If inerrancy is false, is Catholicism false?

[Cachonga]

kepha1:

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Here’s what I found in the DR -
Matt 9:36 - “And seeing the multitudes, he had compassion on them: because they were distressed, and lying like sheep that have no shepherd.”
Judith 11:19 - “There is not such another woman upon earth in look, in beauty, and in sense of words.”
What? How does Matt 9:36 match Judith 11:19? What version is being used for this comparison?

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Here’s what I found for Mark 9:48 (again, in the DR) - “For every one shall be salted with fire: and every victim shall be salted with salt.”
And for Judith 16:17 - “Let all thy creatures serve thee: because thou hast spoken, and they were made: thou didst send forth thy spirit, and they were created, and there is no one that can resist thy voice.”
I’m still missing the connection. It sounds like Mark9:48 is talking about people being punished, yet Judith 16:17 seems to be calling for all creatures to serve God who made them. Please explain this!

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Here’s Luke 1:42 - “And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”
And Judith 13:18 - “And by me his handmaid he hath fulfilled his mercy, which he promised to the house of Israel: and he hath killed the enemy of his people by my hand this night.”
I still don’t see the connection. Seems that Elizabeth is saying some very nice things about Mary, but Judith is saying some very nice things about herself. This is relevant how???

2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

Actually, the Septuagint contained a lot of different books, depending on which “version” you picked up (including 3rd & 4th Machabees and others). Also, we have mention of other books within the New Testament Scriptures that (hopefully) we all agree are not canonical, such as the Book of Enoch, and even some direct citations of pagan, Greek philosophers. Should these be part of the canon as well? Of course not! And of all the “citations” of the deuterocanonical books, how many were prefaced with the words, “it is written …”, or “the Lord said …” or anything that would indicate it was Scripture rather than a writing that the people would have been familiar with (similar to your priest citing a story in USA Today)? Judging from the examples you gave (and I even checked a few from the link you added, and they are just as confusing as these), I don’t see anything that would convince me these books are God-breathed Scripture. The point here is - just because a book was found in a copy of the Septuagint does not mean it was considered canonical, God-breathed Scripture. Kudoo’s, though for the citations (I don’t see that very often )!

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **NotWorthy** 					 				
  		* You know there's know way of  knowing for sure. They were found, at least in part, in such writings as  the Dead Sea Scrolls, but there were other books considered  unscriptural that were included in them. Also, they were quoted by the  Early Church Fathers, many of which were Jewish converts.

But, since the Jews never had a Canon that they could agree on even amongst themselves, this is something that can’t be definitively stated.*

Then why is it OK for you to use this as an argument?

Matthew 16 and Matthew 18, of course.

 

[NotWorthy]

I keep hearing about this “council”, but I have never seen any evidence of it. Please name your source (I would love to see some credible documentation about it, and am almost ready to go to “Ask the Rabbi” for information on it). As I understand it, there was no “council”, Jamnia was a Rabbinical school, and the discussion was limited to Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon (see here).

Which is why I said, “It is claimed”. It seems like the good Protestants made the claim to justify why they agreed with the Jewish Council (even though the Jews are still not in full agreement on a canon).

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy:

Unless the authors weren’t treating the book as a historical account. I think you present a false argument here. It’s like making up the rules in the 7th inning of a baseball game. Hmmm… you wouldn’t perhaps be a democrat, would you?

Isn’t the author of Scripture God? He used men to write it, but isn’t He the author? And if Jesus didn’t misrepresent history in His parables (or anything else He said), why would God allow such errors in His inspired written Word? Was God incapable of keeping errors out of His inerrant Word? Was God incapable of preserving His inerrant Word? Even with the textual variants we have, we know that we have His inerrant Word faithfully represented.

But Jesus didn’t “mis-represent” history. He never claimed it was history. Take the 10,000 talents that the king forgave in the parable. You seem to be missing the point. The parable gives an amount that is totally beyond value, a debt the man couldn’t possibly repay - sort of like the debt that Jesus forgives. That’s why its safe to assume that the story has any historical accuracy - nor does it need to.

