Inerrant Bible

[Frankk]

Apologies if this has been raised elsewhere.

We are taught that the Bible is inerrant. However, there seem to be things which appear inconsisent. For example:

1 Chron 3:10-13 shows Solomon having 14 Generations of sons.

Matt 1:7-9 shows only 11 with some obvious inconsistencies.

How do we square this with the notion of an inerrant Bible.

Both genealogies can’t be right can they?

 

[patg]

Apologies if this has been raised elsewhere.

We are taught that the Bible is inerrant. However, there seem to be things which appear inconsisent. For example:

1 Chron 3:10-13 shows Solomon having 14 Generations of sons.

Matt 1:7-9 shows only 11 with some obvious inconsistencies.

How do we square this with the notion of an inerrant Bible.

Both genealogies can’t be right can they?

Just do an advanced title search on “inerrant” or “literal” or “historical” and you will see dozens of threads with hundreds of posts on such subjects. It probably won’t clear up anything for you however as you will also see endless disagreement (but it is a fun thing to discuss).

 

[Ron_Conte]

The inerrancy of the Bible is a matter of faith.

Just because your mind can’t resolve every apparent inconsistency, nor answer every question, does not mean that the Bible is wrong. We cannot base our beliefs on what our own minds can understand, otherwise there is no mystery of the faith at all that we would believe.

If a magician does a really good trick, you might not know how it is done, but you still know it is a trick.

Similarly, even if I do not know what the explanation is for every apparent impossibility or apparent contradiction in the Bible, I still believe that it is inerrant.

Ron

 

[Verbum]

Hi Frankk,

If you look for science or history in the Bible, you will find many discrepancies. However the Bible was not willed by God that we might receive intruction in history and science. It was willed as a guide to salvation.

We should accept every passage as stated unless it goes against reason or known facts. I believe that criterium comes from St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church. Based on it, we no longer believe that the sun goes around the earth.

Certain books of the Bible were written as teaching helps. Such are the Gospels. The same facts may be used to make a different point or may be situated at a different place or time according to the author’s intention.

Verbum

 

[Della]

Apologies if this has been raised elsewhere.

We are taught that the Bible is inerrant. However, there seem to be things which appear inconsisent. For example:

1 Chron 3:10-13 shows Solomon having 14 Generations of sons.

Matt 1:7-9 shows only 11 with some obvious inconsistencies.

How do we square this with the notion of an inerrant Bible.

Both genealogies can’t be right can they?

Yes, both genealogies can be right because they each were written by different authors who listed who each thought needed to be listed to make the point that the genealogy makes the person each is discussing a valid one. Neither author was concerned with making an exhaustive list of names or bothered with names that might seem to be incosistent with the other’s list. This proves they didn’t conspire in their writing nor were they even necessarily aware that the other person was doing a genealogy. History at that time was not as precise as we expect it to be today. Nor was it considered necessary that each account match in all respects. That wasn’t the purpose for which they were written.

 

[buffalo]

Genealogy of Christ

 

[mikew262]

As I stated on another thread, IMO, what is more important is understanding the underlying meaning of the scripture, not whether it is historically accurate, 100% consistent or whatever.

Don’t lose track of the forest through the trees.

 

[cialovesyou]

Read this quote from Vatican II, Dei Verbum n.11

“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”(DV11)

Read every single word now, the Sacred Council was very particular about how they expressed it.

NB “without error, THAT TRUTH which”

 

[patg]

Read this quote from Vatican II, Dei Verbum n.11

“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”(DV11)

Read every single word now, the Sacred Council was very particular about how they expressed it.

NB “without error, THAT TRUTH which”

Ah, but just as important is the phrase " for the sake of salvation" - many things in the scriptures have nothing to do with one’s salvation and this clearly places a limit on what one must consider to be without error.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ah, but just as important is the phrase " for the sake of salvation" - many things in the scriptures have nothing to do with one’s salvation and this clearly places a limit on what one must consider to be without error.

**Part 1

**A review of several official Church documents will shed some light on the official position of the Catholic Church concerning the inerrancy of Scripture.

Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII, 1893

“21. It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond…this system cannot be tolerated….It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error….all the Fathers and Doctors [of the Church] agreed that the divine writings, as left by the [sacred authors], are free from all error, [and] they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance…St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: ‘On my own part I confess… that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth I shall not hesitate to conclude that the text is faulty [due to copyist error] or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.’ ”

Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII, 1943

“1. …not merely because [the books of the canon] contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author…When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, [when these Catholic writers] ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals…Leo XIII…justly and rightly condemned these errors.”

“3. Finally, it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred’…”

“37. For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, ‘except sin,’ so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.”

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, 1950

“22. …For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition [Vatican Council I] that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Part 2

Vatican** Council II, Dei Verbum**, 1965

“9. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“11. 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 the sacred writings5 for the sake of our 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)

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994

107. The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

+++

Footnote 72 from the CCC references Dei Verbum, Paragraph 11 which in turn references both Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu in footnote 5. These latter two documents specifically teach that the Bible contains no errors. Therefore, not only is there a clear link between all of these documents illustrating the consistency and uniformity of the Church’s teaching on this matter, but also it would make no sense for the CCC and Dei Verbum to reference these older works if, in fact, the Church was signaling a change in its position on this issue as is alleged by some. Any understanding to the contrary is a grave error.

Additionally, paragraph 107 specifically states that “all that the inspired authors affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit”. The contention of modern scholars and theologians that scripture can possibly contain errors on matters that do not relate to our salvation is in direct contradiction to the word, “all” and puts the Holy Spirit in the position of having inspired and affirmed error as was noted in the passage from Providentissimus Deus quoted above.

Sadly, many may have looked for this single phrase, “for the sake of our salvation,” – which is found in a single paragraph of a single document from Vatican II – to open a door for their own pet ideas (ordination of women, acceptance of contraception, etc.), but this interpretation is out of sync with the historical teaching of the Church.

Consequently, I reject any argument from Protestant apologists hostile to the Catholic Church which suggests that the opinions of these Catholic theologians on this matter, regardless of their prominence, is evidence of confusion concerning the teaching of the Catholic Church on the inerrancy of the Bible, or that, as a result of the expression of these opinions, a lack of unity has been created among the Catholic faithful to the same degree and manner as is seen in Protestant denominationalism.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I am sure we have all seen the joke that has gone the rounds for years about the inerrancy of the Bible, including questions such as:

1. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

2. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

3. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/ polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16). Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14).

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

This argument has indeed gone on for centuries! What is of greater interest in 2007 perhaps, is the extent to which the Bible is a guide to early creation myths, a metaphor for a life lived in God’s presence, a series of allegories and lessons. Is it essential that we believe - like many right wing evangelical born-again Christians - that every single word in the Bible is *true? *And then spend a great deal of precious time arguing about what that truth purports to mean? Or if it is indeed true? And if so, who says?

Is it not, some 3000 years after the first books of the Bible were generated, time to look at it in a different way? And could that be as a continuing metaphor for the active Christian? This is a huge question - and a stimulating one. If it *is *possible to see the Bible as metaphor, then whole new avenues of thought and understanding are open to us.

Note please: I am a baptised Protestant in the process of becoming a Catholic Christian. That is my desire and determination, particularly within the context of suffering Africa where I live (born in Canada). Sideswipes at Protestant beliefs are not useful at this time, achieve nothing, and dishonour the respect that many of us hold for the Catholic Church.

 

[patg]

Blah, blah, blah…

Maybe we just need to define what “error” means. The church obviously does not condemn anyone for eating shellfish, for wearing clothing made of blended fabrics, eating rare meat, or planting different crops in the same field and yet God clearly does condemn these actions.

The bible teaches the innerrant truth using myth, legend, poetry, parable, fiction, and sometimes even history. There is no requirement that these vehicles of teaching be literally true and the church does not require one to believe that they are.

 

[junk]

I am sure we have all seen the joke that has gone the rounds for years about the inerrancy of the Bible, including questions such as:

1. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

2. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

3. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/ polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16). Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14).

