Is the Bible Inerrant?

[NotTooSmart]

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.

Hi:
It did occur to me that the bicycle and Bible are not of the same scale.

But even if I changed the object to “directions to assemble a space craft where the directions are in Chinese”, the principle remains methinks.

If I know that the directions are inerrant, I could study Chinese, study space crafts, and eventually possibly get it right. But if the directions are wrong, I have no hope of getting it right other than luck.

In both cases the probability of accuracy is greater with directions that contain no error than directions that are defective. The differences are in relative amounts.

 

[DavidPalm]

DavidPalm: First let me say that it is not my intention to play the “gotcha game.” . . . 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. . . . The doctrines of “hell” and being “born again,” also, drive proselytizing efforts. . . . 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. . . .

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.”

Anna, let me first say that if something is proposed to me with the authority of the Catholic Church, I will submit my will and intellect to that, even if it runs counter to my personal opinion. But a comment made by a Pope in a General Audience simply does not bear that level of authority. I do think there’s a real danger in investing the Pope’s every word and action with more authority than it actually has, since he is a man who can err like the rest of us when he does not exercise the charism of his office.

I appreciate your obvious sincerity. I do think that you’ve slightly shifted the field of play, though. In your original question, you highlighted the aspect of whether Hell was an extrinsic punishment from God, or only a state into which we put ourselves as we reject God. I believe that the Christian/Catholic Tradition pretty clearly points to a both/and and that extract from the Holy Father’s address portrayed it as only one side, ours.

But in the extract above you emphasize the aspect of whether the fires of Hell in sacred Scripture (and Tradition, I’ll add) are symbolic. I don’t actually have any real problem with that.

But please know that I know where you are coming from. I am a convert from an evangelical Protestant background and I understand very well the emphasis on the Hell that you describe. It can be a bit unsettling. But perhaps that is as it should be. Hell is a scary concept and is definitely portrayed that way throughout Scripture and Tradition.

Certainly, historically, Catholicism has had that same emphasis. Why do you suppose that the North American matryrs were willing to suffer such incredible, torturous deaths at the hands of the Iroquois and other tribes? Because they believed that without the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ those men would be lost forever in Hell.

Even in our Rosary, in the prayer taught to the children at Fatima, we pray, “Oh my Jesus, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.”

May I respectfully submit that what you and I need is not so much a change in our understanding of Hell, but a deeper, richer, more overwhelming understanding of God’s burning love and infinite mercy for each and every one of us. We should fear Hell–it is a fearsome thing. But He loves us with an infinite love. He died for us. We can trust Him to bring us home, if only we turn to Him. In the brilliant rays of His love, the fires of Hell are eclipsed.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, let me first say that if something is proposed to me with the authority of the Catholic Church, I will submit my will and intellect to that, even if it runs counter to my personal opinion. But a comment made by a Pope in a General Audience simply does not bear that level of authority. I do think there’s a real danger in investing the Pope’s every word and action with more authority than it actually has, since he is a man who can err like the rest of us when he does not exercise the charism of his office.

I appreciate your obvious sincerity. I do think that you’ve slightly shifted the field of play, though. In your original question, you highlighted the aspect of whether Hell was an extrinsic punishment from God, or only a state into which we put ourselves as we reject God. I believe that the Christian/Catholic Tradition pretty clearly points to a both/and and that extract from the Holy Father’s address portrayed it as only one side, ours.

But in the extract above you emphasize the aspect of whether the fires of Hell in sacred Scripture (and Tradition, I’ll add) are symbolic. I don’t actually have any real problem with that.

But please know that I know where you are coming from. I am a convert from an evangelical Protestant background and I understand very well the emphasis on the Hell that you describe. It can be a bit unsettling. But perhaps that is as it should be. Hell is a scary concept and is definitely portrayed that way throughout Scripture and Tradition.

Certainly, historically, Catholicism has had that same emphasis. Why do you suppose that the North American matryrs were willing to suffer such incredible, torturous deaths at the hands of the Iroquois and other tribes? Because they believed that without the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ those men would be lost forever in Hell.

Even in our Rosary, in the prayer taught to the children at Fatima, we pray, “Oh my Jesus, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.”

