Does the Bible have errors in it?

[itsjustdave1988]

GottleofGeer,

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.

You are spinning in a circle of doubt. How do you know anything about Jesus? ANYTHING? In fact, why should it be believed that there is just one God? Why not a God of good and a God of evil like many have asserted throughout the ages, why not believe that God lives on a planet near the star Kolob as the Mormons teach? Can’t you see how absurd your question is? If you are going to only believe things that are convincing to you, then do you reject the Trinity? What is up with you, have you become an atheist?

Tell me something you are absolutely certain of regarding your belief in Christianity, and I may be able to answer your questions from that perspective.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am not denying the teaching authority of the Church.

Rubbish!!! Either you suffering from multiple personality disorder, or you are most CERTAINLY denying the teaching authority of the Church by your explicit DISSENT with that authority.

The Vicar of Christ has taught the inerrancy of Scripture. Yet you dissent from this teaching. Please, tell me HOW you DO NOT deny the teaching authority of the Church. Your so inconsistent it is mind boggling.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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?

And Clement is correct. Nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in Scripture.

However, the Bible is not (and does not claim to be) a textbook of mathmatics or physics. It explains or states the message in terms understandable to people of the time.

Catholics, therefore, are not locked into a literal interpretation of the Bible, nor into the science of the Ancient World.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

GottleofGeer,

Your profile states that you are Catholic. Are you? Is so, why did you quote from the Protestant Westminster Confession of Faith? I have to admit, your denial of papal teaching and affirmation of this protestant formula makes it difficult to take you seriously as a professed Catholic.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholics, therefore, are not locked into a literal interpretation of the Bible, nor into the science of the Ancient World.

Vern,

I don’t think you understand my position. I’m not denying other spiritual senses of Scritpure. But the Catholic Church which I profess faith in states "The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” (CCC 116). The literal sense is not the same thing as the literalist sense.

Nontheless, "**it is absolutely wrong and forbidden “either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,” **(Divino Afflante Spiritu, 3)

GottleofGeer subscribes to an erroneous view that is forbidden by the Church, quoting from the Protestant Westminister Confession of Faith as his reasoning, yet expects us to believe he’s just a good Catholic. ???

 

[itsjustdave1988]

what about the Redeemer of the Church ? Where is He in all this ?

Guiding the Church. You ought to assent to all the doctrines of the Church (unless you are protestant), because even in the ordinary magisterial teachings, these words of Jesus Christ are true: “he who hears you, hears me.”

… and we are that Church. Not the Magisterium alone, but all of us together."

Of course. But ONLY the magisterium is ordained to teach authoritatively, not every protestor of that teaching. The magisterium is the Teaching Church, and the rest are the Learning Church. Every clownish raving of the Learning Church is not Catholic truth. If one is to be true to their Catholic creed, they are to obey those ordained and charged with the care of our souls.

Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

Nontheless, "**it is absolutely wrong and forbidden “either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,” **(Divino Afflante Spiritu, 3)

GottleofGeer subscribes to an erroneous view that is forbidden by the Church, quoting from the Protestant Westminister Confession of Faith as his reasoning, yet expects us to believe he’s just a good Catholic. ???

Your statements may well be technically what the “official Church” says in various obscure documents (obscure to the general membership) but they are very far from what Catholic bible scholars are publishing and teaching (often under the imprimatur). It appears that the magesterium is rather split on this issue and maybe the pope just hasn’t had time to issue a new encyclical discussing the reality of the bible as most Catholic experts know it. I hope he hurries up.

Pat

 

[vern_humphrey]

itsjustdave1988:

Vern,

I don’t think you understand my position. I’m not denying other spiritual senses of Scritpure. But the Catholic Church which I profess faith in states "The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” (CCC 116). The literal sense is not the same thing as the literalist sense.

That is correct – the interpretation of ANY written document (not just scripture) begins with a literal analysis. Not until we know what the actual words mean can we go farther.

itsjustdave1988:

Nontheless, "**it is absolutely wrong and forbidden “either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,” **(Divino Afflante Spiritu, 3)

Again, correct. But we must take into account the intent of the author. When Jesus tells us in the Gospel, “A man had two sons,” (Matt 21, 28) are we to take that literally? And if there was no such real man, with real sons, who had such a relationship as Jesus described, are we to consider that Jesus (or Matthew) “erred?”

Or are we to interpret this as it was meant – a story told for our edification, to illustrate the Divine Message?

Similarly, when we are told Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, are we to take that literally, or are we to interpret it as it was meant – a sign of divine influence in a matter of great import?

itsjustdave1988:

GottleofGeer subscribes to an erroneous view that is forbidden by the Church, quoting from the Protestant Westminister Confession of Faith as his reasoning, yet expects us to believe he’s just a good Catholic. ???

I find a lot of professed Catholics want to follow Protestant theology. Generally, these people fall into one of two categories – trolls, and people who are in doubt.

 

[vern_humphrey]

patg:

Your statements may well be technically what the “official Church” says in various obscure documents (obscure to the general membership) but they are very far from what Catholic bible scholars are publishing and teaching (often under the imprimatur). It appears that the magesterium is rather split on this issue and maybe the pope just hasn’t had time to issue a new encyclical discussing the reality of the bible as most Catholic experts know it. I hope he hurries up.

Pat

Where “obscure?”

The Chuch’s position is plainly laid out in paragraphs 101 through 141 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The idea that “The magesterium is rather split” is both false and reflects a failure to understand the Church. Despite what most Protestants (and many Catholics) believe, the Catholic Church is NOT a church of legalistic rules and regulation. There is wide lattitude in interpreting Scripture within the Church.

Although the Catholic Church does have established dogma (as does every other church), the Church enourages study and debate within very wide limits.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

be technically what the “official Church” says in various obscure documents (obscure to the general membership) but they are very far from what Catholic bible scholars are publishing and teaching

Ummmmm… I’m not techinically saying anything contrary to what the magisterium is authentically teaching it.

Bible scholars you speak of are not vested with magisterial authority, are they? As such, they are part of the Learning Church, just like me, and as such they offer opinion, not Catholic doctrine.

Yet, the Bible scholars you refer too are a only a portion of scholars, many of which disagree with those claiming biblical errancy against magisterial doctrine.

I suggest a book from MSgr. George A. Kelly called The New Biblical Theorists.

I also suggest the works of other Bible scholars who do not contradict the Catholic magisterium, such as Fr. William Most, Fr. Brian Harrison, Fr. John McKenzie, Fr. Manuel Miguens, and Fr. Dennis McCarthy. You might also refer to this resource from Dr. Scott Hahn: Can You Trust the Bible? catholicfamilycatalog.com/scotthahn.htm

 

[itsjustdave1988]

maybe the pope just hasn’t had time to issue a new encyclical discussing the reality of the bible as most Catholic experts know it. I hope he hurries up.

You obviously haven’t read Pope John Paul II’s address to the Pontifical Bible Comission given on April 23, 1993, which defends both the teachings of Providentissimus Deus and *Divino Afflante Spiritu, *describing the “permanent validity” of their contributions.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It appears that the magesterium is rather split on this issue

Please show evidence of this from magisterial sources. Has any Acta Apostolica Sedis ever published admit to error in Scripture? (Answer: no.)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What I think what many are attempting to do is create a strawman of the doctrine of inerrancy which the Church does not teach, so that they can easily knock that strawman down, confidently proclaiming that the Church therefore is wrong.

The problem is that the doctrine of inerrancy is not to be understood in any other way than that which the Church teaches it. This applies to those who would attempt a literalist intepretation of Scripture, as well as those who discount the historicity of the Gospels.

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

Ummmmm… I’m not techinically saying anything contrary to what the magisterium is authentically teaching it.

Bible scholars you speak of are not vested with magisterial authority, are they? As such, they are part of the Learning Church, just like me, and as such they offer opinion, not Catholic doctrine.

Yet, the Bible scholars you refer too are a only a portion of scholars, many of which disagree with those claiming biblical errancy against magisterial doctrine.

I suggest a book from MSgr. George A. Kelly called The New Biblical Theorists.

I also suggest the works of other Bible scholars who do not contradict the Catholic magisterium, such as Fr. William Most, Fr. Brian Harrison, Fr. John McKenzie, Fr. Manuel Miguens, and Fr. Dennis McCarthy. You might also refer to this resource from Dr. Scott Hahn: Can You Trust the Bible? catholicfamilycatalog.com/scotthahn.htm

Ok, I’ll make a deal - I promise to read The New Biblical Theorists if you will read And God said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms by Margaret Ralph (Paulist Press).

Pat

 

[itsjustdave1988]

And God said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms by Margaret Ralph (Paulist Press).

Will it tell me anything more than the shelf full of books I have from Raymond Brown, as for example, his book called *The Critical Meaning of the Bible *or his book Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine? Cuz I’ve read them all as part of my post-graduate studies on Sacred Scriptures, which incluced the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy, literary forms and exegesis.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

patg,

If M. Ralph is teaching that the truth of Scripture can only be discovered if we look at the literary form of the Scriptural passage under consideration, then I’m in full agreement. That’s what finding the literal sense is all about, understanding that sense conveyed by the actual words used in Scripture, given a correct understanding of the literary genre used.

However, you insist against the historicity of the Gospels, especially the infancy narratives. Yet, Pope Paul VI disagrees with you. So, knowing that literary forms are important is not in itself sufficient as a defense for claiming the virgin birth of Christ is not historically true, for example. You want to wield Dei Verbum and literary forms in defense of your erroneous claims as if it refuted Paul VI’s position, who was the guy who promulgated *Dei Verbum *and used it to defend the historicity of the Gospels, especially the infancy narratives in his allocution of 1966 against your erroneous position.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

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?