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

This made me laugh. Old Covenant disciplines, however, no longer apply.
Carol Coombe:

This argument has indeed gone on for centuries! What is of greater interest in 2007 perhaps, is the extent to which the Bible is a guide to early creation myths, a metaphor for a life lived in God’s presence, a series of allegories and lessons. Is it essential that we believe - like many right wing evangelical born-again Christians - that every single word in the Bible is *true? *

I mean no offence, but I have to point out that such an understanding of the Bible would be erroneous. It would further be dangerous, for it would undermine the truth of Christianity and Christian morality. The Bible is in no way a myth, but not all of it necessarily presents historical truth. Even though parts may be allegorical, we have to read it literally in the way that the inspired authors intended in order to understand what God has revealed to us. Whatever your political views may be, God’s truth is more important, so try not to confuse religious belief and politics or elevate the latter above the former.

The idea that it is wholly metaphorical or mythical may be what the Protestant church you belonged to taught, but the Catholic understanding of the Bible is a lot closer to the Evangelical understanding. The Scriptures are Sacred, inerrant and wholly true. Try not to fall into the trap of a relativistic understanding of religion and truth, because that will empty it out of all its meaning and may quickly turn into a loss of faith.
Carol Coombe:

And then spend a great deal of precious time arguing about what that truth purports to mean? Or if it is indeed true? And if so, who says?

That’s the beauty of the Catholic Church, whose magisterium, under Christ’s authority, is the infallible interpreter of the Deposit of Faith - Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We don’t have to argue about what Scripture means - its meaning is taught and defined through the doctrines of the Church, and provided our personal interpretation is not in conflict, we are free to hold to such an interpretation too. Scripture is complex and multilayered, but it is absolutely and undeniably the Word of the Lord.
Carol Coombe:

This is a huge question - and a stimulating one. If it *is *possible to see the Bible as metaphor, then whole new avenues of thought and understanding are open to us.

You are free to interpret the Bible in this way in addition to the Church’s interpretation, and provided no conflict arises. You may find that you gain deeper insight and greater understanding through this method of reading Scripture. However, if you interpret Sacred Scripture solely in that way, you are in danger of disregarding the whole of Christianity as metaphorical, and as a religion no different than Hinduism or Buddhism.

Note please: I am a baptised Protestant in the process of becoming a Catholic Christian. That is my desire and determination, particularly within the context of suffering Africa where I live (born in Canada). Sideswipes at Protestant beliefs are not useful at this time, achieve nothing, and dishonour the respect that many of us hold for the Catholic Church.

I am very pleased that you seek to become a Catholic. The Church has some beautiful teaching on the meaning of the mystery of human suffering, and I hope you seek it out and find it enlightening, regardless of whether you do eventually complete your process of conversion.

Try and have an open mind and abandon your prejudices against Evangelical Protestants (if you have any). Even though they are mistaken on many points, your prejudice might prevent you gaining a full appreciation of Scripture.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

This made me laugh. Old Covenant disciplines, however, no longer apply.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Apologies if this has been raised elsewhere.

We are taught that the Bible is inerrant. However, there seem to be things which appear inconsisent. For example:

1 Chron 3:10-13 shows Solomon having 14 Generations of sons.

Matt 1:7-9 shows only 11 with some obvious inconsistencies.

How do we square this with the notion of an inerrant Bible.

Both genealogies can’t be right can they?

As one who studied science in college, we are also taught that nature is inerrant. It is indeed presumed in science that nature (God’s natural revelation) does not lie or tell us something that is untrue or in error. For example, the nature of “light” does not lie to us.

However, the nature of light does seem to have “appearant contradictions.” For instance, light behaves as though it were a particle, while also behaving as though it were a wave. We don’t blame light as though it contained error when we encounter such appearant contradictions. Instead, we blame ourselves for not being smart enough to understand the “mystery” of nature as fully as we would like.

Thus, the natural revelation of God (nature) is inerrant, but does indeed have “appearant contradictions” and “mystery” which scientists haven’t perfectly understood. Moreover, scientists sometimes misinterpret what nature is telling them. They are sometimes wrong in their interpretation of the the material “stuff” of nature, which is in itself never erroneous.

