Biblical Inerrancy & Differences in the Gospels

[SemiThomist]

Something that’s been bothering me lately - the Catholic doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

I’ve known for a while that the Church teaches that “everything the Bible asserts is true;” but that phrase doesn’t necessarily conclude that every single detail in the Bible is accurate - just the assertions the Scriptures make. However, reading articles and threads both here and on other Catholic sites, it appears that the Church teaches - as doctrine - that the Scriptures are completely without error whatsoever.

I must admit here that I have some difficulties with this, as it seems the Church has “bet the farm,” as it were, on the tiniest speck of detail mentioned in Scripture. Because of this, it seems that if the there is the slightest discrepancy in Scripture, the tiniest error in the Bible, then Catholicism is false. This angst occurred recently when Jimmy Akin noted an upcoming meeting of the Pontifical Biblical Comission, and asked for prayers that the PBC will affirm total inerrancy, and again when reading Benedict XVI’s “Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week” when he talks about the differences in the words the different Gospels say Jesus said the Consecration with, and when he says “they [the four gospels] agree on the broad outlines of what happened, but there are differences of emphasis on detail.” (Ch. 8) The angst came again when reading Mark Shea’s article on the Resurrection when he mentioned discrepancies between the different Resurrection narratives (ironically, as a proof of the historicity of the event.) If the Church merely teaches “all the things the Bible asserts are true (such as “Christ rose from the dead” and “He instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper”)” then there’s really nothing to worry about. If, however, the Church teaches that Scripture is completely and entirely without error, then why, when describing the exact same thing, are there differences in detail? Why do Matthew and St. Paul have slightly different phrasings of the Consecration - “the blood” in the former, “the new covenant in my blood” in the latter? Why does Mark’s account of the Lord’s Prayer differ from Matthew’s?

I know the evangelists all had different audiences and emphases in mind when they wrote their Gospels (to say nothing of the OT, where certain books weren’t meant to be taken absolutely literally), but if total inerrancy is to be believed, than they shouldn’t they all agree with each other on the details that happened?

I know I sound a bit nitpicky, and my OCD does have a part in this, but it seems that Church doctrine would justify it in this instance…

What do you think?

 

[fermat]

Everybody who witnesses something is going to have a slightly different account, some of those accounts may even seem to be conflicting. That does not mean that everyone was wrong, just that everyone took something in a different way. A persons perspective can change the view of a story and if multiple perspectives are involved, a lot can change from story to story. That is one of the reasons that contradictions serve as proof. If every account was exactly the same, no one would believe it because it is highly it highly unlikely that it is an accurate account.

 

[thirddec]

Biblical inerrancy is not as clearly defined as say a maths problem worked out. Its not as clear cut as that; this position of inerrancy is only maintained by fundamentalists who will then go into incredable contortation of logic to defend this. Bible inerrancy is not about individual trees but about the forest. Also the bible is not meant to be read as a simple novel but rather with the Holy Spirit as a guide through prayer. Although saying that many of the so called errors can be easily rectified through proper scholarship.

Its interesting how Muslims will always try this approach and claim no inconsistancy in their book but when properly challenged can also come up with wonderous logical hoop jumps to explain the multitude of contradictions in the Quran and Hadiths.

When the Bible is read and seen as a whole and read in the proper manner it can clearly become God speaking to you.

skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm this is a good site if you want to see how many so called inconsistencies exist in the bible / quran / book of mormon

atheismexposed.tripod.com/bible_contradictions.htm
here is just one of the many sites that can help clear up many inconsistancies.

I have heard of no inconsitancy in the bible related to any of the main beliefs of Christianity that is in the bible that cant be reasonable explained. If there was i’m sure our muslim brothers and sisters in the forum would be pointing them out in a major way every day

 

[Verbum]

Hi semi,

Discrepancies support rather than knock down the truth of the gospels. If Christianity was a fraud, its perpetretors would have agreed on how to present it.

