Is the Bible Inerrant?

[Anna_Scott]

ANNA SCOTT

Hi. Your postings are interesting - and unusual here on CAF. 

Like you, I am interested in all translations of the Bible. Now and then you find one which I feel is somewhat contrived, such as the Jehovah Witness version. But I have a number of translations, and in several languages as well, and I often consult different ones.

 I am also ecumenical, in that I would like Christians to develop a closer working relationship with mutual respect for one another. I actually find that the more liberal Protestants are likely to be more ecumenical, even though - ironically - they often are further from Catholicism than evangelicals on matters of theology and some ethical issues as well. What they are, however, is simply less dogmatic, which makes them more tolerant whether of Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. 

  Now, a couple of quick points.

  My own experience over the years is that Catholics as a whole are less acquainted with the scriptures than Protestants. This seems to be changing. When I was young (I had both Catholics and evangelicals in my family growing up) Catholics seem to have been told that they could get all they needed from catechisms and priests. Vatican II changed this. 

  Yes, Catholics probably are more acquainted with church history, certainly between the New Testament times and the Reformation, than most Protestants. Both 'camps' seem to see history through their own biased glasses. I recall my evangelical grandmother, whose parents were converts from Catholicism, reading to us from Foxe's Book of Martyrs, detailing the burning etc of various Reformers and their followers. She didn't tell us about the Catholics who met a similar fate at the hands of Protestants. She was of French-Canadian extraction and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew also was a major historical event in her view.

  I admire much about Catholicism and even subscribe to the Our Sunday Visitor and other such periodicals to keep up - and read Commonweal, America, US Catholic, etc in the local library. My problem with Catholicism, essentially, is that my mind simply cannot accept so many of its beliefs that seem to me to conflict with reason. Transubstantiation, for example. The strong focus on Mariology within the church - Immaculate Conception and Assumption, neither in the Bible. The whole saint phenomenon, and tales of saints that are so far out. Tale Padre Pio. Levitation? Bilocation? And such. No, I have tried to believe such stories but just can't. And, as the expression goes, when I attend worship I don't leave my brain outside. I need a reasonable faith, and I find that it is in 'big tent' Protestantism where I am free to examine new ideas, accepting or discarding them as I please, with no one to tell me my opinions are heretical. Some CAFers consider this egotism. I treasure it as intellectual freedom. 

  Enuff sed. God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims and the whole world - all creeds, colors, and countries. And may religion be a bridge, not a barrier.

Very interesting perspective.

I have said in other posts, that I feel like I am caught somewhere between Protestantism and Catholicism.

There are many things I admire about the Catholic Church. Yet, like you, there are certain Catholic beliefs that keep me from taking that leap into Catholicism.

I am happy to have found these forums, and I have learned so much from Catholic Forum Members, in the short time I have been here.

I am especially disturbed by anti-Catholic sentiments coming from some of the Protestant Pulpits. I have learned that there are many Protestant misconceptions about Catholicism and vice-versa.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

ANNA SCOTT
. . . My own experience over the years is that Catholics as a whole are less acquainted with the scriptures than Protestants. This seems to be changing. When I was young (I had both Catholics and evangelicals in my family growing up) Catholics seem to have been told that they could get all they needed from catechisms and priests. Vatican II changed this.

Yes, Catholics probably are more acquainted with church history, certainly between the New Testament times and the Reformation, than most Protestants. Both ‘camps’ seem to see history through their own biased glasses. . . .

I do wish Protestant churches would include the study of Judaism and Christianity; and even the transmission of Scripture. I grew up in Southern Baptist Churches. Church history was rarely mentioned, until recently. Even now, one would only hear a passing comment about Luther or Calvin. I really hope this changes and Protestants will commit to study. This is so very important.

Of course, as you said, “Both ‘camps’ seem to see history through their own biased glasses. . . .”

I’m not sure we can fully escape bias. It is helpful to read articles and books outside one’s faith to get a broader perspective.

Anna

 

[DavidPalm]

DavidPalm: I think you make very good points, and this is a good defense for the tradition of the Catholic Church.

…

I started a Thread entitled, What is Hell? I found that Pope John Paul II took a position on Hell, that is different from many of the Church Fathers. So, I am seeing that–even within the Catholic Church–interpretation of Scripture varies as the centuries pass.

Could you shed some light on this?

Anna

Well probably you’ve studied enough about the Catholic Faith to know that the Pope is the guardian of Tradition, not its creator. He is bound by the Tradition just as much as anybody else. And unlike the Bible which is inerrant in all its parts, the Popes only speak infallibly under very limited conditions. So even if he were to misspeak, an ordinary speech of a Pope could never represent a change in the Church’s teaching.