How am I “making up the rules”? (and why resort to name calling? I had nothing to do with the Obamanation currently in the White House!). I’m being consistent in seperating parables from history.

You are making up the rules by claiming Judith can’t be Scriptural simply because its not historical accurate. This was a common literary style back then. It is you that is making the claim and placing it on a culture 2000 years old.

The “democrat” comment (sorry if I offended, I thought the “wink smiley” showed I was joking) was simply to show that your “inventing the rules in the 7th inning” was a democrat tactic… do you remember the 2000 election?

 

[NotWorthy]

This is a PARABLE, not HISTORY. The amount is used to show that there is no way WE can ever pay for our own sins. We are ALL worthy of death and the eternal fires of hell, but God (the King), in His mercy, has forgiven His people (that, by the way, is a HISTORICAL FACT).

So you ADMIT that a parable is a way of using Scripture. So, what’s wrong with Judith?

I don’t think so. First of all, the Song of Solomon does not name names, dates, empires, etc…, so it’s obviously not meant to be taken historically. Second, you did not answer the direct question - “which of the 3 explanations offered by Joe 5859 would you use to explain these contradictions with known history?” This, again, is referring to the historical contradictions found in Judith.

I thought I answered that. Was it not satisfactory? Again, you are making up the rule that Judith can’t be Scriptural since its not historically accurate.

Can you show me where any Jews of the first few centuries made this claim for this reason? Or any Christians? Can you show me that this claim wasn’t made up some time 1000 years later?

 

[manygift1spirit]

You cannot use parables to disprove historical errors!

That wasn’t the intent of my example. Nothing about disproving anything. Rather to show that historically errant or at least dubious content can be found there but always as a medium for other intent.

Parables are only the most transparent example. Other examples may be less transparent, but the same principle holds. You may wish to read the last paragraph of my previous post. It describes your reaction (and thus my response) exactly.

If you want another example, consider the opening of Matthew’s Gospel, the geneology. Now the point here is to fufill the prophecy regarding the House of David. (There may be other points.) But for someone with a modern view of geneology as an historically verifiable endeavor, they would consider the whole idea to draw this up as balderdash. But they are missing the point completely.

In other words there (still) is no issue at all here. Remember, the Holy Spirit does not err; He guided the writings and still to this day guides the Magisterium when they are speaking on behalf of those writings, where faith and morals are concerned. If only we humans could be so lucky.

 

[Cachonga]

NotWorthy, let’s just be honest about this. You believe you’re right because the Church says so, while I believe I’m right because I can find solid evidence within the pages of Scripture. You also seem to beleive (again, because the “Church says so”) that a book that records gross historical errors like Judith is valid because Jesus tells parables (even though He never mentions anything that can be traced historically, that’s why these are parables and not history). While this may have been a common style of writing at the time, can you point to a single account in the Scriptures we both agree are Scriptures where there is ANY such historical inaccuracy? This was NOT a style God used with His Scriptures! My belief that Judith is NOT Scripture comes from the fact that it gives names of rulers, places where they ruled, and historical information (such as the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem), and every bit of this information can be PROVEN to be historically inaccurate! What kiind of “god” would allow this kind of error in his written word? Not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! Not the God who loves us enough to send His son to DIE a horrible death on a cross so we don’t have to go to hell (which we ALL deserve)! Not the God of TRUTH!!! And, going away from history for a moment, it even contradicts Scripture itself (doesn’t Scripture tell us who reigned and where?).

In regard to the Democrat statement, I did recognize it as a joke, but considering what’s going on in DC, I do not want to be associated with it in any way, shape or form (BTW - I consider myself more of an independant, voting for whoever I feel is the best qualified candidate, which has ruled out many Democrats over the last several years).