John is one of the sources for the inspiration of Revelation: but that question has little to do with inerrancy. It’s not entirely irrelevant, but it is tangential. Arguing the usual tired questions that are brought up between Catholics and Protestants of a certain sort, isn’t necessary between Catholics. I’ve been reading theology for more years than I can remember.​

Dogma develops. In OT times, it developed materiall (more was revealed over time).

Small correction - Israelite religion did not have dogmas. It was a religion of practice - especially “liturgical” - not dogma. It was not based on right belief, but on worship. There is a theology in the OT, if not several - but the nearest to a creed one gets, is what one reads in Deuteronomy 26.5 or 6.4. There was no system or body of articles of faith; that way of organising beliefs is a Christian invention, AFAIK; like the book.​

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.

I know this, thank you - I’ve read Newman and Ott and thought about these subjects a lot - but none of this answers my question.​

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

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

That is a very long way from the total inerrancy insisted upon by Leo XIII. There is nothing “fraudulent” in a contradiction about the death(s) of Goliath - it could be a simple mistake, or a pair of variant traditions. There is nothing “unjust” in Hosea’s rejection of the massacre of Ahab’s descendants by Jehu, who was earlier on encouraged to carry it out. There is a contradiction - but not an “injustice”. But for Leo XIII, this is not good enough; the Bible must be wholly free of all error whatever, all contradictions included.​

And, no, I can’t find magisterial statements “since this first century papal assertion that teaches against the inerrancy of Scripture” - I don’t have to, and I haven’t looked. Because if something is not true, and can be seen to be untrue, one does not need telling so - we are not automata, but human beings with working intellects. Whether all generations have been so concerned about total inerrancy as we might suppose, is another matter: I can’t think of any reason to suppose that all bishops before the 19th century were inerrantists just because we might think they “must have” been. They may have been - or they may not.

Besides, exegesis has a lot to do with inerrancy - if one regards the OT as full of allegories, and them as what matters, then the problems which appear if one takes the text according to the literal sense may very well not appear. What we think the text is saying, and what we think it is for, influence whether we can regard it as free of error or not. This question of inerrancy is not at all a simple issue. Archaeology, exegesis, linguistic knowledge, theology, all affect how one views this matter. As do the gaps in our knowledge - which are very easy to overlook, because they are gaps. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

GottleofGeer,

Your profile states that you are Catholic. Are you? Is so, why did you quote from the Protestant Westminster Confession of Faith? I have to admit, your denial of papal teaching and affirmation of this protestant formula makes it difficult to take you seriously as a professed Catholic.

Fortunately, that judgement is not yours to make - nor mine, indeed.​

I quoted the “Confession” because the part of its doctrine regarding Scripture that I quoted, is in accord with the facts of the Bible’s history and theChristian faith, and with the facts of Catholic theology. It also admirably balanced: there is a place for the believer, the Church at large, and the believer’s duty - all of this being to the glory of God. If God blesses Presbyterian divines with such insights, this is a gift to all of us.

Far too often, all Catholics seem to say amounts to “You must believe X, because the Church says X is the case.” This shows no insight into what faith involves; it leaves out Christ, except as a figure who can police Catholics to make sure they are “toeing the line”. So I quoted a source I knew to be good and profitable.

I have denied one, non-dogmatic, papal teaching; one that is demonstrably untrue - that is not the same as denying papal teaching in its entirety. Some others I have trouble with. Which is not the same as denying them.

Belief is an intensely personal act and process - it is part of a conversation, of the Christian, Christ, and the Church. Steam-rolling Catholics for raising problems they have noticed, is no way to build them up. Because the Church is not a club to be kicked out of, but a Body, with many members, all of whom have much to contribute to the health of all.

---

As for this:

itsjustdave1988:

GottleofGeer subscribes to an erroneous view that is forbidden by the Church, quoting from the Protestant Westminister Confession of Faith as his reasoning, yet expects us to believe he’s just a good Catholic. ???

• No, just an ordinary Catholic.
• as for the “Confession”: I quoted from the “Confession” because it gives many reasons to believe in Scripture - not because it helps my argument against inerrantism. I did not quote for what it says about inerrancy, because it says nothing about it. The motives for accepting Scripture
  are a topic distinct from the topic of inerrancy ##

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

Led Zeppelin75:

There are obviously errors and contradictions in the bible. Just look at:

atheism.about.com/od/errorsinthebibl/

There’s a long list of errors. I know the Church teaches the bible is the infallable Word of God. But what do yuo believe about the bible?

Do you really believe that anyone that denies the exsistance of God can know any type of truth whatsoever? Linking to an Atheist website…:nope: