How reliable is the Bible?

[trogiah]

Lazerlike42:

Look at it this way: Jesus never said Moses was wrong, but rather he only went so far as to say, “Moses said ‘X’ But I say to you ‘X+1’.”

He only expanded on Moses’ teachings and added greater truth to them.

Think about when they teach you math in elementary school. They say to you, “you can’t subtract a number from something smaller than itself.” This is 100% true but incomplete. The complete truth is, “you can’t subtract a number from something smaller than itself unless you use negative numbers.” Or, another way to put it is, “you can’t subtract a number from something smaller than itself, but older people can.” In high school we learn that, which is the FULL truth. That doesn’t make what they told you in elementary school untrue, just incomplete. Also, just like with Moses/Jesus, the elementary school teacher is only being incomplete because you weren’t ready to understand the full truth.

Being a high school math teacher, I find your choice of analogies to be very interesting. I appreciate the reference to mathematical induction. I believe I understand your point, although for the record I think I should state that high school math falls some short of the full truth.

Seriously - getting back to the post that started this thread

"Is it in accord with catholic doctrine that the Bible is divinely inspired, and thus true in it’s entirety?

I have read “The belief of many mainstream theologians is that there are no true contradictions in the Bible. There cannot be if they believe that the Bible is inerrant (without errors). Thus they believe that any misconceptions of the Bible are due to human lack of understanding or sin” Is it true in catholic doctrine that that the Bible is inerrant?
I am assuming that the God of the old testament, and the God of the new testament are one and the same, and that we should use the entire Bible to learn about God, rather than pick and choose which passages we feel correctly describe God and His actions. It this correct? Are there differences in the way catholic doctrine considers the old vs the new testament?
Thanks,
John"

It seems that we can agree that if we use the Bible to learn about God, we should recognize the possibility that some parts of the Bible to fall short of the fullness of truth. That the Gospels which reveal the teachings of Jesus himself should be the last word. So to answer John’s orginal question, The Bible is only guaranteed to be inerrant if we let the Gospels be the last word.

peace,

-Jim

 

[BibleReader]

JohnG139:

I was brought up Anglican, but fell away from the church, and became agnostic. I am now re-evaluating spirituality, and have embarked on an inquiry into many faiths.
I have questions about the Bible, and would appreciate comments.

Is it in accord with catholic doctrine that the Bible is divinely inspired, and thus true in it’s entirety?
I am assuming that only the most fundamentalist faiths take the bible as literally true, and would gather that catholic doctrine does not take it literally, allowing for parables, and most passages are subject to interpretation. Does the story of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel fall under such a category?
I have read “The belief of many mainstream theologians is that there are no true contradictions in the Bible. There cannot be if they believe that the Bible is inerrant (without errors). Thus they believe that any misconceptions of the Bible are due to human lack of understanding or sin” Is it true in catholic doctrine that that the Bible is inerrant?
I am assuming that the God of the old testament, and the God of the new testament are one and the same, and that we should use the entire Bible to learn about God, rather than pick and choose which passages we feel correctly describe God and His actions. It this correct? Are there differences in the way catholic doctrine considers the old vs the new testament?
Thanks,
John

If one understands that the Bible sometimes – very frequently – teaches error-free religious truth with error-filled historical and fictional accounts, then the Bible is “error free” to that critical extent.

 

[JohnG139]

BibleReader:

If one understands that the Bible sometimes – very frequently – teaches error-free religious truth with error-filled historical and fictional accounts, then the Bible is “error free” to that critical extent.

I have just been reading Exodus 20. specifically verses 4-6
“4"You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
I presume that the revalation of the 10 commandmants must qualify as the former (religious truth), But I have trouble reconciling verse 5 with the concept of a Just God. Surely the children of a sinner to the third and 4th generations bear no responsibility for the sins of their grandfather or their great grandfathers, do they?
Can you help me?

 

[JohnG139]

I have just continued by reading exodus 21 and this I also find confusing.
Exodus 21:1 "Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: . . . . .
12"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee.

14"But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.

15"And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

16"He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

17"And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

 

[JohnG139]

Wow! it gets worse!

28"If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. 29But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. 30If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. 31Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. 32If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Put the owner of the Ox to death??

