Does the Bible have errors in it?

[RSiscoe]

Gottle of Geer:

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 ? … 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 ? ##

Sincere questions. Honest questions. I can understand why you would ask that, but there is also a good explanation.

How do you know anything for sure? For example, how do you even know which books belong in the Bible. Maybe the Gospels are all forgeries. Maybe only St. John’s Gospel is inspired? How do we really know anything for sure? How do you know Jesus is God? How do you know transubstantiation is true? Is everything simply based on our opinion, as it is with Protestants?

No, what we know comes from the Church. Our faith is not in our opinion, but in what the Church has taught infallibly. The Church has defined the canon of Scripture, therefore we know these books belong in the Bible. Before the canon was settled, there was some dispute over which book belonged in the Bible. The same Church that told us which books belong in the bible, has also told us many other things using the same authority: such as that the books contained within the Bible are completely without error.

If we do not believe the books of the Bible are without error, why do we accept the Canon? If the Church could err on the one, why not the other? This kind of thought will lead to total confusion, relegating the truth to the subjective level only with no reference to objective truth.

Our faith is in Christ, and in the Church He established to teach us. The reason we must believe in the total inherency of the Bible is because that is what the Church teaches. If we reject this teaching, we might as well reject all of the teachings, because if the Church could err on this one, why not the others?

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Gottle of Greer:

How is our relation to Christ, or belief in His Resurrection, dependent on certainty about the paternity of Arpachshad or Mash ? … Plenty of people don’t believe that Balaam’s jenny spoke - apparently, disbelief in that, means people cease to be Christians

To be united with Christ we must have faith - supernatural faith. Just as we must have supernatural charity (the state of grace) to be united with God, so too we must have faith if we are to have supernatural Charity. If one knowingly rejects a dogmatic truth of the faith, they do not have any faith at all.

What is faith? Faith is a supernatural virtue which enables us to believe what God has revealed through the Church. If a person knowingly rejects even one truth taught by the Church (such as the infallibility of the Scriptures) they have lost supernatural faith. They may believe certain things that are true, but they do not have supernatural faith, since unbelief removes (destroys) the supernatural virtue of faith from the soul, just as mortal sin removes supernatural chairty from the soul.

The following is taken from the encyclical Satis Cognitum:

Pope Leo XIII: "Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3). (Satis Cogtinum)

If we reject the teachings of the Church we loose our faith. It will not matter if we believe certain things that are true - such as the fact that Jesus is God, and that He rose again - because we have rejected other truths revealed by God. It is all or nothing. To be faithful we must believe all truths taught by the Church because all truths are taught by the same authority. God reveals the truth through the Church; not subjectively to each individual. “the manifold widsom of God is made known… through the Church” (Eph. 3:10).

We do not have to figure everything out on our own. We can be 100% certain that we believe correctly if we will only be humble enough to submit to the infallible and unchanging teachings of the truth.

 

[RSiscoe]

Led Zeppelin75:

That’s because people are getting more skeptical. Instead of just blind trust they now are seeing things the way they are.

I believe they are being deceived, not “seeing things as they are”. They are given false facts and twisted theories, in hope that they will loose their faith. One good example is evolution. People have been so overwhelmed with this theory that they believe it to be true. Read the evoltion thread in the apologetics sections. Read what the actual scientist that is posting there has to say. He explains how evolution is contrary to the laws of thermodymnamics. He thinks evolution is false, and he is a sceintist! Evolution is just one example. I believe people are being bombarded with false science and other information in hopes that it will shake their faith - which is has.

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.

Why not? They have always been taught, and they are true. Why, then, not believe them?

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.

Well, most Catholics today probably will go to hell when they die. “Many are called, but few are chosen” - “If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the publican”. Why am I not a Morman? Because I believe the Catholic Church is true. I don’t believe this because I want to, or because I don’t want to: I beleive it because that is what I have come to see by looking at the evidence.

It is understandable that you would think the way you do today. But you need to look into both sides of the matter and pray. There are many intelligent people who do not see any contradiction between what the Church teaches and the facts. Read the writings of some of these intelligent people who defend the Church’s teachings. Don’t only read writings of the Atheists and liberals: they are the enemies of God. You will be bombarded with their beliefs, and arguments, from the TV and in college. Try reading the otherside as well. Then you will see that the case for the Church is stronger than the one against it.

God Bless,

Robert

 

[RSiscoe]

Led Zeppelin75:

RSiscoe,

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

The reason I keep quoting them is because Vern repeately says I haven’t provided any evidence to support what I am saying.