Same goes with the supernatural revelation of God. It is inerrant. It contains “mystery” which we do not perfectly understand, to include “appearant contradictions.” Yet, just like with nature, we don’t blame supernatural revelation of God, the material “stuff” of that Divine revelation for being untrue or in error. Instead, we understand that any error is entirely on our part (as with nature), in our inability to more perfectly understand the inerrant revelation of God.

To claim that God’s supernatural revelation contains error is not more than a exercise in pride. It is as absurd as saying the nature of light is in error because of the perceived appearant contradictions which I as a scientist have not been able to perfectly understand. Surely my understanding is not in error…its the “stuff” of God’s revelation that is to blame.

 

[junk]

Carol Coombe:

I did not mention political views, nor would they impinge on this discussion.
…
Whose open mind are we talking about here? And I did not say or imply that I have prejudices against Evangelicals.

Carol,
You referred to “right wing evangelical born-again Christians” - that sounds political and somewhat disparaging. I’m not sure if you intended it that way, but that’s the way it came across. Not all evangelical born-again Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God are right wing politically, though all good Christians should be pro-life.
Carol Coombe:

So everything is true, except the things that are not true?

Those were disciplines of the Old Covenant binding on the people of the Old Covenant. Christians are saved through the New Covenant, though moral laws have never changed.
Carol Coombe:

I did not suggest that the Bible is a myth: far from it. It guides us towards an understanding of creation myths used in ancient days to describe civilisation’s evolution.
…
There are two versions of the ten commandments (Deuteronomy and Exodus). Which one do you choose to believe?

Here are the Deuteronomy and Exodus passages. The truths expressed in Genesis - that God created the universe out of nothing and that man has fallen are absolutely true, and revealed by a literal reading. I didn’t say that the stories cannot be allegorical. I said that “parts may be allegorical” in my previous post. I don’t see what myth evolution and civilisational evolution has to do with anything. You seem to be saying that the Bible is valuable only as a historical document that is the product of a particular culture.

*Metaphor differs from myth. And that is not what the Canadian Baptist Church (very conservative) teaches. Christian scholars…are suggesting that we need to see the Bible within our current context, within the paradigm of a system of multiverses in which Planet Earth is simply a miniscule pimple of no consequence. *All great religions change: without growth they die. If we chain our God (made in the image of man) to a tiny and insignificant part of the multiverse (the infinite and eternal bundle of universes within which we find ourselves - check Hubble photos for starters) our faith, our spirituality, will surely die.

I know what a metaphor is. God created all that is, and the way we need to see the Bible, which was produced by the Catholic Church, is as His holy and inerrant Word, as defined by the Church that compiled the Bible. A system of multiverses? I am aware of Hubble photos, but other galaxies emphatically are not other universes with different laws of physics. If other universes exist, their existence is yet unprovable, and all that exists was created by God out of nothing, whether there is as is probable only one universe or there are many. Truth, like God, does not change, for God is the source of Truth. Man is made in the image of God and not the other way around. We would be supremely prideful to attempt to remake our Creator in our own image, as such an attempt reduces God to but a figment of our imaginations, and faith to a mere subjective feeling of no objective import. If our Christian faith dies as a result of lack of change, it will be as a result of people’s rejection of Truth and of God. It is preferable for the Catholic Church to die than to embrace falsehood. Jesus Christ, however, promised to Peter that “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Everything is relative; and relativity changes constantly. Speaking of Einstein, I quote:…

Truth is not relative. 2+2 will always equal 4. If I’m right on a particular matter, what is “true for me” is true for everybody else on the planet. The belief that there is no absolute truth is self-refuting, for it demands that the statement that there is no absolute truth be considered an absolute truth. Einstein’s religious beliefs are irrelevant - he was at best a deist. God is absolute, and since truth comes from God, it is absolute.

 

[junk]

*Sorry, I cannot agree to be uncurious, not to challenge that which needs to be challenged. Do not slavishly chain yourself. We live by faith, and as best we can, by the faith that is spelled out by the Catholic heirarchy, interpreting as best it can through the ages, God’s intentions for humanity, and Christ’s mission. Of course we must argue about what scripture means. *Or does this mean I cannot be a Catholic Christian?