These passages seem to clearly imply the life of a servant is worth considerably less than that of a “free citizen” - only thirty shekels of silver?

Exodus 21 certainly appears to be part of the revalations to Moses, and specifically, how the commandmants should be applied.
I have trouble with this.

 

[trogiah]

JohnG139:

I have just been reading Exodus 20. specifically verses 4-6
“4"You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
I presume that the revalation of the 10 commandmants must qualify as the former (religious truth), But I have trouble reconciling verse 5 with the concept of a Just God. Surely the children of a sinner to the third and 4th generations bear no responsibility for the sins of their grandfather or their great grandfathers, do they?
Can you help me?

It does seem like a difficult teaching, but the fact is that children and grandchildren and great grandchildren do pay a price for the sins of their parents.

Consider the sin of early Americans who decided people of one color were not worth as much as people of a different color. The sin took root and left a legacy that resulted in a war that cost more American lives than any other war and still costs us today.

That is only one widely known example of how the sins of one generation leave an impact on future generations. It is how the world works, whether it seems fair to us or not.

Speaking of the ten commandments. At the end of them, scripture says “God spoke these words, and nothing more, to your entire assembly.” (Deut. ch 5) suggesting that these words have a certain pre-eminence over the rest of scripture. Other commandments came through Moses to the people, which, as we have been discussing, may have led to some of those other commandments falling short of presenting things in perfect light.

peace

-Jim

 

[Lazerlike42]

On the Ox bit:

Today, if a dog attacks someone, it usually gets put to death, because among other things its an animal and isn’t likely to change it’s behavior. Same with the Ox. Now, if a dog is known to be dangerous, and if the owner has been told this before, and perhaps told to put a muzzle on the dog or something like that, and the dog attacks somebody, there may very well be charges of criminal negligence filed against the owner.

Of course in the time of Exodus, death as a punishment was much more widely used than today, so this crime warrants death then whereas today it would only warrant jail time.

There are a few reasons why death was used so often back then. For one, there wasn’t even anything close to an organized society which could have some sort of police force and run things authoritatively. There was in Egypt of course, but these commandments are given to the Jews when they have been freed and are going to have to live on their own out in the wilderness for decades. Also, because they were going to be traveling a lot, there was no way to set up a jail to hold people. All of this put together simply made death the only real way to punish somebody, especially for harsher crimes like murder, because anything less would result in the murderer killing somebody else.

Some may say that banishment would be a better punishment. This might have been true in later years, but in fact that would have been a harsher punishment than death at the time of Exodus. Any man banished would have to wander the desert - all alone, and with no food, and no water. It wasn’t like today or even the middle ages where there were settlements and villages here and there. One could walk hundreds and hundreds of miles before finding even the smallest settlement back then. To sentence a man to that would be no different from sentencing him to a long, painful, tortorus death, so it was a lot more humane to just do it and get it over with. (Moses, of course, survived this, but only because he was God’s chosen prophet and His banishment was part of God’s plan to lead him to Mt. Sinai)

Also, it has been often pointed out that the Jewish people as a whole were like God’s child or children. Parents are obviously more strict with their young children than their older children. God’s people were in their “young” stages. Because of this, he was stricter. When they got “older”, in the time of Christ, God, just like a parent, treated them with more freedom and responsibility. That’s why the Jews could reject God, just like teenagers can reject their parents. (If we continue to anaolgy, we see that God no longer practices very much of any control on people and lets them do all sorts of vile and horrible things people do today, much like parents once their kids grow up and move out can’t say much anymore).

One last point is that, for as much as the Jews were civilized at the time of the Exodus, they were still a relatively primitive people with a lot of uncivility to them. God pretty much had to put such harsh penalties on people to knock some sense into them. He couldn’t have the society develop into one where crime was rampant and nobody cared about anything, so he had to be strict until society was at a point where it kept itself in check without His having to really watch over things.

 

[Lazerlike42]

BibleReader:

If one understands that the Bible sometimes – very frequently – teaches error-free religious truth with error-filled historical and fictional accounts, then the Bible is “error free” to that critical extent.

Actually, the historical accounts are all accurate too. Of course there are still some that people have reason to question, but these shouldn’t be paid too much attention to. Why?

