Does the Bible have errors in it?

[Led_Zeppelin75]

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

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?

 

[space_ghost]

Led Zeppelin75:

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

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?

i believe if it is understood contextually… every syllable is true…
misunderstood, you cannot list all the errors…

something wrong with thinking it’s only partially inspired… does not make good sence to me… but that in itself is another issue…

 

[Madaglan]

Just by briefly looking at that page (in particular the part on the 10 Commandments) you have to understand that many atheists are not very deep individuals. They look at one verse which says “Thou shalt not kill” and then see another verse which says “kill these people”–and they assume that the two are in contradiction. The problem is, of course, the Bible is much more complicated than that, just as life is much more complicated than an atheist would like it to be.

Think of it this way: In this country most people (Christian or not) think that it is wrong to kill. In fact, it’s a law at many levels of the state not to kill other people. However, in this country, there are certain people who at times are allowed to kill without breaking the moral standard. These are people like police officers, the military, etc.

If you look at many an atheist’s philosophy, you will find that he or she holds many implicit contradictions or poorly thought-out conclusions.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.”[72]

As Lily Tomlin’s Edith Ann would say,

“And that’s the TRUTH!”

 

[StephiePea]

The bible has errors according to what? Most of it is eye wittness testimony of an event that none of us were at, so how can we say it is incorrect. Much of it is proficy (sp?), and hasn’t happened yet. Some of it is symbolism for things we don’t quite understand. That is why Catholics have tradition and scripture, because we need more than just the bible to live by. We need the historical account of how to interpret things. The bible isn’t in error, we as man are in error in how we interpret things.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We are required to believe the bible as revelation, not as science, history, or mathmatics. It was quite possible for the inspired humans who wrote the Bible to cast the message of God in human terms understandable at the time – which might conflict with later discoveries in science or mathmatics, or even history, for example. These should not be considered errors, but rather artifacts – evidence of the state of culture at the time of writing.

We must also remember that much of the Bible – Old and New Testaments – is based on oral tradition and in the natural course of events, there can arise several versions of the same basic story. The gospels are an example of this.

We shouldn’t seek to pick the bible apart, finding something in each and every verse, but read it like a book – looking at the major themes and meaning as a whole.

 

[RSiscoe]

space ghost:

i believe if it is understood contextually… every syllable is true…
misunderstood, you cannot list all the errors…

That was a great answer. I’ll have to remember it.

 

[RSiscoe]

Vern Humphrey:

We are required to believe the bible as revelation, not as science, history, or mathmatics. It was quite possible for the inspired humans who wrote the Bible to cast the message of God in human terms understandable at the time – which might conflict with later discoveries in science or mathmatics, or even history, for example. These should not be considered errors, but rather artifacts – evidence of the state of culture at the time of writing.

Vern,

How could God err in science or history or mathmatics? Are these categories out of God’s area of experties? Of course not. If God inspired the authors of the Bible, then everything in them must be 100% true. If anything is false God could not be the author. The following are a few quotes from the Popes on this matter:

In Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII begins by rejecting the belief that the scriptures are only inspired in the area of faith and morals, which is what the liberal of his day were beginning to claim:"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 those 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 - such a system cannot be tolerated. For all the books that the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it…This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican…Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author…Such has always been the belief of the Holy Fathers.

It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by “higher criticism”; for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts, were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continuation of last post

Pope Benedict XV, in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920), confirms, and amplifies upon Leo XIII’s brilliant doctrinal synthesis:
Although these words of our predecessor leave no doubt for dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a particular sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.

We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor’s injunctions, and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.

Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious, and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest-things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or lesser knowledge.

Against this heresy, Pope Benedict XV recalled the doctrine of St. Jerome, as well as that of the other Fathers of the Church who:

…have drawn this doctrine concerning Holy Scriptures from nowhere else but at the school of our Divine Master Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact, are we to understand that Our Lord had any other conception of Scripture? The formulae “It is written,” and, “that the scripture may be fulfilled” are, coming from His lips, an unanswerable argument that puts an end to all controversy.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continuation of last post

Lastly, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943), which commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’ s Providentissimus Deus, solemnly condemned the liberal.modernist heresies which were already, at that time, being spread about in the Church:More recently, however, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine which insists, claims and demands for these “books in their entirety and in all their parts,” a divine authority preserving them from all possible error, some Catholic writers have nevertheless seen fit to restrict or limit the truth of Holy Scriptures only to those matters of Faith and morals, considering all the rest, being of the field of physics and of history, as “something that is simply mentioned in passing” - and having, as they pretended, no connection whatsoever with the Faith. But our predecessor, Leo XIII, of undying memory, tore to pieces, and rightly so, these very same errors in his encyclical *Providentissimus *Deus of November 18, 1893.