May I respectfully submit that what you and I need is not so much a change in our understanding of Hell, but a deeper, richer, more overwhelming understanding of God’s burning love and infinite mercy for each and every one of us. We should fear Hell–it is a fearsome thing. But He loves us with an infinite love. He died for us. We can trust Him to bring us home, if only we turn to Him. In the brilliant rays of His love, the fires of Hell are eclipsed.

DavidPalm:

I appreciate and respect your response.

I was just so startled to find a Catholic who disagreed with a Pope. It did kinda throw me off a bit.

I agree with your statement, “We can trust Him to bring us home, if only we turn to Him. In the brilliant rays of His love, the fires of Hell are eclipsed.” Beautifully said.

Anna

 

[Roy5]

DavidPalm

Do you actually believe that the Native Americans and others who didn't know of Christ were going to hell until those missionary priests arrived? That's what your posting seems to suggest.

 Frankly, if there is a hell, I suspect it's not that crowded. Why? God is love. When Jesus was asked how often we should forgive - seven times? He responded: no, 70 times 7 times. That suggests to me an infinite number. And would God be any less forgiving than that?

 Let me share one story. I spent some time with a Hindu family in India. Tbey had the monkey god on their front door (a symbol of welcome) and they had an area of the house set aside as their spiritual center, with images of various Hindu gods. When we discussed Jesus, they wanted a picture of him to add to those images. I did not give them one because I couldn't imagine placing our portrayal/perception of Jesus (hardly a picture, really) alongside those Hindu gods and goddesses.

  However, by the time I left that family I was asking myself: if they don't get to heaven, I'm not sure I''ll make it. Why? They were as kind and generous and spiritual as any people I have ever met. They had a deep faith in God, one God really, whom they felt was symbolized by all those cultural Indian icons that were in that spiritual center. They were not polytheists actually, but in conversation made it clear that they believed in one mysterious and magnificent Creator worthy of worship. They respected Christ and sent their three children to a Christian school maintained by the Church of North India (an ecumenical Protestant merger).

   The notion held by many traditionalist Catholics and evangelical Protestants that non-Christians cannot go to heaven strikes me as arrogant as well as false. Who was the hero of the story of the Good Samaritan? Or, of the ten lepers cured by Christ? In each instance Christ lifted up a Samaritan who was ostracized by Jews because they had resulted from intermarriage with gentiles and had a different faith. That should tell us something.

    I believe firmly in the 'big tent' concept of Christianity. We are not saved by theology or church affiliation but by God's grace - through faith. Many Catholics and born-again Protestants are going to be shocked when they get to heaven and find it full of Christians of other groups, but also plenty of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

   Sadly, too many stories in the Old Testament present God as some sort of ogre who ordered Joshua to slaughter the inhabitants of Jericho, Ai and elsewhere, who commanded King Saul to murder every last Amalekite. I don't believe God would or could have done this. How do such atrocities fit in with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount? They don't!

   My God is an understanding God who looks at our hearts and not at our labels or our creeds. May God bless Catholics, Protestants and people of every creed, color and country. May religion serve as a bridge and not as a barrier.

 

[Paul3144]

One thing that we need to remember is that inerrancy and literalism are not the same thing. For example, Gen 1-2 are probably symbolic and representative of God’s movement in creation through evolution. Rev. 20 is symbolic even if the Rapture people disagree. So, when it talks about the thousand years it dosen’t really mean a thousand years. Ditto with Jesus saying to pluck out your eye.

When you look at the Bible you have to look at context, both textual and historical, as well as the genre and how it relates in the overall grand scheme of Scripture. No, not everything in the Bible is literal.

With that said, in the words of the Baptist Faith and Message, the Bible is “truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.” Period.

 

[NotTooSmart]

One thing that we need to remember is that inerrancy and literalism are not the same thing. For example, Gen 1-2 are probably symbolic and representative of God’s movement in creation through evolution. Rev. 20 is symbolic even if the Rapture people disagree. So, when it talks about the thousand years it dosen’t really mean a thousand years. Ditto with Jesus saying to pluck out your eye.

