Does the Bible have errors in it?

[Podo2004]

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?

Figures it’s an ATHEIST site… There is no errors in the bible it is all true, if you live by the word of God you doing His will
Podo

 

[vern_humphrey]

RSiscoe:

II 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.

Luke 2,1 says:
" 1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus 2 that the whole world should be enrolled." The footnotes say:“1-2] Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). Luke may simply be combining Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius (see also Acts 5:37) to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation come to the empire.” (My emphasis.)

This is from the New American Bible for Catholics, and carries the Imprimatur of Archbishop Hickey (for the New Testament.)

RSiscoe:

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 writings originate in the intellect of God, but must be comprehensible to the intelllect of man. Much of what we know of the universe today can only be described mathmatically. Imagine a Bible consisting entirely of mathmatical formulae!

 

[Steve_Andersen]

What do you mean by errors?

Surely there are literal contradictions in it and the OT was superseded by the NT

And it is definitely not a science or history text

But does that mean that it has errors in the subjects it was meant to address?

it is a theological work

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

I’m not talking about the little science mistakes, I’m talking about the biggies. Like verses in the NT quoteing verses that don’t exist, or the fact that the 4 Gospels tell the events of Jesus’s life in a diffrent order. Such as this one:

“MT 26:59-66, MK 14:55-64 Jesus was tried by the entire Sanhedrin (the chief priests and the whole council).
LK 22:66-71 There was no trial but merely an inquiry held by the Sanhedrin.
JN 18:13-24 There was no appearance before the Sanhedrin, only the private hearings before Annas and then Caiphas.”

“MK 16:14-19 The Ascension took place (presumably from a room) while the disciples were together seated at a table, probably in or near Jerusalem.
LK 24:50-51 It took place outdoors, after supper, at Bethany (near Jerusalem).
AC 1:9-12 It took place outdoors, after 40+ days, at Mt. Olivet.
MT 28:16-20 No mention is made of an ascension.”

“RO 2:13 Doers of the law will be justified.
RO 3:20, GA 3:11 They will not be justified.”

There are things that obviously contridict one another, you can’t hold both true. Does the Church have anything on this matter? I’m not trying to test anyone’s faith, I just want answers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Steve Andersen:

What do you mean by errors?

Surely there are literal contradictions in it and the OT was superseded by the NT

And it is definitely not a science or history text

But does that mean that it has errors in the subjects it was meant to address?

it is a theological work

That’s right – and as a theological work, it is without error.

If on the other hand, you assume it must be letter-perfect in EVERYTHING, you wind addressing problems such as those posed by Led Zepplin:

“MT 26:59-66, MK 14:55-64 Jesus was tried by the entire Sanhedrin (the chief priests and the whole council).
LK 22:66-71 There was no trial but merely an inquiry held by the Sanhedrin.
JN 18:13-24 There was no appearance before the Sanhedrin, only the private hearings before Annas and then Caiphas.”

Now, we have a choice here – either we accept this as the normal sort of thing when men write down things that happened long ago (and some of them things they didn’t personally see), OR we throw up our hands and say our faith has been destroyed.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

vern humphrey:

Now, we have a choice here – either we accept this as the normal sort of thing when men write down things that happened long ago (and some of them things they didn’t personally see), OR we throw up our hands and say our faith has been destroyed.

That dosen’t help. If the bible is inspired by God, than there wouldn’t be man-made errors, right? Again, I’m just looking for answers.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

I also found this which has also weakened my faith quite a bit:

"Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the “Queen of Heaven.”
He was of royal descent.
He crushed a serpent’s head.
Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a “small basket of cakes,” and walked on water.
He abolished idolatry, was a “sower of the word,” and preached “the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness.”
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
He was transfigured on a mount.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
He ascended to Nirvana or “heaven.”
Buddha was considered the “Good Shepherd”, the “Carpenter”, the “Infinite and Everlasting.”
He was called the “Savior of the World” and the “Light of the World.”