If Vern will admit that the Pope Leo XIII, Pius XII, Benedict XV, the Councils of Florence, Trent, and Vatican I, confirm what I am saying, then I will not have to quote them anymore. But he keeps asking me to provide evidence to back up what I am saying.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

RSiscoe:

.
Read the writings of some of these intelligent people who defend the Church’s teachings. Don’t only read writings of the Atheists and liberals: they are the enemies of God. You will be bombarded with their beliefs, and arguments, from the TV and in college. Try reading the otherside as well. Then you will see that the case for the Church is stronger than the one against it.

God Bless,

Robert

I’ve read many works of intelligent people, and all of them are atheists. Religion contridicts itself naturally. You know why? Because they are all complicated, and the men who make them make errors along the way. I’m not “bombarded” with atheist beliefs. I’m borbarded with Christian beliefs. I’ve had an e-mail conversation with a very intelligent atheist over the last couple of days. He’s not forcing anything on me the way Christians do. People are skeptical because it’s what’s best for them, they are that way because they are open-minded enough to see the way things are, and they are no infulenced by any of the devil stuff.

RSiscoe:

Why am I not a Morman? Because I believe the Catholic Church is true.

That dosen’t answer my question. You believe in Catholiocism, but you will have better chance of getting to heaven with the Morman Church if they are right. The mormans teach that everyone except a couple really evil people will go to heaven. The Catholic Church teaches that everyone who doisen’t obey them to the strictest order will go to hell, and almost all it’s trusted follwers will be suffering in Purgatory. I’m not asking you why you aren’t Morman, I’m asking why you wouldn’t hope Mormanism is true instead of Catholicism?

 

[RSiscoe]

Led:

I’ve read many works of intelligent people, and all of them are atheists.

That’s my point. Read writings from the other side.
Led:

I’ve had an e-mail conversation with a very intelligent atheist over the last couple of days. He’s not forcing anything on me the way Christians do.

It’s not Paul Tobin is it? Of course Atheists do not force anything on you. Their’s is a negative unbelief. All they need to to is get you to stop believing. Their tactic is to ask subtle questions that they think you will not be able to answer, in order to shake your faith.

I had a long e-mail debate with Paul Tobin, who has a popular atheist website. I wanted to debate him because I know how Atheists operate (by asking subtle question), and I wanted to see if I had the answers to them. I did this as a challenge to myself. He did not pose any question to me that I was unable to answer. What that proved to me was that Catholicism has the answers to any question that the Athiest was able to pose. But if you do not know the answers, you will definitely be deceived. Their questions are very subtle and if you do not have a strong foundation in theology you will not have the answers. However, if you do know Catholic theology, you should be able to answer all of their questions. Then they will get frustrated, instead of you becoming confused.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

RSiscoe:

That’s my point. Read writings from the other side.

I have, and it’s arguements are idiotic. I know of a non-biased site that offers all arguements and it really shows. What’s said here gives you something to think about:

philosophyofreligion.info/atheisticproofs.html

What’s written here is idiotic and bears no scientific evidence at all:

philosophyofreligion.info/theisticproofs.html

RSiscoe:

It’s not Paul Tobin is it? Of course Atheists do not force anything on you. Their’s is a negative unbelief. All they need to to is get you to stop believing. Their tactic is to ask subtle questions that they think you will not be able to answer, in order to shake your faith.

I had a long e-mail debate with Paul Tobin, who has a popular atheist website. I wanted to debate him because I know how Atheists operate (by asking subtle question), and I wanted to see if I had the answers to them. I did this as a challenge to myself. He did not pose any question to me that I was unable to answer. What that proved to me was that Catholicism has the answers to any question that the Athiest was able to pose. But if you do not know the answers, you will definitely be deceived. Their questions are very subtle and if you do not have a strong foundation in theology you will not have the answers. However, if you do know Catholic theology, you should be able to answer all of their questions. Then they will get frustrated, instead of you becoming confused.

I don’t know who it is, I met him on an internet forum and his intelligence was bloody brilliant man! From what I’ve heard from him sounds like he could become a scientist. I’ve been asking the questions, he’s been answering them, with great answers too. I don’t know who Paul Tobin is, and I really don’t care. He’s aware of Catholic theology, he was able to explain things about the Catholic religion that even I didn’t know.

