Inerrant or Infallible

[theBelgianDuke]

As catholics do we believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible? Cause for example there are contradictory verses in certain parts of scripture. Are we called to believe that literally evrything is word for word true, or?

 

[pablope]

As catholics do we believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible? Cause for example there are contradictory verses in certain parts of scripture. Are we called to believe that literally evrything is word for word true, or?

The Bible is “inerrant”…in that there is no error in the message of salvation.

The contradictory verses are due to interpretation.

Infallibility…the Bible cannot commit an error…only a person can. So infallibility, meaning incapable of error when guided by the Holy Spirit…applies to a person, not the Bible, as the Bible cannot declare what is false and what is not. Our interpretation does…

 

[jcrichton]

As catholics do we believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible? Cause for example there are contradictory verses in certain parts of scripture. Are we called to believe that literally evrything is word for word true, or?

Hi!

…it does seems that the Bible contain contradicting verses… however, it is not as much that they are contradicting as that our interpretation and understanding are flawed and limited.

The Bible is God’s Revelation to man–the Infinite reaching out to the finite… imagine a grown man explaining himself to an infant/child–the desire to understand is there but the vocabulary and the life’s experience is lacking. What the man conveys to the child will always be filtered through his/her personal life’s experience and vocabulary–the child’s cognition and capacity to absorb and adapt the revelations will undoubtedly produce inconsistencies between what is being revealed and what is being grasped.

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PJM]

As catholics do we believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible? Cause for example there are contradictory verses in certain parts of scripture. Are we called to believe that literally evrything is word for word true, or?

The bible is always truthful, in that it teaches God’s Moral truths, but not always factual.

So I personally would NOT apply either term to it.

GBY

 

[jcrichton]

The bible is always truthful, in that it teaches God’s Moral truths, but not always factual.

So I personally would NOT apply either term to it.

GBY

Hi!

…I think that this goes to the meaning of terms and understanding of the terms…

…why would you hold that the Bible is not always factual, by what/whose measure?

…if it is by your personal understanding, then you are, in effect, stating that personal Biblical interpretation dictates Bible inerrancy.

However, it is more likely that you dismiss or misunderstand Scriptural passages and, based on your perspective, you find the Bible to be/not be factual.

…of course, this is usually the measure/gauge used by most.

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PJM]

Hi!

…I think that this goes to the meaning of terms and understanding of the terms…

…why would you hold that the Bible is not always factual, by what/whose measure?

Matthew 5:29
And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:30
And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell"
.

…if it is by your personal understanding, then you are, in effect, stating that personal Biblical interpretation dictates Bible inerrancy.

 

[PJM]

Matthew 5:29
And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:30
And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell"
.
I shared 2 examples, there are more.

The bible is not a history book in the sense that we understand the term today. Thses variances are other examples. I can research more if you’d like me too?

GBY and Thanks!

…of course, this is usually the measure/gauge used by most.

Loved your ending here:thumbsup:

 

[Dobereiner]

2 Kings 8:26: “Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah; she was a granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel.”

2 Chronicles 22:2: “Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri”.

Do we have any idea as to the origin of this? Is it a simple copyist error?

 

[goout]

The bible is the revelation of God in human words.
It is chock full of difficulties and contradictions.

That being said:
God cannot contradict himself.
Scripture expresses the truth God wishes to be expressed without error.

Here’s the perennial problem these days:
Modern peoples demand a journalistic and scientific burden of proof for everything. The bible was never written, ever, with this in mind. In the age of “enlightened reason” however, we demand that truth be limited to the provable. Fundamentalist literalism. Literalism robs the scriptures of life.

The bible is not merely journalism, although it has elements in common with journalism. And it is definitely not a science textbook, and it still speaks profound truth about nature, creation, etc…

As an example: the dome over the skies in Genesis wildly contradicts science. But God did not want to express the truth that a dome is over the skies. That is not the point…Genesis expresses much more profound truths than the scientific details.

 

[jcrichton]

Matthew 5:29
And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:30
And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell"
.

I shared 2 examples, there are more.

The bible is not a history book in the sense that we understand the term today. Thses variances are other examples. I can research more if you’d like me too?

GBY and Thanks!

…of course, this is usually the measure/gauge used by most.

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

Hi!

…how is that not factual?