In regard to answering the question, “which of the 3 explanations offered by Joe 5859 would you use to explain these contradictions with known history?”, Joe 5859 gave 3 possible answers -

1. 
   *]It’s a bad translation;
   *]It’s a textual gloss; or
   *]Our own understanding of the passage is lacking

1. 
   Which of these 3 answers would you use to answer the question?
   
   manygift1spirit, you also don’t seem to realize the difference between a parable and history. If you think Judith is meant to be a parable, first I would ask - is it one, very long parable, or several short parables together? Second, what is/are the lesson/s of the parable/s? Third, when did your Church “infallibly” explain the parable/s found in Judith? Fourth, if your Church has not “infallibly” explained the parable/s in Judith, why do you think it/they is/are parable/s?

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy, let’s just be honest about this. You believe you’re right because the Church says so, while I believe I’m right because I can find solid evidence within the pages of Scripture. You also seem to beleive (again, because the “Church says so”) that a book that records gross historical errors like Judith is valid because Jesus tells parables (even though He never mentions anything that can be traced historically, that’s why these are parables and not history). While this may have been a common style of writing at the time, can you point to a single account in the Scriptures we both agree are Scriptures where there is ANY such historical inaccuracy? This was NOT a style God used with His Scriptures! My belief that Judith is NOT Scripture comes from the fact that it gives names of rulers, places where they ruled, and historical information (such as the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem), and every bit of this information can be PROVEN to be historically inaccurate! What kiind of “god” would allow this kind of error in his written word? Not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! Not the God who loves us enough to send His son to DIE a horrible death on a cross so we don’t have to go to hell (which we ALL deserve)! Not the God of TRUTH!!! And, going away from history for a moment, it even contradicts Scripture itself (doesn’t Scripture tell us who reigned and where?).

Cachonga, I know that you’ve made yourself your own pope (the very thing you disdain). But can you show me where others in the early Christianity raised the very same concerns with Judith that you do? I follow what the Church says, yes, because it’s Scriptural. You don’t. Your choice.

In regard to the Democrat statement, I did recognize it as a joke, but considering what’s going on in DC, I do not want to be associated with it in any way, shape or form (BTW - I consider myself more of an independant, voting for whoever I feel is the best qualified candidate, which has ruled out many Democrats over the last several years).

I know. Sometimes my humor can be a little subtle, which is why I throw in the wink. I didn’t mean to offend, and was preferring to share a joke than to accuse and demean. Sorry about the offense.

In regard to answering the question, “which of the 3 explanations offered by Joe 5859 would you use to explain these contradictions with known history?”, Joe 5859 gave 3 possible answers -

Which of these 3 answers would you use to answer the question?

And I thought I answered it already. Look at my post at 3:05pm (Central time yesterday). What is wrong with that answer?

manygift1spirit, you also don’t seem to realize the difference between a parable and history. If you think Judith is meant to be a parable, first I would ask - is it one, very long parable, or several short parables together? Second, what is/are the lesson/s of the parable/s? Third, when did your Church “infallibly” explain the parable/s found in Judith? Fourth, if your Church has not “infallibly” explained the parable/s in Judith, why do you think it/they is/are parable/s?

I’ll jump in for manygift, if I may…

Judith is one long parable (for lack of a better word. I wouldn’t have chosen parable, but it is one large story meant to reflect a teaching)

I’ll get back with you on some of the lessons that it sends

Our Church has never “infallibly” explained the parable in Judith. Our Church hasn’t “infallibly” explained much of Scripture.

Because the Church teaches that it is Scripture, and it is ONLY the Catholic Church who has the authority to determine what is Scripture.

 

[simspt]

Does that prove Catholicism is false?

When I was evangelical, I was aware that there were many problems with Biblical inerrancy. I believed it, but I read other evangelicals who said that, even if the Bible had errors in it, Christianity could still be true.

However, from what I understand, if the Bible has errors in it, than that proves that the Church is not guided by God, because she said the Bible was without errors in ecumenical councils.

