Can the Bible be in Error, Historically?

[HelenRose]

Very true!

There is an element of “story” in ancient culture. Others more educated than I will have to elaborate on this mode of expression used in ancient cultures. Suffice it to say that God can use any human being, in any words, in any degree of factuality, to accomplish his will in an inerrant fashion.

Best example is parables, which were never intended to be factual but are sharper than any two edged sword. (Was the Prodigal Son a newspaper account of factual events?)

Oddly enough, parables have the element of literal history. They were written down in time. The literal sense is the most basic sense, and it starts with the affirmation that the bible is an authentic work of literature that is inerrant and inspired.

This is not necessarily the same thing as factual

Jesus’ culture used stories to speak the truth. Much of the Bible is historically “factual” in addition to that - all of it is the true story of the people of God.

We know by context that “The Prodigal Son” was a story. Yet we can agree that the truth of that story is profound. We know by context that “The Good Samaritan” is a story. Yet we can agree that Jesus is speaking truth. It is the same as the stories in the Old Testament.

When the story was told, those who listened knew the truth when they heard it. If we listen carefully we really can figure it out.

I loved the comment made earlier. Atheists and many fundamentals view the Bible in the same way. That is so true. They both need a little imagination thrown in.

 

[Faith1960]

BTW, Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata also identified the first census of Augustus as the year our Lord was born.

“And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus.”

I see you have not provided a response or a critique of my writeup. Do you agree or disagree the so-call discrepancy is explainable?

Or are you trying to garner support that the Bible could be in error? You asked about the Quirinius question 4 times and I thought you might be genuinely interested in a plausible answer. I might have guessed wrong.

Response to which post? Frankly, your posts are long winded and over my head. I talked to priest and he agreed with my OP that yes, there can be errors of history in the Bible.

 

[Faith1960]

Response to which post? Frankly, your posts are long winded and over my head. I talked to priest and he agreed with my OP that yes, there can be errors of history in the Bible.

A yes or no would suffice.

 

[Faith1960]

There is an element of “story” in ancient culture. Others more educated than I will have to elaborate on this mode of expression used in ancient cultures. Suffice it to say that God can use any human being, in any words, in any degree of factuality, to accomplish his will in an inerrant fashion.

Best example is parables, which were never intended to be factual but are sharper than any two edged sword. (Was the Prodigal Son a newspaper account of factual events?)

Oddly enough, parables have the element of literal history. They were written down in time. The literal sense is the most basic sense, and it starts with the affirmation that the bible is an authentic work of literature that is inerrant and inspired.

This is not necessarily the same thing as factual

So do you agree there 're historical errors in the Bible?

 

[ericc]

Response to which post? Frankly, your posts are long winded and over my head. I talked to priest and he agreed with my OP that yes, there can be errors of history in the Bible.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13386697&postcount=71

How can it be over your head if you haven’t read it?

And which part is exactly over your head? I don’t use difficult language or concepts. In what sense is it long winded? Was it too many words? Can you help to shorten it without reducing the clarity of my explanation? Not all answers can be given with one-liners which I think you do agree.

I can respond to you whether there is an error or not if you can show me where the error is. I have shown you a possible answer to the Quirinius problem which you now claim is over your head when you haven’t read it. I can’t attempt to answer unidentified errors because I don’t know where the error is.

If your answer is as long as your priest agree with it you will accept his view, then there is no reason for you to solicit other responses here. Then what is your purpose of asking multiple times whether the Quirinius problem is true or not? And other posters have also offer other explanations as well which you did not acknowledge whether acceptable to you. Perhaps you may wish to show your priest some of the answers to the Quirinius problem. He may even agree with them. And if you are genuinely interested in identifying the so-call errors in the Bible, ask your priest for that list of errors and discuss them here.

 

[Faith1960]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13386697&postcount=71

How can it be over your head if you haven’t read it?

And which part is exactly over your head? I don’t use difficult language or concepts. In what sense is it long winded? Was it too many words? Can you help to shorten it without reducing the clarity of my explanation? Not all answers can be given with one-liners which I think you do agree.

I can respond to you whether there is an error or not if you can show me where the error is. I have shown you a possible answer to the Quirinius problem which you now claim is over your head when you haven’t read it. I can’t attempt to answer unidentified errors because I don’t know where the error is.

If your answer is as long as your priest agree with it you will accept his view, then there is no reason for you to solicit other responses here. Then what is your purpose of asking multiple times whether the Quirinius problem is true or not? And other posters have also offer other explanations as well which you did not acknowledge whether acceptable to you. Perhaps you may wish to show your priest some of the answers to the Quirinius problem. He may even agree with them. And if you are genuinely interested in identifying the so-call errors in the Bible, ask your priest for that list of errors and discuss them here.

I asked the question here before I talked to the priest,

 

[ericc]

I asked the question here before I talked to the priest,

Now you can take the responses to him and seek his opinion. Or you can do some self-study and challenge him his views.

 

[Faith1960]

Now you can take the responses to him and seek his opinion. Or you can do some self-study and challenge him his views.

Both links of yours are riddled perhaps and such. Nothing definite. And I’ve already read the second link on my own last week.

 

[Tim_D]

I talked to priest and he agreed with my OP that yes, there can be errors of history in the Bible.

Having read through this whole thread I think it is important to note that you must carefully define what you mean by “errors” in the Bible.

For instance, the biblical profile of King Ahab was that he was a wicked and unjust king. However, non-biblical sources relate that he was a decent king. Is the bible in error? No; it is simply that the intention of the biblical author was to not give an unbiased biography of King Ahab but to relate his life in the context of the Jewish people and their unique, personal relationship as the chosen people of God.

Personally, I think you are too hung up on the idea that if there is an “error” in the Bible, then that somehow makes the whole canon of scripture to somehow be suspect or untrue. That isn’t the point. The Old Testament is a record of the cultural and religious relationship of the Hebrew/Jewish people and their status as the chosen people of God. It isn’t meant to be a historical encyclopedic statement of sayings, thoughts and actions that are literally and figuratively “true.” To view it that way is to simply miss the forest for the trees. Which is more important, that there was literally a prodigal son or the moral of the parable that speaks volumes about God’s mercy?

 

[Faith1960]

Having read through this whole thread I think it is important to note that you must carefully define what you mean by “errors” in the Bible.

For instance, the biblical profile of King Ahab was that he was a wicked and unjust king. However, non-biblical sources relate that he was a decent king. Is the bible in error? No; it is simply that the intention of the biblical author was to not give an unbiased biography of King Ahab but to relate his life in the context of the Jewish people and their unique, personal relationship as the chosen people of God.

Personally, I think you are too hung up on the idea that if there is an “error” in the Bible, then that somehow makes the whole canon of scripture to somehow be suspect or untrue. That isn’t the point. The Old Testament is a record of the cultural and religious relationship of the Hebrew/Jewish people and their status as the chosen people of God. It isn’t meant to be a historical encyclopedic statement of sayings, thoughts and actions that are literally and figuratively “true.” To view it that way is to simply miss the forest for the trees. Which is more important, that there was literally a prodigal son or the moral of the parable that speaks volumes about God’s mercy?

So do you believe that all science and history in the Bible are correct?

 

[ericc]

A yes or no would suffice.

By the way, that Bible you hold in your hand is not free from error. Inerrancy of the Bible does not extend to translations, as translations by non-inspired translators are subject to error. Inerrancy covers originals only, copied works are therefore also not included as copyist errors can happen.

 

[Tim_D]

So do you believe that all science and history in the Bible are correct?

That is not the point!

First, what scientific statements are made in the Bible?

And as I already said, the history presented in the Bible isn’t from an unobjective, specific encyclopedic telling of “what happened” (do you think any historical narrative is completely free from some sort of bias?). It is presented in the cultural and religious context of the Jewish people, their history and their personal relationship as the chosen people of the one, true God. If you want the historical method of history from an ancient source, you would do better to turn to the Greeks and not the Bible.

If you truly believe that history in the Bible is “correct,” then do you believe that the Prodigal Son was a real, historical person? Or the Good Samaritan? Does it shake your faith to think that they weren’t?

 

[Tim_D]

By the way, that Bible you hold in your hand is not free from error. Inerrancy of the Bible does not extend to translations, as translations by non-inspired translators are subject to error. Inerrancy covers originals only, copied works are therefore also not included as copyist errors can happen.

The fact that we do not have the originals throws yet another monkey wrench in the works. Some manuscripts have lines and verses that are not found in others. What, then, are we to make of that? Can any bit of scripture be truly trusted?

 

[Faith1960]

That is not the point!

First, what scientific statements are made in the Bible?

And as I already said, the history presented in the Bible isn’t from an unobjective, specific encyclopedic telling of “what happened” (do you think any historical narrative is completely free from some sort of bias?). It is presented in the cultural and religious context of the Jewish people, their history and their personal relationship as the chosen people of the one, true God. If you want the historical method of history from an ancient source, you would do better to turn to the Greeks and not the Bible.

If you truly believe that history in the Bible is “correct,” then do you believe that the Prodigal Son was a real, historical person? Or the Good Samaritan? Does it shake your faith to think that they weren’t?

They are parables.

 

[Tim_D]

They are parables.

Ah, but Jesus Himself once said, "A man had two sons…"

Does such a pronouncement mean that he was speaking literally a man and his sons?

And if you can parse a parable to being simply a story told to prove a point, then how is it that you can have such trouble over other parts of the bible that do the same thing?

 

[ericc]

Both links of yours are riddled perhaps and such. Nothing definite. And I’ve already read the second link on my own last week.

And that is the whole point. A plausible answer pertaining to an unproven “error”.

The error was in assuming that Luke referred to a census where as the original Greek word used does not necessarily mean a census and could mean a registration of sorts. The error was assuming that Luke made an error in misplacing the census date of 6AD to Christ DOB. The error was in assuming that Quirinius was a governor when the Greek word could also apply to someone in charge such as a procurator of which he was before he became a governor.

Does that mean your Bible is in error? No, because it is a translation to the English language and translation errors are not covered under the “inerrancy”. Does it mean I prove my case. No! I only prove that there are other possibilities other than the census and governor options. Th truth may be none-of the above because the evidence for the real truth may have been lost over time and until it is found or perhaps never be found. But as I mentioned in my second post Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata also pointed to Luke’s 1st registration by Augustus. So it is not a completely imagined scenario.

Examples of such ambiguity abound in the Bible when translating from Greek to English. One of the most frequently encountered/debated is the word “adelphous”. Many Protestant and even Catholic ones translate it to mean brothers which lead to Protestants to think that Jesus wasn’t an only child by Mary. The fact is the Greek word can mean brothers as well as a whole bunch of family relatives including non-related brethren. Is the Bible wrong? No, because the Greek word adelphous is correct. However, translation meaning depends on the translator. I too was once guilty of jumping to conclusions about meanings in the Bible. A few well-taught lessons learnt on CAF now has reduced me to be wary of absolute claims until alternatives have been considered and weighed. While not degrading anyone qualifications, we must be mindful that there are other folks with equally impressive qualifications that take the other view. Catholic vs Catholic, Catholic vs Protestant, Christian vs Atheist, they all have experts in their respective camps.

And when someone makes a claim that is opposed to what our Church teaches, I’ll be even more careful in sieving through their evidence. Books and articles have been written to explain the so-call errors in the Bible. That would be my first port of call.

Fr William Most book “Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars” on this may help catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=216
and you can read it free online.

 

[clem456]

…
If you truly believe that history in the Bible is “correct,” then do you believe that the Prodigal Son was a real, historical person? Or the Good Samaritan? Does it shake your faith to think that they weren’t?

This is the question, isn’t it. What sort of confidence do we have in the creator of the universe? Is he limited to our understanding, in our words?

And along those lines, what does it mean that a part of scripture is “real”?f
I happen to believe that even thought the prodigal son was not a specific, identifiable, historic person, he is very real in the inspiration of scripture, because the Lord of Life breathes life into him.

This parable is sharper than any two edged sword.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

By the way, that Bible you hold in your hand is not free from error. Inerrancy of the Bible does not extend to translations,

It extends to some translation such as the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

By the way, that Bible you hold in your hand is not free from error. Inerrancy of the Bible does not extend to translations, as translations by non-inspired translators are subject to error. Inerrancy covers originals only, copied works are therefore also not included as copyist errors can happen.

Well, the Vulgate of St. Jerome (Latin Translation) is to be preferred, for example, over the Masoretic texts (Hebrew). The NAB on the other hand…

 

[Tim_D]

And along those lines, what does it mean that a part of scripture is “real”?

That is a good question as it cuts to the point of this entire discussion.

I happen to believe that even thought the prodigal son was not a specific, identifiable, historic person, he is very real in the inspiration of scripture, because the Lord of Life breathes life into him.

Exactly! And that was precisely the point!

This parable is sharper than any two edged sword.

Indeed. Pope Benedict said that it could easily be titled The Good Father.