What really makes a good arguement is not only that the smartest men we know of are atheists (Hawking or Einstein), but that Christianity is nothing original. Almost everything was stolen from pagan beliefs. Pagans believe in certain transubstiation, healings, virgin birth, ect… You name it, there’s an original pagan belief for it.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

please note that those two pages I gave you are diffrent and not the same one!

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

PS: And you still didn’t answer my “Morman” question. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[vern_humphrey]

RSiscoe:

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.

You’re almost there – the infallibility is in the intent of the sacred writer – what he intends to convey is true. What matters is that Christ was born among us, not who was governor of Syria, or whether or not Agustus Caesar ordered a world-wide census.

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.

And a big reason for that is the insistance on Protestant Fundamentalism – if you demand such a rigid view of the Bible, the first time a believer stumbles on something – such as a discrepancy between how the various gospels treat the Jewish “trial” (or lack thereof) of Christ, you’ve lost them.

That’s why Catholics are not Fundamentalists.

 

[mlchance]

Led Zeppelin75:

What really makes a good arguement is not only that the smartest men we know of are atheists (Hawking or Einstein), but that Christianity is nothing original. Almost everything was stolen from pagan beliefs. Pagans believe in certain transubstiation, healings, virgin birth, ect… You name it, there’s an original pagan belief for it.

Neither of these observations amounts to a good argument.

So Stephen Hawking is an atheist (a point which is disputed by those close to him)? So? Last time I checked, Hawking wasn’t a theologian. Why are his opinions about religion to be given weight merely because he has a high IQ? Is a high IQ proof against error? Didn’t Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s propaganda minister, have a PhD in philosophy? He was a smart man. Does that make him right, too?

What about all of those terribly smart people who do believe in God? Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Soren Kierkegaard, Jesus of Nazareth, Abraham Lincoln, et cetera. If nothing else, their opinions certainly demonstrate that intelligence and religious belief are not mutually exclusive.

On to the alleged pagan antecedent for all things Christian. Such is not the case. There is no pagan antecedent for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine is unique. Likewise with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. There is no pagan equivalent. Anyone who says differently does so out of ignorance either about paganism, Christianity, or both.

Here’s the fact of the matter: There isn’t a single Christian belief that, when properly understood, is contrary to reason. There are a number of people here, including me, who could mount at least 20 entirely rational arguments for the existence of God. There are a number of people here, including me, who can lay out an entirely rational argument that Christ Jesus is God, just like Christianity says he is.

OTOH, atheistic objections to Christianity are always fundamentally irrational. They either make false statements (i.e., everything Christian comes from paganism), rely on fallacies (i.e., appeals to authority based on how smart a certain person is some particular field largely irrelevant to theology), are based on ignorance (i.e., Christianity is false because it teaches X, when the truth is Christianity doesn’t teach X at all), or are moral objections that ignore fundamental questions about truth (i.e., Christians aren’t any better than other people, or I don’t like Christian teaching X).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[RSiscoe]

PS: And you still didn’t answer my “Morman” question. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Sorry.

The reason I am not a Morman is becaue I think it is a false relgion.

 

[RSiscoe]

Vern:

You’re almost there – the infallibility is in the intent of the sacred writer – what he intends to convey is true.

Vern,

Do you, or do you not, believe that GOD is the primary author of the Bible, and that he used men as his “mere instrunments” to write it. And do you agree tht God does not make historical or scientific mistakes? That is what the Church teaches, do you believe it, or don’t you?

And please do not require me to quote the Popes again, because Led Zeppelin75 is getting a little tired of it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

RSiscoe:

Vern,

Do you, or do you not, believe that GOD is the primary author of the Bible, and that he used men as his “mere instrunments” to write it. And do you agree tht God does not make historical or scientific mistakes?

I believe what the Church teaches – that the sacred writers, inspired by the Holy Spirit, were the authors of the books they wrote. Their standards of science, mathmatics and of history were the standards of their time – not of modern times.

They are inerrant in their sacred intentions – to reveal the truth of God. They did not intend to write a science or math text.

That is what the Church teaches, do you believe it, or don’t you?

No, that’s what YOU say.

 

[RSiscoe]

Let’s try this. Instead of my saying what I believe. I will ask you if you believe the following:

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”.

Do you believe that? If you dare to say yes, please summarize what the Pope said.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s try this:

First of all, I believe the Church has the power and authority to interpret both the scripture and the meaning of former popes and bishops – and you do not.

Secondly, I believe John Paul II when he says (in his Apostolic Letter prefacing the Catechism), “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, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” (My emphasis.)