So, my essential question is… If the Bible has ONE error in it, does that prove that Catholicism is false (including the eucharist, the saints, etc.)?

here is an interesting read on inerrancy

amazon.com/Inerrancy-Scripture-Other-Essays-Collected/dp/0941037207/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277488938&sr=1-22

 

[Magdalena09]

I wasn’t aware that ancient Jews considered these books as Scripture. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how far back these books were considered as Scripture by the ancient Jews.

What makes you think this was treated as Scripture and not fiction?

Just another example of where the deuterocanonical books disqualify themselves as being inspired Scriptures.

Here is where you seem to be missing the boat - When Jesus told the parable of the king that forgave the great debt, did He name the king? Did He name the country? Did He name the time when this took place? The answer to all three is NO! Furthermore, Scripture is INSPIRED by God, and don’t you believe that God KNOWS history? Why would God want His name attached to a work that misrepresents history? Couldn’t God have inspired the author to give correct dates, times and names when recounting historical activities? “But”, you may say, “These were not meant to be historical”. Then why would God allow the author to use historical names, places and times that could be checked by historians for accuracy? Have you ever heard of Biblical Archeology? This is a field of archeology that seeks to prove (or disprove, depending on the archeologist) that the historical accounts recorded in Scripture actually happened. So far, not archeological find has ever disproven any claim made by Scripture of an historical event (that is, of Scripture excluding the deuterocanoncial books).

Lastly, which of the 3 explanations offered by Joe 5859 would you use to explain these contradictions with known history?

Catholics accept the canonization as it has always been because Jesus gave the Church the authority to make decisions like that. I have to admit, I have never met a protestant who says that the Bible is NOT inerrant.

First, remember that the deuterocanonical is viewed as part of the old testament, and was written as part of it if you look at the Greek Septuagint. The Jews accepted the Greek Septuagint for about 200 years, until Christianity came about. They later rejected the deuterocanonical because it contained verses which clearly support Jesus (for example, that the Son of God (who would be a righteous man) would surely help (heal) them… and then a few verses later it talks about how he will be condemned to a shameful death.

We know that at the very least, the early Christians had the authority to decide the canon of scripture because the entire new testament was written AFTER Christianity had already begun.

 

[manygift1spirit]

I’ll jump in for manygift, if I may…

Judith is one long parable (for lack of a better word. I wouldn’t have chosen parable, but it is one large story meant to reflect a teaching)

I’ll get back with you on some of the lessons that it sends

Our Church has never “infallibly” explained the parable in Judith. Our Church hasn’t “infallibly” explained much of Scripture.

Because the Church teaches that it is Scripture, and it is ONLY the Catholic Church who has the authority to determine what is Scripture.

Thanks, you did elaborate in the spirit D) of my post, although maybe not in the letter. While not familiar with it, it doesn’t sound to me like it is a parable. But how important is that? Where do we draw the line between a parable, a story, a legend, an anthology of stories, etc.?

The simple test is, if something biblical reads wrong at simple textual face value, then you are reading it in the wrong way. Full stop. It is pointless to do such.

 

[DOShea]

This has already been mentioned, but maybe it’s worth stressing again.

When you deal with a term like “inerrant,” you have to qualify what you mean by that. If you mean that what a person wrote in 400 BC, placed under the microscope of today’s knowledge and standards, it must hold up to what we know and think or it fails the test, then you have a totally different concept of “inerrant” than the Church does.

To illustrate this point, I can use the case of my own 2nd grade teacher who, back when I was in second grade, would say things like “My, OShea, you look very gay today!” Putting this statement to the inerrant test based on today, it would fail, because today it would be saying that I appear to be homosexual, when in fact in that time and in those circumstances, all it meant was that I looked happy to be there. So there is a point where you have to step OUT of your own shoes and try, as best we can, to step INTO the shoes of the writer and the circumstances surrounding the writing of the document AND what happened to it after.

In the case of a Babylonian King being reassigned to eastern Iraq rather than his western Iraq, there are some questions to examine.