Inerrancy does not mean that you will not find discrepancies. It means that there is an explanation for them… which may or may not be found.

Verbum

 

[buffalo]

Imagine a busy intersection. 4 people standing on each corner witness and report the accident. Each will report it from a different perspective. If they were all identical it would be contrived.

 

[Salvatore123]

Semi,

When one considers the style and purpose of each author of the books of the bible, one will realize that the bible is not filled with errancy.

Consider a modern example: how often do you hear (or most likely, you, personally) have heard or said: “the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west”.

No one says that statement is wrong. Yet, from an astronomical standpoint, it most certainly is inaccurate. The Sun never rises or sets. The earth rotates (spins on its axis) and thus the Sun appears to move based on wherever an observer may be at any given time on earth. The Sun is not “coming up” or “rising” in the morning - the earth is merely rotating so that the Sun is making its appearance closest to the side of the earth facing the Sun at that moment of its rotation.

Thus, you have an example where people rarely, if ever, say that “it is wrong to say that the Sun rises and sets”, simply because no one says that with astronomy in mind or with the intention that the listener should literally interpret one as saying that the Sun is actually rising and setting.

That is just one example - many more exist, as do exist in the bible.

 

[thistle]

Something that’s been bothering me lately - the Catholic doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

I’ve known for a while that the Church teaches that “everything the Bible asserts is true;” but that phrase doesn’t necessarily conclude that every single detail in the Bible is accurate - just the assertions the Scriptures make. However, reading articles and threads both here and on other Catholic sites, it appears that the Church teaches - as doctrine - that the Scriptures are completely without error whatsoever.

I must admit here that I have some difficulties with this, as it seems the Church has “bet the farm,” as it were, on the tiniest speck of detail mentioned in Scripture. Because of this, it seems that if the there is the slightest discrepancy in Scripture, the tiniest error in the Bible, then Catholicism is false. This angst occurred recently when Jimmy Akin noted an upcoming meeting of the Pontifical Biblical Comission, and asked for prayers that the PBC will affirm total inerrancy, and again when reading Benedict XVI’s “Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week” when he talks about the differences in the words the different Gospels say Jesus said the Consecration with, and when he says “they [the four gospels] agree on the broad outlines of what happened, but there are differences of emphasis on detail.” (Ch. 8) The angst came again when reading Mark Shea’s article on the Resurrection when he mentioned discrepancies between the different Resurrection narratives (ironically, as a proof of the historicity of the event.) If the Church merely teaches “all the things the Bible asserts are true (such as “Christ rose from the dead” and “He instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper”)” then there’s really nothing to worry about. If, however, the Church teaches that Scripture is completely and entirely without error, then why, when describing the exact same thing, are there differences in detail? Why do Matthew and St. Paul have slightly different phrasings of the Consecration - “the blood” in the former, “the new covenant in my blood” in the latter? Why does Mark’s account of the Lord’s Prayer differ from Matthew’s?

I know the evangelists all had different audiences and emphases in mind when they wrote their Gospels (to say nothing of the OT, where certain books weren’t meant to be taken absolutely literally), but if total inerrancy is to be believed, than they shouldn’t they all agree with each other on the details that happened?

I know I sound a bit nitpicky, and my OCD does have a part in this, but it seems that Church doctrine would justify it in this instance…

What do you think?

The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant with regard to the truths necessary for our salvation.

 

[cruiseladytexas]

It seems to me (from studying the Bible with people who know much more than I do) that the Bible is a theological reflection not a chronological reflection. For instance, we know, that the Book of Revelation is written in God’s time (Kairos) vs man’s time (Chronos). The past, present, and future are all present to God (and thus to John). So, this makes it difficult for us to interpret.

The Bible is the inspired word of God, not the transcribed word of God. The science of the Bible will reflect the scientific knowledge of the times and will be expressed in the most accurate way based on the knowledge of each author.

The Bible contains many symbols and customs that modern society may very well not understand, thus inaccuracy may just be a “lost in translation” problem. To understand the times and customs of the people plus the intended audience is necessary to fully understand the Bible. I’m not sure we have enough knowledge to understand the nuances of the text.

The Bible is meant to say different things to different people, depending upon one’s own circumstances. That makes the Bible timeless, and thus infallible in its message. I can read the same passage on different days and each day it will talk to me in an entirely different way, depending on what I need. The Bible does not change, I do

While the Bible contains historical revelations, it is not meant to be a chronology of historical facts.

 

[Crumpy]

The Church has maintained the idea of inerrancy based on Jesus Christ and the early church. Jesus considered the OT inspired and accurate and spoke of it as such, and so did the early church.

This is explained in over 400 pages in a book, which is actually an issue of a journal. It’s Vol 6 of Letter and Spirit from the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. I bought it online.

There are contained essays from about 20 experts discussing inerrancy. My head is spinning from reading the essays in this book. They are somewhat repetitive, inasmuch as they are all defending inerrancy. But, along with it comes some guidelines here and there about the proper way of interpreting Scripture. And, guidelines, there surely are.

Embedded are notes about many of the challenges to inerrancy that have arisen, and the responses to those challenges.

One of the essays reports that there are many priests and bishops who don’t go along with the Church’s official doctrine of inerrancy. There are some who teach (if you can believe it) “sola scriptura.”

There are some Protestants and Jews (the Reformed branch of Judaism) who don’t believe in the divine inspiration of the bible! I mean, people are all over the map.

There are people who stumble right past the logical and actual requirement to read the bible with Faith.

But, you will read one cardinal who makes the remark that there are parts of the bible which are written in an historical motif (my word) but which do not actually or may not actually represent historical fact. (Cardinal Bea)

On the other hand, Cardinal Taguchi’s essay details a lot of errors that even Catholic scholars make based on an exaggerated dependence on “scientific study” over faith and Church tradition. He makes the strong assertion that only the Catholic Church can properly interpret scripture.

There are oddities in here, like the discussion of Fr. Raymond Brown, scripture scholar and once-member of the Pontifical Bible Commission, who received singular praise from Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote that, contrary to the Bible, God has never spoken!

So, this one volume pulls together a broad range of subject material on inerrancy. It cannot be summarized, for sure, in a post. Things can be summarized, though, like the Church asserts that the Gospels are historical. see my next post

 

[Crumpy]

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council asserted in Dei Verbum, paragraph 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 (5) for the sake of salvation.

The arguments start flying over those final words “for the sake of salvation.” Are just the statements relating to salvation true but other things maybe not? The scholars divide on the issue.

Dr. Scott Hahn who is the chief editor of the volume, says that if the Church had intended by this statement to change its centuries of doctrine on inerrancy, for one thing, it would have done so more conspicuously that by slipping in this phrase, and it would also have stated explicitly that it was changing its position on inerrancy.

So, the doctrine of inerrancy is intact. I saw Hahn speaking about this volume on TV and he was very self-satisfied that all this was pulled together in this hefty volume, all in one place.

 

[fred_conty]

Something that’s been bothering me lately - the Catholic doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

I’ve known for a while that the Church teaches that “everything the Bible asserts is true;” but that phrase doesn’t necessarily conclude that every single detail in the Bible is accurate - just the assertions the Scriptures make. However, reading articles and threads both here and on other Catholic sites, it appears that the Church teaches - as doctrine - that the Scriptures are completely without error whatsoever.

