Inerrant Word of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ValiantDomain
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

ValiantDomain

Guest
I just finished reading Bart Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus, and while none of the arguments he presented were anything new or revelatory for me, I nonetheless wondered how does the Church or Catholics respond to accusations that the Bible is *not *the inerrant word of God, that the Gospels and even Paul’s Letters have all been edited, revised, or even changed by scribes and even translators?

Ehrman contests that if the Bible were God’s Word then He would’ve done a lot better job at preserving it.

Thoughts?
 
Certainly some books of the Bible went through a complex process to reach their first inspired form. Also, later editing and translating, while not done under inspiration, does not necessarily do violence to the inerrancy.

Everything asserted by the sacred writers as true must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit as true, and therefore cannot err.

Ron
 
Hi Valiant,

This position is similar to that of the Muslims regarding the Bible. They believe that Mohammed received the Koran directly from an angel and that it has not changed since. (Fact is, research is showing more and more that the Koran underwent development, but of course this is hushed.) On the other hand, the Bible, they say, has been edited and changed by translators through the centuries.

The Bible was not dictated to the writers. But its development was gulded by God. The Bible is considered inerrant because the Church “received” it as such, and because the Church has been given a guarantee of freedom from error until the end of times. Mind you, however, the Bible is not inerrant because the Church approves it, but the Church is a witness to its divine origin.

You would do well to read Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, on Sacred Scripture. The following paragraph addresses what I just explained :
http://www.vatican.va/img/vuoto.gif
11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
Click to expand...
You can find the full text at

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Verbum
 
catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=216The MOST Theological Collection

Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars

According to Mark 2:26, David entered the house of God under the high priest Abiathar, said Cardinal Koenig. But really, according to 1 Samuel 21:1ff, it was not under Abiathar but under his father, Ahimelech.

The answer is easily found with the help of Greek grammar. The Greek text here has epi Abiathar archiereos. Now Greek epi followed by a genitive of the person can readily have a generic time meaning, i.e., “in the days of,” according to a standard reference work, Greek Grammar for Colleges, by H. W. Smyth, par. 1689. Smyth gives as an example, Thucydides 7:86, ep’ emou, meaning “in my time.” So the expression in Mark 2:26 really means “in the time of Abiathar” and not necessarily “when Abiathar was high priest.” Abiathar’s name was chosen to designate the period because he was better known to readers of the Old Testament than his father, Ahimelech, and because Abiathar was closely associated with King David.

God Bless
Richard
 
richardeekw said:
According to Mark 2:26, David entered the house of God under the high priest Abiathar, said Cardinal Koenig. But really, according to 1 Samuel 21:1ff, it was not under Abiathar but under his father, Ahimelech.

The answer is easily found with the help of Greek grammar. The Greek text here has epi Abiathar archiereos. Now Greek epi followed by a genitive of the person can readily have a generic time meaning, i.e., “in the days of,” according to a standard reference work, Greek Grammar for Colleges, by H. W. Smyth, par. 1689. Smyth gives as an example, Thucydides 7:86, ep’ emou, meaning “in my time.” So the expression in Mark 2:26 really means “in the time of Abiathar” and not necessarily “when Abiathar was high priest.” Abiathar’s name was chosen to designate the period because he was better known to readers of the Old Testament than his father, Ahimelech, and because Abiathar was closely associated with King David.

God Bless
Richard
Click to expand...
Mark 2:26 is one spot which Ehrman cites early on in his book as an unfortunate “mistake” - even in the original Greek manuscript! His premise seems to suggest that the inerrant Word of God should not be riddled with “mistakes.” Ehrman seems to take an opinion of the Bible (as many evangelicals do) that the Bible was communicated directly from God (much in the style of the Qur’an), allowing the authors no freedom of ideas or historical context. From this,Ehrman seems to build his case by saying that if the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were not preserved in their original form, which he goes to great lengths to prove that they’re not through textual criticism, then it must not be the Word of God. As others have said, Muslims often cite this as a large criticism against both the Bible (even though they have no tough time citing scripture like any other evangelical) and Christianity. While there does seem to be historical proof that there are “scribal errors” in transposing the original into copies, is it not possible that the Spirit was at work in these scribes, allowing them the opportunity to adjust certain phrases or meanings? If one does not have faith in the workings of the Spirit, then these adjustments would surely be seen as “errors,” but from a standpoint of faith, they are not only reasonable, but necessary for the stability of Christianity.

Am I wrong?
 
Hi Valiant

What you said is correct.
If we interpret the Bible as “Word of God” as “A dictation from God” we will find plenty of “errors”.

Translations itself cause lots of difficulties. Even between British & American English!

No on have the “original Inspired texts” - just manuscripts that were copied by the scribes.

2.11.2006
American Format February 11, 2006
British Format 2nd November 2006

So if we think we know English but still cannot agree and one; then we need the “Church” to guide us in interpreting Scriptures…

God Bless
Richard
Singapore
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top