First, does it effect salvation and moral teaching? No, it doesn’t. It could well say he was the King of Ohio for all the effect it would have on salvation.

Two, was it originally written that way? Was it recopied? Redacted, as many of the Hebrew books were known to be at various periods in the northern and southern kingdoms? If so, who might have done so and why? But these are only questions that are important from a textual scholarship perspective, NOT a faith perspective. Thus if you try to knock the legs out from under a faith based on a scholarly effort, you must first prove your scholarship is inerrant, or your assertions have no more merit than the error they seek to correct. You can’t simple “guess” that the author is intending to relay a historical truth, then try to drive that bus over the Church who isn’t using the document to teach history with.

Third, is there more than one way to interpret the narrative of the story, not just one select fact or line of it? Not only that, but could it have had other possible interpretations THEN, not just now? Who was the intended audience, and what was it that the author intended to convey? This is illustrated in the classic example of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs outside.” We all understand what that means today, and it has nothing to do with animals splattering on the sidewalk haven fell from great heights. It’s just a colloquialism, one that may not be fully recognized 2000 years from now. Without any understanding of what the writer was trying to convey - that it was raining heavily - the intent of the narrative is totally lost and appears to be about something else entirely.

Forth, we don’t know what the writer did or didn’t know. The author could have thought Ghandi was King of Babylon, and it wouldn’t make a difference. The Holy Spirit inspired the human author to convey what needed to be conveyed, and for the reasons stated above. If swapping Nebuchadnezzar with Ghandi didn’t impact that message, the Holy Spirit is under no compunction to correct the irrelevant parts. Or, are you saying He is?

 

[Cachonga]

NotWorthy:

Cachonga, I know that you’ve made yourself your own pope (the very thing you disdain). But can you show me where others in the early Christianity raised the very same concerns with Judith that you do? I follow what the Church says, yes, because it’s Scriptural. You don’t. Your choice.

This is not a relevant question. Judith was not declared to be God-breathed Scripture until the Council of Trent (dogmatically), so the early Church didn’t HAVE to believe it to be so. What would you say if I asked you to show me anyone in the 16th century that thought that the cholesterol in eggs was bad for you? It cannot be answered since this idea wasn’t presented until the late 20th century (didn’t stop me from enjoying bacon and eggs for breakfast).

As far as the Church being Scriptural, keep in mind, the Church you follow is also TELLING you WHAT the very Scriptures it uses MEANS! What if they’re wrong? What if error has crept in, and they are teaching traditions of men and making the Word of God void? How can you test what the Church tells you when you believe it to be infallible in what it teaches?

I know. Sometimes my humor can be a little subtle, which is why I throw in the wink. I didn’t mean to offend, and was preferring to share a joke than to accuse and demean. Sorry about the offense.

No problem. I was always taught there are 2 things you never talk about in mixed company - religion and politics. Since this is a “religious” forum, that cannot be avoided (in fact, it should be encouraged). But I would like to keep the politics out (unless it relates to the topic).

And I thought I answered it already. Look at my post at 3:05pm (Central time yesterday). What is wrong with that answer?

Looking back at it, it would seem that the answer you gave comes close to #3 (Our own understanding of the passage is lacking). If that’s the case, why hasn’t the Church stepped in and clarified these errors? Or is the Church not interested in the truth? If your answer isn’t #3, then is it #1 (It’s a bad translation) or #2 (It’s a textual gloss)?

Judith is one long parable (for lack of a better word. I wouldn’t have chosen parable, but it is one large story meant to reflect a teaching)

The questions that come my mind are these - if God is the author of Scripture (and they are “God-breathed”), why would He name historical figures and places that He knows are incorrect? In the parables Jesus tells (and other prophets throughout the OT), there is no specific name of historical setting given. Why would God change that method of telling a parable (or story) in an entire book? This was written after the captivity, so the human author should have known who reigned where (and certainly should have known when the Temple was rebuilt), yet these errors are present. If it was a parable/story from God, I would suggest He would have said something like “There was a certain king at his summer palace, …”, not “It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyriansin the great city of Nineveh. …” (Judith 1:1 NAB). Can anyone show me ANY parable, story or comment from what we agree are the Scriptures that makes this kind of gross, historical error?

