Does the Bible have errors in it?

[patg]

trth_skr:

Yes it is my opinion. It is also the opinion of Leo XIII and Pius XII (amongst others):
…

It is easy to make grandiose and pious-sounding statements when one doesn’t have to back them up or refuses to consider the writings in light of present knowledge. I agree that there are no errors in the bible based on the knowledge of the authors at the time they were writing (they didn’t deliberately lie about things) BUT it is ridiculous to assert that there are no errors based on present knowledge - the bible is full of errors in science, biology, history, Jewish customs, geography… It is very different to quote popes speaking in generalities to the average catholic than it is to read and study with true bible scholars.

 

[trth_skr]

patg:

It is easy to make grandiose and pious-sounding statements when one doesn’t have to back them up or refuses to consider the writings in light of present knowledge. I agree that there are no errors in the bible based on the knowledge of the authors at the time they were writing (they didn’t deliberately lie about things) BUT it is ridiculous to assert that there are no errors based on present knowledge - the bible is full of errors in science, biology, history, Jewish customs, geography… It is very different to quote popes speaking in generalities to the average catholic than it is to read and study with true bible scholars.

Those are some grandiose and sweeping statements you just made. At least I backed my statements up with authoritative pronouncements. You are just hand-waving. Also, truth does not change with time, nor were the popes adressing any specific errors. Their statements were general and were principles (the Scriptures ARE inerrant, PERIOD- not now, not last year, not next year, ALWAYS).

What are the alledged errors?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[patg]

trth_skr:

Those are some grandiose and sweeping statements you just made. At least I backed my statements up with authoritative pronouncements.

I agree, those are great quotes. Fortunately, the church does not require us to believe them as unquestionable creeds of the faith. There is no requirement as a Catholic to believe such things and certainly no need to attempt to suspend reason in order to accept them.

You are just hand-waving.

No, just following the scripture scholars and teachings of the church.

Also, truth does not change with time,

That doesn’t matter, our understanding of the truth constantly changes.

nor were the popes adressing any specific errors. Their statements were general and were principles (the Scriptures ARE inerrant, PERIOD- not now, not last year, not next year, ALWAYS).

The popes have to say things like that - most catholics haven’t studied enough scriptural analysis and history to get much deeper. I can’t imagine that more than a percent or two of catholics are even aware of such statements. Maybe the popes should have consulted a few scripture and history scholars before they expressed their opinions.

What are the alledged errors?

Arguing about specific errors is usually a waste of time for both sides, especially when extremist fundamental beliefs are involved. Dei Verbum specifically states that the bible teaches all the truths necessary for our salvation - NOT all the truths necessary to understand human biology or the nature of the physical universe. We can go down this road if you want to but I’m not sure I have the patience for it again…

For example, are all the “abominations too God” mentioned in Leviticus errors? …did God have a change of mind? We ignore most of them (unless, of course, they have something to do with sex). Is the three-tiered universe mentioned throughout the bible somehow still in place - is God still up there above the sky somewhere hiding from the astronauts. Where are those pillars holding up the earth? Does the male seed carry the entire baby with the woman only an incubation device? Is the translation error in the septuagint where “young woman” is translated as “virgin” just to be ignored… Are illnesses and deformities caused by the sins of the parents (that is what is taught in the O.T.)?

 

[trth_skr]

patg:

…Arguing about specific errors is usually a waste of time for both sides, especially when extremist fundamental beliefs are involved. Dei Verbum specifically states that the bible teaches all the truths necessary for our salvation - NOT all the truths necessary to understand human biology or the nature of the physical universe. We can go down this road if you want to but I’m not sure I have the patience for it again…

This does not mean that the Bible contains errors. The statement you are referring to can be interpreted in many ways. It is the crowning jewel of ambiguity.

patg:

For example, are all the “abominations too God” mentioned in Leviticus errors? …did God have a change of mind? We ignore most of them (unless, of course, they have something to do with sex).

No, they are abominations, not errors. Remember some of the law was laid aside with the old covenant. You need to be more specific. I am not sure how you can say they are errors.

patg:

…Is the three-tiered universe mentioned throughout the bible somehow still in place - is God still up there above the sky somewhere hiding from the astronauts. Where are those pillars holding up the earth?