When you look at the Bible you have to look at context, both textual and historical, as well as the genre and how it relates in the overall grand scheme of Scripture. No, not everything in the Bible is literal.

With that said, in the words of the Baptist Faith and Message, the Bible is “truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.” Period.

I agree. A belief in inerrancy can be quite nuanced.

If I had this poll to do over again, I would have added a fourth option for literalists. Because there are some Christians who are literalists, and it that being a very important thing.

I am thinking about the KJV only folks in specific on that one.

 

[Anna_Scott]

DavidPalm

Do you actually believe that the Native Americans and others who didn't know of Christ were going to hell until those missionary priests arrived? That's what your posting seems to suggest.

 Frankly, if there is a hell, I suspect it's not that crowded. Why? God is love. When Jesus was asked how often we should forgive - seven times? He responded: no, 70 times 7 times. That suggests to me an infinite number. And would God be any less forgiving than that?

 Let me share one story. I spent some time with a Hindu family in India. Tbey had the monkey god on their front door (a symbol of welcome) and they had an area of the house set aside as their spiritual center, with images of various Hindu gods. When we discussed Jesus, they wanted a picture of him to add to those images. I did not give them one because I couldn't imagine placing our portrayal/perception of Jesus (hardly a picture, really) alongside those Hindu gods and goddesses.

  However, by the time I left that family I was asking myself: if they don't get to heaven, I'm not sure I''ll make it. Why? They were as kind and generous and spiritual as any people I have ever met. They had a deep faith in God, one God really, whom they felt was symbolized by all those cultural Indian icons that were in that spiritual center. They were not polytheists actually, but in conversation made it clear that they believed in one mysterious and magnificent Creator worthy of worship. They respected Christ and sent their three children to a Christian school maintained by the Church of North India (an ecumenical Protestant merger).

   The notion held by many traditionalist Catholics and evangelical Protestants that non-Christians cannot go to heaven strikes me as arrogant as well as false. Who was the hero of the story of the Good Samaritan? Or, of the ten lepers cured by Christ? In each instance Christ lifted up a Samaritan who was ostracized by Jews because they had resulted from intermarriage with gentiles and had a different faith. That should tell us something.

    I believe firmly in the 'big tent' concept of Christianity. We are not saved by theology or church affiliation but by God's grace - through faith. Many Catholics and born-again Protestants are going to be shocked when they get to heaven and find it full of Christians of other groups, but also plenty of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

   Sadly, too many stories in the Old Testament present God as some sort of ogre who ordered Joshua to slaughter the inhabitants of Jericho, Ai and elsewhere, who commanded King Saul to murder every last Amalekite. I don't believe God would or could have done this. How do such atrocities fit in with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount? They don't!

   My God is an understanding God who looks at our hearts and not at our labels or our creeds. May God bless Catholics, Protestants and people of every creed, color and country. May religion serve as a bridge and not as a barrier.

Roy5:

You have a very unique perspective for a “Protestant,” and I see that as a good thing.

I find the story of the Hindu family in India very interesting.

My son (age 22, in college) spent a summer in India on an internship for his Major in International Business. He spent most of his time with an Indian family, who owned several businesses. They are Hindu, also. My son told me about their devotion to God. He was so impressed that the owners of the company would stop and pray everyday before walking through the door of their office–thanking God for His blessings and asking God to lead them in every aspect of their work. My son has not witnessed that practice in the Christian world.

I often speak of my Jewish neighbors (retired couple.) I met them 5 years ago, when I bought a condo next door. I have grown to love them as family; and they treat me like a daughter. My son loves them dearly and has great respect for their Jewish faith and the way they live their faith. We call them his “Jewish” grandparents.

When we speak of knowing one by “their fruits;” I can say I have met very few Christians who demonstrate the “love of Christ” to the same degree as this Jewish couple. God is so interwoven in their lives; it is a blessing to witness. I cannot imagine God sending them to Hell.

I do not think this one lifetime is the only chance we have for salvation. Surely, if God desires that all be saved; He will make provisions for those who did not hear the message of Christ during their lifetime on earth; and for those whose eyes were not opened to the message of Christ during their lifetime on earth.

