Bible is inspired – what does this mean?

[NoelFitz]

“Hail, full of grace” or “Hail most favored one”

Hereiam,
I reject both your suggestions. Based on NA28, which I consider the best available, I prefer
'Rejoice, favored one’. There is no suggestion of ‘full’ or ‘most’.

Some have claimed no version we have is inspired, you claim all main Catholic versions are.
Initially I thought I asked an easy question.

 

[Hereiam]

In all honesty I think you asked an easy question but you reject there can be an easy answer…hope you eventually find peace and satisfaction.

I’m out.

 

[NoelFitz]

You should be.

Unfortunately I asked a difficult question.
But having been a Catholic for over 75 years the easy questions have been answered.
I am afraid that if I want an answer I need to read and study more.

 

[NoelFitz]

In all honesty I think you asked an easy question but you reject there can be an easy answer…hope you eventually find peace and satisfaction.

I’m out.

Hereiam

The question asked is not easy. Even the Pontifical Biblical Commission backed away from it. It is amazing that St Augustine produced good theology on the basis of a relatively poor Bible.

I have been forced to look into the problem in more detail.

But I hope I will never cease to be concerned about my religion and always try critically to unsderstand more.

---

Felix Just SJ has given useful resources.
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm

"The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church"
Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993
(as published in Origins, January 6, 1994)

---

Such is the purpose of this document. The Pontifical Biblical Commission desires to indicate the paths most appropriate for arriving at an interpretation of the Bible as faithful as possible to its character both human and divine. The commission does not aim to adopt a position on all the questions which arise with respect to the Bible such as, for example, the theology of inspiration. What it has in mind is to examine all the methods likely to contribute effectively to the task of making more available the riches contained in the biblical texts. The aim is that the word of God may become more and more the spiritual nourishment of the members of the people of God, the source for them of a life of faith, of hope and of love–and indeed a light for all humanity (cf. Dei Verbum, 21).

 

[NoelFitz]

I think its the other way around. The doctrines are supposed to line up with the Bible.

KevinK
We are not really a ‘sola scriptura’ Church.

 

[pianistclare]

Christ founded his church first. Scripture was printed much later.

 

[NoelFitz]

Christ founded his church first. Scripture was printed much later.

Pianistclare
I agree with you.The first Bibles were printed in about 1454.

I read in CA (http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm)

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

But still we do not have any original texts. The earliest papyri are from about 200 AD.

 

[pianistclare]

Which is why we have oral Tradition, and tradition with a small “t” as well. The heritage of the early Saints and Popes are priceless.

 

[De_Maria]

Then why did the Catholic Church burn certain bibles? And would you accept the New World Translation which is the Jehovah version?

 

[De_Maria]

I learned in school that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and he is truly its author. What does this mean? What version is inspired?

I think there are two things being confused here.

1. Which versions are inspired?
2. Which versions are inerrant?

According to what I was taught, only the original manuscripts are inspired and inerrant. But we don’t have those in our possession.

What we have today is an infallible Church which has declared that there is a certain version of the Bible which is inspired.

Council of Trent IV
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

But has not infallibly denounced any other version of the Bible. Although, she has taken it upon herself to order many versions burned because of obvious errors.

Is it the Vulgate,

Yes.

if so which one, or the KJV, Luther’s Bible, Erasmus’ Bible, or some other version?

All those have been shown to contain error. But I’m not aware of any Church pronouncement against them.

[I heard that if the KJV was OK for Jesus Christ it is OK for Protestants now.]

Lol

We do not have any original Bible texts and no one know what Jesus actually said (the ipsissima verba).

We may not have a word for word quotation of everything that He said. But we know that He passed down what He wanted us to know, through His Church.

What does it mean to say the Bible is inspired, if we do not know the inspired words?

The Word of God is inspired of God. And that means that God inspired men to preach and to teach His Word, by word of mouth and by Scripture.

The Bible is part of that Word.

 

[mkoopman]

Based on what it is that you are asking for you want the Q’uran. The version you want is the one that does not get you beheaded for having in the Muslim territory in which you live.
You should be asking about “The Word.” For The Word was in the beginning, but The Q’ran was not. It came later but has greater critical analysis; they cut your head off for having the wrong version.
Hopes this helps your research on infallibility.

 

[Gorgias]

I am afraid that if I want an answer I need to read and study more.

Nope. I’m suggesting that you ask the questions in a different way.

 

[KevinK]

Yes. The Gutenberg Bible was the first printed Bible. Look it up.

 

[Hereiam]

Youre kidding right?

Long before the printing press monks copied scripture in their cells.

 

[KevinK]

Obviously if I reference the Gutenberg Bible I’m not talking about hand copied Bibles.

 

[Hereiam]

then you claim was a non-sequitur…either way it was quite erroneous.

 

[Gorgias]

then you claim was a non-sequitur…either way it was quite erroneous.

That was my first thought, too… but then I noticed that @NoelFitz talked about both papyri and printed Bibles. So, I’m guessing he was trying to talk about “machine printed” Bibles. (Which, admittedly, doesn’t have anything to do with translations, per se.)

 

[Gorgias]

Then why did the Catholic Church burn certain bibles?

Because they were unauthorized and were poor translations.

And would you accept the New World Translation which is the Jehovah version?

Again: some translations are better, others are worse. Trying to identify one translation as ‘inspired’ is a fools’ errand…

 

[De_Maria]

Trying to identify one translation as ‘inspired’ is a fools’ errand…

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

You were saying.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Trying to identify one translation as ‘inspired’ is a fools’ errand…

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.**
It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

You were saying.

Reading skills, @De_Maria, reading skills: you were claiming that it’s possible to ID translation(s) as ‘inspired’, and then you quote something that doesn’t make that claim at all.

Sure, it says that the Vulgate is an example of the books as canonical, and it says that the books themselves are ‘sacred’… but it doesn’t say what you think it’s saying. In fact, this decree merely identifies which books are part of the canon… not that any particular translation of them is ‘inspired.’

Perhaps you’d like a second try?