Does the Bible have errors in it?

[RSiscoe]

Vern:

From Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second Edition:

Fundamentalism; 1. religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and regarded as fundamental to the Christian faith. 2. among some American Protestants, the movement based on these beliefs.

Your position, as you express it, seems to fit right in there. And Fundamentalism is not a Catholic position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSiscoe

But all of my views (which have been described by some as “Fundamentalist”) are nothing more than the teachings the Church has always held. And in fact, the opposite views, that I am arguing against, have already been explicitly condemned by the Church. .

.

You are forgetting that what I believe about the Bible is infallibly true. That is not my opinion. That is the unchanging truth as taught by the Church.

How do my views differ in any way from those of the Council of Trent, Florence, Vatican I, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, and Benedict XV, who I quoted? They didn’t. I believe what they taught. For that you have labeled me a Fundamentalist. If you define someone who believes the infallible truth, as defined by the Church, a Fundamentalist, than I am guilty. You may label that a Fundamentalist, but the Church labels that “faithful”.

 

[RSiscoe]

From John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter prefacing the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"In this regard one can certainly understand that such a remarkable number of suggested improvements shows the extraordinary interest that the Catechism

has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine . . . "

And:

“Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervor, each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time.”

Do you disagree with the Pope’s comments about the Catechism?

Yes, my opinion differs from the Popes on this matter. I do not think the new Catechism is as clear as some of the older ones. My favorite Catechism is the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I find it much better than the new one. In my opinion there is no comparison. The new catechism has some good information, but some ambiguous information as well. I prefer the older ones.

Notice that I readily admitted having a different opinion than the Pope on that matter. When I quoted Pope Leo XIII, Pius XII, and Benedict XV, who were teaching the unchangeable doctrine that the Bible is inspired and infallible in, not only faith and morals, but also history, you said you agreed with them. Do you really?

And there is a very big difference between my opinion differing from John Paul II’s regarding how good the new catechism is, and your disagreeing with the Popes I quoted about doctrinal matters. John Paul II was merely expressing a fallible opinion; the Popes I quoted were teaching infallible doctrine.

 

[RSiscoe]

Vern,

I have a question for you. How did you vote in the poll at the top of this thread?

 

[vern_humphrey]

RSiscoe:

.
You are forgetting that what I believe about the Bible is infallibly true. That is not my opinion. That is the unchanging truth as taught by the Church.

Do you see the falacy in what you’ve just posted? Let me help you: " . . . what*** I*** believe about the Bible is infallibly true."

There’s a BIG difference between saying, “The Bible is infallibly true” and saying " . . . what*** I*** believe about the Bible is infallibly true."

The Church has not given to you the authority to interpret the Bible for everyone else.

RSiscoe:

How do my views differ in any way from those of the Council of Trent, Florence, Vatican I, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, and Benedict XV, who I quoted? They didn’t. I believe what they taught. For that you have labeled me a Fundamentalist. If you define someone who believes the infallible truth, as defined by the Church, a Fundamentalist, than I am guilty. You may label that a Fundamentalist, but the Church labels that “faithful”.

The people who ARE authorized to interpret the Bible for the rest of us – and to interpred and apply all the documents and authorities you have cited – do not agree with your interpretation.

You, yourself say (in another post),

RSiscoe:

Yes, my opinion differs from the Popes on this matter. I do not think the new Catechism is as clear as some of the older ones. My favorite Catechism is the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I find it much better than the new one. In my opinion there is no comparison. The new catechism has some good information, but some ambiguous information as well. I prefer the older ones.

So you accept those you like, interpret them as they suit you, and reject the rest?

That position, however passionately you may advance it, is not a Catholic position. As a Catholic, therefore, I am obliged to reject it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

RSiscoe:

Vern,

I have a question for you. How did you vote in the poll at the top of this thread?

The poll is:

What do you believe about the Bible?
Every word of it is true?
It is God’s word, but there are errors?
The Bible is not God’s word?

Examining it, I saw it for the loaded poll it is – you either accept the Fundamentalist Protestant position, or reject the Bible. I therefore chose the fourth position:

“I’m a Catholic and accept the teaching of the Church in regard to scripture and tradition.”