Our Church has never “infallibly” explained the parable in Judith. Our Church hasn’t “infallibly” explained much of Scripture.

If your Church has never “infallibly” explained the book of Judith (or much of anything else in Scriptures), then how can you KNOW your interpretation of it (or any part of Scripture) is correct? Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the Scriptures that the Church has “infallibly” interpreted the same ones that support it’s claims for the papacy, claims for infallibility, claims for authority? Sounds very suspicious to me.

Because the Church teaches that it is Scripture, and it is ONLY the Catholic Church who has the authority to determine what is Scripture.

And so the circle remains unbroken! The Church has the authority to determine AND interpret Scripture (as well as Scared Tradition) because it has defined and “infallibly” interpreted certain Scriptures to give itself that authority. Not to get off topic, but have you ever looked into exactly how many of the ECF’s actually beleived the Rock was Peter? There were more who believed it was Peter’s confession, not Peter hiimself (don’t you, as a Christian, stand on the confession that Jesus is the Son of the Living God?). Oh, but you can’t question your Church because it’s already told you what to believe.

 

[Cachonga]

Magdalena09:

Catholics accept the canonization as it has always been because Jesus gave the Church the authority to make decisions like that. I have to admit, I have never met a protestant who says that the Bible is NOT inerrant.

I already commented on this in my last post.

First, remember that the deuterocanonical is viewed as part of the old testament, and was written as part of it if you look at the Greek Septuagint. The Jews accepted the Greek Septuagint for about 200 years, until Christianity came about. They later rejected the deuterocanonical because it contained verses which clearly support Jesus (for example, that the Son of God (who would be a righteous man) would surely help (heal) them… and then a few verses later it talks about how he will be condemned to a shameful death.

I think you need to double check your sources. There were different “versions” of the Spetuagint, and they didn’t all contain the same list of books (they did contain, as far as I know, all the books we both agree are Scripture, but not all of the deuterocanonical books), including things like 3 and 4 Machabees and 1, 2, 3 & 4 Esdras, yet you don’t find all of these in your Bible, do you? And if the Jews rejected them because of verses that “clearly” support Jesus, what about Isaiah, Psalms 22 (a clear depiction of the crucifixion), or any one of the numerous references to Jesus found throughout what we agree is the OT? This reasoning is flawed in light of the many more (and better) references found in the OT (excluding the deuterocanonical books).

We know that at the very least, the early Christians had the authority to decide the canon of scripture because the entire new testament was written AFTER Christianity had already begun.

Except the canon of the OT was already fixed (Jesus certainly held people responsible for what was written, and the only thing written at the time was the OT). I don’t recall Jesus or any of the other NT writers ever quoting from a deuterocanonical source with the preface “It is written…”, “God said…” or anything else that would make it clear they were quoting Scripture. They most certainly quoted non-Scriptural sources (for example, Paul quotes pagan Greek philosophers, and Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch). Just because they MIGHT quote from these sources does NOT make them Scripture (unless you think the Book of Enoch, pagan Greek philosophers, and others should be in your Bible).

 

[Cachonga]

DOShea:

When you deal with a term like “inerrant,” you have to qualify what you mean by that. If you mean that what a person wrote in 400 BC, placed under the microscope of today’s knowledge and standards, it must hold up to what we know and think or it fails the test, then you have a totally different concept of “inerrant” than the Church does.

Agreed.

To illustrate this point, I can use the case of my own 2nd grade teacher who, back when I was in second grade, would say things like “My, OShea, you look very gay today!” Putting this statement to the inerrant test based on today, it would fail, because today it would be saying that I appear to be homosexual, when in fact in that time and in those circumstances, all it meant was that I looked happy to be there. So there is a point where you have to step OUT of your own shoes and try, as best we can, to step INTO the shoes of the writer and the circumstances surrounding the writing of the document AND what happened to it after.

