Does the Bible contain historical errors?

[Stylteralmaldo]

A Protestant friend of mine claims that the books from the deutero-canon contain historical errors and that is part of the reason they are not inspired.

My rebuttal to him might be that there are historical errors in some of the 66 books the Protestants claim are inspired. If so, does anyone have any references for me to use that they are aware of?

I’m not trying to prove the Bible having errors, I’m trying to dispel the logic that one can disallow Scripture based on what history/science say. I understand that the Bible is infallible when it comes to faith and morals. But I want to counteract the claim that somehow the deutero-canonical Old Testament books are the only Bible books that contain historical inaccuracies.

Thanks for any references.

Thanks.

 

[Mannyfit75]

A Protestant friend of mine claims that the books from the deutero-canon contain historical errors and that is part of the reason they are not inspired.

My rebuttal to him might be that there are historical errors in some of the 66 books the Protestants claim are inspired. If so, does anyone have any references for me to use that they are aware of?

I’m not trying to prove the Bible having errors, I’m trying to dispel the logic that one can disallow Scripture based on what history/science say. I understand that the Bible is infallible when it comes to faith and morals. But I want to counteract the claim that somehow the deutero-canonical Old Testament books are the only Bible books that contain historical inaccuracies.

Thanks for any references.

Thanks.

What historical errors did he say?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

He didn’t specifically mention any, however this is what I have found on the internet regarding:

carm.org/catholic/apocrypha_errors.htm

Specifically I found the following from this site:

Wrong historical facts:Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.” Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1
Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

I know that doesn’t prove the deutero-canon uninspired. All I could find on the net regarding the “other 66 canonized” books was from this site:

jews-for-allah.org/the-Jewish-Bible/HistoricalErrorsBibleEzekiel.htm

But this site is not from a Catholic source nor is it a Christian source from what I can gather. Here’s what it says about Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 26: 1-13…7 for thus says the Lord God, 'Behold I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, …

Apologetic: Several. The most bizarre is the appealing that the Persian Empire forced Tyre to submit.
**Rebuttal: **The prophecy had nothing to do with Persia, it was about Nebuchadnezzar, a specific Babylonian king. Persia would have yet to arise.
Observation: This passage clearly has God saying that Nebuchadnezzar would move against Tyre and successfully lay siege to the city and sack it so completely that it would be utterly destroyed; but that never happened, Tyre withstood Nebuchadnezzar siege for years, and in the end the Babylonian king withdrew. Check out an encyclopedia for more information on Nebuchadnezzar failure to sack Tyre. Even for those who refuse to look outside the bible for information on the ancient world, cannot change the FACT, that even the bible does not admit that the prophecy came true…

I’m not sure this assertion is correct or not or if it is taken out of context. I don’t want to use an anti-Christian reference that is for sure particularly if it can be refutted.

Again, we are dealing with “history in the Bible” not “faith and morals” which is the primary standard for determining infallibility. Is this an inaccuracy from the Bible I can use to refute his claim about the deutero-canon?

 

[rossum]

My rebuttal to him might be that there are historical errors in some of the 66 books the Protestants claim are inspired. If so, does anyone have any references for me to use that they are aware of?

2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.

2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.

Was Ahaziah 22 or 42 years old when he began to reign? Both books are part of the Protestant canon.

rossum

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Thanks for the reference rossum. Looking at your profile I see that you are a Buddhist. I was initially looking for a Catholic perspective but yours will suit just fine. I appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Thanks.

(Any additional references/rebuttals to what has been supplied here thus far would be appreciated.)

 

[dylanschrader]

The books of the Bible are inerrant in more than just faith and morals. Inerrancy means that the Bible does not “miss the mark,” in other words if a passage was intended by the human writer to be scientifically accurate, then it is scientifically accurate. If it was intended to be historically accurate, then it is historically accurate.

Of course, the human writers of the Bible undoubtedly make use of exaggerations, manners of speaking, etc. common to the time period. There are also scribal errors that cannot be imputed as errors in the Bible.

From Dei Verbum, Section 11:

In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

Therefore … everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit

From Providentissimus Deus, Section 20:

But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.

For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated.

From Divino Afflante Spiritu, Section 1:

When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.

From Providentissimus Deus, Section 23:

In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures.

For a more detailed explanation with even more quotes , see blog.ipsissima-verba.org/?p=109

 

[Fredricks]

Not a one. Any errors are the result of copying errors and not from the original autographs. Our God can inspire through his Holy Spirit the authorship of a book without any errors and He did.

 

[Church_Militant]

Not a one. Any errors are the result of copying errors and not from the original autographs. Our God can inspire through his Holy Spirit the authorship of a book without any errors and He did.

Fallacious reasoning because it means that since no one has access to the original texts that what we have today is too far gone.

Of course this also leads to another hole in the SS doctrine and a plus for Catholic belief since if that is the case then it only makes sense that the pillar and ground of the truth be the church and not the Bible and that Sacred Tradition and historical references to the ECF are valid sources to insure that get the correct meaning of Scriptures.

 

[thistle]

A Protestant friend of mine claims that the books from the deutero-canon contain historical errors and that is part of the reason they are not inspired.

My rebuttal to him might be that there are historical errors in some of the 66 books the Protestants claim are inspired. If so, does anyone have any references for me to use that they are aware of?

I’m not trying to prove the Bible having errors, I’m trying to dispel the logic that one can disallow Scripture based on what history/science say. I understand that the Bible is infallible when it comes to faith and morals. But I want to counteract the claim that somehow the deutero-canonical Old Testament books are the only Bible books that contain historical inaccuracies.

Thanks for any references.

Thanks.

CCC 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.”

 

[metal1633]

The book of Daniel has several historical errors. First, there was no such persan as Darius the Mede. King Darius I of Persia reigned at a later period. And Darius did not takle Babylon. It was Cyrus the Great. It also says that Belshazzar was king when Babylon fell and that Nebuchadnezzer was his father. He was neither. His father was Nabonidus and it was he who was king when Babylon fell. Also ““In the third year of the reign of Jehoi’akim king of Judah came Nebuchadnez’zar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.”” The siege of Jerusalem in 597 B.C occurred in the twelfth year of Jehoiakim not the third. In his third year, Nebuchadnezzar was not yet King and the Egyptian were the dominant force in the region.

There are many more. Therefore historical accuracy is irrelevent to canonical status.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

The books of the Bible are inerrant in more than just faith and morals. Inerrancy means that the Bible does not “miss the mark,” in other words if a passage was intended by the human writer to be scientifically accurate, then it is scientifically accurate. If it was intended to be historically accurate, then it is historically accurate.

Of course, the human writers of the Bible undoubtedly make use of exaggerations, manners of speaking, etc. common to the time period. There are also scribal errors that cannot be imputed as errors in the Bible.

Thank you for this explanation. This helps a great deal and it makes reasonable sense. I suppose that it also would hold true that if the author did not care one way or the other whether something was historical or scientific or not because it was irrelevent to the purpose of the author, then “exaggerations” could possibly be in there from an historic or scientific standpoint.

Also, regarding Ahaziah, it is reasonable to presume that it was a copyist error that transpired and not a Biblical error.
Church Militant:

Of course this also leads to another hole in the SS doctrine and a plus for Catholic belief since if that is the case then it only makes sense that the pillar and ground of the truth be the church and not the Bible and that Sacred Tradition and historical references to the ECF are valid sources to insure that get the correct meaning of Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura makes less and less sense with each passing day of my life. The “historical error” defense of excluding the deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament just doesn’s hold up when considering the author’s intent. How do we know the author’s intent? Naturally it would be the Church which is the proper authority for such matters.