I personally think the late Holy Father misspoke, or perhaps better to say spoke imprecisely (if his speech is accurately translated). But if he did, it doesn’t shake the foundations of Catholicism.

 

[Jimmy_B]

There exist no real inconsistencies in the bible as a whole, as it applies to Christian teachings, when understood in context. In other words, there exists no conflict in the bible when it comes to Christian truths. The bible isn’t merely viewed in a historical or literal sense…typology, metaphors, analogies’, parables, understanding and knowing he authors and the authors audience and the chronological order of events and so on… are all also factors to understanding the bible.

 

[Jimmy_B]

This is what I had intended to post, however I ran out of time -

*There exist no real inconsistencies in the bible as a whole, as it applies to Christian teachings, when understood in context. *

*In other words, there exists no conflict in the bible when it comes to Christian truths. *
*The bible isn’t merely viewed in a historical or literal sense…typology, metaphors, analogies’, prophesies, parables, understanding and knowing the authors and the authors audience, knowing the people of that time and understanding their language and culture and the chronological order of events and so on… are all factors in understanding the bible. *
The Bible is not a history book; it is a religious work, although the bible does record historic events. The bible is the story of man and of his salvation and an early record of Christian life and early Christian and pre-Christian events and early Christian teachings and beliefs.
*The bible is God communicating with us and it is the story of our creation, our lives and our way of Salvation through Christ Jesus. *
*The bible is an ancient, divinely written, religious work made up of various books, written at various times, by many different writers…organized, translated, preserved, approved and passed down to us, by and from the Roman Catholic Church. *
*The Bible is a Catholic book and everything in it, in one way or another, supports Catholicism. *

---

Administrator, please remove my last post…Thank you…

 

[NotTooSmart]

This is what I had intended to post, however I ran out of time -

---

Administrator, please remove my last post…Thank you…

Jimmy:
It sounds like you can believe this and believe that the Bible is inerrant in theology, science, and history. It also sounds like you can believe this and believe that the Bible is inerrant in theology only (while possibly containing scientific and or historical errors).

You can not believe this and believe that the Bible contains historical errors.

Neither can you believe this and believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible (which I should have added as a fourth option in retrospect). The literalist interpretation implies that one and only one version available today is in fact God’s word. The most commonly seen of this option is the KJV only folks, although I would guess there are other variants of this somewhere out there.

It is outside the scope of this thread on whether the Bible is a “Catholic book”. I will allow you to sneak that in without comment from moi, however.

 

[Roy5]

Obviously, there is a contradiction between the ‘eye for an eye’ attitude in the Old Testament and Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. In fact, Jesus specifically corrects the Old Testament law based on revenge and retaliation. And re-read Ex. 21, Ve. 20, and Deut. 22-23. If those OT laws aren’t contradicted by Christ as in his parable of the Good Samaritan and elsewhere then I must be simple-minded. (No comments on that, please.)

Maybe some of you believe that Joshua was told by God to slaughter all the inhabitants of Jeriicho (except Rahab the prostitute). And maybe you accept the tale that Saul was ordered by the same God of love and mercy to murder every last Amalekite, including 'sucklings'. But how could anyone be horrified by abortion and willing accept such strocity stories?

God bless all creeds, colors and countries. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well probably you’ve studied enough about the Catholic Faith to know that the Pope is the guardian of Tradition, not its creator. He is bound by the Tradition just as much as anybody else. And unlike the Bible which is inerrant in all its parts, the Popes only speak infallibly under very limited conditions. So even if he were to misspeak, an ordinary speech of a Pope could never represent a change in the Church’s teaching.

I personally think the late Holy Father misspoke, or perhaps better to say spoke imprecisely (if his speech is accurately translated). But if he did, it doesn’t shake the foundations of Catholicism.

So, you are saying Pope John Paul II misspoke? How do you know it was not the ECFs who misspoke?

Anna

 

[survive]

Obviously, there is a contradiction between the ‘eye for an eye’ attitude in the Old Testament and Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. In fact, Jesus specifically corrects the Old Testament law based on revenge and retaliation. And re-read Ex. 21, Ve. 20, and Deut. 22-23. If those OT laws aren’t contradicted by Christ as in his parable of the Good Samaritan and elsewhere then I must be simple-minded. (No comments on that, please.)

There is no contradiction. The OT clearly and repeatedly prescribes mercy where possible. “An eye for an eye” was not a command to take vengeance where, before, people were forgiving one another. it was a command to restrain vengeance, to the appropriate punishment for the crime. In most ancient cultures anywhere in the world, the custom was for higher-status people to take a life for any wound at all, even for insult or theft. Lower-status people had little to no recourse to justice if injured. Christ fulfilled the law, further reducing the inequalities and feuds of ancient times – to zero.

 

[Roy5]

survive

 Forgive me if I'm still curious. Do you actually believe that God ordered Joshua to slaughter everyone inside Jericho once those walls fell? Do you believe that Saul was told by God to kill every last Amalekite? Do you think it Christ-like to chant: "Saul has killed his thousands, but David has killed his ten thousands!"?  I would not, for a moment, worship such a god of vengeance and retaliation. He sounds like a Hitler rather than a Lord of life. Surely, my God the Father is one of love, mercy, forgiveness and reconciliation.

 Sadly, millions of Christians - Catholics, Protestants and others - believe such gruesome atrocities and are far too ready to accept atrocities in today's world. I try my darndest (it's not easy) to live by the Sermon on the Mount: "Love your enemies, do good to them....etc." I know this isn't easy, but wouldn't it be great if we tried and saw what happened. That would really be following the message of Jesus and it's what Christ asked of us.. I admire such groups as the Mennonites and Quakers who at least make an effort in that direction.

  I still can't understand how some Christians become so vocal on the issue of abortion but readily accept the stories that God ordered the killing of thousands of innocent civilians by Israeli invaders, including (I'm sure) many babies still in the womb.

  One of my favorite texts is I John 4:20-21. In fact, that whole 4th chapter is worth re-reading.

  God bless every creed, color, and country.

 

[DavidPalm]

So, you are saying Pope John Paul II misspoke? How do you know it was not the ECFs who misspoke?

Anna

It’s not just the ECFs. The Catholic Tradition has an objective content. Take something like the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We see if reflected in the ECFs. We see it reflected in the medieval doctors. Certainly we see it reflected in the Scriptures and that Tradition provides an interpretive grid for the Scriptures that clears away all sorts of competing, man-made interpretations. We see if reflected in the Church’s liturgies, starting from time immemorial. We see it expressed in her official pronouncements. And so everybody knows, even those who disagree, what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist. There is an objective content. So if someone speaks in a way that’s incompatible to that, it’s possible to say that’s not the Catholic Tradition, handed on from Christ.

Sometimes people operate as if the Pope is some sort of demi-god, single-handed bearing the Catholic Tradition, and that his every word and action reflects the state of that Tradition at that very moment. That’s not the way Catholicism works–that would drain the Faith of all objective content. The Pope is the special guardian of the Catholic Tradition, not its author and creator.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well probably you’ve studied enough about the Catholic Faith to know that the Pope is the guardian of Tradition, not its creator. He is bound by the Tradition just as much as anybody else. And unlike the Bible which is inerrant in all its parts, the Popes only speak infallibly under very limited conditions. So even if he were to misspeak, an ordinary speech of a Pope could never represent a change in the Church’s teaching.

I personally think the late Holy Father misspoke, or perhaps better to say spoke imprecisely (if his speech is accurately translated). But if he did, it doesn’t shake the foundations of Catholicism.

It’s not just the ECFs. The Catholic Tradition has an objective content. Take something like the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We see if reflected in the ECFs. We see it reflected in the medieval doctors. Certainly we see it reflected in the Scriptures and that Tradition provides an interpretive grid for the Scriptures that clears away all sorts of competing, man-made interpretations. We see if reflected in the Church’s liturgies, starting from time immemorial. We see it expressed in her official pronouncements. And so everybody knows, even those who disagree, what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist. There is an objective content. So if someone speaks in a way that’s incompatible to that, it’s possible to say that’s not the Catholic Tradition, handed on from Christ.

Sometimes people operate as if the Pope is some sort of demi-god, single-handed bearing the Catholic Tradition, and that his every word and action reflects the state of that Tradition at that very moment. That’s not the way Catholicism works–that would drain the Faith of all objective content. The Pope is the special guardian of the Catholic Tradition, not its author and creator.

DavidPalm:

Good information, but not new to me. However, we were not talking about the Eucharist.

You still did not answer my question: Do you believe Pope John Paul II “misspoke” in his statements about Hell? This requires a yes or no answer.

Either you believe he misspoke about hell; or you do not believe he misspoke.

If you do not agree with the Pope’s words about hell; then I would like to know why you disagree with the Pope—especially in light of the Pope’s lifetime studies.

Anna

 

[pismopal]

The Bible was written originally without error and is the word of God. The humans who try to interpret the Bible in modern times without scholarship are not.

 

[a_priori]

The question of Bible inerrancy is moot. In the absence of a inerrant hermeneutic to apply to the Bible, the veracity of its message becomes moot.

 

[DavidPalm]

DavidPalm:

Good information, but not new to me. However, we were not talking about the Eucharist.

You still did not answer my question: Do you believe Pope John Paul II “misspoke” in his statements about Hell? This requires a yes or no answer.

Either you believe he misspoke about hell; or you do not believe he misspoke.

If you do not agree with the Pope’s words about hell; then I would like to know why you disagree with the Pope—especially in light of the Pope’s lifetime studies.

Anna

Anna, I thought that I did answer your question. I stated plainly that I, personally, think that the Holy Father misspoke in that General Audience. I’m sure you can understand some reticence on my part to turn that into some sort of stinging rebuke of him, let alone some grounds on which to discredit the Catholic Faith (not saying you expect that or are doing that, just that some people do like to play the “gotcha” game.)

Now, why would I, a measly Catholic layman, disagree with the Pope? Because the Catholic Faith has an objective content that exists outside of what a given Pope says or does during his daily routine. I used the Eucharist as an example, but the doctrine of Hell would work too. There is an objective content about what the Catholic Church teaches about Hell. I personally don’t think that the statements you cited, taken by themselves and assuming they are accurate translations of what the late Holy Father said (important caveats), are harmonious with that.

But I will say this. Let’s say we had the opportunity to sit down with John Paul II and say, “Holiness, did you really mean to exclude the idea that Hell is an extrinsic punishment from God, or were you just highlighting one other aspect of it?” And most likely he would say that he did not intend to be exclusive. Or, it may be that I am misunderstanding those words or that his words have not been translated correctly. I would want to extend the same charity to him that I wanted extended to me if someone takes issue with what I might say. More, since he was the Pope.

And thus, I say misspoke because I would not attribute any malice to his words, nor do I see them as some sort of “change” in the teaching of the Catholic Church. The day to day words of the Pope just don’t carry that level of authority.

God bless,

 

[pismopal]

The question of Bible inerrancy is moot. In the absence of a inerrant hermeneutic to apply to the Bible, the veracity of its message becomes moot.

Yea…what he said!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, I thought that I did answer your question. I stated plainly that I, personally, think that the Holy Father misspoke in that General Audience. I’m sure you can understand some reticence on my part to turn that into some sort of stinging rebuke of him, let alone some grounds on which to discredit the Catholic Faith (not saying you expect that or are doing that, just that some people do like to play the “gotcha” game.)

Now, why would I, a measly Catholic layman, disagree with the Pope? Because the Catholic Faith has an objective content that exists outside of what a given Pope says or does during his daily routine. I used the Eucharist as an example, but the doctrine of Hell would work too. There is an objective content about what the Catholic Church teaches about Hell. I personally don’t think that the statements you cited, taken by themselves and assuming they are accurate translations of what the late Holy Father said (important caveats), are harmonious with that.

But I will say this. Let’s say we had the opportunity to sit down with John Paul II and say, “Holiness, did you really mean to exclude the idea that Hell is an extrinsic punishment from God, or were you just highlighting one other aspect of it?” And most likely he would say that he did not intend to be exclusive. Or, it may be that I am misunderstanding those words or that his words have not been translated correctly. I would want to extend the same charity to him that I wanted extended to me if someone takes issue with what I might say. More, since he was the Pope.

And thus, I say misspoke because I would not attribute any malice to his words, nor do I see them as some sort of “change” in the teaching of the Catholic Church. The day to day words of the Pope just don’t carry that level of authority.

God bless,

DavidPalm: First let me say that it is not my intention to play the “gotcha game.” I am a Protestant questioning Protestantism. So, I carefully consider the words of Catholic forum members. I have said this many times.

I do find Catholics, almost continually, pointing out the many different beliefs of Protestantism, in contrast to the constancy of the beliefs/doctrines of the Catholic Church. I hear this on a regular basis on these forums. Granted, there is merit to the accusation against Protestantism. I am amazed at the less-than-Biblical beliefs in some of the Protestant Churches. At the same time, the longer I am here, the more I am seeing that Catholic beliefs are not quite as unified as claimed.

I think you are the first Catholic I have met on the forum, who actually admitted to disagreeing with a Pope on an issue under discussion. I have heard other Catholics say, even if they disagree with the Pope, they would submit to the authority of the Church, to prevent division.

So, I’m sure you can see that I would be a bit startled by your statement. I really wanted to hear why you disagreed with Pope John Paul II. Your answer helps me to better understand the Catholic Church. Many Protestants have the misconception that Catholics see the Pope as infallible. (I used to be one of them) I’m sure it is frustrating for Catholics to face this misconception on a daily basis here.

I would agree that the Eucharist is far more important, than the definition of hell.

However, I grew up in Southern Baptist Churches (no longer Baptist). The doctrine of Hell was such a driving force, that I can remember being “scared to death” as a child. I have heard about the “eternal tormenting flames of Hell” my whole life.

If you combine the threat of “hell” with the “born again” issue; it becomes even more distressing. One must be certain one is “born again.” So, many Baptists, including myself, are baptized more than once, because of the uncertainty of a true “born again” experience, that preceded the first baptism.

The doctrines of “hell” and being “born again,” also, drive proselytizing efforts. So, you have Christians trying to convert other Christians to make sure they are “truly born again” to escape the fiery torments of hell. I am 54 years old, and I can say that it is difficult to shed a lifetime of indoctrination—it’s a work in progress.

I am way off topic at this point; but I wanted you to know my perspective; and why it was so important to hear why you believe the Pope may have misspoken.

After reading the Bible cover-to-cover; I realized taking the Scriptures that describe an eternal fiery torment ***literally, ***is inconsistent with the Bible as a whole, and inconsistent with a loving and merciful God.

So, though I believe hell is eternal death/annihilation; I agree with Pope John Paul II, when he said, “To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language which will gradually be explained.”

HEAVEN, HELL AND PURGATORY
Pope John Paul II

So, you and I have arrived at a surprisingly ironic situation:

You (Catholic) disagree with Pope John Paul II, regarding the “symbolic language” of “hell.”

I (Protestant) agree with Pope John Paul II, regarding the “symbolic language” of “hell.”

Regarding our Thread Topic: Is the Bible Inerrant?

NotTooSmart, I am sorry to have gone so far off your topic.

In my defense, I would say that even if we establish that the Bible is inerrant; we are still faced with human interpretation, which is not so inerrant. I acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit in protecting truth and preserving the Church. That sounds very “Catholic.” oops

Unfortunately, our human nature can get in the way. Then, we do not always hear the voice of the Holy Spirit (myself included.)

Respectfully,
Anna

 

[NotTooSmart]

The question of Bible inerrancy is moot. In the absence of a inerrant hermeneutic to apply to the Bible, the veracity of its message becomes moot.

I wonder about this.

Again, I try to think of a neutral example to clarify my thinking.

If I am assembling a bicycle and I know my instructions are defect free, can the bicycle still be assembled incorrectly? Of course.

But if the instructions are defect free, the error can be corrected on my part. It is possible for me to get it right by correct understanding of the instructions.

However, if the instructions are defective, then (assuming I can not figure it out myself), the only way the bicycle can be assembled would be random luck.

I realize that the Bible is far more intricate than instructions to assemble a bicycle, but the principle is still the same I think.

 

[Kamalayka]

Maybe some of you believe that Joshua was told by God to slaughter all the inhabitants of Jeriicho (except Rahab the prostitute). And maybe you accept the tale that Saul was ordered by the same God of love and mercy to murder every last Amalekite, including 'sucklings'. But how could anyone be horrified by abortion and willing accept such strocity stories?

And how do you know that those souls are not in heaven?

Who says God allowed them to feel pain even?

 

[a_priori]

I wonder about this.

Again, I try to think of a neutral example to clarify my thinking.

If I am assembling a bicycle and I know my instructions are defect free, can the bicycle still be assembled incorrectly? Of course.

But if the instructions are defect free, the error can be corrected on my part. It is possible for me to get it right by correct understanding of the instructions.

However, if the instructions are defective, then (assuming I can not figure it out myself), the only way the bicycle can be assembled would be random luck.

I realize that the Bible is far more intricate than instructions to assemble a bicycle, but the principle is still the same I think.

After pondering your post, if I may, I think your example may break down a bit. First of all, you have a preexisting understanding of the rough “morphology” of the completed bicycle you are assembling which gives you an advantage. Since the instructions presumably do not contain any linguistic ambiguities involving highly subjective understandings of ancient sensibilities, there should be a sort of one to one isomorphism between the diagrams and parts. There are so many twists and turns when one attempts an “objective” exegesis. This is why Arminians and Calvinists are ready to throttle each other after having read the exact same words and arriving at mutually-exclusive conclusions.

Understanding the Bible with the same specificity as a jet engine fuel control schematic is just not possible this side of Heaven because the words can be rationalized to fit a multitude of competing dogmas.