And “the Gay 90’s” had a different meaning in 1890 than it did in 1990. Agreed.

In the case of a Babylonian King being reassigned to eastern Iraq rather than his western Iraq, there are some questions to examine.

Agreed.

First, does it effect salvation and moral teaching? No, it doesn’t. It could well say he was the King of Ohio for all the effect it would have on salvation.

Strongly disagree! If the Scriptures contain even a single, provable error, how can they be trusted as reliable on ANY topic, especially salvation?

Two, was it originally written that way? Was it recopied? Redacted, as many of the Hebrew books were known to be at various periods in the northern and southern kingdoms? If so, who might have done so and why? But these are only questions that are important from a textual scholarship perspective, NOT a faith perspective. Thus if you try to knock the legs out from under a faith based on a scholarly effort, you must first prove your scholarship is inerrant, or your assertions have no more merit than the error they seek to correct. You can’t simple “guess” that the author is intending to relay a historical truth, then try to drive that bus over the Church who isn’t using the document to teach history with.

Sounds like you’re saying that God couldn’t (or wouldn’t) preserve His written Word from outright corruptions (which, it seems, you are at least “hinting” is what happened with Judith), and that the Church doesn’t care about historical accuracy or truth because it’s not using Judith as a history book. The problem is, the book uses names, dates and places that CAN be historically checked and PROVEN to be FALSE (even when compared with other Scripture)! Are you suggesting that it’s OK to have a contradiction in the Scriptures as long as it’s historical?

Third, is there more than one way to interpret the narrative of the story, not just one select fact or line of it? Not only that, but could it have had other possible interpretations THEN, not just now? Who was the intended audience, and what was it that the author intended to convey? This is illustrated in the classic example of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs outside.” We all understand what that means today, and it has nothing to do with animals splattering on the sidewalk haven fell from great heights. It’s just a colloquialism, one that may not be fully recognized 2000 years from now. Without any understanding of what the writer was trying to convey - that it was raining heavily - the intent of the narrative is totally lost and appears to be about something else entirely.

“Raining cats and dogs” is a far cry from “It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyriansin the great city of Nineveh. At that time Arphaxad ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana.”. How are the historical errors in Judith “a colloquialism”? How can they seriously be considered anything other than what they are - gross historical ERRORS?

Forth, we don’t know what the writer did or didn’t know. The author could have thought Ghandi was King of Babylon, and it wouldn’t make a difference. The Holy Spirit inspired the human author to convey what needed to be conveyed, and for the reasons stated above. If swapping Nebuchadnezzar with Ghandi didn’t impact that message, the Holy Spirit is under no compunction to correct the irrelevant parts. Or, are you saying He is?

While it is true that God used many people over a long space of time to put His Words into writing, God is the author of Scripture, and God knows history, and He knows what we know. Seems like you’re suggesting God picked someone that didn’t know history (which seems very strange, considering how well the Jews know their history), and/or was unable to convey the correct words to the human writer. Bottom line - either Judith is not God-breathed Scripture, or God didn’t (or couldn’t) preserve it from gross, historical errors.

 

[Cachonga]

Vincent9:

So, my essential question is… If the Bible has ONE error in it, does that prove that Catholicism is false (including the eucharist, the saints, etc.)?

I would have to say - Yes! By declaring a book with such provable, gross, historical errors in it to be “God-breathed” Scripture (especially considering the lack of any “infallible” explanation for these errors) proves beyond doubt that the Catholic Church is not infallible, and is, therefore, not a trustworthy teacher of the truth of God’s word.

Pax!

 

[RBK]

Judith was not declared to be God-breathed Scripture until the Council of Trent (dogmatically)

The Church didn’t dogmatically declare the doctrine of the Trinity until the 4th century, so do you reject it?