There used to be a ton of things in the Bible that seemed very clearly to be historically wrong. However, as time went on, historians and archaeologists more and more made discoveries that actually proved these so-called errors to be correct! One of the big things for example was the idea that there had never been any Cannanites. Well, archaeology discovered proof that there had been.

People used to say that dragons and sea monsters were all fake, until the 1800s when people started digging up dinosaur bones and proved that there really were creatures similar to that in the past. It’s a similar situation with the Bible.

The point is that even though there are still things that don’t seem to make sense, there once were a lot more, and all of those have since been proven to be correctly portrayed in the Bible, whereas our understanding was flawed. Given that, there is no reason to doubt that future discoveries will prove the rest of the BIble’s history to be correct.

It is WE who are and have been deficient, not the Word of God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JohnG139:

Is it in accord with catholic doctrine that the Bible is divinely inspired, and thus true in it’s entirety?

Yes. The Bible as written by the Sacred authors were Divinely inspired. There are certainly copyist and translation errors in manuscripts. Nevertheless, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition have complementary roles in teaching the faithful the Gospel truth. We need not merely rely upon old manuscripts, but have a faith that is lived and passed on from the fathers. Furthermore, we are left with so many thousand upon thousands of manuscripts of sacred scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew, as well as other ancient and modern languages that we have a juridically accurate basis for knowing what the Bible teaches.

I am assuming that only the most fundamentalist faiths take the bible as literally true, and would gather that catholic doctrine does not take it literally, allowing for parables, and most passages are subject to interpretation.

To be clear, a* literal* meaning is foundational for Catholic teaching. However, what “literal” means includes that meaning the author himself intended given the literary genre he used. “Literal” does not mean poems are not to be understood as poems, parables as parables. So, when a Catholic says that one ought to discern the literal sense, they mean something different that you seem to imply.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” (CCC 116)

As I understand it, other senses of Scripture (allegorical, typological, etc), can certainly be valid, but the literal sense is foundational and other senses must be built upon (not contrary to), the literal sense.

This is distinct from the erroroneous literalist meaning, which is common among Fundamentalist Protestants. The Catholic Church opposes the literalist or fundamentalist method:

Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by “literal interpretation” it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. (Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM)

Does the story of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel fall under such a category?

Genesis, like all other books of Sacred Scripture, needs to be interpreted in accord with Catholic hermeneutics (methodology).

For example, according to MSgr John McCarthy,

“Genesis 1, as a popular account, should be given the leeway of a popular account. But in keeping with what is said also in other documents of the Magisterium of the Church, to the extent that interpreters compare the popular account with technical models of their choosing, in order not to convict the text of non-factuality without a trial,*** they must give the text a chance on a technical level… Since Genesis is an inspired writing, it is inerrant even on a technical level.*** We cannot know how much technical knowledge Moses had of the physical development of the universe, and we do not need to know, because what he wrote was guided by divine inspiration, however much he knew. Moses could have reflected only on the level of the popular images without attempting to supply in his mind any technical models. But it is the inspired text that is the subject of our study, not the mind of Moses. And the inerrancy of that text is very important, seeing that our faith is rooted in reality, not in warmed-over mythology.” (MSgr John McCarthy, A Neo-Patristic Return to the First Four Days of Creation, Part II. The Literal Sense of Genesis 1:1-5: The First Day of Creation)

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Is it true in catholic doctrine that that the Bible is inerrant?

Yes. Cardinal Augustin Bea was the Jesuit Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, and was the Vatican II *peritus *chosen to instruct bishops on biblical matters at the opening of Vatican II. The following is from Cardinal Augustin Bea, “*In fact, we declare in general that there is no limit set to this inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms” *(Cardinal Augustin Bea, *The Word of God and Mankind, *Fransican Herald Press, 1967, p. 189)

According to Pope Benedict XVI, in a commentary written while still Cardinal, regarding the dogma of the inerrancy of Scripture (June 29, 1998): he asserted that “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” is an infallible, immutable dogma of the Catholic Church, “to be believed as divinely revealed,” and is “of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.” This Catholic dogma “require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy” (Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fide, approved and promulgated by Pope John Paul II).

I am assuming that the God of the old testament, and the God of the new testament are one and the same, and that we should use the entire Bible to learn about God, rather than pick and choose which passages we feel correctly describe God and His actions. It this correct?

Yes. But Jesus said: “He who hears you, hears me.” This applied to the apostles with Peter as the chief pastor. It applies today to the historical successors of the apostles, with Peter’s successor as the chief pastor. Thus, not every fanciful interpretation of Sacred Scritpure is authoritative, but the final authority on the Word of God and its authentic meaning is vested solely upon the successors of the apostles.

Are there differences in the way catholic doctrine considers the old vs the new testament?

Yes, the OT forshadows the NT and the NT unveils the OT. Thus if one had the OT alone, they would have the word of God, but only partially, not the complete form of the written word of God. Furthermore, the Divine Law of the OT was everlasting with respect to the moral precepts. The other elements, such as civil and ecclesiastical must not be presumed to have been for all time. The Church has the power to bind and loose all that is found within the Divine Law pertaining to customs and precepts that are merely ecclesiastical or civil, but does not have the power to dispense or abrogate that which the Church believes to be binding upon the faithful for all time, such as Divine moral law.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Lazerlike42:

I have looked up what you speak of.

I believe though I see that it says we must take the accounts of the creation of man literally.

That being said, doesn’t this present problems? Didn’t JPII write encyclicals in which he said it was acceptable to hold evolution as true or false?

I think “literally” means what the Catechism describes as the literal sense. You are correct in that a Catholic may believe in theistic evolution of the body. It is not a well-supported opinion, theologically speaking, but it is tolerated as free opinion. The human soul, however, must be understood to be immediately created by God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Bible is only guaranteed to be inerrant if we let the Gospels be the last word.

I’d say that God has the last word, not only through his Gospels, but through his Spirit, and through those mere mortals he has Divinely ordained to teach His Gospel.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I have trouble reconciling verse 5 with the concept of a Just God. Surely the children of a sinner to the third and 4th generations bear no responsibility for the sins of their grandfather or their great grandfathers, do they? Can you help me?

The above biblical passage is simply stating fact. Have you ever seen a woman hooked or crack give birth to an infant hooked on crack? Sin has consequences for more than just the person who sins. When sin, we affect the human family. God allows such consequences, and in this sense, God punished the wicked for their deeds, even directly afflicting children of the wicked.

Some may see this as unjust. I don’t. God gave life without owing it to anyone, and is the Lord of Life. He does not owe me my next breath merely because he gave me my last breath. He does not owe me happiness merely because he given me happiness in the past. He does not owe me a future without pain and suffering. Every breath I take is a gift. Even his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ suffered on account of our sins without ever deserving such suffering. Suffering has a painful element to it, but it also has a healing element to it as well. God draws good from the deeds that wicked men choose willfully. We may not (and often do not) ever connect the dots to understand how good can come from such evil. But it does, whether we understand it or not. Those with faith in God ought to know that God is forever-just and never allows such terrible consequences to happen without drawing more good from it.

Finally, the point of the above passage is that by the providence of God, His Divine Blessings for faithfulness (1000 generations) is much more abundant than the consequence of sin (4 generations). But make no mistake, if one sins, the consequences can be grave, not merely for the sinner, but for one’s loved ones.

 

[johnpaullover]

THis should be a non-issue.

Fallible colection of infallible documents. That is what the bible is.

I cannot promise that the collection is perfect, but I can hold the guaruntee that the documents are. There is nothing exotic about this.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

These passages seem to clearly imply the life of a servant is worth considerably less than that of a “free citizen” - only thirty shekels of silver?

Exodus 21 certainly appears to be part of the revalations to Moses, and specifically, how the commandmants should be applied.

I have trouble with this.

I believe you are embarking upon a simplistic view of Scripture, which can lead to disasterous results. My suggestion is that instead of quickly and haphazardly concluding what the passages means, that you study it further. What was the first Christian commentary on this passage? What was the succeding commentaries throughout the past 2000 years. How has the Church understood this passage within her official doctrinal statements? Does the Catechism cite this passage? If so, in what way? What have the early fathers of Christianity taught regarding this passage?

Much of what you are reading is civil and ecclesiastical law (provisional, not immutable). The immutable moral lesson is the fact of sinfulness and its terrible consequences. The particular civil and ecclesiastical penalties are not immutable.

Please resist the temptation to be your own teacher. It wouldn’t be prudent to simply pick up an advanced physics book and expect to understand quantum physics simply be reading it by yourself without being taught, would it? Theology is much more complex than physics. There are Scripture courses available, and they are much more important than physics courses.

The Ethiopian Eunuch, when asked if he understood what he was reading in Scripture, he responded to Stephen, “How can I without someone to teach me?” Before convincing yourself that you are certain about what a passage means, study some commentaries and ask the Catholic Church for her understanding of that passage, which she has taught for the past 2000 years. Keep asking questions. Take some classes. You’ll find the journey very challenging, but very rewarding.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Fallible colection of infallible documents. That is what the bible is.

This is the Protestant view of the Bible, not the Catholic one.

For Catholicism, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible sacred texts, which are divinely inspired in every word the Sacred author wrote, and are absolutely inerrant in everything the Sacred author asserts.

The error exists in *our *understanding or what is asserted, not in what the Holy Spirit has asserted in the Sacred texts.

 

[BibleReader]

JohnG139:

I have just been reading Exodus 20. specifically verses 4-6
“4"You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
I presume that the revalation of the 10 commandmants must qualify as the former (religious truth), But I have trouble reconciling verse 5 with the concept of a Just God. Surely the children of a sinner to the third and 4th generations bear no responsibility for the sins of their grandfather or their great grandfathers, do they?
Can you help me?

I’ve never thought through these verses or the concept they hold, “stem to stern.” At this juncture, I have *three *responses, not just one, as a consequence.

Actually, God “punishes” man to the tune of a thousand generations, in the sense that our Original-Sin-generated state of alienation from God makes us unworthy of anything but a diseased, sin-infested world. After that, God’s help is a gift.

“Three and four generations” may be how long it takes for the average substantial sin to be erased from a family. “Like father, like son.” “Three and four generations” may simply be a plaintext level statistic.

The numbers 3 and 4 are “Number Types,” or symbols. 3 = “will of God”; 4 = “everyone.” So, regardless of what the numbers mean at the plaintext level, at the *sensus plenior *level they probably mean that what He says is “God’s will” for “everyone.”

 

[JohnG139]

trogiah:

It does seem like a difficult teaching, but the fact is that children and grandchildren and great grandchildren do pay a price for the sins of their parents.

Consider the sin of early Americans who decided people of one color were not worth as much as people of a different color. The sin took root and left a legacy that resulted in a war that cost more American lives than any other war and still costs us today.

That is only one widely known example of how the sins of one generation leave an impact on future generations. It is how the world works, whether it seems fair to us or not.

Yes it is very clear that we often suffer consequences of the actions of our forebearers, but this is not my point.
There is a difference between consequences, and punishment.
I can understand sinners being punished for their sins, however I cannot consider it the action of a just God to visit punishment upon me for the sins of another. I have had no choice. I could not have controlled the actions of my grandfather. Quite clearly, in the second commandment, God is saying He will do just that.

 

[JohnG139]

BibleReader:

Actually, God “punishes” man to the tune of a thousand generations, in the sense that our Original-Sin-generated state of alienation from God makes us unworthy of anything but a diseased, sin-infested world. After that, God’s help is a gift.

Again, How is it the action of a just god to punish me with original sin before I am even born. If God created me, then why did He chose to create me with sin, and then punish me for the very sin He created in me. In fact I was never offered the chioce to sin or not to sin.

 

[trogiah]

JohnG139:

Yes it is very clear that we often suffer consequences of the actions of our forebearers, but this is not my point.
There is a difference between consequences, and punishment.
I can understand sinners being punished for their sins, however I cannot consider it the action of a just God to visit punishment upon me for the sins of another. I have had no choice. I could not have controlled the actions of my grandfather. Quite clearly, in the second commandment, God is saying He will do just that.

The scripture I read uses the phrase “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me”
which does not say consequences or punishment. I regard the consequences to be the punishment. Is God just for causing consequences but not for punishing? Whats the difference.

Human beings are such that a parent that tries to build their life contrary to God’s plans ends up leaving a difficult legacy for the children. This is true at the individual family level as well as the larger society level. Call it consequences or punishment or “visiting the iniquity”. Doesn’t really change the result.