Horus Of Egypt:
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.
Horus was also baptized by “Anup the Baptizer,” who becomes “John the Baptist.”
He had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
He walked on water.
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
He was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God’s Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word” etc.
He was “the Fisher,” and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish (“Ichthys”).
Horus’s personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.”
Horus was called “the KRST,” or “Anointed One,” long before the Christians duplicated the story.

Mithra:Sun god of persia

Mithra was born on December 25th.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra was called “the Good Shepherd.”
He was considered “the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.”
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, “the Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
His religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper.”

Hindu Avatar Krishna:
Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (“Divine One”)
His father was a carpenter.
His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
He was of royal descent.
He was baptized in the River Ganges.
He worked miracles and wonders.
He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
“He lived poor and he loved the poor.”
He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
Krishna is called the “Shepherd God” and “Lord of lords,” and was considered “the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word.”
He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the “Resurrection” and the “way to the Father.”
He was considered the “Beginning, the Middle and the End,” (“Alpha and Omega”), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
His disciples bestowed upon him the title “Jezeus,” meaning “pure essence.”
Krishna is to return to do battle with the “Prince of Evil,” who will desolate the earth."

 

[vern_humphrey]

Led Zeppelin75:

That dosen’t help. If the bible is inspired by God, than there wouldn’t be man-made errors, right? Again, I’m just looking for answers.

You, yourself, posted some slight discrepancies from the Gospels.

Now, are those accurate cites you provided? And do the cites back up your interpretation?

What do YOU make of it? Do YOU say, “Hmm, this Bible thing must be wrong because there are different versions of how the Jewish preliminaries to Jesus crucifixion were conducted?”

Or do you have another position?

 

[clmowry]

vern humphrey:

TNow, we have a choice here – either we accept this as the normal sort of thing when men write down things that happened long ago (and some of them things they didn’t personally see), OR we throw up our hands and say our faith has been destroyed.

Another potential problem is “word for word” translations from an ncient languages to modern english that are equivalent to thought for thought translations don’t really exist.

For example the orginal word that is translated into english as “justification” may not have had the same thought (meaning) intended as the that of the modern theological definition of that term.

I’m sure there is some linguist out there who could much better explain what I’m getting at, but I think this covers a big chunk of the apparent contradictions.

Another big chunk is likely covered by omisions from one account to another of the same event/condition as opposed to true contradictions.

For example I could in different context make all of the following statements accurately and with no intent to mislead:

My wife has a daughter but no sons.
My wife has 4 children.
My wife has no children.
My wife and I have no children.
I have a son.
I have two sons.
I have three sons.
I have a son but no daughter.
I have a daughter.

Taken individually and out of context there might appear to be a contradiction here, but they are all accurate statements.

You might be able to deduce from those statements the truth which is that I in fact have 3 biological sons from a previous marriage and an adopted daughter with my wife.

Chuck

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

I find atheists like that very disappointing - they seem to be inverted Fundamentalists: many of them are former Fundamentalist Christians, indeed.​

Happily, there are atheists who ask challenging questions, and don’t treat other peoples’ views as rubbish. Very refreshing

Some of the errors in the Bible are errors only if one ignores the nature of the text in question - if a text is talking about “satyrs” in Isaiah 13, say, that’s not a problem unless one ignores the probability that the passage is talking in terms of the mythology of the day. If one insists on treating the passage as though Isaiah were a post-Enlightenment European, instead of an 8th-century BC prophet in Judah with a political message, one is sure to make a complete mess of it. ##

 

[vern_humphrey]

Led Zeppelin75:

I also found this which has also weakened my faith quite a bit:

"Mithra:Sun god of persia

Mithra was born on December 25th."

I’ll take this one – Jesus was NOT born on December 25th.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

That date is (approximately) the Winter Solistice and many pagan religions considered it sacred. Christians, rather than eliminate pagan holidays, tended to “repurpose” them – in this case Christmas replaced the Saturnalia.

The same is true of Easter – there are many pagan fertility rites and holidays associated with that particular part of the calendar. Since it falls near the Passover (when Christ was crucified and resurected), we simply put a Christian meaning on a long-cherished holiday there.

