Does the Bible have errors in it?

[itsjustdave1988]

I want to know what the Bible said on the matter, and is deemed to have said on the matter.

You want to know what the Bible says about the Bible? I believe it is right next to the passage that says that the Bible consists of only 66 books and not 73.

“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (St. Augustine, Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti, Ch. 5]

2 Tim 3:16 says that all scripture is inspired. Yet, when Paul wrote that, the NT was not complete. So, to suggest he meant to include his second letter to Timothy as among “all scripture” is a bit of a stretch. What we do know is that the Church included the NT as Scripture, and that the Church has said that all Scripture, in all its parts, is inspired.

In some instances, we have testimony from the author as to how he came about knowing the information that he knows, as in the case with St. John’s Apocalypse, where he learned it from an angel who gave John a miraculous vision. But for the most part, the nature of inspiration is not well described in Scripture

Can we trust what the Church says on the matter? Well, without first placing my trust in the Church, I wouldn’t even have Scripture or any knowledge whatsoever about Christianity, short of an angelic vision of my own, which has yet to occur. So I’m pretty sure the first premise for any Christian is to place trust in the ordained fathers that came before them and the ordained ministers who have been charged with the care of their soul, as it is from them that they learned, and will continue to learn anything authoritative and trustworthy about Christ.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

See also: Jn. 20:31; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16.

“The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship.” (Catholic Encyclopedia (1909), “The Bible”)

So, if you want to trace the roots of the notion of inerrancy, you will have to begin with the notion of inspiration.

That’s why the Vatican II council affirms:

1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical** because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author** and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) 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 HE WANTED [emphasis added]. (4)

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) see footnote #5 for the correct understanding of inerrancy as taught in Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu, affirmed by Vatican II] for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text). … " (DV, 11)

[Footnotes of] Article 11:

1. cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 2 “On Revelation:” Denzinger 1787 (3006); Biblical Commission, Decree of June 18,1915: Denzinger 2180 (3629): EB 420; Holy Office, Epistle of Dec. 22, 1923: EB 499.
2. cf. Pius XII, encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu," Sept. 30, 1943: A.A.S. 35 (1943) p. 314; Enchiridion Bible. (EB) 556.
3. “In” and “for” man: cf. Heb. 1, and 4, 7; (“in”): 2 Sm. 23,2; Matt.1:22 and various places; (“for”): First Vatican Council, Schema on Catholic Doctrine, note 9: Coll. Lac. VII, 522.
4. Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus,” Nov. 18, 1893: Denzinger 1952 (3293); EB 125.
5. cf. St. Augustine, “**Gen. ad Litt. [On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis] **” 2, 9, 20L 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, 124, 126-127. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539.

*Dei Verbum **AFFIRMED ***the teachings of Leo XIII and Pius XII regarding inspiration and inerrancy.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From the doctrinal index of the *Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol I, *by William A. Jurgens, we see that the root of this notion of inspiration and inerrancy in patristic writings:

From the Doctrinal Index of Vol. I, #20ff (I can provide passages from the patristic texts themselves if you wish).

1. The Sacred Scritpures, written under the inspiration ofhte Holy Spirit, have God for their author
2. Inspiration consits in the action of God’s using teh intellect and will of the sacrd writer, after the fashion of an instrument
3. The primary object of such inspiration is the things which concern salvation.
4. Nevertheless, inspiration extends to all parts of Sacred Scripture, and in some snese, even to the words themselves.
5. No error can be found in the Sacred Scritpures
6. Bearing in mind that every assertion made by the sacred writer is true, according to the meaning which he wished to express and did express, the presence of apparent errors in Scripture in regard to history and the sciences can be explained

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m sometimes reminded of James Beckwourth.

He was a Mountain Man – one of the trappers in the Rocky Mountains in the 1830s. He was a contemporary of such men as Kit Carson and Jim Bridger. He lived winters with the Crows and in later life published a book, “Jim Beckwourth, King of the Crows.”

The old Mountain Men were famous for two things – superhuman feats of survival and telling tall tales, and Beckwourth was no exception.

Supposedly several old Mountain Men were living in the Sierras in California years later. One of them had to go to San Francisco for something, and the others told him to be sure to bring back a copy of Beckwourth’s book.

He couldn’t find a copy of “Jim Beckwourth, King of the Crows.” But, reasoning that the other Mountain Men were illiterate and wouldn’t know the difference, he bought a bible.

When he got back, they all gathered around, and he began reading to them. When he got to the story of Noah and the flood, one of the old codgers jumped up and shouted, "Thar! I’d know that for one of Beckwourth’s lies anywhar!"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Let’s look at this one more in-depth…

27. No error can be found in the Sacred Scritpures

The first passages cited by Jurgens is from the 1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. St. Clement was the third pope after St. Peter.

St. Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians (ca. AD 80):

Brethren, be contentious and zealous for the things which lead to salvation! You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and are of the Holy Spirit. You well know that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in them. [45,1]

Next, he cites from St. Justin Martyr’s *Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, *(ca AD 155):

[That the Scriptures contradict each other] – I will not have the effrontery at any time either to suppose or to say such a thing. If a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and there be a pretext for regarding it as contradictory, since I am totally convinced that no Scripture is contradictory to another, I shall admit instead that I do not understand what is spoken of, and shall strive to persuade those who assume that the Scritpures are contradictory to be rather of the same opinion as myself." [65]

From St. Irenaeus’ *Against Heresies *(ca. AD 180/199):

If, however, we are not able to find explanations for all those passages of Scripture which are investigated, we ought not on that account seek for another God besides Him who exists. thsi would indeed be the greates impiety. Things of that kind we must leave to God, the One who made us, knowing full well that the Scriptures are certainly perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and by His Spirit. [2, 28, 2]

St. Hippolytus of Rome, *Commentary on Daniel *(ca. AD 204):

Neither does Scripture falsify anything, nor does the Holy Spirit deceive His servants, the prophets, through whom He is pleased to announce to men the will of God. [4,6]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for when Arpachshad was born? First tell me who killed Goliath? Was it David (1 Samuel 17:50) or Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19). Oh … wait, does it matter to the Catholic faith? Could the literary genre intended by the sacred writers be that of “epic” in this case, and not necessarily that of history, strictly so-called? Can the sacred authors be charged with error if they intended to express variant traditions?

Some history of events and truths regarding supernatural events are bound up in the doctrines of faith. However, the Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific or purely historical questions which are *NOT *deemed by the Church to be bound up in the doctrines of the faith. The Church does give *negative *decisions, that is, rejecting historical or scientific errors which may endanger the faith. This sometimes frustrates Catholics who for some reason, want to know positively what the Church says about history and science. That’s not the mission of the Church. Her mission is to teach what she was taught by the fathers that have come before, and to expound upon it as needed. If the Church was not taught who killed Goliath, she cannot positively say who did. She can negatively reject notions contrary to her teaching, however, even if the profane sciences seem certain of these notions.

 

[twf]

ichabod: Why is the sermon on the mount/plain a clear contradiction? Are there no mounts that have flat areas on them? I have read that the Greek does not necessarily refer to a great large flat land, but could be simply a flat area on the mountain.

Earlier in this thread it was alledged that God isn’t very good at math, and that His instructions for the construction of the ark of water for the temple indicated an incorrect Pi value. The ark in question had a rim, a hand-width across. Therefore, the value given for the circumference could have been the circumference around the outside edge of the ark, while the value given for the diameter would then probably be the distance from the inner-edge of the rim. This solution makes perfect sense to me. Errors are only there if people want them to be there. (Yes, not all passages are meant to be taken literally, but when the Sacred Writers wrote history, the declarations of the Popes make it 100% clear that they must be taken as history).

I believe I’ve looked at this link a bit before, but looking at it again, it looks very good…an answer to many of the alledged errors and contradictions. (Provided earlier on this thread, but I’ll provide it here again): tektonics.org/sab/sab.html

Gottle: What exactly is your problem regarding 2 Chron 14? Is it so impossible for there to be an army of roughly a ‘thousand thousand men’? Surely there were than a million Ethiopian men at that time. Either way, a ‘thousand thousand’ (if that is the Hebrew) may not suggest an exact number, but just somewhere in the area of a million.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

From the doctrinal index of the *Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol I, *by William A. Jurgens, we see that the root of this notion of inspiration and inerrancy in patristic writings:

From the Doctrinal Index of Vol. I, #20ff (I can provide passages from the patristic texts themselves if you wish).

1. The Sacred Scritpures, written under the inspiration ofhte Holy Spirit, have God for their author
2. Inspiration consits in the action of God’s using teh intellect and will of the sacrd writer, after the fashion of an instrument
3. The primary object of such inspiration is the things which concern salvation.
4. Nevertheless, inspiration extends to all parts of Sacred Scripture, and in some snese, even to the words themselves.
5. No error can be found in the Sacred Scritpures
6. Bearing in mind that every assertion made by the sacred writer is true, according to the meaning which he wished to express and did express, the presence of apparent errors in Scripture in regard to history and the sciences can be explained

Thanks for all the hard work - I have all three volumes of Jurgens. But, this does not answer my question about the origins of inerrantism, because Jurgens nowhere raises the question - why should he ? - of whether the inerrancy of Scriipture is earlier than the Fathers. My question is partly exegetical, partly historical, partly doctrinal and partly theological.​

BTW, I saw a post somewhere calling Jurgens a “liberal” - weird, that. A “liberal” is apparently anyone less strict than the speaker.

About 29 - when this thread began, none of the posters arguing for inerrancy were taking that into account. I think, and hope, that that’s fair. There are real problems here - for if the Fathers thought that Genesis 11 was relating the history of the foundation of Babylon, and if they thought that Genesis 11.9 was intending to give a correct etymology of the name “Babel”, and as it is now accepted that both those suppositions are mistaken, the meaning of inerrancy is changed - because an inerrant account of a piece of history, now becomes an inerrant tale which is not giving an etymology at all. Inerrancy, requires fixity of interpretation - otherwise, it becomes a doctrine without any stable content. Change the thing of which inerrancy is predicated - and the inerrancy ceases to have that thing to operate on; the doctrine becomes an empty affirmation.

I don’t think everyone who wants us to agree with the Fathers on the Bible, realises that they had plenty of disagreements about all sort of of Biblical subjects. So if they could not agree with one another, or with themselves, we can hardly be expected to agree with them either ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

As for when Arpachshad was born? First tell me who killed Goliath? Was it David (1 Samuel 17:50) or Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19). Oh … wait, does it matter to the Catholic faith? Could the literary genre intended by the sacred writers be that of “epic” in this case, and not necessarily that of history, strictly so-called? Can the sacred authors be charged with error if they intended to express variant traditions?

Thanks - that is exactly my point, or one point: some people seem to want both Goliath-texts to be accepted, even though they cannot both be true, or might both be false. Why not ? My guess is that we have here different traditions - but for some people, that, not unreasonably, would be as unacceptable as denying that Goliath was killed both by David and by Elhanan.​

The trouble with inerrantism, is that it is insisted on, not because it is required by the Biblical texts, but because it has believed in by representatives of Christian Tradition. People don’t look at the texts, to see whether the texts can bear such a doctrine - they believe it because the Popes insist on it.
This is like the tale of the Gold Tooth: in 1593, a boy in Silesia was said to have been born with a tooth of gold. It aroused much discussion, and many learned volumes were written discussing its significance. After many months, someone thought to examine whether the famous Golden Tooth was genuine. It was a human tooth, with gold foil around it. All the learned discussion, had been about something that was imaginary.