…you may mean not literal…

…while Jesus is not Commanding Believers to cut of their limbs and pluck out their eyes (though some ladies go through some extreme makeovers that may be just as painful), the fact remains that Jesus is warning Believers that we have to fight the compulsions to sin even if it costs us pain and discomfort: stop looking for the occasion to sin; remove ourselves from an environment/people that is conductive to unrighteousness…

Scripture remains factual in that if we persist in sin we may enter Judgement with full control of our body and mind but we will not gain Salvation!

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Loved your ending here:thumbsup:

…thanks!

…I start writing and it takes over… I try proofreading (not fully successful at times) and I wonder if the message is getting out correctly or if I’m being too forceful… it is always with a generous heart… hoping that the Holy Spirit Inspires and Corrects me as much as I seek to share with others!

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

2 Kings 8:26: “Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah; she was a granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel.”

2 Chronicles 22:2: “Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri”.

Do we have any idea as to the origin of this? Is it a simple copyist error?

Hi!

…don’t know… but we do have to understand that the Scrolls were copied and recopied over hundreds of years… these copies were done under difficult situations (by hand, dimly lit places, in seclusion, under duress…); so there would be possibilities of typos/mechanical errors…

…however the facts that are important are that Ahaziah was a king in Israel that rule for only one year; that his mother was from the family/bloodline of Omri.

…I don’t have the time now to do the search… but you could post this as a new thread… perhaps someone out there has made the study already!

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The bible is the revelation of God in human words.
It is chock full of difficulties and contradictions.

That being said:
God cannot contradict himself.
Scripture expresses the truth God wishes to be expressed without error.

Here’s the perennial problem these days:
Modern peoples demand a journalistic and scientific burden of proof for everything. The bible was never written, ever, with this in mind. In the age of “enlightened reason” however, we demand that truth be limited to the provable. Fundamentalist literalism. Literalism robs the scriptures of life.

The bible is not merely journalism, although it has elements in common with journalism. And it is definitely not a science textbook, and it still speaks profound truth about nature, creation, etc…

As an example: the dome over the skies in Genesis wildly contradicts science. But God did not want to express the truth that a dome is over the skies. That is not the point…Genesis expresses much more profound truths than the scientific details.

Hi!

Excellent post!

…though I believe that there’s more to the Biblical descriptive dome… and it is scientifically charged!

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[theBelgianDuke]

So is it fair to say: in revelatory matters, i.e., the truths concerning God and his salvific vision for the world, the Bible cannot be incorrect. However, in non-revelatory matters, e.g., history, who was where, what time it was, what so-and-so ate, etc., it can be wrong.

 

[PJM]

Hi!

…how is that not factual?

…you may mean not literal…

…while Jesus is not Commanding Believers to cut of their limbs and pluck out their eyes (though some ladies go through some extreme makeovers that may be just as painful), the fact remains that Jesus is warning Believers that we have to fight the compulsions to sin even if it costs us pain and discomfort: stop looking for the occasion to sin; remove ourselves from an environment/people that is conductive to unrighteousness…

Scripture remains factual in that if we persist in sin we may enter Judgement with full control of our body and mind but we will not gain Salvation!

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

Good point

 

[goout]

So is it fair to say: in revelatory matters, i.e., the truths concerning God and his salvific vision for the world, the Bible cannot be incorrect. However, in non-revelatory matters, e.g., history, who was where, what time it was, what so-and-so ate, etc., it can be wrong.

Seems reasonable to a degree.
There are varying accounts of the crucifixion.
The Truth is that Christ is the son of God and saves us by his cross and resurrection.
The Kerygma is Truth, so you can’t use your paradigm to claim that Christ didn’t really exist in time for instance.

The Truth is much more than the facts.

 

[jcrichton]

So is it fair to say: in revelatory matters, i.e., the truths concerning God and his salvific vision for the world, the Bible cannot be incorrect. However, in non-revelatory matters, e.g., history, who was where, what time it was, what so-and-so ate, etc., it can be wrong.

Hi!

…that is a correct assessment; though I would add: “interpretation.”

…how man interprets Scriptures is also a basis for finding fault/error… recall the issue with the Gospel of John? …scholars were claiming that it had errors and they cited the Pool of Siloam as “proof text”–there was much-a-do because according to their findings it did not exist… then one day it was discovered; yep, St. John *knew *what he was talking about all along (even and in spite that it was not mentioned by the synoptic Gospels).

There are many other issues such as the above where scholars cannot agree do to lack of understanding because material proof is not available; then there are the interpretations of Scriptures–they often lend themselves to chaotic understanding because, as hard as they may try, scholars (inclusive of theologians) go into them with their own personal filters–rendering their findings as eisegesis rather than exegesis…

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel