Inerrancy and the Genealogies

[VeritasSeeker]

The following is an argument against inerrancy:

1. If the genealogies are true, then humans were created cerca 4000 B.C.
2. Humans were not created cerca 4000B.C
3. Therefore, the genealogies are false.

Science tells us that homo sapiens(our species) is around 200,000 years old. So even if there are hundreds of names left out in the genealogies(unlikely), it would still be in conflict with science. The above argument is a valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. So you must deny either premise 1 or 2 to make the argument unsound.

 

[sapphire778]

I actually don’t get what you are trying to say, but I personally do not believe that our “species”, existed for well over 100,000 of years. I believe what Science puts forth are mere theories, so technically it is still up to us whether or not we choose to believe in them.

I believe our souls and body were formed by the hands of God Himself, from dust, and given the breath of life from Him directly, and not evolved from some other species “millions” of years ago.

I’m not sure if this is relevant to the thread though

 

[davidv]

The following is an argument against inerrancy:

1. If the genealogies are true, then humans were created cerca 4000 B.C.
2. Humans were not created cerca 4000B.C
3. Therefore, the genealogies are false.

Science tells us that homo sapiens(our species) is around 200,000 years old. So even if there are hundreds of names left out in the genealogies(unlikely), it would still be in conflict with science. The above argument is a valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. So you must deny either premise 1 or 2 to make the argument unsound.

I believe premise 1 is questionable.

Do the biblical geneologies record every generation? Does anyone really know how long prehistory generations were?

Also, premise two may be presumptuous.

Given these two problems, I conclude that your conclusion is questionable. Not only that, it is contrary to the the Church’s teaching the the Bible is inerrant.

 

[Rock_Happy]

I actually don’t get what you are trying to say, but I personally do not believe that our “species”, existed for well over 100,000 of years. I believe what Science puts forth are mere theories, so technically it is still up to us whether or not we choose to believe in them.

I believe our souls and body were formed by the hands of God Himself, from dust, and given the breath of life from Him directly, and not evolved from some other species “millions” of years ago.

I’m not sure if this is relevant to the thread though

Don’t be fooled by confusing the notion of a scientific theory, with the colloquial use of the term. Theories in science, such as the theory of gravitational attraction, are proposed to explain a phenomenon. Then evidence is gathered to prove, improve, alter, or disprove the theory proposed. So, while scientists would call gravitational attraction as being described by a theory, most of us would not test it or try to deny it by jumping off a bridge. In fact, the theory of gravitational attraction as proposed by Newton, and seeming to be “fact” to our ordinary senses, is modified by the work of later physicists, such as Einstein, who proposed some theories which could only be tested after his lifetime.

So, you are correct in that these are scientific theories. You are probably mislead if you have been taught that their validity or veracity is simply a matter of personal opinion. In the case of evolution and natural selection, the evidence goes far beyond what any ordinary person could comprehend in a lifetime, and continues to grow at an exponential rate.

 

[VeritasSeeker]

I believe premise 1 is questionable.

Do the biblical geneologies record every generation? Does anyone really know how long prehistory generations were?

Also, premise two may be presumptuous.

Given these two problems, I conclude that your conclusion is questionable. Not only that, it is contrary to the the Church’s teaching the the Bible is inerrant.

Like I said, even if there is a substantial gap in the genealogies, that would still not coincide with modern scientific findings. Furthermore, it seems as If the Jews were trying to provide a relatively comprehensive geneaology whereby they can trace their ancestry back to Abraham and Adam

 

[Crumpy]

There are several issues mixed up, like spaghetti, in the original post.

In science, a theory is an explanation that has a lot of support. It may eventually be overturned, but at least up to a point, it is usually the best explanation for observable phenomena.

The term “hypothesis” is an assertion that a scientist tests to see if it can support or detract from a theory. A hypothesis can be hard to prove or disprove, and it may take many years to answer the question posed by the hypothesis.

The Bible is not a science book. Many people certainly took it to be such, for centuries.

Science may be said to hold the hypothesis that there was no “beginning.” Many scientists study physics and math to prove that there was no beginning, and are looking for ways to describe what there was BEFORE what we have so far called the “beginning.”

the Bible was written for believers and it makes sense only to believers. Yes, people have tried to assign a time to the creation, by working backwards, and estimating what the length of generations might have been, coming up with figures like the Jews, who say this year is something like 5784 since creation.

Modern biblical research tends to shy away from making such calculations. In the gospels, the generations don’t mean that they were actual successive generations, which is the assumption of those who make the estimates.

the Catholic Church encourages scholars to research these questions, of course, but the goal it to discover what God wants to teach us from the scriptural account.

the subject of inerrancy is actually a negative statement, that the bible teaches us no errors with respect to our faith. that is recognized as being a long ways from saying that every statement in the bible is a positive statement of historical and scientific validity.

For example, we know that the earth turns on its axis. That produces day and night. any reference to the sun rising or setting is a form of expression that is meant to carry the thought of a religious truth. It is not nor was ever intended to convey scientific exactitude.

 

[NHInsider]

The original post not only leans on a misunderstanding of the meaning of “theory” in scientific use, it also assumes a meaning of “inerrancy” which, while it may be the way some of our separated brethren use the term, is not consistent with Catholic doctrine.

The Catholic concept of “inerrancy” does not preclude the use of literary devices such as poetry, metaphor and parable in transmitting truth. Neither does it imply that the Bible is a science book that was written in language that would somehow match the terminology and concepts of every era in which it might be read.

Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - the magisterial teaching of an Ecumenical Council) Chap. 3

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

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. 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.

The genealogies of Matthew (focusing on the Jewishness of Jesus) and Luke (focusing on His humanity), like those in Genesis and elsewhere, are in themselves a literary form which enabled people in a time of oral documentation to preserve and proclaim their ancestral and tribal descent. They are not, nor do they claim to be, the kind of “family tree” that a genetic testing lab or even a modern genealogist might rely upon.

 

[VeritasSeeker]

There are several issues mixed up, like spaghetti, in the original post.

In science, a theory is an explanation that has a lot of support. It may eventually be overturned, but at least up to a point, it is usually the best explanation for observable phenomena.

The term “hypothesis” is an assertion that a scientist tests to see if it can support or detract from a theory. A hypothesis can be hard to prove or disprove, and it may take many years to answer the question posed by the hypothesis.

The Bible is not a science book. Many people certainly took it to be such, for centuries.

Science may be said to hold the hypothesis that there was no “beginning.” Many scientists study physics and math to prove that there was no beginning, and are looking for ways to describe what there was BEFORE what we have so far called the “beginning.”

the Bible was written for believers and it makes sense only to believers. Yes, people have tried to assign a time to the creation, by working backwards, and estimating what the length of generations might have been, coming up with figures like the Jews, who say this year is something like 5784 since creation.

Modern biblical research tends to shy away from making such calculations. In the gospels, the generations don’t mean that they were actual successive generations, which is the assumption of those who make the estimates.

the Catholic Church encourages scholars to research these questions, of course, but the goal it to discover what God wants to teach us from the scriptural account.

the subject of inerrancy is actually a negative statement, that the bible teaches us no errors with respect to our faith. that is recognized as being a long ways from saying that every statement in the bible is a positive statement of historical and scientific validity.

For example, we know that the earth turns on its axis. That produces day and night. any reference to the sun rising or setting is a form of expression that is meant to carry the thought of a religious truth. It is not nor was ever intended to convey scientific exactitude.

There is nothing mixed up about the original post, i didn’t even mention the terms, “theory” and “hypothesis”. Regardless a vast amount of scientific and archaeological evidence has shown that humans did not start existing around 4000 B.C. You say the gospels weren’t suppose to be taken as actual successive generations, well, like I said in the original post, even if the genealogies are missing some generations, it would still be in huge conflict with what we know from science. Furthermore, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy does not just say that the bible is inerrant in matters of faith, but rather, it maintains that whatever the bible purports as true is true, including historical events!

 

[PJM]

=VeritasSeeker;8060432]The following is an argument against inerrancy:

1. If the genealogies are true, then humans were created cerca 4000 B.C.
2. Humans were not created cerca 4000B.C
3. Therefore, the genealogies are false.

Science tells us that homo sapiens(our species) is around 200,000 years old. So even if there are hundreds of names left out in the genealogies(unlikely), it would still be in conflict with science. The above argument is a valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. So you must deny either premise 1 or 2 to make the argument unsound.

One must take extrodinary care any and every time NUMBERS are used in the Bible, because the number in and of itself has [or is made to have] theological signifiance, and signifiance in there Tradition.

PLUS the Bible does not claim to be a history book:thumbsup:

God Bless,
Pat

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

PLUS the Bible does not claim to be a history book:thumbsup:t

That is very true and I think it is important to keep it in mind. The ancient human authors of Scripture were using the literary genres and standards of their day, not ours. In order to judge them guilty of an error, we must first discern what genre they were using and what would constitute an error according to the norms of that particular genre. It is just one more reason to reject private interpretation of Scripture.

 

[NHInsider]

Furthermore, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy does not just say that the bible is inerrant in matters of faith, but rather, it maintains that whatever the bible purports as true is true, including historical events!

Umm - according to whom?

And, incidentally, it is not inaccurate to say that my g-g-g-g-g-grandfather begat me. . . .

 

[PJM]

=ChristIsTheWay;8065677]That is very true and I think it is important to keep it in mind. The ancient human authors of Scripture were using the literary genres and standards of their day, not ours. In order to judge them guilty of an error, we must first discern what genre they were using and what would constitute an error according to the norms of that particular genre. It is just one more reason to reject private interpretation of Scripture.

THANKS,

Great add-on!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[ActuallyAquinas]

4000 B.C.

If we’re going to be exact like this, then I put forth that every third grader that writes pi as 3.14, is in fact incorrect as pi = 3.14159265.

Degree of accuracy.

I am, Sirs,
Your obedient Servant,

Chris IV

 

[Crumpy]

Furthermore, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy does not just say that the bible is inerrant in matters of faith, but rather, it maintains that whatever the bible purports as true is true, including historical events!

Au contraire, mon ami.

Here’s the entry on “inerrancy” from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition.

“The attribute of the books of Scripture whereby they faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to have confided through the Sacred Scriptures(107).”

There is nothing in this glossary entry or in paragraphy 107 to which it refers that asserts the complete scientific accuracy of the historical events. Not only is this the boundary of the concept of inerrancy, it is the thrust of the remainder of the teaching of the CCC, and other church documents, about the proper interpretation of scripture.

Briefly, the Church asserts it is important to study the “genre” or “literary types” of various sections of scripture.

This is me online late on a Sunday night. I was just listening to EWTN’s sunday 10 p.m. series, Franciscan University Presents (or whatever it’s called). Dr. Scott Hahn was the guest discussing the Pope’s recent document Verbum Domini about the use of the bible in the daily life of the Church.

Hahn was answering some question similar to the original post, and he quoted or paraphrased pope Benedict XVI as saying that the Church in not incompatible with science, and even the theory of the big bang, in particular.

VeritasSeeker, if you are a veritas seeker, I invite you to get closer to the teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s worth the “journey” towards the veritas.

 

[Crumpy]

I have too many books and not enough places to put them. I picked up a copy of the Vol 5 of what I recall is titled Spirit and Truth, a journal published by the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, editor in chief, Dr. Scott Hahn.

In my initial post above, I vaguely referred to an article in that journal which was making the point about “inerrancy” being a negative statement about the Bible. The author said there’s a gap between inerrancy and the positive statement that everything in the Bible might be scientifically valid.

When I come across this book, I’ll be back with some more detail. But, VeritasSeeker, I suggest you keep an open mind on the subject.

 

[Crumpy]

VeritasSeeker, I submit this in the hope to share what I recently learned on this complex subject.

The volume that I referred to previously is Volume 6 of Letter and Spirit, from Scott Hahn’s St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology.

This volume is over 400 pages, and a large portion of it deals with the subject of inerrancy of scripture. Because this is one issue of a journal, it does not have an index.

In a journal, the index is usually published at a later time. So, it’s hard for me to really plumb the riches of this scholarship, without actually reading each article.In my helter skelter reading of this volume, I came across a technical article by Peter Paul Zerafa, O.P. on the subject, “The Limits of Biblical Inerrancy.” There are other articles of a similar title.

Of course, I can’t and shouldn’t try to post all this copyrighted material, especially as
it may not all be relevant to the OP, to begin with.

But, under my interpretation of “fair use” I will post a brief excerpt, perhaps to tantalize the reader to do further indepent research on this subject.

from p. 360. “** As the word implies, innerancy is a negative concept that involves the
exclusion of errors; to this negative concept, there corresponds a positive one that
involves the assertion of the truth of Scripture. But, these two concepts, as applied to a
given writing, are not necessarily co-extensive, for they are governed by different
conditions. It is suffficient for the former that nothing is said against truth, but it is
required for the latter that truth itself be positive expressed. And since not everything
that is free from error contains truth, it could happen that a paraticular text fulfills
the requirements of negative inerrancy without implying the positive one.”**

and

"difficulties with the Church’s belief in biblical inerrancy have generally proceeded from
a new appraisal of the biblical literature spurred on by the progress of modern science."

page 366:

“Augustine articulated ths principle [about the limits of inerracy] … Teaching about
the constitution and origin of the world falls outside the scope of divine revelation… he
argued 'It is not written in the Gospel that the Lord said: " I shall send you the
Paraclete who will teach you about the courses of the sun and the moon." He wanted to form Christians, not mathematicians.”

Thus, the doctrine of limited inerrancy was in the mind of the early Church and has been
ever since, and it has been an active subject.

The NEXT related subject is what is errant in scripture and what is not. As the subjects present themselves for study to scholars in the church, apparently they decide these on a case by case basis.