Does the Bible have errors in it?

[Lisa4Catholics]

True Christian faith is not brainwashing, nor is it really a choice it is rather a gift from God.I will pray as I am sure the other people in these posts will pray that God will give you the gift of faith. Because these arguments and debates only stimulate the intillectual faculties.Faith is deeper than science can go.By ourselves humans can only do so much.God can do what we can not,so may God open the eyes of your heart.God Bless you

 

[patg]

RSiscoe:

I quoted Pope after Pope saying the the Bible is inspired in everything: not just faith and morals, but even history. Yet, in spite of these quotes, people disagreed with me.

Fortunately, the church disagrees with you also. I don’t fault past popes for making statements based on their worldview and the state of knowledge (biblical and otherwise) in their eras. I do however, fault those who refuse to listen, learn, and grow in the present.

For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

Notice how this only speaks of spiritual realities and how even those are subject to growth and evolution.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

Sounds like we have to accept that the writers talked, wrote, and thought differently than we do. They may have even described things using limited knowledge and a limited worldview…

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Then what’s the use in talking to you? You are self-confessingly completely closed minded to anything anyone would say.

Basically, you have two choices here – you can ignore him and he’ll eventually go away, or you can continue to engage him and hope he’ll come to understand why he’s attracted to this forum.

 

[Dismas2004]

patg:

Fortunately, the church disagrees with you also. I don’t fault past popes for making statements based on their worldview and the state of knowledge (biblical and otherwise) in their eras. I do however, fault those who refuse to listen, learn, and grow in the present.

For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

Notice how this only speaks of spiritual realities and how even those are subject to growth and evolution.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

Sounds like we have to accept that the writers talked, wrote, and thought differently than we do. They may have even described things using limited knowledge and a limited worldview…

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: Well said!

 

[Ecce_Homo]

Led Zeppelin75:

“”""“How did existence come into existence?”"""

Read my posts at “December 2, 2004 05:43 PM”, “December 2, 2004 05:44 PM”, and at December 2, 2004 05:45 PM where I explained in three posts (because it wouldn’t fit into one) exactly how the universe could form on it’s own. Life on this planet started by chance

And I suppose you were there to observe life appear on this planet? Even if you had been there, what test could you perform to determine that the life you witnessed arose by chance?

Has science ever actually detected chance? We say that the role of the dice is a chance event, but even this is not caused by chance but by the forces applied to the dice, the dice’s moments of inertia, etc. We can often describe the likelihood of events by probabilities, but that does not imply that probabilities produced the events.
Led Zeppelin75:

I don’t know how familiar you are with logics and statictics. But there is about a 1/1,000,000,000,000 chance life will form on any given planet. You may say God would have to do it, but when you consider that there are probably over a trillion planets in the universe that drops that chance down to a 50% chance or higher that life will form on any given planet. We are products of chance, products of the logicistics of the universe.

Okay. If there is a 50% chance that life will form on any given planet, and our solar system has 9 planets (at least), why have we found only one planet with life on it in our solar system? Or do we just happen to be in an area of lower life density?

From whence came the “logicistics” of the universe?

“God” has been a basic man-made belief since any known time period. The first religion to profess faith in monotheism is Zoroastrianism, they would actually probably have more credibility than other monotheist religions.

I’ll call your bluff. Prove that God is man made. In the mean time, explain how the image on St. Juan Diego’s tilma got there and how the fabric itself has not disintegrated over the centuries. Or is this just another random act of chance?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dismas2004:

I’ve read some of the posts here and my meager contribution is this.

The bible is a book of literature, inspired by God. Not dictated. It demands correct interpretation. That is what the “church” is for.

As far as the current discussion, I beleive the bible tells us the Why of history and science, not the how.

When Theologians try to explain the laws of physics(unless of course they are a physicist) they cross the boundary of their discpline. Like wise when scientist try to tech articles of faith, they cross the boundary of their discipline.

The Bible tells us WHY, not HOW.