The astronauts only got to the moon, and they were not looknig for God (maybe personally?). Jesus Ascended into heaven (eyewitnesses), Mary was Assumed (eye witnesses). Jesus was Transfigured (eye witnesses). I do not understand it, but I accept it. Read what the Fathers say.
"atg:

Does the male seed carry the entire baby with the woman only an incubation device?

Need to be specific. I know of the controversy, not sure the exact verse.

patg:

Is the translation error in the septuagint where “young woman” is translated as “virgin” just to be ignored…

Translation errors are to be considered as part of interpretation.

patg:

Are illnesses and deformities caused by the sins of the parents (that is what is taught in the O.T.)?

I am not sure about this one. I suppose it is possible. Again, could you cite a specific verse?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Athanasiy]

The Bible will never has the errors if You read not the Bible but the Catholic Chatechism first.

Reading the Cathechism with the references to the Bible is the best way to read the Bible unless You are not a Theologian.

 

[cialovesyou]

This is an interesting debate, interspersed with irrelevant nonsense. Einstein? Please. E=mc sq has very little to do with biblical inerrancy in my opinion.

Both sides make a valid point.
On the one, it is certainly the Church’s Infallible teaching that scripture is “inerrant”.

On the other hand, not everything in the bible, even from internal evidence, appears to be accurate on the face of it.

Let me use an example which might display my point.

How did Judas die?
Matt 27:5: And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18: (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

Now, it is pretty hard in my opinion to trip over a rock once you have hanged yourself!

So what is the inerrant truth here? How about this for a possible way forward…
The truth is that that in the community which the author of Luke wrote, the tradition was that Judas died from a rock.
The truth is that in the community from which Matthews Gospel rose up, the tradition was that Judas hanged himself.

Certainly inerrancy is maintained, if we take the scripture to mean that was what the people understood. Certainly both of these phrases are are asserted by the Holy Spirit (see Dei Verbum). The Holy Spirit just told us what two communities understood was the tradition about the demise of Judas Iscariot.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

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

Do you believe that?

Everything ? Are you sure you want to be held to that ?​

If “everything in the Bible is true”, then Jesus is a

• deceiver
• liar
• blasphemer
• demoniac

• for starters; each of these things is asserted of Him. Are we to give exactly the same weight to what His enemies said against Him, as to what St. Paul says of Him ?

If we take belief in inerrancy far enough, we end in blasphemy.

Are we really to think of the extermination of the Amalekites as being as faithful a reflection of the Will of God, as the Crucifixion ? One is worthy of a war-criminal - the other is truly Divine in character. ##

 

[Athanasiy]

In the recent Years, there were some scientific and archeology discoveries which seems disprove that the Bible has no errors in it.
Of course there are a lot of speculations today with discoveries.
The speculations which definitely have ideological character.
But those speculations exist just because of the hate to the Catholic Church and her Truth.

In my opinion , the Bible has the Word of God.
The Bible has the Salvation Knowledge, the Bible has Good News. the God speaks to man through the Bible.
But even if we shall suppose, that there are some Historical, Geographical , or philological mistakes; We have to understand that the people with their human weaknesses, human limits, ignorance,educational level, the people with their limitations were just the instruments of God’s Message.
When we read the Bible we have to consider;
Who was the author ?
to whom was addressed that or that Epistle or Book ?
When that Epistle or that Book was written ?
What were the reasons of writing of that Epistle ?
We have to consider the context.
The Culture, the original language.
Also the Bible is written in different genres of Literature.
Historical, Poetical …
There are Prophetic Books in the Bible, which also today are the subjects of Speculations.
Some attempt to make the Prophetic Books of the Bible as a Sensational Revelations .
I do not know may be it has just the commercial reasons.

Some denominations attempt to offer The Biblical Apologetics so sure, so absolute, so doubtless that they can forget about the Intellectual Honesty.

There are the archeology and science discoveries which attempting to prove that the Bible has errors in it.
But I am sure it does not damage the Catholic Biblical Apologetics.
Because the Catholic Bible Defense is not based on literalism and Bibliolatry.

 

[rcscwc]

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

Hindu Avatar Krishna:

Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (“Divine One”)

Sure, Devaki means that, and is quite a common name even today.

His father was a carpenter.

His biological parents were of royal descent, not carpenters.

His parents who raised too were not carpenters. His father was a minor noble and lord of the cowherds tending royal herds.