Now, I’m glad to help, but I follow the motto of the Knights of the Round Table. There are an unlimited number of thse “conradictions” that have been made up, collated, and so on by those who wish to shake people’s faith. Rather than individually refute each and every one of them, just recognize them for what they are, a pistache of forced parallels, and forget them.

 

[RSiscoe]

Vern:

Luke 2,1 says:
" 1 (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). [footnote]Luke may simply be combining Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius (see also Acts 5:37) to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation come to the empire." (My emphasis.)

This is from the New American Bible for Catholics, and carries the Imprimatur of Archbishop Hickey (for the New Testament.)

Vern,

Certainly you know that a footnote is not infallible. We have heretics in high places today. There are problems with many footnotes in the modern Bibles. Liberalism, which has been condemned repeatedly by the Church, has spread and is now in high places within the Church. I’m sure you can find books that deny the Divinity of Christ with an imprimatur. Does that mean Jesus is not God? Of course not, it just means that a heretic gave the book his imprimatur.

Do we believe in the Church or not? If we say we do, do we even understand the Church? When a council defines a matter, and when that statement is ratified by the Pope, we believe that the dogmatic statement is true - inspired by God - and therefore cannot change. Our faith is not based upon the contents of every book containing an imprimatur. The Church has spoken infallibly many times as to the infallibility of the Scriptrues. Either we believe the Church or we don’t. We should not shy away from believing the Church because of the deceits of the liberals and Atheists. Let us do what the fathers did: If we find something that appears to be a contradiction in the Bible, don’t claim that the portion is not inspired: seek to find a way to reconcile the two passages. Read the example above of how “Madaglen” reconciled two apparent contradictions. When I asked him to try to reconcile the then, instead of claiming they contradicted one another, he did it - and he did a very good job, even using examples. Good for him. Let us do the same. If an Athiest brings up an apparent contradiction, don’t shy away. We have the truth. Let us have enough faith to believe that!

Again I say, read the quotes from the Popes, that I posted earlier. These are the words of the Church, and the words are based on the infallible declarations of the Councils. Let us be strong Catholics who will stand up for the truth, no ones who will shy away when an apparent contradiction is presented.

If we claim that the Bible contains errors, whether theological errors, or historical errors, we have already compromised, and rejected what the Church teaches.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

vern humphrey:

Now, I’m glad to help, but I follow the motto of the Knights of the Round Table. There are an unlimited number of thse “conradictions” that have been made up, collated, and so on by those who wish to shake people’s faith. Rather than individually refute each and every one of them, just recognize them for what they are, a pistache of forced parallels, and forget them.

The problem is that most of those I gave you were formed before Christianity.
vern humphrey:

You, yourself, posted some slight discrepancies from the Gospels.

Now, are those accurate cites you provided? And do the cites back up your interpretation?

What do YOU make of it? Do YOU say, “Hmm, this Bible thing must be wrong because there are different versions of how the Jewish preliminaries to Jesus crucifixion were conducted?”

Or do you have another position?

I simply want answers. If people hold every word of the bible true, they are lying. There are things that obviously contridict each other, how can you believe both? Again, I’m not questioning, I’m asking. If you can prove the bible and the Church correct, great, I’ll be along for the ride. But if not I don’t have to spend my days in Church.

 

[RSiscoe]

Led Zeppelin75:

I also found this which has also weakened my faith quite a bit:

"Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the “Queen of Heaven.”
He was of royal descent.
He crushed a serpent’s head.
Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a “small basket of cakes,” and walked on water.
He abolished idolatry, was a “sower of the word,” and preached “the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness.”
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
He was transfigured on a mount.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
He ascended to Nirvana or “heaven.”
Buddha was considered the “Good Shepherd”, the “Carpenter”, the “Infinite and Everlasting.”
He was called the “Savior of the World” and the “Light of the World.”