That position is laid out in Part One, Chapter Two, Article Three of the Catechism of the Catholic Church – which I take from your recent posts, you reject.

 

[password]

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?

Led, it sounds like you are really searching for truth. Why not ask the Lord to guide you through the teacher, the Holy Spirit, for truth. If you honestly seek Him - he will show you. Since I’ve been considering catholicism, the Lord has showed me truth in amazing and convincing ways!

 

[RSiscoe]

Vern:

Do you see the falacy in what you’ve just posted? Let me help you: " . . . what*** I*** believe about the Bible is infallibly true."

There’s a BIG difference between saying, “The Bible is infallibly true” and saying " . . . what*** I*** believe about the Bible is infallibly true."

The Church has not given to you the authority to interpret the Bible for everyone else.

OK, now I am confused. I made the comment that what I believe about the Bible is infallibly true, because what I believed about the Bible (i.e. that it is inspired and infallibly in its teachings on faith, morals, history, and everything else) is taught infallibly by the Church.

Example: Let’s say you are talking to a Catholic about transubstantiation, and he does not believe in it. If you do believe in transubstantiation as defined by the Lateran Council, you are able to say that your view of the Eucharist is infallibly true. Why can you say that? Because the Church has defined the matter infallibly, and you agree with it. Therefore, if what you beleive about the Eucharist corresponds to what the Church infallibly teaches, your belief is infallible.

Now, I have shown that the Church teaches infallibly, that the Bible is completely inspired, and has no errors whatsoever. Since my belief corresponds to this infallibe truth, what I believe is infallibly true.

Your post almost sounded like you were referring to my interpretation of the Bible. Certainly my interpretation of the Bible is not infallibe. But I was not referring to my interpretation, but to the fact that the Bible itself is objectively true in every way, history, science, etc.

In other words, everything contained within the Bible is true (faith, morals, history, science, etc). That is what the Church teaches and that is what I believe. It has been infallibly defined that everything in the Bible is true. I agree with this infallible truth. My interpretation of the Bible is not infallible. The only way my interpretation of a particular verse would be infallible is if the Church has defined the true meaning of the verse and I agree with it.

 

[RSiscoe]

I just re-read your post and am certain you are confusing a subjective interpretation of the Bible with the objective truth of the Bible.

The Church has taught that, since the Bible is inspired by God, it is objectively true in every way. That is what we must believe.

Our individual interpretation of the Bible is an intirely different matter. It is certainly possible that we can misunderstand the objective truth contained in the Bible. In fact, that is what those do who claim that the Bible has contradictions: They are misunderstanding the Bible.

What the Church teaches, and what we are talking about here, is that the Bible is infallibly true in its faith, morals, science and history. You claimed that the history and science contained in the Bible is not necessarily true.

We are not talking about our interpretation of the Bible.

 

[vern_humphrey]

RSiscoe:

OK, now I am confused. I made the comment that what I believe about the Bible is infallibly true, because what I believed about the Bible (i.e. that it is inspired and infallibly in its teachings on faith, morals, history, and everything else) is taught infallibly by the Church.

I don’t believe I’ve misquoted or misconstrued you. You go beyond what the Church says, and interject YOUR concepts of truth.

RSiscoe:

Now, I have shown that the Church teaches infallibly, that the Bible is completely inspired, and has no errors whatsoever. Since my belief corresponds to this infallibe truth, what I believe is infallibly true.

Again, that’s YOUR interpretation of what truth is, and what the Church means by the infallability of the Bible. You stretch this to cover things like a requirement to reject science – and that’s a Fundamentalist Protestant postion, not a Catholic position.

RSiscoe:

Your post almost sounded like you were referring to my interpretation of the Bible. Certainly my interpretation of the Bible is not infallibe. But I was not referring to my interpretation, but to the fact that the Bible itself is objectively true in every way, history, science, etc…

That’s YOUR concept – not the Church’s concept. The Church recognizes there are many areas where minor matters must be reconciled – we’ve already discussed things like the Gospel accounts of the Jewish proceedings against Christ, the dating problems associated with Luke, and so on.

RSiscoe:

In other words, everything contained within the Bible is true (faith, morals, history, science, etc). That is what the Church teaches and that is what I believe. It has been infallibly defined that everything in the Bible is true. I agree with this infallible truth. My interpretation of the Bible is not infallible. The only way my interpretation of a particular verse would be infallible is if the Church has defined the true meaning of the verse and I agree with it.

So YOU say. Find me a Catholic statement that says if we have documented history that has minor discrepancies with the Bible we must reject it. Find me something where the Church demands we reject any science that seems to cause problems with a Biblical account.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RSiscoe:

Every statement I have made has been backed up by the writings of the Popes. You are not disagreeing with me, but with what the Church has always taught. Were Leo XIII, Pius XII, and Benedict XV all “influenced by Protestants Fundamentalism”? Were the Councils of Florence and Trent, who they quoted as their authority “influenced by Protestant Fundamentalism”? The problems is not that I have been influenced by Protestant Fundamentalism, but that you have been influenced by liberalism.

An interesting question. The notion of inerrancy in the Princeton theologian B.B. Warfield would have gone down very well in Rome - even though Warfield was a Calvinist. IMO, Warfield and the CC are both drawing upon a common understanding of God as perfect which led both to see the Bible as inerrant - because for both, inspiration without inerrancy was unthinkable.​

To cut a long story short, Protestant Fundamentalism & the Catholic understanding of the Bible became very similar. The main thing about the Bible being its inerrancy - whether or not this was important to the Biblical authors.

Warfield’s doctrine is so framed as to exclude critical study of the Bible - that of recent Popes is not (though many of the decrees of the PBC under Pius X would have made Warfield rejoice: they are fully Fundamentalist - except that they do allow some room for manoeuvre). That is one difference. ##

What I am stating is that the Bible is true, not only in the area of faith and moral, but also in history, and science. That is what the Church teaches, and they is what I am saying. Those who teach the contrary have already been condemned by the Church.

That is easy to say until one applies it to the texts. It’s an assertion that needs to be teased out a bit - because the authors may have been accurate by their standards, but they are often wrong if tested by ours.​

If there are real “non-accuracies”, then the only thing to do is to admit them. If the writers of Genesis 6 to 9 did not intend to say that there was a global flood, and if those who interpreted them thought there was, then the interpreters were wrong. But why should that trouble Christians ?

In Genesis 10, we are told that Arpachshad was the son of Shem. Does our salvation really depend on believing that Shem was a real individual, with individual offspring, including Arpachshad ? Who on this thread has even heard of Arpachshad and his brethren ? Who on this thread knows who the father of Uz, Hul, Gether, & Mash was ? (The answer is in the same chapter.)

How is our relation to Christ, or belief in His Resurrection, dependent on certainty about the paternity of Arpachshad or Mash ? According to the logic of total inerrancy, we have to insist that the accuracy of Genesis 10 is as vital to our identity as Catholics and Christians, as is faith in Our Lord’s Resurrection; that numbers killed in plagues, the route of the Exodus, the names of Shem’s sons, the descent of the patriarch Asshur, the duration of the Flood, the etymology of the name “Babel”, have to be believed, not because they are of any importance, but simply because they are materially present in the Bible. The Bible is inerrant, the Bible says that Isaac died at the age of 180, therefore Isaac died aged 180. If we deny this, we cease to believe in Christ. But how can the Church possibly say this about the individual’s relation to Christ ? Plenty of people don’t believe that Balaam’s jenny spoke - apparently, disbelief in that, means people cease to be Christians - even if they exhibit all the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Can this really be meant ? Does our being Catholic really depend on our believing Arpachshad was the son of Shem ? ##

 

[vern_humphrey]

Gottle of Geer:

That is easy to say until one applies it to the texts. It’s an assertion that needs to be teased out a bit - because the authors may have been accurate by their standards, but they are often wrong if tested by ours.

If there are real “non-accuracies”, then the only thing to do is to admit them. If the writers of Genesis 6 to 9 did not intend to say that there was a global flood, and if those who interpreted them thought there was, then the interpreters were wrong. But why should that trouble Christians ?

How is our relation to Christ, or belief in His Resurrection, dependent on certainty about the paternity of Arpachshad or Mash ? According to the logic of total inerrancy, we have to insist that the accuracy of Genesis 10 is as vital to our identity as Catholics and Christians, as is faith in Our Lord’s Resurrection; really depend on our believing Arpachshad was the son of Shem ?

You have done a better job than I, in pointing out that believing the Bible is inerrant is one thing, believing that it is absolutely true in all things is another.

And you also illustrate a point that I am trying to make – those who take that “literal” business too far are building on a foundation of sand – because one single undeinable descrepancy destroys the whole structure.

The insistance on Bible as literally true in all respects and Sola Scriptura go togeher – first of all, because it’s all the Sola Scriptura people have, and anything that seems to cast doubt on the text threatens their whole structure. Second, because they have no context against which to balance the scriptural word.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RSiscoe:

When did I say any of the above statements? Although I beleive evolution is a hoax, I have not said that. I have also stated that there are things contained in the Bible that are not to be taken literally; and never did I say a Catholic is not to study the Bible using external sources. When did I ever say any of those things?

*This is what I disageed with. *
**
After I read what you wrote, I quote Pope after Pope who stated that the Bible is inspired and without error, not only in faith and morals, but ALSO in history. They said that it was an error to claim otherwise. *
**

Maybe they were in no position to know any better. Ancient Near Eastern history is pretty straightfoward if your only source for it is a single book. They did with what they could with the knowledge available to them, as did everybody else - but the position is transformed, if one has thousands of texts from the ANE to compare with the Bible. This makes the doctrine of inerrancy a different doctrine - because it is one thing to assert inerrancy when there is no reason to doubt it is true - and a different thing altogether to insist on it, when there are a great many reasons to doubt very much that it is true in the form stated; or perhaps at all.​

The Church may not have changed (it has, of course) - bu the knowledge we possess about the world is much greater than was had 2000 year ago. Then, insisting that the Bible was inerrant made some sort of sense; but it is difficult to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible if we have to believe all its statements on history, mathematics, physics, cosmology, language, biology, botany, zoology, geology, comparative religion, medicine,and all other sciences.

There is no way of ignoring these problems: if Genesis 11 really does mean that “Babel” is derived from the Hebrew from “confusion”, then one has to choose between dogma, and philology. Which is very hard on Catholics who are competent to speak on Semitic philology. Because that derivation is probably intended as no more than a folk-etymology - it is, strictly speaking, entirely inaccurate. There is no reason to believe that Genesis 11 does mean that; but, if that chapter is history, and it has so been regarded until modern times, then it seems we are still required to regard it as history.

Why? Because past generations did - and it is not clear how far we can differ from them in the content of belief that the Bible is inerrant, if we think it is inerrant in way X, and they thought it was inerrant in way Y. Every change in the detail of what is believed means a shift in the content of the Faith as a whole - to preserve the Faith, total immobility would be advisable. Because belief that “Babel” means “confusion”, is subtly different from belief that does not include, or that denies, this item: yet the two Catholics would be using the very same Bible. A change in the content or meaning of a thing believed, is a change in belief.

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued, ended]

This insistence on total inerrancy affects Catholics - it makes them look completely incompetent in all sorts of sciences, because it requires them to consider the Bible as an authority upon all manner of matters it is not intended to be an authority on at all. If this what Biblical inerrancy really commits the CC to - in fact, it does not, because the Bible is not an authority of any of these things, and the Magisterium does not, now, require us to think it is, because it no longer assumes there is no diversity of literary types in the Bible - then its social results are a disaster; for how can Catholics with expertise in the various sciences act as a leaven, if they are obliged to maintain as true all statements in the Bible ? ##
*

Originally Posted by Pope Leo XIII

"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. *## This does not leave much room for doubting that Noah was the the grandfather of Canaan, or that Goliath was killed by Elhanan as well as by David, or that Amram father of Moses died aged 137.