Unfortunately, the Golden Tooth of Biblical inerrancy is yet to be examined. Yet what would the Church lose, if she denied that the Bible was totally inerrant ? FWIW, I would like to see the Leonine notion of inerrancy defended - it is far more rigid than the inerrancy-doctrine of Pius XII. IMO, the problem is the result of nothing more, in essence, than sheer conservatism: very understandable, given the times, but a mistake nonetheless. ##

Some history of events and truths regarding supernatural events are bound up in the doctrines of faith. However, the Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific or purely historical questions which are *NOT *deemed by the Church to be bound up in the doctrines of the faith. The Church does give *negative *decisions, that is, rejecting historical or scientific errors which may endanger the faith. This sometimes frustrates Catholics who for some reason, want to know positively what the Church says about history and science. That’s not the mission of the Church. Her mission is to teach what she was taught by the fathers that have come before, and to expound upon it as needed. If the Church was not taught who killed Goliath, she cannot positively say who did. She can negatively reject notions contrary to her teaching, however, even if the profane sciences seem certain of these notions.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

twf:

ichabod: Why is the sermon on the mount/plain a clear contradiction? Are there no mounts that have flat areas on them? I have read that the Greek does not necessarily refer to a great large flat land, but could be simply a flat area on the mountain.

Earlier in this thread it was alledged that God isn’t very good at math, and that His instructions for the construction of the ark of water for the temple indicated an incorrect Pi value. The ark in question had a rim, a hand-width across. Therefore, the value given for the circumference could have been the circumference around the outside edge of the ark, while the value given for the diameter would then probably be the distance from the inner-edge of the rim. This solution makes perfect sense to me. Errors are only there if people want them to be there. (Yes, not all passages are meant to be taken literally, but when the Sacred Writers wrote history, the declarations of the Popes make it 100% clear that they must be taken as history).

I believe I’ve looked at this link a bit before, but looking at it again, it looks very good…an answer to many of the alledged errors and contradictions. (Provided earlier on this thread, but I’ll provide it here again): tektonics.org/sab/sab.html

Gottle: What exactly is your problem regarding 2 Chron 14? Is it so impossible for there to be an army of roughly a ‘thousand thousand men’? Surely there were than a million Ethiopian men at that time. Either way, a ‘thousand thousand’ (if that is the Hebrew) may not suggest an exact number, but just somewhere in the area of a million.

Because a “thousand thousand” men - that is what the text means - would be logistically impossible.​

If we could take the number as an exaggeration, the problem would vanish. But if we are not allowed to do this, the problem remains. ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… because it has believed in by representatives of Christian Tradition.

Which is precisely why we believe in a Bible to begin with, no? And not just any 'ol representative, but by those Divinely ordained and vested with magisterial authority to teach with the voice of Christ. Fr. Raymond Brown, for example, is a representative, but he has no magisterial authority. The way Catholic ecclesiology and theology works is that Divine truths are taught by the Church’s magisterium. When that magisterium is in some disagreement about some doctrinal matter (eg. Arianism), it is the See of Peter who is the source of sacerdotal unity, not whose idea is most clever. Fr. Brown, et. al., would have us believe that is it the new Biblical theorists and their new and clever ideas which are the most trustworthy source of Catholic doctrine. I disagree.

People don’t look at the texts, to see whether the texts can bear such a doctrine - they believe it because the Popes insist on it.

First come trust in the Church, then comes trust in the Bible. Not the other way around. I think many seem to forget this, or at least discard the former once they have the latter. Some tragically come to discrard both.

Catholicism teaches that the texts and what is formally and universally proposed by the popes are in complete agreement. Isn’t this a binding precept of Catholicism, to accept any and all doctrines proposed by the pope, whether solemnly defined or not? This seems the very essence of being Catholic, as opposed to picking some other religion.

Unfortunately, the Golden Tooth of Biblical inerrancy is yet to be examined.

I disagree that is a “Golden Tooth,” and I disagree that Biblical inerrancy has yet to be examined by the Church. It was asked and answered by the magisterium (cf. *Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paraclitus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Humani Generis, Dei Verbum, *the allocution of Paul VI, all asserting the same thing). The bible is inerrant in all it’s parts about everything the sacred writer asserts as true. The magisterium has NEVER taught otherwise, although Fr. Brown and his school attempts to assert otherwise.

Yet what would the Church lose, if she denied that the Bible was totally inerrant ?

It’s not about weighing the costs versus benefits of a decision. The Church only passes on the doctrines it has received. It can certainly develop its understandings of those doctrines, but it cannot reverse its understandings of those doctrines. The Church cannot teach that the Bible is inerrant without scrapping all that it teaches about doctrinal development, without scrapping all that it teaches about doctrine. This is proved by the new biblical theorists who deny the virgin birth of Christ.

I would like to see the Leonine notion of inerrancy defended - it is far more rigid than the inerrancy-doctrine of Pius XII.

Explain how, please. I’ve studied both their doctrines and wrote a term paper in my post-grad studies which compares and contrasts Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu. I found that they are in agreement with one another. Leo XIII is combating rationalist errors whereas Pius XII is combating the error on the other extreme, that of a pamphlet that was passed around in his day asserting the “error” of insisting upon a literal sense of Scripture, thereby emphasizing the spiritual sense alone. However, they are both teaching the same Catholic doctrine. The Church has always upheld the legitimacy of both the literal and spiritual senses of Scripture, rejected those that would discount one at the expense of the other. (rationalists rejected the spiritual sense, “spiritualists” rejected the literal sense). Pius XII writes DaS on the anniversay of PD’s promulgation, calling PD the “supreme guide to biblical studies.” If Pius XII is disagreeing in any way with Leo XIII, please show us where.

Leo’s doctrine on inerrancy has been defended, by Pius XII in *DaS. *Pope John Paul II, in his address to the Pontifical Bible Comission given on April 23, 1993, defends both the teachings of PD and *DaS, *describing the “permanent validity” of their contributions, as well as Spiritus Paracletus as having been "fully confirmed at the Second Vatican Council." (John Paul II April 23, 1993 address, commemorating the centenary of the encyclical of Leo XIII, *Providentissimus Deus, *and the fiftieth anniversary of the encyclical of Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu)

 

[vern_humphrey]

itsjustdave1988:

First come trust in the Church, then comes trust in the Bible. Not the other way around.

That is correct. The Bible (especially the New Testament) is a product of the Church. It exists and we believe it because of Church tradition.

 

[RSiscoe]

**itsjustdave1988:
As for when Arpachshad was born? First tell me who killed Goliath? Was it David (1 Samuel 17:50) or Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19). Oh … wait, does it matter to the Catholic faith? Could the literary genre intended by the sacred writers be that of “epic” in this case, and not necessarily that of history, strictly so-called? Can the sacred authors be charged with error if they intended to express variant traditions?

## Thanks - that is exactly my point, or one point: some people seem to want both Goliath-texts to be accepted, even though they cannot both be true, or might both be false. Why not ? My guess is that we have here different traditions - but for some people, that, not unreasonably, would be as unacceptable as denying that Goliath was killed both by David and by Elhanan.

These two stories are two seperate events, which took place many years apart from one another (more than 40 yeas apart0. One event took place when David was a boy; the other when David was king. Obviously there were two people named Goliath, who were both Gethites. Is that hard to imagine? Is it too much of a stretch to believe two people from one city had the same name? Or is it common for there to be many people with the same name?

In addition, it would seem that Goliath would have been a popular name at that time, since Goliath the giant was a hero just 40 years earlier. It makes sense that the Philistines would have name their children after him.

So what seems more likely: that David never slew the Giant, and the entire story was made up back then; and that the Giant lived for 40 more years, only to be killed by another person? Or that David did kill the giant, and someone 40 years later killed another Phillistine, who just happenend to have the same name? One more point to add is that Goliath the Gethite, from 2nd Kings (2nd Samuel in the Protetant Bibles) 21:19, is not said to be a giant, but only a Phillistine.

 

[RSiscoe]

GottleoGreer:

The trouble with inerrantism, is that it is insisted on, not because it is required by the Biblical texts, but because it has believed in by representatives of Christian Tradition. People don’t look at the texts, to see whether the texts can bear such a doctrine - they believe it because the Popes insist on it.