You may challenge, be curious and argue to further your understanding. Once something is certainly true, then the argument can only serve to further understanding and not undermine the truth, since 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how hard one argues. Protestants cannot be certain of what is true, and therefore must keep searching, but if you believe that Christ has given the Church authority and is faithful to His promise to preserve it from error, then while argument, questioning, challenge and curiosity are permissible, rejection of that which is revealed through Christ is vicariously a rejection of Christ as a result of the rejection of His promise. Jesus is the Son of God and His divine mission was the salvation of man, who through his own free will has sinned and committed an offence against our infinite God. God was merciful and sacrificed His Son to spare us from His eternal justice. His desire for humanity is that it come to know of Him and of His sacrifice, and through His sacrifice and His grace be made worthy to spend eternity with Him once this world passes away, and humanity with it.

Christianity - in all its manifestations - is one of the great global religions. I have learned that when people believe, find comfort and solace and healing, have a sense of the sacred, the holy, it is not for me to say that their culture and belief system is pagan and unworthy. Think again on this one, and note too that Vatican II specifically emphasised that Moslems, inter alia, are not to be ignored when it comes to salvation, right up front.

Muslims worship our God. I never implied that it was impossible for them to obtain salvation from God. I do maintain that although their religion contains a lot of truth, it is still incorrect. Other religions are even more incorrect. Nevertheless, some who follow them may be saved by the grace of God and through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. In addition, not all Christians will obtain salvation.

Speedballing also gives you a sense of comfort, solace and healing. But it can kill you. Medicines can make one feel unwell at times, but they provide genuine, objective healing and not the subjective “sense” of healing that heroin and crack may give. That’s an extreme comparison, but true healing comes only through truth.

*I have completed research for an exegesis on suffering, on completing Christ’s suffering. It might help you to know (I am trying for humility here) that I am an international HIV consultant concerned not with health and medical issues, but with the impact this pandemic has on people across the globe - their lives and wellbeing, their education and social development, the safety of children and women etc etc. Go and cradle a dying and orphaned child in a hospital in Bangkok if you want to know the meaning of the mystery of human suffering. Then study Christ’s suffering for humanity, and see where you come out, in reality, and not just on the page of a book which interprets the Bible for you. *

I respect you, and I agree, I do not have the same experience of human suffering as you do, but what book?

All the best and God bless.

 

[cialovesyou]

There was a question posed in the Moral Theology section which says something like “Is fiction a lie, and therefore a sin?”.

I say this to display a point. The bible uses many different literary genre, some of them unfamilair to us in these times, such as Apocalyptic writings.

The bible can use fictional events, characters etc to put forth a truth about God, or man. For instance, parts of the book of Daniel are a fictional work. They talk about Nebuchanezzar, but they are really trying to say something about an awful character called Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Do you pick up The grapes of wrath and tell people not to read it because it is fiction? Or, more to the point, do you say it is a “lie”? Or “not true”? No, the truth within it is that it is saying something about society at that time.

The question which is fair to ask is “So what is fact, and what is fiction, or what is myth, or what is allegory?”. For this we must seek the literal sense of the book. In some cases even a single book has sections written at different times, so we need to be careful.

We arrive at the literal sense by “means of careful analysis of the text within its literary and historical context.”

We need to establish what party wrote this section, what literary genre were they writing? Is this a piece of fiction, is it a prayer, is it a narrative, is it the committment to paper of ancient traditional understandings?

At what time was it written? This may give us a clue to the political, or many other circumstances which may be hinted at in the text.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I do not have the same experience of human suffering as you do, but what book?

I was thinking of Papal Encyclicals, Catholic Encyclopedias, the CCC inter alia ad aeternum.

When I read books like the new one by Dominican Albert Nolan, *Jesus Today, (*also author of *Jesus Before *Christianity) I have hope that there may be a more positive and loving understanding of ‘literal’ truth among Catholic philosophers, scholars and religious.

Blessings

Carol