I know this goes against Catholic beliefs, and the beliefs held by the Southern Baptist Churches I attended most of my life.

I believe that God is able to accomplish His desires. He is, after all, almighty God.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

One thing that we need to remember is that inerrancy and literalism are not the same thing. For example, Gen 1-2 are probably symbolic and representative of God’s movement in creation through evolution. Rev. 20 is symbolic even if the Rapture people disagree. So, when it talks about the thousand years it dosen’t really mean a thousand years. Ditto with Jesus saying to pluck out your eye.

When you look at the Bible you have to look at context, both textual and historical, as well as the genre and how it relates in the overall grand scheme of Scripture. No, not everything in the Bible is literal.

With that said, in the words of the Baptist Faith and Message, the Bible is “truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.” Period.

Paul3144:

Where did you come from???

I grew up in Southern Baptist Churches, and might not have left if more Christians like you were to be found in their congregations.

One of the last few times I attended a Bible Class at the SBC, the teacher said, “If you don’t take the story of the 6-day creation literally, you might have a faith issue.” When I spoke to her after class, might have a faith issue, turned into you do have a faith issue (meaning me.)

Of course, I do not take the Genesis creation story literally. I agree that we must consider the overall picture in Scripture.

I think Genesis reveals mankind’s fall into sin, and the need for reconciliation to God, and so much more—mostly told symbolically.

As for Revelation: the things I was taught in childhood about this Book scared me to death. I still have trouble reading it; and I really haven’t a clue whether the prophecies were intended for the time period, in which it was written, or the future.

Anna

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The scribal discipline is well-documented. The slightest error was enough to consign a copy to scratch paper use. Piles of scrolls, rolled as logs, some burned for fuel, have been unearthed. These were tossed by scribes who had found an error, even a misplaced “jot or tittle”. When transaltion is difficult, studying the consclusions of scholars who speak more than one relevant language can help. Of course a few errors got through the editing process, but far, far fewer than in any other much-copied ancient body of work. Also, our oldest Scripture copies are far older than our oldest extant copies of any other ancient near-East-Mediterranean literature. Many of the copyists themselves had witnessed parts of the histories they documented. They related the content aloud to their apprentices, who the copied the manuscripts for another generation. The succession of scribes was intact for hundreds of years.

About the following:​

We have copies going back to the times translation first became necessary, and the early generations of translators were polyglot scribes from the strict tradition of copying. Early translations into various languages retain an astounding consistency of meaning, compared to most kinds of translated work of any kind, ancient or modern. The irregularities and difficulties pose few problems,

If one ignores the textual problems, which are of many kinds, in both Testaments, this is indeed so.​

no more than one might find between a guidebook to France in French and its German or English edition. The problems that do come up in one passage generally quickly resolve by comparing another passage.

If only Bruce Metzger had known this, he would not have had to write his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (an excellent book, BTW). Those sentences greatly understate the textual & other problems of the Biblical texts.​

We also have enough pieces of other Hebrew and Koine Greek work to compare and find known figures of speech, references and expressions. Some are still part of modern Greek and Hebrew, and even have passed into Latin and thence the Romance languages, or into Yiddish.

How does most of that distinguish the Biblical literature from the Classics ?​

As for:

• “Early translations into various languages retain an astounding consistency of meaning, compared to most kinds of translated work of any kind, ancient or modern.”

• explain, please ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

That’s the theory - but as the Pope is the final arbiter of what counts as the authentic tradition of the Church, he has a free hand to mess around with the tradition; and as he has no superior on earth to judge him, all that fine talk about his not being the creator of tradition is so much smoke and mirrors: as the unsaying of the doctrine of Limbo shows. This is nothing if not creative. So the alleged limits on the Pope’s power over doctrine are a load of hypocritical & lying rubbish - they are pretty words, to deceive the ignorant; just like the present Pope’s crocodilian apologies for the recent crimes of the Church in Ireland (of which nobody will be accused in court - that’s Catholic justice: commit the crimes, & avoid prosecution by being exempted from it). A truly sorry Pope would make reparation for what he and his predecessors have done by their negligence. Not him. They think because they can domineer over people’s faith, just as the NT explicitly forbids, they will never be caught.​

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.

 

[DavidPalm]

That’s the theory - but as the Pope is the final arbiter of what counts as the authentic tradition of the Church, he has a free hand to mess around with the tradition; and as he has no superior on earth to judge him, all that fine talk about his not being the creator of tradition is so much smoke and mirrors: as the unsaying of the doctrine of Limbo shows. …​

Stop, put on the brakes. There was no unsaying of the doctrine of Limbo, so the rest of your rant lacks basic credibility. Sorry.

 

[Jehoshua]

Although the thread has gone slightly off topic i will post my opinion of biblical innerancy anyway.

---

I believe that the bible is in typographical error to a certain extent in certain areas. But that the bibles content is innerant in the meaning conveyed in its texts. How this is compatible with scientific fact can be explained by not taking a literal standpoint on the work. For example genesis if taken literally would be obviously incompatible with established scientific fact. However if it is not taken to such a literal sense it becomes more clear.(NOTE: what im saying is only my opinion and not catholic doctrine)

The seven days are divided as so:

The first creation, that of light and the seperation of the light from the dark.
The establishment of the firmament
The creation of the Oceans and the Land and the creation of plants, Sun, Moon and stars
Birds and Sea life
Land animals
Humans
Rest

My opinion on this is that fundamentally the "days’ represented in the bible represent periods of time in the development of gods creation which have no distinction for an earthly day. (allowing for changes over time, and evolution as Gods hand can obviously alter anything to hius divine purpose) Given this non-literal view the development of the universe correlates quite nicely with the scientific view of the history of the universe after the big bang (including the reordering of the third day, and moving birds to the 5th day. This would show that the bible does show scientific fact, simply in a way that is appropriate to all eras.

Now even considering the possible typographical errors ive highlighted, the bible still contains innerant truth if put to my interpretation of whats said in genesis. (MY interpretation, not official church teaching {which i havent found yet}). This interpretation would certainly validate the churches teaching on the compatibility of evolution with Christianity.

---

Anyway thats my view on the matter. In regards to a previous comment on the popes role to change the churches sacred tradition, your argument is invalid, as the pope can not alter the sacred condition with free reign. This would invalidate the need for ecumenical councils if it was true, and since no pope seems to have made wild changes to catholic dogma over the years, i don;t see how your argument has any logical basis.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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.

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 creato**r.

Hello David

I have two questions for you. You will notice the emboldened parts of two of your posts that state that the pope is not the author or creator of “Catholic Tradition”. My fist question is: Who is the creator of “Catholic Tradition” if not the pope and my second question is: You say: " 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" Where can this objective content be found so that a non Catholic like myself can study it.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Not interested in debating at this time. More interested in getting what the pulse is.

NoTooSnart using the name not to smart was NoTooSmart. Why do you not have a new name bty now,

 

[DavidPalm]

Hello David

I have two questions for you. You will notice the emboldened parts of two of your posts that state that the pope is not the author or creator of “Catholic Tradition”. My fist question is: Who is the creator of “Catholic Tradition” if not the pope and my second question is: You say: " 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" Where can this objective content be found so that a non Catholic like myself can study it.

Hi Richard,

I apologize for the tardiness of this response. I missed your comments.

For your first question, the creator of the Catholic Tradition is Jesus Christ. He passed on the deposit of revelation to the Apostles and it has been preserved in the Catholic Church. So the role of the Pope is to preserve what has been passed on, not to create new doctrines.

For the second, the objective content is most officially captured in the solemn, doctrinal pronouncements of both ecumenical Councils and the Popes. The emphasis is on both solemn and doctrinal–there are many disciplinary matters covered by both Popes and Councils and these have seen change over the centuries.

As for where you can find this objective content, the Church’s official catechisms are a good place (e.g. the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pius X, and now more recently the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is also, for example, a good book by Dr. Ludwig Ott called the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which discusses the dogmas and doctrines of the Church and discusses their level of authority. Very helpful summary. Hope this helps.

God bless,

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Richard,

I apologize for the tardiness of this response. I missed your comments.

For your first question, the creator of the Catholic Tradition is Jesus Christ. He passed on the deposit of revelation to the Apostles and it has been preserved in the Catholic Church. So the role of the Pope is to preserve what has been passed on, not to create new doctrines.

For the second, the objective content is most officially captured in the solemn, doctrinal pronouncements of both ecumenical Councils and the Popes. The emphasis is on both solemn and doctrinal–there are many disciplinary matters covered by both Popes and Councils and these have seen change over the centuries.

As for where you can find this objective content, the Church’s official catechisms are a good place (e.g. the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pius X, and now more recently the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is also, for example, a good book by Dr. Ludwig Ott called the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which discusses the dogmas and doctrines of the Church and discusses their level of authority. Very helpful summary. Hope this helps.

God bless,

DavidPalm:

Interesting post.

I will check my list of references and add these, if I haven’t already. I have so much to read.

In Christ,
Anna

 

[crazzeto]

Simply put, yes the bible is inerrant.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Simply put, yes the bible is inerrant.

Crazzeto:

I would say that God’s truth prevails in spite of human errors in the transmission of Scripture.

Since we have no originals (autographs) of any book of the Bible—and there are more than 5,000 manuscripts for the NT, alone—and there are more variants among those 5,000 manuscripts than words in the NT—and there are multiple Bible translations that vary from each other----which Bible translation do you believe is inerrant?

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

Crazzeto:

I would say that God’s truth prevails in spite of human errors in the transmission of Scripture.

Since we have no originals (autographs) of any book of the Bible—and there are more than 5,000 manuscripts for the NT, alone—and there are more variants among those 5,000 manuscripts than words in the NT—and there are multiple Bible translations that vary from each other----which Bible translation do you believe is inerrant?

Anna

The Vulgate, perserved by the CC all these years since St. Gerome first translated it is a perfect copy (and translation) of the inerrant word of God. What you say is true of subsequant copies made for private usages in monistaries, churches and homes of the lay.

The fact that you acknowlege this, makes me shocked that you are not Catholic (or at least Orthodox). We Catholics and E. Orthodox understand very well what you are talking about here. For us, this is no problem because we also understand very well that the bible is not the sole rule of faith. Jesus didn’t leave us a dead book to instruct the faithful. Because a dead book can’t do that. Only a living Church can do this. The Catholic Church is the living Church established by Christ Jesus. The Orthodox may have split with us, but they retained, quite faithfully all of the traditions, teachings, and sacraments. More over they have valid Apostolic succession, just as we Catholics have valid Apostolic succession. They might not have it to the chair of St. Peter, but they have it, to St. Andrew as their Patriarch unless I am mistaken (please feel free to jump in and correct if required).

But to believe the bible is the sole rule of faith, knowing that copies subsequant to the Vulgate have had errors in them, and that these errors have directly affected your faith tradition. Sounds scary.

One such example of my last point. Protestants believe the lords prayer ends with “for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. Forever and ever, amen”. The Lord never uttered these words, and they were never in the Gospel. This is a doxology which developed in the centuries subsequent to the Lords death. A very pious scribe once felt inspired to add the doxology to Matthew as a mere note, in the sides of the page. A later scribe mistakenly thought that this was a part of the Gospel text, added it in accidently, and now Protestants think the doxology is a part of the prayer.

God Bless,

 

[piejesu]

From the CCC:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, 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.”

Knowing God is the author of sacred scripture, I think I’d be careful about saying it contained inaccuracies or errors. Can God err?

Errant Scripture Scholars

Learning more and more about less and less, they eventually come to know everything about absolutely nothing!

Malcom Muggeridge on Intellectual Elitism (while aimed at the secular world, can be applied to overtly critical scripture scholars.)

“It has become abundantly clear in the second half of the twentieth century that Western Man has decided to abolish himself. Having wearied of the struggle to be himself, he has created his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, his own vulnerability out of his own strength; himself blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, in a process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too numerous, and laboring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer in order to be an easier prey for his enemies; until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.”

Personally, while I love to study and learn new things, in the end I concur with St Augustine…

“Credo ut intellegiam” (“I believe in order that I may understand”)