Mithra:Sun god of persia

Mithra was born on December 25th.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra was called “the Good Shepherd.”
He was considered “the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.”
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, “the Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
His religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper.”

Hindu Avatar Krishna:
Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (“Divine One”)
His father was a carpenter.
His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
He was of royal descent.
He was baptized in the River Ganges.
He worked miracles and wonders.
He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
“He lived poor and he loved the poor.”
He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
Krishna is called the “Shepherd God” and “Lord of lords,” and was considered “the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word.”
He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the “Resurrection” and the “way to the Father.”
He was considered the “Beginning, the Middle and the End,” (“Alpha and Omega”), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
His disciples bestowed upon him the title “Jezeus,” meaning “pure essence.”
Krishna is to return to do battle with the “Prince of Evil,” who will desolate the earth."

The devil is called “the ape of God” because he tries to copy God. The devils has given us false religions. Is it any surprise, then, that there are teachings within these religions that in some ways parallel truths taught within Catholicism? It shouldn’t because “the devil is the ape of God”.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RSiscoe:

Everything in the Bible is true.

Even lies told by satan, and blasphemies of men ?​

What about:

• John 8:48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

Is that true ? Or is it instead true as a report of the comments of others who are in fact saying what is untrue ?

If one is going to claim the entire Bible is all of it true, one needs a doctrine of inspiration which will cover all the contents of the Bible.

In what sense is a text which is beyond recovery true ? Truth implies communication - but a text that is no longer recoverable, does not communicate at all.

And what about words that can be correctly translated in more than one way - parts of verbs, for example ? They do not offer a determinate, ascertainable single meaning - so in what way are they true ?

And so one could go on. ##

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!

Only if God intended to give true values. But whether He did, is a question that needs looking into. IMHO, as the Bible is not a maths text, mathematical data may well be given approximately, in a “popular” way; & not in a way that would satisfy a mathematician.​

There is certainly some inexact philology - but the texts in question may be no more than popular etymologies; since philology as a science is of recent growth. The authors of Scripture were not Harvard professors, but men of faith. ##

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.

---

Does this mean to rule out all categories of error in all contexts of any kind whatsoever ? I hope not - otherwise, the blasphemies of men and the words of Christ are being put on a level. And the Pope does seem to allow of no exceptions at all.​

**

**…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]

Why would any of this weaken you faith?

1st did you review all of the historical documentation that proves the accuracy of these claims. (That these things are all facutal. That the were established in historical record prior to the establishment of the church.)

Once you established that the are all factually true, did you find historical documentation that demonstrated that early Christians were even aware of these myths?

Once you determined that early Christians were aware of these myths did you find any historical evidence that demonstrates that even if they were aware of these myths that they were translated into Chrisitinan “myth”?

Chuck
Led Zeppelin75:

I also found this which has also weakened my faith quite a bit:

“Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the “Queen of Heaven.”…Krishna is to return to do battle with the “Prince of Evil,” who will desolate the earth.”

 

[Ecce_Homo]

Led Zeppelin75,

Of all of the supposed accounts you relate about Buddha, et. al., which of these “messiahs” had followers who gladly went to their deaths–often deaths of extreme torment–rather than admit that their lord’s resurrection did not take place.

Since ancient myths interest you, check out the poems of the Erythraean Sibyl (who lived at about the time of the founding of Rome), which are recorded in St. Augustine’s City of God (Book XVIII, Chapter 23). In one such poem, the first letters of each line taken together spell the words “IESOUS CHREISTOS THEOU UIOS SOTER” which means, “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour.” In addition, if you connect the first letters of these words, you have ICHTHUS, which is Greek for fish.

Anyhow, my point is that the martyrs of the Church bear the greatest witness to the historical truth of Christ, as well as the truth of Christ’s claims.

As far as the inerrant nature of the Bible, the Church has decreed that only the original manuscripts are free of error, and that translators were not given the same guarantee of inerrancy as the men who, being inspired, wrote them. (Introduction to the Bible, Fr. Laux, pg 3.)