I must admit here that I have some difficulties with this, as it seems the Church has “bet the farm,” as it were, on the tiniest speck of detail mentioned in Scripture. Because of this, it seems that if the there is the slightest discrepancy in Scripture, the tiniest error in the Bible, then Catholicism is false. This angst occurred recently when Jimmy Akin noted an upcoming meeting of the Pontifical Biblical Comission, and asked for prayers that the PBC will affirm total inerrancy, and again when reading Benedict XVI’s “Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week” when he talks about the differences in the words the different Gospels say Jesus said the Consecration with, and when he says “they [the four gospels] agree on the broad outlines of what happened, but there are differences of emphasis on detail.” (Ch. 8) The angst came again when reading Mark Shea’s article on the Resurrection when he mentioned discrepancies between the different Resurrection narratives (ironically, as a proof of the historicity of the event.) If the Church merely teaches “all the things the Bible asserts are true (such as “Christ rose from the dead” and “He instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper”)” then there’s really nothing to worry about. If, however, the Church teaches that Scripture is completely and entirely without error, then why, when describing the exact same thing, are there differences in detail? Why do Matthew and St. Paul have slightly different phrasings of the Consecration - “the blood” in the former, “the new covenant in my blood” in the latter? Why does Mark’s account of the Lord’s Prayer differ from Matthew’s?

I know the evangelists all had different audiences and emphases in mind when they wrote their Gospels (to say nothing of the OT, where certain books weren’t meant to be taken absolutely literally), but if total inerrancy is to be believed, than they shouldn’t they all agree with each other on the details that happened?

I know I sound a bit nitpicky, and my OCD does have a part in this, but it seems that Church doctrine would justify it in this instance…

What do you think?

I personnally believe, even tho I cannot always understand how. This is because some
passages have never been intelligable to me for long periods of time. And then one day
I read something that is the missing piece to the puzzle. For example, “let the dead bury
the dead.” Jesus said this to the man who wanted to follow Jesus yet desired to bury his
father first. Jesus insisted he come now. Why I asked myself? This is against an act of
mercy which He said should be done. Then one day I read a commentators explaination
which made sense. I waited for years, and each time I said to myself, somehow it does
make sense,I will just wait. There are many things like that in the Bible because we are not familiar with the customs, language, government, peoples, business, schooling, thought, and times they lived in and what went on around them.

And then there are so many different kinds of biblical writtings that add to the cloud.

How many fish were multiplied or how many loaves were multiplied? The answer is, there
were a lot, which is the point of the story, not really the exact amount. And how many
people ate them? A lot. And how many times must we forgive? A lot. Should we bury our father? Yes if he is not a pagan and those burying him are not spiritually dead, because they worship pagan gods and do unclean things in the burial rite. In which case “let the dead(spiritually dead) bury the dead, and come follow me.”

 

[SemiThomist]

I must say that when one is confronted with a difficulty such as mine, the *worst *thing you can do is what I call “document thumping,” which goes something like this:
A: I’ve heard the Church teaches the Bible is completely without error, which troubles me, because (insert difficulty/apparent discrepancy here)
B: The Bible is without error. The Church teaches it. (Cites document) Believe it.
A: But what about these two passages - they seem to conflict and …
B: The Bible is without error. The Church teaches it. (Cites document) Believe it.
A: But then there’s-
B: The Bible is without error. The Church teaches it. (Cites document) Believe it.
A: And what about-
B: The Bible is without error. The Church teaches it. (Cites document) Believe it.

You can see where I’m going with this, aren’t you.
To summarize my main problem (again):

1. The Church (it seems) teaches as doctrine that the Bible is completely without error.
2. There is at least a single discrepancy between what is in one book of Scripture and another and/or between what the Bible lists as an empirical fact and what is actually an empirical fact.
3. Therefore, there is an error somewhere in the Bible.
4. If there is an error in the Bible, the doctrine of total inerrancy is false and therefore Catholicism is false.

Ergo, one little error in Scripture and BAM!, Catholicism is false

To the controversial passage in Dei Verbum, I must admit some sympathy for the “liberal” interpretation of the document- i.e. that only truths we must know to be saved were infallibly guarded from error. This interpretation probably is wrong, I admit, but at least it would give the believer some “breathing room,” as it were, in regards to Scripture. The position of total inerrancy, on the other hand, places its bets on the slightest little detail.

I know not everything in the Bible isn’t meant to be taken absolutely literally, that the Evangelists each had their own emphases and such, and that I’m probably just repeating what I said in the first post, but still - the points I made still seem to be valid, at least to me.

 

[fred_conty]

Hi,
Sometimes the differences between Bibles is not error but translation choices.
For example, one may say “77 times” and another may say “7 times 70”.
Each language has it’s own inherent difficulties. Americans speak English as do
the Brits. But each have there own idioms and unique phrases to their
nationality. Customs, culture, and tradition have given birth to special ideas
and thoughts which are different from the other. “Fish and chips” we enjoy
due to the English. When I first heard it, I didn’t know what it meant.
“Reach for the sky”, “stop on a dime”, wouldn’t be understood by the
ancient Greek person.

Sometime the differences between Bibles is the choice of manuscripts used.
Of course we do not have any of the original manuscripts of the Bible.
We are dependent on copies. There are so many methods of choosing
them, and it isn’t always the oldest that are the best. It is a
complicated maze to decide this question alone. And then there is
the question of 2,000 to 3,000 word differences, which are choices of
translators and variances of manuscripts.

In the end, we do have the truth of the Bible with minor differences.

As far as an author writting something that seems at variance with
another inspired author, that is just what it is, “seems to be at variance.”
If further research is done, these seemingly variances are resolved.
For example, in the conversion story of St. Paul, one account says the
men with them fell down to the ground, while a second account says they
were standing. Probable both occurred, but one account just didn’t give the
2nd detail. For instance, they were standing, and they also fell to the ground.
One detail was left out. For more detail on all of the so called “errors” in
the Bible, see:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=216

 

[Contarini]

Something that’s been bothering me lately - the Catholic doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

I’ve known for a while that the Church teaches that “everything the Bible asserts is true;” but that phrase doesn’t necessarily conclude that every single detail in the Bible is accurate - just the assertions the Scriptures make. However, reading articles and threads both here and on other Catholic sites, it appears that the Church teaches - as doctrine - that the Scriptures are completely without error whatsoever.

This is how some conservative Catholics interpret it. It is not how most Catholic theologians understand it. The lay Catholic apologetics movement is heavily influenced by conservative evangelical Protestantism stemming from “Old Princeton.” Many of the leading figures in the movement (Hahn and Akin, for instance) are former conservative Calvinists. That doesn’t of course make them wrong–there is plenty in traditional Catholicism that lines up with this way of thinking, and I am the last person (as someone who is still sort of Protestant) to say that Catholics shouldn’t learn from Protestants! But they aren’t representative of the contemporary Catholic intellectual scene.

Most Catholics understand Dei Verbum to say that Scripture is without error when it affirms something for the purpose of our salvation. The conservatives to whom I refer argue that it is saying rather that everything Scripture affirms is for the purpose of our salvation and thus is without any kind of error. (There are debates about how to translate the Latin bound up in this.)

I don’t think that Pope Benedict holds to this conservative version of inerrancy, though I am willing to be shown wrong.

I must admit here that I have some difficulties with this, as it seems the Church has “bet the farm,” as it were, on the tiniest speck of detail mentioned in Scripture. Because of this, it seems that if the there is the slightest discrepancy in Scripture, the tiniest error in the Bible, then Catholicism is false. This angst occurred recently when Jimmy Akin noted an upcoming meeting of the Pontifical Biblical Comission, and asked for prayers that the PBC will affirm total inerrancy

And why does Akin do this? Because he holds firmly to the “Old Princeton” version of inerrancy and is aware that many Catholic theologians (whom he regards as dangerous liberals) do not. If the Catholic position were clearly in the conservative inerrantist camp, Akin wouldn’t be asking for prayer, would he?

and again when reading Benedict XVI’s “Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week” when he talks about the differences in the words the different Gospels say Jesus said the Consecration with, and when he says “they [the four gospels] agree on the broad outlines of what happened, but there are differences of emphasis on detail.” (Ch. 8)

Help me out here. Isn’t it clear from what you yourself say that Pope Benedict doesn’t hold to the strict version of inerrancy you’re worried about? Why do you take Akin to be more representative of Catholicism than Pope Benedict?