Here’s what the Church did declare regarding the deuterocanon in various councils. The challenge for you is to find the Protestant OT Canon in any of them. Obviously, you cannot do that.

Regional councils of the early Church had enumerated the books of the Bible time and again prior to the Reformation, always upholding the current Catholic canon. Examples include the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), and the Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (397, 418). All of these affirmed the Catholic canon as we know it today, while none affirmed the Protestant canon.

This exact canon also had the total support of important Church Fathers like St. Augustine (Christian Instruction, 397). In 405, Pope St. Innocent also taught the Catholic canon in a letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, the same year that St. Jerome completed the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible at the request of the Popes. A thousand years later, while seeking reunion with the Copts, the Church affirmed the same canon at the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. When the canon became a serious issue following the Protestant schism in the early 1500s, Trent dogmatically defined what the Church had consistently taught for more than 1,000 years.

Read further: cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=28

 

[NotWorthy]

This is not a relevant question. Judith was not declared to be God-breathed Scripture until the Council of Trent (dogmatically), so the early Church didn’t HAVE to believe it to be so. … (eggs quoted deleted for its lack of relevancy)

Dearest Cachonga, correct me if I’m wrong, but the Vatican didn’t declare any of the Canon Dogma until Trent - including Matthew (for example). Do you reject Matthew? The Canon was Church Doctrine, and would remain that way today, if it hadn’t have been for a group of people that questioned it enough for the Church to make it dogmatic.

As far as the Church being Scriptural, keep in mind, the Church you follow is also TELLING you WHAT the very Scriptures it uses MEANS! What if they’re wrong? What if error has crept in, and they are teaching traditions of men and making the Word of God void? How can you test what the Church tells you when you believe it to be infallible in what it teaches?

Keep in mind, Cachonga, the Church you willingly walked away from was giving this charism by Christ Himself. If She is wrong in determining the Canon, than Christ was wrong in building the Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

Looking back at it, it would seem that the answer you gave comes close to #3 (Our own understanding of the passage is lacking). If that’s the case, why hasn’t the Church stepped in and clarified these errors? Or is the Church not interested in the truth? If your answer isn’t #3, then is it #1 (It’s a bad translation) or #2 (It’s a textual gloss)?

No, it’s not a “lack of understanding of the passage”. How did you get that out of what I wrote? I said, it’s not historical, it’s a different literary genre. We should try to treat it as such… The Church never addressed the historical errors because the Church never claimed that Judith was a Historical book.

 

[NotWorthy]

If your Church has never “infallibly” explained the book of Judith (or much of anything else in Scriptures), then how can you KNOW your interpretation of it (or any part of Scripture) is correct? Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the Scriptures that the Church has “infallibly” interpreted the same ones that support it’s claims for the papacy, claims for infallibility, claims for authority? Sounds very suspicious to me.

Yes. You can either believe Jesus’ words or not. That choice is yours, my brother. I, however, could not willingly leave the Church, the Bride of Christ, without feeling that I’ve betrayed Christ and His Body.

But the conundrum you’ve placed had to be addressed by every convert, especially the original Jews to Christianity.

And so the circle remains unbroken! The Church has the authority to determine AND interpret Scripture (as well as Scared Tradition) because it has defined and “infallibly” interpreted certain Scriptures to give itself that authority. Not to get off topic, but have you ever looked into exactly how many of the ECF’s actually beleived the Rock was Peter? There were more who believed it was Peter’s confession, not Peter hiimself (don’t you, as a Christian, stand on the confession that Jesus is the Son of the Living God?). Oh, but you can’t question your Church because it’s already told you what to believe.

Please don’t throw that bait out. You know full well, that most of the ECF’s who testified that it was Peter’s confession, also testified that it was Peter (the two went hand in hand). There were those that outright rejected the seat of Peter, mainly Eastern ones, but if you notice, you’ll find that many of the ECF first went to the Sea of Peter to help resolve a conflict and only protested Rome’s authority when the Pope resolved the conflict against the said ECF.