The Church decreed that the Vulgate “is in substantial conformity with the original sacred text particularly in its expression of those truths of faith and morals…” This does not mean it is free from all error, or in the words of my source, “The decree of the Council does not imply that the editions of the Vulgate then in use were absolutely free from error.” (Ibid, pg 16).

 

[vern_humphrey]

RSiscoe:

Vern,

Certainly you know that a footnote is not infallible. .

And the point of that is?

The footnote is CORRECT, in that we have difficulties with this statement of Luke’s about the census and the governor of Syria.

Now, the issue is, is that an error, or simply something we have to expect in men writing about events that took place long ago?

Or to put it another way, does it MATTER when Quirinius was governor of Syria? Is THAT Luke’s message, or is it something entirely different?

RSiscoe:

Again I say, read the quotes from the Popes, that I posted earlier. These are the words of the Church, and the words are based on the infallible declarations of the Councils. Let us be strong Catholics who will stand up for the truth, no ones who will shy away when an apparent contradiction is presented.

If we claim that the Bible contains errors, whether theological errors, or historical errors, we have already compromised, and rejected what the Church teaches.

No – YOU may have compromised or rejected. I have not, because my faith is based on Christ, not on when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

My faith does not depend on every comma and translation and phrase of the Bible being correct in all aspects – my faith is in the story, not the minutia.

 

[twf]

There are a lot of issues brought up, and I won’t be able to address them all right now…but I will try to get to them later.

First off, Zed, you cited these pagan myths that seem similar to the story of Christ.
I would ask the following questions:
1)What is your source for these myths?
2) How credible are these stories?
3) Have they been modified in any way recently, by enemies of the Church? (By recently, I mean any time within the last 2000 years)
4) Do scholars, both conservative and liberal, agree that these stories are genuine?
5) Is there scholarly proof that these stories pre-date Christianity in the form you presented them?
6) Do pagan myths that bare some resemblance to the Truth invalidate the Truth? The historical liklihood of Christ actually dieing on the cross and rising again is very well validated by history…the fulfillment of prophecies, the vast number of manuscripts in a wide range of places, and the early date of the New Testament writings. Can the same be said of any of these myths? Do not assume the forces of liberalism are correct. They distort history and the Truth. I highly recommend Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ (though it is Protestant).
Check out catholic.com/library/is_catholicism_pagan.asp from our own site.

Next, on alledged errors in Sacred Scripture.
First off, it is a lie, and a heresy, to say that Sacred Scripture teaches only morality. The popes CLEARLY, beyond a shadow of a doubt, damned this heresy again and again. Liberalism can twist the words of the Holy Fathers as much as they want, but in reality, the teaching of the Church remains the same. Sacred Scripture is inerrent on every matter it touches upon. If the sacred writer intends to write history, then that history is without error. It is true that various genres are used, this is also taught by the Church, but many liberals have a hard time admitting that the history genre is used in the history books of Scripture. EVERY alledged error that has been brought against Sacred Scripture, and in particular the Gospels, has been answered by orthodox Bible scholars. Liberals are too quick to assume that their alledged contradictions can not be answered. I will endeavour to examine the specific errors brought up in this thread, and if I do not know an answer or can not think of a solution myself, I will look into it and find one. But I am 100% confident that there are indeed answers to every alledged error.

(The alledged Pi error is not an error at all, I’ll get to that one first).
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0407fea3.asp

 

[vern_humphrey]

Led Zeppelin75:

The problem is that most of those I gave you were formed before Christianity.

I simply want answers. If people hold every word of the bible true, they are lying. There are things that obviously contridict each other, how can you believe both? Again, I’m not questioning, I’m asking. If you can prove the bible and the Church correct, great, I’ll be along for the ride. But if not I don’t have to spend my days in Church.

This is a beautiful example of the fallacy of literal truth. And an illustration of where it ultimately leads.

Read the bible as a book. Read and undestand the themes and great messages. “Love thy neighbor” is true. And it doesn’t matter when Quirinius was governor of Syria, or what the value of pi is, because that doesn’t change the great message.