Then, quoting Leo XIII word for word:

It is absolutely forbidden to pretend that the sacred writer himself has fallen into error, since divine inspiration not only excludes any and all possible error in itself, but even loathes and excludes it, since God, Who is sovereign truth, cannot be the author of any possible error.

Pius XII concludes:

This doctrine, which was so forcefully explained by our predecessor Leo XIII, We also propose with our pontifical authority, and We insist that it be held, religiously, by all.

If God is truly the primary author of the Scriptures, as we must believe, than there is no way that there could be any errors. If there are errors, then God could not be the author. It is that simple. That is why the Church has always taught that the Scriptures are without error, even in the area of science and history. Any “science”, or “history” that contradicts the Bible is simply wrong, not the other way around. As Catholics we can be 100% certain about this.

 

[vern_humphrey]

RSiscoe:

Vern,

How could God err in science or history or mathmatics? Are these categories out of God’s are of experties? Of course not. If God inspired the authors of the Bible, then everything in them must be 100% true. If anything is flase God could not be the author.

God doesn’t err. Men who are inspired write in the context of their culture. For example, I was once more or less involved in a debate where one of the debaters claimed the Bible says a certain round pool (Siloam?) is round and the circumfrence is three times the diameter.

Now, this is so silly there is no need to look it up. Pi is not three – but that has nothing to do with the divine inspiration of the bible. Revelation is not effected by the value of pi – which cannot, in any case, be stated precisely by the most modern writers!

 

[RSiscoe]

Vern,

I am just wondering if you agree with all of the above quotes I gave from the Popes? If you agree with them, then I agree with you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

RSiscoe:

Vern,

I am just wondering if you agree with all of the above quotes I gave from the Popes? If you agree with them, then I agree with you.

Certainly I agree with the Popes. But they do not require that everything in the bible be literally true in the strictest sense. If that were the requirement, things like slight descepancies between the Gospels would wreck the whole idea of revelation!!

Read the bible like a book – for the great themes – not for mathematical formulae, or absolute correspondence with historical accounts from an era that may have been as far removed from the writer as the birth of Christ is from our own era.

 

[RSiscoe]

vern humphrey:

God doesn’t err. Men who are inspired write in the context of their culture."

Men may write in the context of their culture, but that doesn’t change the fact that God was the primary author of scripture. It is true that different authors sometimes seem to have different writing styles, but that does not change the fact that everything that was written was done so by God, who used men to do it, just like Leo XIII said. If God is the primary author, and the men were merely His instrunments, there is not one single error in the Bible. If there is one single error, whether it be in the area of faith, or science, or history, then God is not the primary author of Scripture. That is why we must believe that everything contained in the scriptures is 100% true, with no possibility of there being an error.

I am sure that you are a faithful Catholic, and believe everything the Church teaches. I just assume you did not know what the Church taught on this matter, since liberalism is so widespread today. You were probably just repeating what you have heard when you wrote: “We are required to believe the bible as revelation, not as science, history, or mathmatics”.

That may indeed be what the majority of the people claim today, but it is not what the Church teaches.

Pius XII: “More recently, however, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine which insists, claims and demands for these “books in their entirety and in all their parts,” a divine authority preserving them from all possible error, some Catholic writers have nevertheless seen fit to restrict or limit the truth of Holy Scriptures only to those matters of Faith and morals, considering all the rest, being of the field of physics and of history, as “something that is simply mentioned in passing” - and having, as they pretended, no connection whatsoever with the Faith” (Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943).

 

[RSiscoe]

vern humphrey:

Certainly I agree with the Popes. But they do not require that everything in the bible be literally true in the strictest sense…

Read the bible like a book – for the great themes – not for mathematical formulae, or absolute correspondence with historical accounts from an era that may have been as far removed from the writer as the birth of Christ is from our own era.

Everything in the Bible is true. That is what the Church teaches and that is what we must believe. If the Bible gives a mathmatical formulae, or a historical fact, you can bet that it is true, since, believe it or not, the primary author (Who is God) even knows math and histoy!

Pope Leo XIII "For all the books that the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it.…This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican…

Do you believe that?

 

[clmowry]

RSiscoe:

Everything in the Bible is true. That is what the Church teaches and that is what we must believe. If the Bible gives a mathmatical formulae, or a historical fact, you can bet that it is true, since, believe it or not, the primary author (Who is God) even knows math and histoy!

Perhaps the issue is that every word in the bible is not necessarily meant to be taken literally from a modern scientific context.

For example when the bible says that a rabit chews its cudd I think it’s fair to say that the author (and God) were not making a bilogical distinction about how a rabit digests it’s food, but simply referencing the way it appears to chew things.

Chuck

 

[vern_humphrey]

RSiscoe:

Everything in the Bible is true. That is what the Church teaches and that is what we must believe. If the Bible gives a mathmatical formulae, or a historical fact, you can bet that it is true, since, believe it or not, the primary author (Who is God) even knows math and histoy!

God knows math and history – but there are no men with God’s intellect.

If the Bible says Pi is three – are we to believe that literally, and design bridges and airplanes on that basis? Or are we to lose our faith entirely?

Compare the stories of the Resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels and in John. They are not the same, word for word, and differ in several respects. Are we to take that as proof the Gospels are NOT inspired?

 

[vern_humphrey]

clmowry:

Perhaps the issue is that every word in the bible is not necessarily meant to be taken literally from a modern scientific context.

For example when the bible says that a rabit chews its cudd I think it’s fair to say that the author (and God) were not making a bilogical distinction about how a rabit digests it’s food, but simply referencing the way it appears to chew things.

Chuck

Bingo!

It is the story that is important, not the inconsequential details. We must remember that the Bible was written long after many of the events described, and the redactors often had conflicting oral versions to reconcile.

Consider the story of Abraham telling Abmilech that Sarah is his sister (as opposed to his wife, which she really was.) This story appears three times in Genesis – the second time it happens, you think, “Dang! Doesn’t Abraham remember that he got into trouble the last time he pulled that stunt?”

The third time, it’s Jacob who does it, and you begin to wonder if this is hereditary.

No – it’s simply a redactor trying to deal with different oral traditions.

Similarly, Noah is told in Genesis 6,19-20 to bring in two of each kind of animal and bird. But in Genesis 7,2-3, he is told to bring in SEVEN pairs of each clean bird and beast, but only one pair of eacn unclean bird or beast .

These things delight athiests, and they often use them to trip up believers. And those believers who demand that every jot and tittle of the Bible be accurate in the details that don’t affect revelation set themselves up for this trap.

 

[RSiscoe]

clmowry:

Perhaps the issue is that every word in the bible is not necessarily meant to be taken literally from a modern scientific context"

I noticed that you are from Seabrook. I used to live there. I’m originally from the Clear Lake area.

I agree that there could be some statements that were not intended to be taken literally - there’s probably many such statments. I think the Bible should be interpreted in the sense that the author (God) intended. But what we cannot say is that historical statements contained in the Bible are subject to error, for this would mean that God erred, which is not possible.

Vern:

God knows math and history – but there are no men with God’s intellect.

True, but the writings contained within the Bible did not originate within the intellect of man. God is the primary author, man was the instrunment. The word of God proceeded from the intellect of God. There is actually deep truth contained in that statment, since theologians tell us that the Word of God (the second person of the Blessed Trinity) proceeds from the intellect of God, just as the word of man proceeds from his intellect. But let’s not get too far off topic.

The Bible is a writing of God. God used men as a mere instrunment to write the Bible. In no way was God subordinated to the position of a secondary author, on any point. When we say that the Bible is inspired by God, we do not mean that God simply urged the writers to write about a particular subject, we mean that God Himself used the human authors to write with. Just as we may use a pen, or a pencil, so God used men. That is why there is no way that an error is contained in the Bible.

Pope Leo XIII: "For all the books that the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost… Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author…Such has always been the belief of the Holy Fathers.

 

[RSiscoe]

Vern:

These things delight athiests, and they often use them to trip up believers. And those believers who demand that every jot and tittle of the Bible be accurate in the details that don’t affect revelation set themselves up for this trap.

Earlier you wrote that you believed the Popes who I quoted. Do you really? Here are a few of the quotes again:

Pope Leo XIII "It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by “higher criticism”; for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts, were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true.

"For all the books that the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it."

---

**From what you have written, I don’t think you believe that. We are surrounded by a sea of liberalism, and it is difficult to keep from being tainted by it. If the above quotes from the Popes “rub you the wrong way”, it shows that you have been tainted by the liberal spirit. Use this as an opportunity to rethink your position so that you are in agreement with the Church. **

---