His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Devaki delivered Him alone and in a prison cell. None came with those presents, which anyway He did not need, being Lord of the Cosmos.

He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.

Yes

.

He was baptized in the River Ganges.

Catholic baptism, in name of father, son and ghost? NO.

Hindus invariably take a bath before every rite or ritual. Krishna too bathed daily in River Yamina. SO?

Daily bath is routine.

Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.

He was not a preacher, pal.

“He lived poor and he loved the poor.”

He was not poor, did not live poor, but of course He is the biggest solace of the poor.

In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.

That at least is not Hindu tradition. Others do not count.

On this I challenged Acharya S to produce her evidence. She was forced to admit she had none. Kersey Graves in 19th century had none.

He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

He did not die, but returned to His abode, which is NOT heaven.

Krishna is called the “Shepherd God” and “Lord of lords,” and was considered “the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word.”

Not shepherd god but cowherd god. One of His names attests to that, Gopal.

He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the “Resurrection” and the “way to the Father.”

No resuurection thing in Hinduism. Morover He Himself is Father and Mother for all.

He was considered the “Beginning, the Middle and the End,” (“Alpha and Omega”), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

Was considered, as if not held so now. He declares that in Bhagvad Gita,

His disciples bestowed upon him the title “Jezeus,” meaning “pure essence.”

Frankly, I never heard of this earlier in my life.What does Jezeus mean, in Sanskrit not any other language?

Krishna is to return to do battle with the “Prince of Evil,” who will desolate the earth."

As Lord Kalki, after about another 427,000 years. He will vanquish the evil doers and re-estalish righteouness on firm footing. Desolation of earth is not mentioned anywhere, nor a specific prince of evil. Hindus do not believe in a satan in competition with God.

 

[SeanTom]

Led,

Acts 1:16-19: “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood.”

Mt 27:5: “Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, ‘I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.’ Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.”

Both of the above are historically different as to what happened to the money and as to how Judas died. But I believe the message here is that Judas, because of his actions, died a horrible death.

---

Matthew 10:27: “Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole garrison around Him. And they stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him.”

Mark 15:16: “Then the soldiers led Him away into the hall called the Praetorium, and they called together the whole garrison, and they clothed Him in a purple cloak”.

Both of the above accounts are historically different as to the color of the outer garment that was placed on Jesus by the garrison. But is this the message we are supposed to get? Or should we get the message of how Jesus was scorned, scourged and ridiculed prior to His crucifixion? I believe in the latter. I might add though that some Theologians believe the authors of these two verses may have had the following in mind: Matthew had Jesus clothed in scarlet to signify the blood that Jesus was about to shed for His people; and Mark may have used the color purple as he saw Jesus as a King, and purple is usually a majestic color, and wanted to convey this to His people. Who knows??

---

2 Samuel 11:21: States Abimelech was killed by a woman who cast an upper millstone upon him from a wall.

Judges 9:54: States that Abimelech’s armor-bearer killed him with his sword.

The message here, I believe, is that Abimelech was killed by the hands of another and did not die of natural causes.

---

We sometimes refer to the Holy Spirit’s assistance in the writing of the Gospels. This is traceable to Paul, who wrote, “All Scripture is inspired by God.” This is thought to mean, by many biblical scholars, that the Holy Spirit guided and protected the biblical authors in such a way that their writings were free from error IN MATTERS THAT RELATE TO SALVATION i.e. faith and morals. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit protected the biblical authors from making historical and scientific errors. God never intended that they compose books of the bible relating to science and history. God’s interest was in the SALVATION of His children. The biblical writers were free to add words or thoughts of their own as long as they did not detract from God’s message of salvation. The bible was never considered to be free from scientific and historical errors. This is why you will find some obvious biblical errors in the bible as noted in the above references.

Hope this helps in understanding the true messages given to us by Jesus through Scripture. Remember, whenever reading or studying Scripture, ALWAYS look for God’s message - What is His message for us? What does He want us to know? And make sure this all ties in with God’s plan for our Salvation, and not for scientific and/or historical purposes. Knowing what hill Jesus was crucified on, or how His cross was constructed, or what color robe He was wearing, would be interesting, but of no consequence - BUT knowing that He was crucified and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our salvation IS important. ALWAYS SEEK THE MESSAGE GOD IS GIVING US AS PERTAINS TO OUR SALVATION.