Why do we believe the Bible is inhherent? We believe because that is what the Church teaches. A Catholic is very fortunate in that he does not have to study everything doctrinal matter, and rely only on his own intelectual powers to determine what is and what is not true. This is what Protestants do, and is why there are so many differing beliefs. Many doctrinal matters, such as the inherency of the Bible, have been defined by the Church as true, and therefore Catholics can be certain that they are true.

Let’s apply your same logic to another aspect of the Bible: Do you accept the Gospels of Matthew, John and Mark as canonical? What about 2nd Peter and the Apocolypes? If you accept these, why? Is it because they have passed your test? Or is it because the Catholic Church has determined that these books are part of the Canon? The same is true for every other doctrinal dogma, such as transubstantiation. Why do you believe in the true presence? Is it because you have deemed, through your studies, that the substance of the bread transforms into the body and blood of Christ? Why don’t you believe in the heresy of consubstantiation? The answer is: We believe in transubstantiation because that is what the Church has defined as true, not because it is what we happen to “think”. As Augustine said, he who believes only what he can understand, believes himself rather than God. If we believe God we should believe all that God has revealed, not just what we understand. It is alright to question, as long as our question are seeking to understand; but we should not question to determine if we will believe. In other words, we must believe first, then we can seek to understand. Understanding is a gift of the Holy Ghost. If we refuse to believe, should we expect the Holy Ghost to give us understanding?

If we do not trust the Church when it defines doctrinal matters infallibly, we are left with only our opinion, which is not worth much. That is what heretics do, but not Catholics.

The supposed contradictions in the Bible can be explained, but you have to be willing to seek out those explanations. There is often a very strong explanation to the “contradictions” that the athiests like to point out. Look into the explanations to these “contradictions” and you will see that they can be explained.

In conclusion: We do not know the truth only by our unaided reason: we have a much more sure way of knowing the truth: by the infallible teachings of the Church. We should allow these infallible teachings guide our reason. We should not allow anyone, through false reasoning, to undermine the faith. Such specious arguments may seem true, but if they are contrary to the faith you can be 100% certain they are not.

 

[RSiscoe]

GottleofGreer:

This is like the tale of the Gold Tooth: in 1593, a boy in Silesia was said to have been born with a tooth of gold. It aroused much discussion, and many learned volumes were written discussing its significance. After many months, someone thought to examine whether the famous Golden Tooth was genuine. It was a human tooth, with gold foil around it. All the learned discussion, had been about something that was imaginary.

The difference is that the story of the gold tooth was not a truth revealed by God. One is based on a false human assumption; the other an infallible truth: there is not comparison between the two.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RSiscoe:

The difference is that the story of the gold tooth was not a truth revealed by God. One is based on a false human assumption; the other an infallible truth: there is not comparison between the two.

When and where and to whom was the infallibility of Scripture revealed ?​

So far, I can’t see any evidence that it is more than a long-lived belief of unknown origin; like belief that epilepsy is caused by demonic attack or possession.

I’m very disappointed - people keep saying that Popes have taught it and reafffirmed it (which is true enough; for they have); but no one has explained why it should be believed true in the first place, before the Popes started teaching it.

And they have not even attempted to deal with the problems which it raises. It’s essential to think theologically about these things, theolgically, and philosophically; because without that sort of thinking about those problems, it is a mere unmeaning totem-belief, something to be believed for no more profound reason than that “the Fathers say…the Popes say”. I want an answer which will show, among other things:

• that inerrantism is required by faith in Christ
• that it is of ethical importance
• that it makes a radical difference to the understanding of the texts
• that believing it affects Christian discipleship (though this one is unanswerable by us)

Not to answer these problems, is unconvincing. And not everyone is going to be impressed by that.

I will try to answer the rest of the posts in the not too distant future.

In the meantime, I am going trust God - God assisting - on the basis of the flawed, imperfect, uninerrant yet inspired and holy Scriptures ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RSiscoe:

Why do we believe the Bible is inhherent? We believe because that is what the Church teaches. A Catholic is very fortunate in that he does not have to study everything doctrinal matter, and rely only on his own intelectual powers to determine what is and what is not true. This is what Protestants do, and is why there are so many differing beliefs. Many doctrinal matters, such as the inherency of the Bible, have been defined by the Church as true, and therefore Catholics can be certain that they are true.

Let’s apply your same logic

Which part in particular ? I am not denying the teaching authority of the Church. If inerrancy can be reconciled with the uninerrancy of certain texts and certain other facts, then I believe it. But nobody can be expected to believe what they know is not true.​

That would be sinful - and you aren’t asking me to commit a sin, are you ? Surely not. ##

to another aspect of the Bible: Do you accept the Gospels of Matthew, John and Mark as canonical?

Of course ​

What about 2nd Peter and the Apocolypes? If you accept these, why? Is it because they have passed your test? Or is it because the Catholic Church has determined that these books are part of the Canon?

Here is why - this should answer these questions:​

• IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
• V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
• VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, according to the sense in which Catholic tradition witnesses to it So (VI) can be taken in a Catholic sense; so also can (IV) .

But (V) really says it for me. I cannot narrow the reasons down to one, or two; there are too many reasons for me to believe the Bible is inspired, holy, and all the rest of it. ##

The same is true for every other doctrinal dogma, such as transubstantiation. Why do you believe in the true presence? Is it because you have deemed, through your studies, that the substance of the bread transforms into the body and blood of Christ? Why don’t you believe in the heresy of consubstantiation? The answer is: We believe in transubstantiation because that is what the Church has defined as true, not because it is what we happen to “think”. As Augustine said, he who believes only what he can understand, believes himself rather than God.

St. Augustine hated untruth - & inerrantism is untrue. It looks true if one does not consider the difficulties, which are of many kinds. Inerrancy is the least important of reasons for believing the Bible - because inerrancy is, of itself, of no theological importance at all: it has no relation to Christ. Yet plenty of people get on with their Bibles who deny its inerrancy - that does not stop it being the Word of God addressed to them. It still builds them up. A shopping-list may be inerrant, or a time-table, or a news report: it does not follow that they are God-breathed. So inerrancy, is not important as a quality of a text. If God can work through imperfectly truthful Catholics - why cant He work through an imperfectly truthful Bible ? To be consistent, one should deny all sinners a place in the Church - IOW, every single one of us ​

[continue…] ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued, ended]

If we believe God we should believe all that God has revealed, not just what we understand. It is alright to question, as long as our question are seeking to understand; but we should not question to determine if we will believe. In other words, we must believe first, then we can seek to understand. Understanding is a gift of the Holy Ghost. If we refuse to believe, should we expect the Holy Ghost to give us understanding?
If we do not trust the Church when it defines doctrinal matters infallibly, we are left with only our opinion, which is not worth much. That is what heretics do, but not Catholics.

The supposed contradictions in the Bible can be explained, but you have to be willing to seek out those explanations. There is often a very strong explanation to the “contradictions” that the athiests like to point out. Look into the explanations to these “contradictions” and you will see that they can be explained.

I don’t disagree - except that inerrantism is a mistake. It does not arise from the texts, nor from what they say, but from the mistaken ideas of men - holy men no doubt, but still mistaken. Even if they are Martyrs, Doctors, miracle-workers. I’m trying to help, not hinder.​

But where is inerrancy revealed ? Something is not a dogma on account of its being called so - dogmas can’t be created out of thin air, either; they have to be rooted in the “deposit of the faith”, and they have to be Apostolic - and a few other things too. But which apostles have been quoted for this “dogma” ? So far, none. No one has even attemprted to show that the Apostles believed - let alone taught - the total inerrancy of the Bible in all respects. Any one can assert that it is apostolic - but any one can assert anything. That is why evidence is required. So merely asserting X, does not make X true.

A question is good not because of the person asking, but because of what is asked - so it doesn’t matter that atheists ask questions; our answers, should be weightier & better than their objections. We can learn from those questions. ##

In conclusion: We do not know the truth only by our unaided reason: we have a much more sure way of knowing the truth: by the infallible teachings of the Church. We should allow these infallible teachings guide our reason. We should not allow anyone, through false reasoning, to undermine the faith. Such specious arguments may seem true, but if they are contrary to the faith you can be 100% certain they are not.

The Church can do nothing…apart from God her Helper. So often, Catholics leave God out of the theology. It’s always: “the Church this”, “the Church that”, “the Church the other” - what about the Redeemer of the Church ? Where is He in all this ? He, is our Teacher - because the Church is ignorant unless He teaches her: and we are that Church. Not the Magisterium alone, but all of us together ​

I hope I believe, & believe in, Christ - then, in the Church. But never the other way round. The Lord of Church & Bible is better than them both. We need all three - but the primacy in all things is always His. ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

which apostles have been quoted for this “dogma” ?

I think you have a non-Catholic view of dogmatic development. For example, which apostle is quoted to tell us what books are within Scripture and which are not?

Dogma develops. In OT times, it developed materiall (more was revealed over time). In the 1st century, material development of dogma was fulfilled in Jesus Christ as revealed to the apostles. Yet, although material development of dogma is complete, the understanding of the material dogma continues to develop. This is development to the formal aspect of dogma, not its material.

From Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,

With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded. (sent. certa.)

   Pope Pius X rejected the liberal Protestant and Modernistic doctrine of the evolution of religion through "New Revelations." Thus he condemned the proposition that: "The Revelation, which is the object of **Catholic** Faith, was not terminated with the Apostles." D 2021.

   The clear teaching of Holy Writ and Tradition is that after Christ, and the Apostles who proclaimed the message of Christ, no further Revelation will be made. Christ was the fulfilment of the Law of the Old Testament (Mt. 5, 17 ; 5, 21 et seq), and the absolute teacher of humanity (Mt. 23, 10: "One is your master, Christ" ; cf. Mt. 28, 20). The Apostles saw in Christ: "the coming of the fullness of time" (Gal. 4, 4) and regarded as their task the preservation, integral and unfalsified, of the heritage of Faith entrusted to them by Christ (1 Tim. 6, 14; 6,20; 2 Tim.1, 14; 2,2; 3,14). The Fathers indignantly repudiated the claim of the heretics to possess secret doctrines or new Revelations of the Holy Ghost. St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer III 1 ; IV 35, 8), and Tertullian (De praesc. 21) stress, against the Gnostics, that the full truth of Revelation is contained in the doctrine of the Apostles which is preserved unfalsified through the uninterrupted succession of the bishops. [list=1]

b) As to the Formal side of dogma, that is, in the knowledge and in the ecclesiastical proposal of Revealed Truth, and consequently also in the public faith of the Church, there is a progress (accidental development of dogmas) which occurs in the following fashion:

1. 1. Truths which formerly were only implicitly believed are expressly proposed for belief. (Cf. S. th. I; II, 1, 7 : quantum ad explicationem crevt numerus articulorum (fidei), quia quaedam explicite cognita sunt a posterioribus, quae a prioribus non cognoscebantur explicite. There was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly, which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.)

1. 
   

   1. Material Dogmas are raised to the status of Formal Dogmas.

   1. To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed, e.g., the Hypostatic Union (unio hypostatica), Transubstantiation, etc., are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts. 4) Questions formerly disputed are explained and decided, and heretical propositions are condemned. Cf. St. Augustine, De civ. Dei 2, 1 ; ab adversario mota quaestio discendi existit occasio (a question moved by an adversary gives an occasion for learning).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

When and where and to whom was the infallibility of Scripture revealed ?

Inerrancy of Scripture was revealed at least by the 1st century, as it was explicitly taught by apostolical men of the 1st century.

“You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and are of the Holy Spirit. You well know that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in them.” (St. Clement of Rome, AD 80. First Ltr to the Corinthians, 45, 12)

Can you find any magisterial statements since this first century papal assertion that teaches against the inerrancy of Scripture?