Therefore, I believe that the Church doctrine on this matter is found in the Catechism – and we laymen are not authorized to go fishing through various documents to come up with conclusions at odds with the Catechism.

I believe that the Church recognizes many areas where the biblical text is problematical – and in fact, frequently discusses these, for example in footnotes to the New American Bible now on my desk.

The Catechism deals with this in paragraph 110:
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

mlchance,

The names you gave me are irrelievent, they don;'t study phycics and biology. Hawking is an atheist. By the way, Lincoln was not theist, and maybe not atheist also. Newton was atheistic, but would never admit to it because he would be shunned from life. And Galileo is actually a deist. See:

wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm

Hawking speaks of “God” in the metaphorical sense of some creative force, he has stated that he is an atheist.

nice try, but the names you gave me are not really theists at all.

Have you ever heard of the New Age Guru from Holland who did supposed transubstiantions? I would think not because you would not have said that. In fact there “transubstaions” are more credible than Christian claims, he got it on video. But when asked to do it in the public he couldn’t. It’s all bogus my freind.

If you can lay out such arguements, then why not do it?

And please, read the site I posted with atheist arguements. Because that’s bogus what you just said. These are the real ones you can’t answer:

godless.org/sci/sr_talk.html

RSiscoe,

You’re completely misunderstanding me. I’m asking that since you have a better chance to go to heaven if Mormanism is right (but you’ll still be staying Caholic), why not stay Catholic and hope it is right?

 

[RSiscoe]

vern humphrey:

Let’s try this:

First of all, I believe the Church has the power and authority to interpret both the scripture and the meaning of former popes and bishops – and you do not.

Secondly, I believe John Paul II when he says (in his Apostolic Letter prefacing the Catechism), “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, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” (My emphasis.)

Therefore, I believe that the Church doctrine on this matter is found in the Catechism – and we laymen are not authorized to go fishing through various documents to come up with conclusions at odds with the Catechism.

I believe that the Church recognizes many areas where the biblical text is problematical – and in fact, frequently discusses these, for example in footnotes to the New American Bible now on my desk.

The Catechism deals with this in paragraph 110:
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

In other words, you will not tell me if you agree with what the Popes I quoted said. If you will agree that the quotes I provided from the Church’s ordinary and extraordinary magesterium contradict the new Catechism, we can have an interesting discussion.

Try to be extremely honest: Do the quotes I provided contradict the new Catechism? Remember, we are not dealing with an interpretation of the Bible, but whether or not the Bible contains any errors. The quotes I provided say the Bible does not contain any errors. Does the new Catechsim say the Bible does contain errors? If so we have a contradiction.

I would actually be a little surprised if the new Catechism came right out and said the bible contains errors, although it may. It probably just emphasises the fact that the bible is true regarding faith and morals, and then says something ambiguous about science and history.

But, back to my question: Do you think the quotes I provided contradict the new Catechism?

 

[RSiscoe]

LedZeppelin75=:

RSiscoe,

You’re completely misunderstanding me. I’m asking that since you have a better chance to go to heaven if Mormanism is right (but you’ll still be staying Caholic), why not stay Catholic and hope it is right?

Because that would be hoping against faith. It would be placing human hope against supernatural faith. By faith I know the Catholic Church is the true Church and Mormansm is a heresy. Therefore, if I hoped the Morman Church was true, I would be hoping against Faith. That is a contradiction that an honest mind could not accept.

The consequences of hoping against faith would eventually lead to a loss of faith. In fact, it could cause an immediate loss of faith, since one would have a hope in something that’s contrary to the faith: this would probably be a mortal sin against the first commandment.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

RSiscoe:

Because that would be hoping against faith. It would be placing human hope against supernatural faith. By faith I know the Catholic Church is the true Church and Mormansm is a heresy. Therefore, if I hoped the Morman Church was true, I would be hoping against Faith. That is a contradiction that an honest mind could not accept.

The consequences of hoping against faith would eventually lead to a loss of faith. In fact, it could cause an immediate loss of faith, since one would have a hope in something that’s contrary to the faith: this would probably be a mortal sin against the first commandment.

Do you think it is a mortal sin to hope outside of the faith? The Catholic Church does theach that a mortal sin is “a serious evil”, but considers alot of non-evil things mortal sins. The consequesces of hoping agaisnt the faith will not lead to loss of faith. It is a diffrence of heaven and hell, or at the very least purgatory http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif.