Is the Bible Inerrant?

[DavidPalm]

The notion that there is only one true religion is poppycock.

In other words, our Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man Himself, was not true to His promises. Impossible.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Bible may or may not have “theological, scientific, and historical errors”, so I did not vote; but it has other features that make calling it inerrant meaningless.​

Short answer: No.

As for the dogma, I understand that it’s a dogma, I am well aware of the teaching of the Church on the subject since and including Providentissimus Deus, and I don’t accept the dogma or the teaching; nor do I wish or intend to; becase it does not make sense, and nobody even tries to explain how it does - all they seem able to do is quote Popes & Fathers & Church documents. That is less useful than being given instructions on working a video in Japanese, when English is what’s needed; at least Japanese instructions will instruct a speaker of Japanese. But flinging authorities at people is no more instructive than throwing snowballs.

I believe in a Person, not in a book. What good does dogma do ? It’s wonderful for splitting Churches & encouraging hatred, and for nothing else. The Church needs dogma as a cheese needs a bicycle.

 

[NotTooSmart]

NotTooSmart

I'm not too smart, either. I wonder if we're related.

Now, as for **theology and the Bible**. Obviously a whole lot of theologies have claimed to reflect the Bible. "Even the devil can quote scripture." I have considerable sympathy for Quakerism, which in its pure form embraces pacifism, which it finds in the Bible - Sermon on the Mount. Catholics and other cling to "just war" theories. 

 Then there are the predestinarians vs the free-will Arminians. Both of them quote the Bible, too. "Even the hairs on the you head are numbered" versus admonitions to do good - perhaps pointless if our eternal fate already has been decided by the Almighty.

 Or, take such Catholic/Protestant issues as Mary. Catholics point to this or that verse, while Protestants note, among many other things, that in all the letters of Paul,  sent to instruct early Christians, Mary isn't mentioned once. Where do we find evidence of the Immaculate Conception (not to be confused with the Virgin Birth) and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in scripture? Catholics, of course, appeal to non-Biblical tradition. We don't even find the name of Mary's mother in scripture. 

  And we could go on and on. All those early heresies, whether Arianism or Nestorianism, Adoptianism or Monarchianism, quoted scriptures, as did such 'heretical' Church Fathers as Tertullian and Origen who cited scripture to buttress their arguments.

  Take Baptism. Infant by sprrinkling or 'believers baptism' by immersion only. Jesus was baptized following the second procedure, but most Christians accept infant baptism.

  Personally, I don't take much stock in theology, and I have read a good many theologians, too. They are interesting and often creative, but we are not saved by belief but by God's grace. And - I know many Protestants don't like to hear this - by 'good works' which play a role (not pious 'good works' like indulgences gained by repeating  prayers but by deeds reflecting love of others). Remember when the lawyer asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life? Jesus had a great opportunity to lay out required belief. Instead, he said love God and love you neighbor, then illustrated it with the parable of the Good Samaritan in which a despised Samaritan, of a different religion and of strictly taboo intermarried ancestry, emerges as the hero!

  The churches, Catholic and Protestant and others, need to stop being so arrogant and open their doors wide  ('big tent Christianity') and welcome all who would come. The notion that there is only one true religion is poppycock. This mammoth and magnificant universe is too mysterious for any of us to understand. "Farther along we'll know all about it...." - a favorite gospel hymn of mine. I Corinthians says the same things basically. "Now we see through a glass darkly...."

  God bless the whole world - no exceptions.

OK.

I could get into this if I wanted with you.

But today I am sort of lacking energy and enthusiasm for arguing Christianity over the internet.

So for now I will let it pass.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I have held off on voting now.

But I have just voted option (1).

With the following caveats:

• It is a nuanced understanding of inerrancy as opposed to a literalist. It does not necessarily follow that a believe a literal 7 day creation 7000 years back or so.
• If I encounter what I believe to be a historical/scientific error in the Bible that I can not reconcile, it is not a crisis of belief and the end of my Christian faith. My faith ultimately is in a person.
• I do not consider inerrancy a point of Christian orthodoxy. I do consider the entire Bible being the “Word of God” a point of Christian orthodoxy (II Timothy 3:16).

But I will always support the most conservative theology of the Bible that I in good conscience believe. I am will remain skeptical about Christians remaking Christianity in their own image.

 

[chaunceygardner]

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

This pulse says clearly 'NO". It is a product of humans over the course of centuries, by people with different levels of knowledge, different understandings, different points of view, different agendas; all subject to human error and various interpretations. But the “errors”, discrepancies and disagreements contained within the Bible do not lessen the value or meaning of it.

In the poll question, I am not sure whether we can say that there are theological “errors” in the Bible, as much of the theology contained in them was still being debated at that time. It would be more accurate to say that there certainly are varying theological “opinions” or ideas.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I have held off on voting now.

But I have just voted option (1).

With the following caveats:

• It is a nuanced understanding of inerrancy as opposed to a literalist. It does not necessarily follow that a believe a literal 7 day creation 7000 years back or so.
• If I encounter what I believe to be a historical/scientific error in the Bible that I can not reconcile, it is not a crisis of belief and the end of my Christian faith. My faith ultimately is in a person.
• I do not consider inerrancy a point of Christian orthodoxy. I do consider the entire Bible being the “Word of God” a point of Christian orthodoxy (II Timothy 3:16).

But I will always support the most conservative theology of the Bible that I in good conscience believe. I am will remain skeptical about Christians remaking Christianity in their own image.

NotTooSmart:

Good to run into you again.

I do not know where you are in your studies regarding the transmission of Scripture. So, I’ll throw out a few things, and you can let me know if my comments are old news to you.

As you know, the New Testament was transmitted orally for years, before anything was actually written down.

When the New Testament books, letters, etc. were finally written, they circulated separately for years, before they were assembled into the Biblical Canons we have today.

Keep in mind that Jesus and His followers spoke Aramaic. The N.T. was written in Greek.

If I recall correctly, the literacy rate at the time of Christ was only about 10%. Some in that 10% could read, but not write. So, that meant a literate Christian would read the books, letters, etc. to their fellow Christians when they gathered.

We do not have any known originals (autographs) of any Book of the Bible. We have copies of copies of copies, etc.

There are more than 5,000 New Testament Manuscripts known today. Not all 5,000 manuscripts contain all the Books of the N.T.

There are over 100,000 variants among those Manuscripts (that is a very low estimate.) Many of the variants are obvious scribal errors, such as skipping a line or two—many different kinds of errors.

A scribe, for example, may write notes in the margin of a manuscript. Then, the next scribe to copy the manuscript would decide to incorporate the notes into the main body of the text. Then the text would be copied many times again containing this error. You get the idea.

There are some variants that seem to be intentional. Changing just one or two words can change the meaning of a passage–very tempting for a scribe wanting to emphasize his beliefs about what the passage really means.

A good example of this is found in the KJV of the Bible, 1 John 5:7-8: the phrase “these three are one,” is only found in 16th Century Manuscripts. The earlier manuscripts do not contain this phrase.

Compare the KJV to the ESV and NIV (not my favorite translations-but used by many Protestants):

**1 John 5:7-8 (KJV): ** 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
**
1 John 5:7-8 (ESV): ** 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

1 John 5:7-8 (NIV): 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

It is likely that whatever Bible translation you hold in your hands, contains portions of a number of different manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even in the Old Testament, Bible translators may use some texts from Hebrew manuscripts and some from Greek manuscripts, etc. There are manuscripts in many languages.

How close is a particular Bible translation to the original text (knowing we do not have any original text?) Can’t say for sure.

Having said all this, I do believe that God will always preserve His Truth in order to reveal His plan for our salvation, and also to illuminate our path and guide us to righteousness through Christ our Lord and Savior.

God’s Word is “living and active.” I believe the Holy Spirit brings God’s message to life through Scripture, in spite of our human shortcomings in the transmission of Scripture.

So, I can definitely see Divine Inspiration in the Bible.

I can also see very human accounts of the human encounter with God.

I know, from my own experiences, that some Protestant leaders equate questioning the inerrancy of the Bible translation, they place in your hands, with blasphemy. That is why some Protestants hold on to the KJV and dare not question its origin.

Questioning a Bible translation is not questioning God; it is questioning the human beings who were responsible for the translation.

I accept God by faith. I accept Christ by faith.

When it comes to the accuracy of a particular Bible translation, I do not blindly trust the people involved in the translation process. I embrace the “test everything” method.

**1 Thessalonians Chapter 5: ** 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Hope this helps,
Anna

 

[Holly3278]

Well, I guess I voted wrong. I voted that it depends and that the Bible may have historical or scientific errors in it but I was just corrected by a friend so I’d like to change my vote to the first option.

 

[Anna_Scott]

NotTooSmart:

Good to run into you again.

I do not know where you are in your studies regarding the transmission of Scripture. So, I’ll throw out a few things, and you can let me know if my comments are old news to you.