As for “dictation by the Holy Ghost” - if that is really meant, how are the differences in style between the Greek of the Book of Revelation and the Greek of Mark to be accounted for ? To insist on dictation, contradicts the Pope’s own doctrine regarding the status of the secondary authors, because it makes them into automata. Which implies that inspiration is a less than fully human act - which is a contradiction of the Church’s insistence that grace (including that of inspiration) elevates nature, instead of suppressing or abolishing it. If “dictation” in the strict sense is meant, the Bible was produced by automatic writing - which completely ignores the human elements in the texts. I don’t believe the Pope meant such a thing. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

vern humphrey:

You have done a better job than I, in pointing out that believing the Bible is inerrant is one thing, believing that it is absolutely true in all things is another.

I’ve enjoyed your posts ​

And you also illustrate a point that I am trying to make – those who take that “literal” business too far are building on a foundation of sand – because one single undeinable descrepancy destroys the whole structure.

The insistance on Bible as literally true in all respects and Sola Scriptura go togeher – first of all, because it’s all the Sola Scriptura people have, and anything that seems to cast doubt on the text threatens their whole structure. Second, because they have no context against which to balance the scriptural word.

In which case, deny the discrepancies can be shown to exist. That is what Warfield does - he tightens the requirements for demonstrating that there is even one single error in the Bible by requiring the error to be shown to exist in the texts “as originally given” - since they are lost, this is impossible to prove as rigorously and undoubtedly as he requires. But that does not prove that the Bible is “free from all error” - only that it is impossible to attempt such a proof. Which is an entirely different thing.​

What, after all, is the good of an inerrant “original text” ? What practical use is that to anyone ? None of us has ever seen an inerrant copy of John’s Gospel. Besides, what is the “original text” ? Are we taking about the text of Genesis as it first appeared when first canonised as Scripture ? The very first written form of it, prior to any revisions ? (There is not much point in having an inerrant Genesis 3, say, if Genesis 50 is still in the making. There is no way of telling which bloc of tradition was settled first.) The very first copy of it which included vowel-signs ? Until these questions can be answered, talk of the original text is talk about a phantom, a null set. What is the good of a doctrine of inerrancy, if there is no something-that-is-inerrant, something of which inerrancy can be a property ?

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not trying to “attack the Bible”; far from it. I love the Bible very much - but, how can it be inerrant, if inerrancy as popularly defended does not fit with the facts of what the Bible is, and of how it came into being ? Are Christians really meant to agonise over the ages of the patriarchs and the parentage of the worthies born after the Flood ? How can denying that Arpachshad died at the age of 438 be regarded as comparable to blaspheming Christ or committing genocide ? Yet apparently they are all three - not just the last two - fatal to our communion with Christ in charity. It is the affirmers of the total, unlimited, universal inerrancy of the Bible whose doctrine leads to these conclusions - they take the responsibility for the manure in the Ark, the age of Arpachshad, the parentage of Asshur, the meaning of the word “Babel”, the astronomy of St. Matthew, the spelling of “Nebuchadnezzar”, the million strong-army of Zerah the Ethiopian, and so on, by accepting the universal inerrancy of the Bible in the terms in which it is stated.

It is their understanding of the Bible as totally inerrant in all matters that requires them to account for the talking jenny of Balaam. And if Catholics cease to believe in Christ because of doubts over the height of Goliath or the bed of Og king of Bashan, or the sun-dial of Ahaz, it is this extremely narrow understanding of inerrancy and inspiration that has to be addressed.

So one looks forward to this being done. I hope this not too forcefully expressed - but doctrines do have effects on how people believe. The trouble is, people also get hurt by reading denials of the total inerrancy of the Bible. ##

 

[RSiscoe]

Vern:

I don’t believe I’ve misquoted or misconstrued you. You go beyond what the Church says, and interject YOUR concepts of truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSiscoe
Now, I have shown that the Church teaches infallibly, that the Bible is completely inspired, and has no errors whatsoever. Since my belief corresponds to this infallibe truth, what I believe is infallibly true.

Vern:

Again, that’s YOUR interpretation of what truth is, and what the Church means by the infallability of the Bible. You stretch this to cover things like a requirement to reject science – and that’s a Fundamentalist Protestant postion, not a Catholic position.

Well, the only think I can think of is that you did not read the quotes I provided, because these quotes clearly confirmed that the Bible was written **“wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost”, **and that Divine "inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it."

Maybe I gave too many quotes and therefore you just skimmed through them, not paying attention.

Let’s do this: I’ll copy the first quote by Leo XIII, and you can comment in it. Tell me how you can read this quote and conclude that what the Pope says is compatible with the belief that the Bible contains errors:

Pope Leo XIII "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 [In other words the inherency of the bible has been infallibly defined]…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.
Did you read that? The Pope said that “those who maintain that 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”.

So I will end with this question. Do you beleive the Bible has errors? If so, are you “perferting the Catholic notion of inspiration”, or are you “mak[ing] God the author of error”?

 

[RSiscoe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSiscoe
Your post almost sounded like you were referring to my interpretation of the Bible. Certainly my interpretation of the Bible is not infallibe. But I was not referring to my interpretation, but to the fact that the Bible itself is objectively true in every way, history, science, etc…

That’s YOUR concept – not the Church’s concept. The Church recognizes there are many areas where minor matters must be reconciled – we’ve already discussed things like the Gospel accounts of the Jewish proceedings against Christ, the dating problems associated with Luke, and so on.

Why would it occur to you that the Bible is wrong and not those who are telling you it is wrong? As we have seen, the Popes have told us that there are no error in the Bible, not in it is teaching on faith, not in it its teaching on morality, and also not in it its history or science (I don’t think I need to give the quotes again).

Since the Church has spoken infallibly on the matter of divine inspiration, telling us that the Bible contains no errors, why would any Catholic believe someone living thousands of years after the fact, who tells us the Bible contains wrong dates? Has it ever occurred to you that, just maybe, the historian is wrong, and not the Bible? If the Bible was written “wholly and intirely in all its parts at the dictation of the Holy Ghost” is there any chance that it contains errors? What do you say to that? On the otherhand, is there any chance that a fallible human historian, who lives 2000 years removed, could error in his dating? What seems more likely to you? And why would you immediately believe a historian over the Bible?

I have about zero confidence in our scientists when they try to convince me that the Bible contains errors. I laugh at them for being so arrogant as to question what God has said. That is how I view things, because I believe the Church, and the Church has told me the Bible contains no errors and was “written wholy and entirely with all its parts at the dictation of the Holy Ghost”.

It is true that we may need to reconcile “apparent” contradictions, but that is because our subjective interpretation does not correspond to the objective truth contained in the Bible. If we think we have found an error in the Bible, the error lies within our interpretation, not within the Bible.

 

[RSiscoe]

Originally Posted by RSiscoe
*Now, I have shown that the Church teaches infallibly, that the Bible is completely inspired, and has no errors whatsoever. *

Vern:

That’s YOUR concept – not the Church’s concept. The Church recognizes there are many areas where minor matters must be reconciled – we’ve already discussed things like the Gospel accounts of the Jewish proceedings against Christ, the dating problems associated with Luke, and so on.

Pope 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. 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… 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”.

Will you at least admit that all of the quotes I have provided (in this post and others) say that the Bible is inspired in all its part and does not contain any errors? At least admit that so I don’t have to keep re-quoting the same quotes. Then we can deal with any supposed “contradiction”, or “error”.

Vern:

Find me a Catholic statement that says if we have documented history that has minor discrepancies with the Bible we must reject it. Find me something where the Church demands we reject any science that seems to cause problems with a Biblical account.

The Church will never demand a rejection of science, unless, or course, the science is false. And the Church will never exclude the possibility that a fallible human being may misunderstand the Bible and think he finds “minor discrepancies”. But the Church has already defined (see above) that the Bible contains no errors, since it was written by the Holy Ghost, who used the human authors as “mere instrunments”.

The problem is, some people place more faith if fallible human science (that changes all the time) than they do in God. Science needs to be subordinated to the truths of faith, not the other way around. If science says something that contradicts the objective truth that the Bible is trying to communicate, then science is simply wrong.

Now it is certainly true that man can misunderstand what the Bible is saying, but that is another matter all together. What we are dealing with here is that the Bible is true “in all its parts”. We are not talking about fallible human interpretation.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

RSiscoe,

How many times have you quoted the popes? It really dosen’t have any relevance right now.

 

[RSiscoe]

Quote:
What I am stating is that the Bible is true, not only in the area of faith and moral, but also in history, and science. That is what the Church teaches, and they is what I am saying. Those who teach the contrary have already been condemned by the Church.

## That is easy to say until one applies it to the texts. It’s an assertion that needs to be teased out a bit - because the authors may have been accurate by their standards, but they are often wrong if tested by ours.

If there are real “non-accuracies”, then the only thing to do is to admit them. If the writers of Genesis 6 to 9 did not intend to say that there was a global flood, and if those who interpreted them thought there was, then the interpreters were wrong. But why should that trouble Christians ?

That wouldn’t trouble a Christian because that would be a mistake in the subjective interpretation of the Bible, rather than in the objective truth the Bible was trying to communicate.

I readily admit the probability that men will misunderstand the objective truth of the Bible. They will find apparent contradictions, which are really nothing more than an error in their interpretation, rather than an error in the Bible.

But, just as a human could err in their interpretation of the bible, so too could scientists err in their interpretation of scientific data. In other words, just because a scientist says something, does not make it true. Scientists are often wrong.

So we have two issues. We can err in our interpretation of the Bible, which would cause us to misunderstand what the Bible is saying, and this would cause a contradiction with science; or, a scientist could err in his interpretation of the scientific data and his error could contradict the Bible. I readily admit the possibility, and even probability, of both scenarios. What I reject is that the Bible contains any errors, because I believe what the Church teaches infallibly. I understand that churchmen (Popes, etc.) can err when they speak, however there is no possibility of error when the Church defines a matter using the extraordinary mageterium. Since the Church has defined the inherency of the Bible on that level, I believe it. There have been some strange statements made by churchmen lately, which seem to indicate there are errors in the Bible. But a mere statment by a churchmen has no comparrison to an infallible and unchangeable dogmatic declaration. The former is subject to error; the later is not. Therefore, for a Catholic, if there is a contradiction between the two, we simply believe the infallibe statement, and reject the other.

And that is the heart of teh problem today. Catholics are being given false statement and teachings from high places within the Church. Even though these statement contradict Tradition and infallible statements, they beleive them. The reason they beleive them is because they are unaware that these things are false. They think this is what the Church has always taught. Actually, this is what the Church has always condemned, but they are unaware of that. When the truth is show them, there is often a little adjustment period before they will bring their belief in line with the infallibe teachings of the Church.

Unfortunately, we live in a day of almost total apostacy from the faith. That is the hard thing for some people to grasp, but the evidence is there. Mass attendance in the US has dropped from about 80% in 1958 to about 15% today. In Europe it has dropped to single digits. And of those who do still attend Mass, most do not believe (or are completely ignorant of) basic teachings on faith and morality. Churches and Seminaries are closing everywhere because the faith is being diminished all accross the world.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

RSiscoe:

Unfortunately, we live in a day of almost total apostacy from the faith. That is the hard thing for some people to grasp, but the evidence is there. Mass attendance in the US has dropped from about 80% in 1958 to about 15% today. In Europe it has dropped to single digits. And of those who do still attend Mass, most do not believe (or are completely ignorant of) basic teachings on faith and morality. Churches and Seminaries are closing everywhere because the faith is being diminished all accross the world.

That’s because people are getting more skeptical. Instead of just blind trust they now are seeing things the way they are. The Catholic Church has NOT done a good job trying to keep people in their religion. Their doctrines on mortal sins, hell, purgatory, ect are not for the everyday person to graspe. If you’re a Catholic, why not hope the Morman Church is correct, you’ll have a better chance of getting to heaven than in your present religion with mortal sins! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gifMost Caholics actually believe they will go to hell when they die, and that’s not a very healthy way to live your one and only life.