The angst came again when reading Mark Shea’s article on the Resurrection when he mentioned discrepancies between the different Resurrection narratives (ironically, as a proof of the historicity of the event.)

Indeed. Why is this ironic? Isn’t it simply evidence that you’re worrying about something you don’t need to worry about?

I’m baffled by why (other than taking Mr. Akin as infallible, a status I’m sure he would disclaim) you have jumped to the conclusion that the Catholic Church holds to this strict version of inerrancy.

You haven’t given specific sources that have lead you to this conclusion. (I don’t even know precisely what Akin means by inerrancy, though given his general disposition to argue for as much congruence between Catholicism and Calvinism as possible I suspect that he means something like what B. B. Warfield would mean by it.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

One of the essays reports that there are many priests and bishops who don’t go along with the Church’s official doctrine of inerrancy.

Or with Hahn’s Old Princetonian interpretation of the doctrine.

Hahn is not the Magisterium. He is a very smart guy who came to Catholicism from a conservative Reformed background. Again, I don’t mean to discredit that perspective as automatically bogus, only to point out that this is just one (minority) perspective within the Catholic spectrum and not identical with Catholic teaching.

There are oddities in here, like the discussion of Fr. Raymond Brown, scripture scholar and once-member of the Pontifical Bible Commission, who received singular praise from Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote that, contrary to the Bible, God has never spoken!

I seriously doubt that he said this. I strongly suspect that he’s being unfairly taken out of context.

Again, the fact that Fr. Brown was so highly honored by the Papacy indicates that he should be taken seriously as representing one position on the Catholic spectrum.

Why the assumption among many on this forum that Prof. Hahn’s position is obviously the “true Catholic one” and Fr. Brown is a heretic?

Why not take both Hahn and Brown seriously (though frankly I’ll give a bit more weight to Brown) as intelligent Catholic scholars who are/were both trying to be faithful to the Tradition?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council asserted in Dei Verbum, paragraph 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 (5) for the sake of salvation.

The arguments start flying over those final words “for the sake of salvation.” Are just the statements relating to salvation true but other things maybe not? The scholars divide on the issue.

Indeed. And neither position has been officially endorsed by the Magisterium since Vatican II.

Given the pre-Vatican-II (though not necessarily irreformable) condemnations of the “partial” view, and given the tenor of Christian tradition generally on this point, I would prefer to say not that some statements relate to salvation and others not, but that different parts of Scripture relate to our salvation in different ways.

So, for instance, the statement “a million Ethiopians invaded Judah and were defeated by Asa” (this is a summary of a more extended narrative, of course), relates to our salvation not in its affirmation of the number of Ethiopians, and perhaps not even even in its claim about a specific historical event (though it seems probable that some such incursion took place), but in the teaching found within the story about the need to trust in God for deliverance.

The genealogical lists stating “X begat Y” relate to our salvation not in their specific details, but in the concern they show to demonstrate the continuity of God’s covenantal relationship with His people throughout the centuries.

The statement “Jesus rose from the dead,” on the other hand, relates to our salvation in its precise affirmation that a specific event happened at a specific time.

Sometimes the boundaries are hard to discern. But often it’s not nearly as complicated as the defenders of more extreme positions on either side try to make it.

Dr. Scott Hahn who is the chief editor of the volume, says that if the Church had intended by this statement to change its centuries of doctrine on inerrancy, for one thing, it would have done so more conspicuously that by slipping in this phrase, and it would also have stated explicitly that it was changing its position on inerrancy.