Good answer - the tailor should stick to his last: when theologians try to pronounce on matters they do not understand, they only make wallies of themselves - as do scentists when they exceed their competence, and venture to speak on doctrine or Church history or theology.​

When a man is both a theologian and a scientist, that is different; the Revd. John Polkinghorne is both. Stanley Jaki O.S.B. is both. But most theologians and scientists are not - so they need to be good at listening to each other.

According to Leo XIII, the Bible was “dictated by the Holy Spirit” - I hope that was not meant strictly, because that would cause a lot of problems if taken strictly. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

"If two Gospels make contradictory assertions about the trial of Jesus, word-counting won’t salvage that. "

But They DON’T…
How do you know they make contradictory assertions?
Ýsn’t it possible that the contradictions exit in our understanding, not in the Bible which is always the case with alleged biblical contradictions…

That could be so with some - but not with all, unless we are to ignore the very faculties which we use to conclude that no such contradictions exist ​

If our understanding is competent to show that a contradiction is absent in one case, it is equally competent to show us that there is a true contradiction in another case. We cannot switch off our understanding when we don’t come up with doctrinally kosher results , and switch it on again in order to come up with them. ##

There are indeed some copyist errors about numbers in Torah…But they DON’T affect any doctrine in the Bible and we can KNOW which the correct number is…

I recommend you to go and analyse alleged “contradictions” in Bible and I hope you will understand what we mean by saying “innerant”

tektonics.org/sab/sab.html (as I said before all of the claims have been answered here)

debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

Also see:

www.biblequery.org

Consider Zerah the Ethiopian:​

2 Chron 14:8 And Asa had an army of three hundred thousand from Judah, armed with bucklers and spears, and two hundred and eighty thousand men from Benjamin, that carried shields and drew bows; all these were mighty men of valor.2 Chron 14:9 Zerah the Ethiopian came out against them with an army of a million men and three hundred chariots, and came as far as Mare’shah.

So far, I have the impression that the inerrancy defended on this thread, is the sort of inerrancy that ignores the differences between the sorts of literature found in the Bible.

This is not the sort of inerrancy taught by Pius XII - but it is the sort of inerrancy taught by Leo XIII in 1893; because Pere Lagrange pointed out the diversity of literary types only in 1897; though IIRC H. Gunkel had something to say about this subject too.

An interpretation of the Bible that treats Shem as an historical individual living to 600 years, is a different interpretation of the Bible from one which allows that he and his age are not historical. Because the meaning of the text has changed, even when the surface markings of the text have not. And Pius XII’s inerrancy allows for the possibility that Shem and his age are not historical, because he allows for the use of literary types. Which means that Shem may, or may not, be historical.

If people refuse to look at the difficulties with the doctrine of inerrancy, in its Leonine, Pian and current forms, they are merely condemning their own attempts at evangelism to failure; because a doctrine of inerrancy which is unexamined, won’t reveal how incoherent it is. And we can hardly expect an incoherent doctrine, one full of absurdities, to be convincing to others. If the absurdities do not exist, and if the objections can be answered, it is high time Catholics did answer them. It is urgent that this be done.

Because contradictions in the Bible are far from the only problems with the doctrine of inerrancy - as has been explained already.

I think I will leave the Gospel contradictions to patg ##

 

[ichabod]

It sounds nit-picky, but the bible can’t be infallable, since it can’t
make a mistake; e.g., the pope can be infallable when it comes to matters of faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra.

The bible could be inerrant, that is, without error, but is not in a literalist sense. The Beatitudes were part of The Sermon on the Mount in one gospel and The Sermon on the Plain in another. This is a contradiction, which is a basic, inarguable form of error.

So what? The Bible is not a history book, nor a science book, nor a cookbook, nor a romance novel, but it has elements of all of these. What it teaches is the meaning and miracles of the life, death and resurrection of the Son of God, the coming of the Holy Spirit, and the establishment and early problems and traditions of his church.

 

[Led_Zeppelin7.5]

Ecce Homo:

Okay. If there is a 50% chance that life will form on any given planet, and our solar system has 9 planets (at least), why have we found only one planet with life on it in our solar system? Or do we just happen to be in an area of lower life density?

From whence came the “logicistics” of the universe?

You clearly misunderstood me. It’s a 50% chance or more that life could form on any planet in the universe, or any given planet. The chances of life forming on any given planet is about 1 in a trillion. But again, there are over a trillion plaents in the universe so that makes it likely that life will form on at least one of them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Led Zeppelin7.5:

You clearly misunderstood me. It’s a 50% chance or more that life could form on any planet in the universe, or any given planet. The chances of life forming on any given planet is about 1 in a trillion. But again, there are over a trillion plaents in the universe so that makes it likely that life will form on at least one of them.

If I read you correctly then, it is equally likely that Earth is the ONLY planet in the universe with life.

 

[Led_Zeppelin7-5]

vern humphrey:

If I read you correctly then, it is equally likely that Earth is the ONLY planet in the universe with life.

Highly unlikely. There’s life on Mars right now, just not like THIS life. But what’s your point?

Like I said, 1 in a trillion chance, probably over 2 trillion planets (at least 1 trillion). But keep in mind the universe in constantly expanding. That number will go up dramatically in the next 10 billion years.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Led Zeppelin7-5:

Highly unlikely. There’s life on Mars right now, just not like THIS life. .

And you have PROOF of that?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
Led Zeppelin7-5:

Like I said, 1 in a trillion chance, probably over 2 trillion planets (at least 1 trillion). .

Which is to say, there could be as many as two (or possibly three) or as few as one.
Led Zeppelin7-5:

But keep in mind the universe in constantly expanding. That number will go up dramatically in the next 10 billion years.

The universe is expanding in terms of the amount of space it occupies, not in terms of the amount of matter it contains. Unless there is a lot more “dark matter” than we can detect, the number of sun-like stars will decrease over time.

 

[RSiscoe]

RSiscoe:
Originally Posted by RSiscoe

I quoted Pope after Pope saying the the Bible is inspired in everything: not just faith and morals, but even history. Yet, in spite of these quotes, people disagreed with me.

patg:

Fortunately, the church disagrees with you also. I don’t fault past popes for making statements based on their worldview and the state of knowledge (biblical and otherwise) in their eras. I do however, fault those who refuse to listen, learn, and grow in the present.

So, all the Popes I quoted, and the infallible Councils they based their statement on, we all wrong; and your interpretation of the new Catechism, which was produced during the time of the greatest crisis the Church has ever faces, and which is not infallible, is correct? Is that what you would have us believe?

And that is not all, what you are claiming, is explicity condemned by the Church as a heresy. In addition to the numerous quotes I provided, the following is an explicit ondemnation from the syllabus of errors:

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, no. 11, [It is a heresy to hold that] “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.”

Then, to justify this departure from Catholic Dogma, you quote the following:

For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

*Now, this quote can be either interpreted in a way that agrees with what the Church has always taught; or it can be interpreted to mean that the constant teaching of the church, and the infallible dogmas of the faith, are subject to change.

It is true that progress is made in the area of revelation as the above quote says. This happens as the Church defines more doctrines, thus bringing clarity to what has always been taught. Transubstantiation is one good example. When the Church defined this doctrine, it gave greater clarity to what had always been taught. Thus the “progress” of the Church brought greater clarity to the faith. However, the Church can never, and will never, change what has always been taught and defined as true. If the Church attempted to change what had always been taught, it would mean the Church could error when it defined a matter. If that were the case, how would we know which to believe? Or if both were wrong? That is why the Church taught the following at Vatican I:

Ex-Cathedra statement: “For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of Faith [Tradition], and might faithfully set it forth.” (Vatican I, July 18, 1870).

The faith does not change. Dogmatic definitions, which form part of the infallible magesterium, cannot change. They are infallible, and infallibility does not allow the possibility of error. If dogmatic definitions were subject to change, or revision, we would have no way to know anything for certain - including which books belong in the Bible, since this too was defined by the Church.

If the truths of the faith are subject to change, then our faith is not built upon a rock, but shifting sand.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Patg:

**Notice how this only speaks of spiritual realities and how even those are subject to growth and evolution.

**To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

The primary author of the bible is God, the men were secondary authors; therefore, the Bible is not subject to error. It is true that the men who God used to write the books of the bible lived at a certain time in the past; and it is true that they had certain customs; and it is true that they wrote based on what they knew; but, since God is the primary author of Scripture it is not possible that what they wrote was false. And if anyone interprets the above quote to mean that, they are rejecting what the Church has always taught and defined as true. If God is the primary author of the bible, the bible cannot contain any errors. It is that simple:

Vatican Council I, Sess. III, cap. ii, DE REV: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the Decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as Sacred and Canonical. And the Church holds them as Sacred and Canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her Authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their Author.” (Ex-Cathedra statement that forms part of the extraordinary (infallible) magesterium of the Church).

Patg:

Sounds like we have to accept that the writers talked, wrote, and thought differently than we do. They may have even described things using limited knowledge and a limited worldview…

Let’s use your reasoning, and take it a little further: Maybe the writers of the Bible were also mistaken when they taught that Jesus was God? I know the church has always taught that the Bible is inspired when it teaches faith, but maybe the church has been about that? Maybe the Bible does contain errors in the area of faith. Maybe Jesus really isn’t God. Maybe the True presence is also a hoax? Sure, the church has always taught this, and even defined it as a dogma, but it also defined that the Bible is without error, and they “changed” that didn’t they? Maybe John 6, and 1st Corinthians 11, were interpolations by later writers? Maybe all that was taught up to Vatican II was false?

Do you see where it leads? If the Church can change eve one single dogma, it means that dogmatic definitions are subject to change; and if one is subject to change, why not the others; if it the others are subject to the shifting sand of change, what happens to our faith? It is reduced to mere “opinion”, just like with the Protestants.

The new Catechism is often ambiguous, and can be interpreted one of many ways. We can either interpret the new Catechism so that it agrees with what the Church has always taught, or we can interpret it exactly contrary to what the Church has always taught, which is what many people do. Obviously, since the truth does not change, we should interpret it so that it agrees with what the Church has always, and will always, teach.

I will again end with the quote from Pope Leo XIII.

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, no. 20f: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… For all the books which 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 as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not True. This is the ancient and unchanging Faith of the Church… [T]hose 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.”

 

[patg]

RSiscoe:
If God is the primary author of the bible, the bible cannot contain any errors. It is that simple…I don’t know why it so hard for you to understand the difference between no errors in faith and morals and no errors in everything else… Making or quoting general statements about the accuracy of the bible does not make the non-spiritual errors go away and does not make anyone a heretic for believing there are errors. All the statements you quote mention accuracy in divine revelation - revelation deals with who God is and what God wants NOT with historical or scientific details of which the writers were totally ignorant.

If the texts are so exactly perfect and inspired, why didn’t God bother to inspire someone to keep an original copy around for us? Why did God allow thousands of corrections and other changes by later copyists? Why are the only complete Gospels copies from hundreds of years after Jesus’ death. You should realize that the text in every bible is not from a single source, but translated from a compilation of pieces of “most likely” sources based on some scholarly consensus and that the consenus has changed over the centuries as the translators change and as new documents are discovered.

I’ll stick with Dei Verbum and the spiritual truths, everything else is irrelevant.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RSiscoe:
The primary author of the bible is God, the men were secondary authors; therefore, the Bible is not subject to error. It is true that the men who God used to write the books of the bible lived at a certain time in the past; and it is true that they had certain customs; and it is true that they wrote based on what they knew; but, since God is the primary author of Scripture it is not possible that what they wrote was false. And if anyone interprets the above quote to mean that, they are rejecting what the Church has always taught and defined as true. If God is the primary author of the bible, the bible cannot contain any errors. It is that simple:

Vatican Council I, Sess. III, cap. ii, DE REV: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the Decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as Sacred and Canonical. And the Church holds them as Sacred and Canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her Authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their Author.” (Ex-Cathedra statement that forms part of the extraordinary (infallible) magesterium of the Church).

Let’s use your reasoning, and take it a little further: Maybe the writers of the Bible were also mistaken when they taught that Jesus was God? I know the church has always taught that the Bible is inspired when it teaches faith, but maybe the church has been about that? Maybe the Bible does contain errors in the area of faith. Maybe Jesus really isn’t God. Maybe the True presence is also a hoax? Sure, the church has always taught this, and even defined it as a dogma, but it also defined that the Bible is without error, and they “changed” that didn’t they? Maybe John 6, and 1st Corinthians 11, were interpolations by later writers? Maybe all that was taught up to Vatican II was false?

Do you see where it leads? If the Church can change eve one single dogma, it means that dogmatic definitions are subject to change; and if one is subject to change, why not the others; if it the others are subject to the shifting sand of change, what happens to our faith? It is reduced to mere “opinion”, just like with the Protestants.## All this will happen if one denies that Arpachshad lived to the age of 438, or that Rhesa was the son of Zerubbabel, or that “Babel” means “confusion”, or that Quirinius was governor when Christ was born, or that St. Paul wrote Ephesians, or that the Book of Jonah is historical, or that Zerah the Ethiopian had an army a million strong ?

Why should it ? Christians are redeemed by Christ, not by believing in the historical reality of biologically incredible ages of OT worthies. Justification is by grace through faith - not by belief in the talking powers of Balaam’s jenny, nor by belief that there was a temple at Shiloh.

Why is change to be feared ? Change is inevitable - it’s part of human life; even for Christ. He matured, as Scripture itself says: and maturation involves undergoing change. Change is not contrary to fidelity in keeping the deposit of faith: everything depends on the *sort *of change.

Christ came to be our Redeemer, not an expert on the fine details of the history, transmission, textual authenticity, integrity, composition, or authorship of Genesis, Psalms, or Isaiah or any other book. He was not a superman, but a man - and not less a man for being God Incarnate. His respect for the Scriptures was not unusual - but is significant as an example of His humility.

Respect for Scripture is not the same as not being critical of parts of it; and “reverent criticism” is not an oxymoron.

I believed in Christ before I gave a thought to inerrancy; I believed in Him when I was an inerrantist; and I still believe in Him, now that I no longer believe in inerrantism. If anything, I see Divine inspiration of a completely human uninerrant Bible as an excellent example of how God uses even imperfect things as the means of His working. I no more expect the Bible to be inerrant in all respects, than I expect all Christians to be flawless and inerrant Saints. God, is perfect - the Bible is not, any more than the Church is. Why should Christians cease to believe in the goodness of God which they have tasted for themselves, because of the contradiction in Genesis 10 and 11 regarding the age of Shem when Arpachshad was born ? ##

[cont’d…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[cont’d and ended]

The new Catechism is often ambiguous, and can be interpreted one of many ways. We can either interpret the new Catechism so that it agrees with what the Church has always taught, or we can interpret it exactly contrary to what the Church has always taught, which is what many people do. Obviously, since the truth does not change, we should interpret it so that it agrees with what the Church has always, and will always, teach.

I will again end with the quote from Pope Leo XIII.

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, no. 20f: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… For all the books which 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 as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not True. **This is the ancient and unchanging **Faith of the Church… [T]hose 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.”

Or maybe they see no reason to suppose that the Divine Truthfulness is incompatible with mistaken assertions about armies, plagues, morality, massacres, astronomy, and so on, by human authors. Why is inspiration “essentially incompatible with error” ? What reason is there to think this, apart from the Church’s opinion ? If a billion people believed that cheese was imported from Jupiter, or that unicorns are in charge of the CIA, that number would not make these beliefs true. So here: mere repetition does not make a belief true - we don’t follow the Fathers’ ideas about geography or history, so why must their long-lived ideas about the Bible be regarded as automatically valid ? If Lactantius was wrong about the Antipodes, maybe St. Augustine was wrong about inerrancy. “Length of tradition” does not equal “truth”; nor is novelty the same as nonsense or error - the Gospel was very new in AD 40.​

To be logical, one ought really to require impeccability in the authors of the books. Do our sins have no effect upon our responsiveness to grace ?

Besides, is it the writing or writer that is inspired ? or is it both - and what does the Bible say on the matter ? That would give us something to work from. ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

what does the Bible say on the matter ? That would give us something to work from.

With regard to inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, the Church has said much on the matter. That’s enough for a Catholic to have moral certainty on the matter.

Here’s a pretty good article on the Church’s teaching regarding the inerrancy of Scritpure:

The Truth and Salvific Purpose of Sacred Scritpure According to Dei Verbum, Article 11
by Brian W. Harrison
rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html

Are there appearant contradictions in Scripture? Sure. However, the Church confesses that Scripture is inerrant in all that the inspired author intended to assert. If the sacred author intended to assert history, then that history is inerrant. If the sacred author intended to assert the truth of some miraculous supernatural event which is contrary to natural science (e.g., virgin birth), then that assertion is inerrant. If the sacred writer intended to put forth variant traditions of the same event, then that is what he intended to do, and he ought not to be accused of error if the variant traditions contradict in their details. If the sacred writer did not intend to teach science or history, but made use of other literary forms to convey truth, then that which he intended to express is inerrant and we ought to interpret that truth within the context of the literary genre expressed by the sacred author.

The task of the exegete is to discern what the literal sense of Scripture is, which is that sense intended by the sacred author given the literary genre used. All other senses are based upon the literal sense. A Catholic exegete must start by believing that all of Scripture, in all its parts, is without error, otherwise he starts from a false premise.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

why must their long-lived ideas about the Bible be regarded as automatically valid ?

They aren’t automatically valid. Some opinions of the past are rejected. Some opinions of the past are retained. The authority to decide which are retained and which are rejected is vested in those ordained and charged with the care of our souls. The opinions of the academic elite are not necessarily from those who are ordained and vested with magisterial authority. Even well-known authors and priests such as Fr. Raymond Brown are not part of the magisterium. So for Catholics, the following is authoritative…

1. Catholic Dogma pronounced by the solemn magisterium or by the ordinary universal magisterium (requires the assent of faith)
2. Catholic doctrine pronounced by the ordinary magisterium (requires religious submission of intellect and will)

Anything less than these two is considered opinion. Some opinions are considered pious and well-founded and others are considered poorly supported and merely tolerated.

If opinions are contrary to Catholic doctrine, they are heterodox. If opinions are contary to Catholic dogma, they are heretical. It is contary to canon law for a Catholic to dissent from any Catholic doctrine or dogma proposed by the magisterium (cf. Heb 13:17).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

With regard to inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, the Church has said much on the matter. That’s enough for a Catholic to have moral certainty on the matter.

Here’s a pretty good article on the Church’s teaching regarding the inerrancy of Scritpure:

The Truth and Salvific Purpose of Sacred Scritpure According to Dei Verbum, Article 11
by Brian W. Harrison
rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html

Are there appearant contradictions in Scripture? Sure. However, the Church confesses that Scripture is inerrant in all that the inspired author intended to assert. If the sacred author intended to assert history, then that history is inerrant. If the sacred author intended to assert the truth of some miraculous supernatural event which is contrary to natural science (e.g., virgin birth), then that assertion is inerrant. If the sacred writer intended to put forth variant traditions of the same event, then that is what he intended to do, and he ought not to be accused of error if the variant traditions contradict in their details. If the sacred writer did not intend to teach science or history, but made use of other literary forms to convey truth, then that which he intended to express is inerrant and we ought to interpret that truth within the context of the literary genre expressed by the sacred author.

The task of the exegete is to discern what the literal sense of Scripture is, which is that sense intended by the sacred author given the literary genre used. All other senses are based upon the literal sense. A Catholic exegete must start by believing that all of Scripture, in all its parts, is without error, otherwise he starts from a false premise.

I want to know what the Bible said on the matter, and is deemed to have said on the matter. Because there is no point in quoting very recent inerrantists, unless one knows what the earliest Christians thought on the subject - if anything.​

I want to see where the notion of inerrancy came from,. and why.

And I also want an answer to my questions about Arpachshad and Co ##