we stop being idealistic about our Scripture and start taking a look at it. Let’s not bring a conclusion to the Table and then try to force the Bible to fit. Let’s look at the Scriptures as they are, then then develop our conclusion.
I’m perfectly comfortable with most of what’s been said. However, I wonder, where do our standards begin? What I mean by this is simply, by what rule do we determine error? The modernist Empiricist standard perhaps?
Let’s consider a few preliminary things before arguments are made. First, what shall we do about spelling mistakes, such as the spelling mistakes of st. Paul in 1 Corinthians? If you ask a Muslim apologist why there are miss-spelled Arabic words in the Qur’an, they will answer that it was because God was perfecting the Arabic language in his special way. However, I don’t think we as Christians ought to give such an answer concerning our Scriptures. So, what do we do about spelling mistakes? Are these ‘constituatory’ of error? I don’t think so, but we best ask ourselves then, where we draw the line.
What about how Matthew spells the name “jeremiah” three different ways throughout his Gospel? Copiest errors galore? The Manuscript evidence doesn’t support that position, and of courses the only option if Matthew was concerned, or indeed if God was concerned, is that there is some super-mystical exegesis of these passages waiting to reveal us greater depth of hidden truth. The problem with this is that it smacks of Gnosticism.
What, then, when the Apostolic and inspired writers misquote things by one manner or another? For instance, the Gospel of Mark begins with “The Prophet Isaiah said:” and then quotes Malachi instead of Isaiah (Mark 1:2). Mistake? sure, slight mix up for half the quote. Error? - I don’t think so.
What then do we do about discrepancies, such as numeric contradictions? For instance, how old Jehoichin was when he became king, either 8, or 18 (2 kings 24:8; 2 Chronicles 36:9). Or how many Syrian charioteers David slew, either seven-hundred, or else seven-thousand (2 Samuel 10:18; 1 Chronicles 19:18). Or again, did Solomon have four thousand horses, or forty thousand (1 Kings 4:26; 2 Chronicles 9:25)?
Another point altogether to add; I have with me over 100 contradictions in the Bible which Muslim Scholars have put forward. Most of them can actually be explained away, but I wonder, if God’s intent was to make us a book free from all human error in transmission to us, why would he make the book look as though it really had human error? Why would God reveal himself in disguise? If God puts his hand to something, it is obvious. I don’t think God has put his hand to making sure the Biblical authors made no mistakes of any kind, such as spelling. I don’t believe God inspired the Scriptures in their words and phrases, but inspired them in their entirety, being the one word behind every syllable jotted down.
If God had wished to preserve the Bible from all error, I don’t think we would have to bend over backwards to defend the Bible from apparent error. Mind you, I don’t think all the “error” is simply apparent. I’m also not so willing to accept that it’s only copiest error which accounts for various readings, because that means the Scriptures are almost lost in transmission given how much they’ve been mishandled. I also cannot see God putting his hand towards inspiring such a Scripture, and then not putting his hand also to keeping it, so that his purpose in inspiring it perfectly would be realized.
I should rather think that Scriptures are absolutely without err in all matters which they mean by point of principle to relate to us. I do not think that it is only on matters of salvation where it speaks infallibly, I’m not even sure what that would mean, but it’s far too loose for me. However, I mean that if the Scriptures mean to tell us something, that thing must be true, necessarily.
This tension in Scripture should be recognized and appreciated. This is, after all, God’s inspired word, a gift for the foundation of the Church. It is the constitution of the Holy City we live in as Catholics. I simply recommend we stop being idealistic about our Scripture and start taking a look at it. Let’s not bring a conclusion to the Table and then try to force the Bible to fit. Let’s look at the Scriptures as they are, then then develop our conclusion.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Dei Verbum #11 Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.The council was careful to qualify that it is without error “for the sake of” salvation. So one must understand, that if a work of imaginative fiction is in Scripture, or excessive hyperbole that seems factually wrong (like people living to be 800), the text remains without error when one tries to determine what truth, by using those particular words by that author in that context, is God trying to communicate?
G
Genesis315
Guest
From the CCC
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
The point is, all of Scripture is inspired by God and all of Scripture is for our salvation, therefore all of Scripture is inerrant when understood and interpreted properly.
Why must it be inerrant? In his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII explains:
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
The point is, all of Scripture is inspired by God and all of Scripture is for our salvation, therefore all of Scripture is inerrant when understood and interpreted properly.
Why must it be inerrant? In his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII explains:
Of course, he references the First Council of the Vatican. The second, citing this very section of this encyclical, would re-affirm what those Councils taught on this subject.
T
Tyrel
Guest
Um… 
Is nobody going to start dealing with the issues rather than dealing in the abstract? It’s really nice we keep affirming the Scriptures are without error. However, we must define what constitutes error in the case of inspired scripture.
Spelling?
Misquoting?
Christotelic hermeneutic?
Quoting apocryphal stories as true?
minor numeric contradictions?
Chronological contradictions?
I don’t think any of those are errors at all, for the Holy Spirit inspired the Sacred Scriptures in such a way as to use human authors, with THEIR faculties. Thus, necessarily human faculties would bring forth these previous things without hindering anything sacred.
Further, we could say the Scriptures could also err in the such departments as;
Contradictory Philosophy
Contradictory accounts
Moral Contradictions
Doctrinal Contradictions
In these departments I believe the Scriptures would be in “err” if we could find any such examples. However, I am confident that there are no such things, as the Holy Spirit is the author of the whole of Sacred Scripture, not in it’s words, but in it’s Word. I believe that the Word of Scriptures, which is the mystical name above all names, must be one and the same. As Augustine says;
“You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.”
~St. Augustine
however, the words of Scripture, by which the one Word is vehicled, are words of men, and thus fall short. There is no perfect language, therefore the Scriptures could not even have come to us unless the one Word of God were Incarnated in Every Single word of Scripture, and running throughout. What I mean is that for the one Word to be given perfectly, the language would necessarily have to be Eternal, and by necessity beyond our perception or grasp. So the one Word is incarnated in words. words of men, by which vehicle the one word gives himself to us, for the constitution of the Church his bride.
The one Word incarnated in flesh does not require a “perfect” body. In fact, it is a body of a Carpenter, and even un-kingly so as to be unattractive (Isaiah 53:2). This doesn’t undermine the incarnation, nor the Person of Jesus Christ. I think looking to human things such as the body of writing in which one and the same word is incarnated, and seeing therein the mark of human hands, likewise does nothing to diminish the veracity, the trustworthiness, or the authority, of the holy Scriptures. Christ Jesus being the word, falling over and scraping his knee, is not Christ falling into error, but simply a man making a mistake, and loosing his footing. Being human is a lowly thing. Thanks be to God, who stoops to conquer!
I know this sounds liberal to some ears, but I would beg you all to enter into sober discussion, without name calling, and without whipping out encyclicals right left and Center which you think might support this or that precise view, but with reflection. Let’s think about it.
now, I’ve presented the first model, separating the kinds of mistakes I don’t think constitute error, from the ones that do. Does anyone else want to add to the list, or maybe change the place of one or two elements?
Is nobody going to start dealing with the issues rather than dealing in the abstract? It’s really nice we keep affirming the Scriptures are without error. However, we must define what constitutes error in the case of inspired scripture.
Spelling?
Misquoting?
Christotelic hermeneutic?
Quoting apocryphal stories as true?
minor numeric contradictions?
Chronological contradictions?
I don’t think any of those are errors at all, for the Holy Spirit inspired the Sacred Scriptures in such a way as to use human authors, with THEIR faculties. Thus, necessarily human faculties would bring forth these previous things without hindering anything sacred.
Further, we could say the Scriptures could also err in the such departments as;
Contradictory Philosophy
Contradictory accounts
Moral Contradictions
Doctrinal Contradictions
In these departments I believe the Scriptures would be in “err” if we could find any such examples. However, I am confident that there are no such things, as the Holy Spirit is the author of the whole of Sacred Scripture, not in it’s words, but in it’s Word. I believe that the Word of Scriptures, which is the mystical name above all names, must be one and the same. As Augustine says;
“You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.”
~St. Augustine
however, the words of Scripture, by which the one Word is vehicled, are words of men, and thus fall short. There is no perfect language, therefore the Scriptures could not even have come to us unless the one Word of God were Incarnated in Every Single word of Scripture, and running throughout. What I mean is that for the one Word to be given perfectly, the language would necessarily have to be Eternal, and by necessity beyond our perception or grasp. So the one Word is incarnated in words. words of men, by which vehicle the one word gives himself to us, for the constitution of the Church his bride.
The one Word incarnated in flesh does not require a “perfect” body. In fact, it is a body of a Carpenter, and even un-kingly so as to be unattractive (Isaiah 53:2). This doesn’t undermine the incarnation, nor the Person of Jesus Christ. I think looking to human things such as the body of writing in which one and the same word is incarnated, and seeing therein the mark of human hands, likewise does nothing to diminish the veracity, the trustworthiness, or the authority, of the holy Scriptures. Christ Jesus being the word, falling over and scraping his knee, is not Christ falling into error, but simply a man making a mistake, and loosing his footing. Being human is a lowly thing. Thanks be to God, who stoops to conquer!
I know this sounds liberal to some ears, but I would beg you all to enter into sober discussion, without name calling, and without whipping out encyclicals right left and Center which you think might support this or that precise view, but with reflection. Let’s think about it.
now, I’ve presented the first model, separating the kinds of mistakes I don’t think constitute error, from the ones that do. Does anyone else want to add to the list, or maybe change the place of one or two elements?
- Status