I don’t think that this argument bears much weight as a description of how the Catholic Church operates or how conciliar documents are formed.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

To the controversial passage in Dei Verbum, I must admit some sympathy for the “liberal” interpretation of the document- i.e. that only truths we must know to be saved were infallibly guarded from error. This interpretation probably is wrong, I admit

Why do you admit this? It’s the most reasonable interpretation and the one held by most Catholics.

Edwin

 

[PJM]

=SemiThomist;7793352]Something that’s been bothering me lately - the Catholic doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

I’ve known for a while that the Church teaches that “everything the Bible asserts is true;” but that phrase doesn’t necessarily conclude that every single detail in the Bible is accurate - just the assertions the Scriptures make. However, reading articles and threads both here and on other Catholic sites, it appears that the Church teaches - as doctrine - that the Scriptures are completely without error whatsoever.

I must admit here that I have some difficulties with this, as it seems the Church has “bet the farm,” as it were, on the tiniest speck of detail mentioned in Scripture. Because of this, it seems that if the there is the slightest discrepancy in Scripture, the tiniest error in the Bible, then Catholicism is false. This angst occurred recently when Jimmy Akin noted an upcoming meeting of the Pontifical Biblical Comission, and asked for prayers that the PBC will affirm total inerrancy, and again when reading Benedict XVI’s “Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week” when he talks about the differences in the words the different Gospels say Jesus said the Consecration with, and when he says “they [the four gospels] agree on the broad outlines of what happened, but there are differences of emphasis on detail.”

I have taught for many years now what [IMO] is the churches position on the Bible.

1. “One it is completely true”
2. It is not intended to be an ACCURATE Historical account, but rather an account of salvation History as RECORDED by the Jewish Nation.
3. While “TRUE” it is NOT always factual. “Remove the PLANK from your own eye before trying to remove the SPECK from your brothers eye”. “If your eye is your problem: TEAR it out!” ARE moral stories.
4. It is a COMPLETELY Inspired [guided and guarded] work of the Holy Spirit. Meaning it contains what What intends for it to include; and excludes for God’s own reasons; things NOT to be included.

I too look forward with GREAt expetiaition to the Bible Committee’s report.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=Contarini;8219754]Indeed. And neither position has been officially endorsed by the Magisterium since Vatican II.

Given the pre-Vatican-II (though not necessarily irreformable) condemnations of the “partial” view, and given the tenor of Christian tradition generally on this point, I would prefer to say not that some statements relate to salvation and others not, but that different parts of Scripture relate to our salvation in different ways.

So, for instance, the statement “a million Ethiopians invaded Judah and were defeated by Asa” (this is a summary of a more extended narrative, of course), relates to our salvation not in its affirmation of the number of Ethiopians, and perhaps not even even in its claim about a specific historical event (though it seems probable that some such incursion took place), but in the teaching found within the story about the need to trust in God for deliverance.

The genealogical lists stating “X begat Y” relate to our salvation not in their specific details, but in the concern they show to demonstrate the continuity of God’s covenantal relationship with His people throughout the centuries.

The statement “Jesus rose from the dead,” on the other hand, relates to our salvation in its precise affirmation that a specific event happened at a specific time.

Sometimes the boundaries are hard to discern. But often it’s not nearly as complicated as the defenders of more extreme positions on either side try to make it.

I don’t think that this argument bears much weight as a description of how the Catholic Church operates or how conciliar documents are formed.

Edwin

IMO it is not so much WHAT the Bible says; as it is WHAT some think or wish it said. Peters warning about self-interpetation is often ignored or supposed to apply to others, BUT not me:blush:

I would point out also that Vatican broke “no new ground”. It proclained no new doctrines; BUT a GREAT many practices.

God Bless,
Pat

God Bless, Pat

 

[razredge]

Personally, I think a biblical text is history if it is not seriously disputed by history, science or reason.

There are a lot of spiritual ‘truths’ in the Bible though they many not necessarily be historical or scientific truths