As you know, the New Testament was transmitted orally for years, before anything was actually written down.

When the New Testament books, letters, etc. were finally written, they circulated separately for years, before they were assembled into the Biblical Canons we have today.

Keep in mind that Jesus and His followers spoke Aramaic. The N.T. was written in Greek.

If I recall correctly, the literacy rate at the time of Christ was only about 10%. Some in that 10% could read, but not write. So, that meant a literate Christian would read the books, letters, etc. to their fellow Christians when they gathered.

We do not have any known originals (autographs) of any Book of the Bible. We have copies of copies of copies, etc.

There are more than 5,000 New Testament Manuscripts known today. Not all 5,000 manuscripts contain all the Books of the N.T.

There are over 100,000 variants among those Manuscripts (that is a very low estimate.) Many of the variants are obvious scribal errors, such as skipping a line or two—many different kinds of errors.

A scribe, for example, may write notes in the margin of a manuscript. Then, the next scribe to copy the manuscript would decide to incorporate the notes into the main body of the text. Then the text would be copied many times again containing this error. You get the idea.

There are some variants that seem to be intentional. Changing just one or two words can change the meaning of a passage–very tempting for a scribe wanting to emphasize his beliefs about what the passage really means.

A good example of this is found in the KJV of the Bible, 1 John 5:7-8: the phrase “these three are one,” is only found in 16th Century Manuscripts. The earlier manuscripts do not contain this phrase.

Compare the KJV to the ESV and NIV (not my favorite translations-but used by many Protestants):

**1 John 5:7-8 (KJV): ** 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
**
1 John 5:7-8 (ESV): ** 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

1 John 5:7-8 (NIV): 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

It is likely that whatever Bible translation you hold in your hands, contains portions of a number of different manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even in the Old Testament, Bible translators may use some texts from Hebrew manuscripts and some from Greek manuscripts, etc. There are manuscripts in many languages.

How close is a particular Bible translation to the original text (knowing we do not have any original text?) Can’t say for sure.

Having said all this, I do believe that God will always preserve His Truth in order to reveal His plan for our salvation, and also to illuminate our path and guide us to righteousness through Christ our Lord and Savior.

God’s Word is “living and active.” I believe the Holy Spirit brings God’s message to life through Scripture, in spite of our human shortcomings in the transmission of Scripture.

So, I can definitely see Divine Inspiration in the Bible.

I can also see very human accounts of the human encounter with God.

I know, from my own experiences, that some Protestant leaders equate questioning the inerrancy of the Bible translation, they place in your hands, with blasphemy. That is why some Protestants hold on to the KJV and dare not question its origin.

Questioning a Bible translation is not questioning God; it is questioning the human beings who were responsible for the translation.

I accept God by faith. I accept Christ by faith.

When it comes to the accuracy of a particular Bible translation, I do not blindly trust the people involved in the translation process. I embrace the “test everything” method.

**1 Thessalonians Chapter 5: ** 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Hope this helps,
Anna

Well, I guess I voted wrong. I voted that it depends and that the Bible may have historical or scientific errors in it but I was just corrected by a friend so I’d like to change my vote to the first option.

Holly:

Did you read my Post–quoted again above?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

NotTooSmart:

This is a rough timeline to show how the Bible came to us.

greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html

Timeline of Bible History

1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.
**
315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.
**
382 AD: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).

500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.

600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.

995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.

1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg’s Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.

1522 AD: Martin Luther’s German New Testament.

1526 AD: William Tyndale’s New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.
**
1535 AD:** Myles Coverdale’s Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The “Great Bible” Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).
**
1568 AD:** The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).
**
1609 AD:** The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

**1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.
**
1782 AD: Robert Aitken’s Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America.

1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

1808 AD: Jane Aitken’s Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman.
**
1833 AD:** Noah Webster’s Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.
**
1846 AD:** The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.
**
1885 AD:** The “English Revised Version” Bible; The First Major English Revision of the KJV.

1901 AD: The “American Standard Version”; The First Major American Revision of the KJV.

1971 AD: The “New American Standard Bible” (NASB) is Published as a “Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation” of the Bible.
**
1973 AD:** The “New International Version” (NIV) is Published as a “Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation” of the Bible.

1982 AD: The “New King James Version” (NKJV) is Published as a “Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James.”

2002 AD: The English Standard Version (ESV) is Published as a translation to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the readability of the NIV.
This English Bible History Article & Timeline is ©2002 by author & editor: John L. Jeffcoat

(III. Special thanks is also given to Dr. Craig H. Lampe for his valuable contributions to the text. This page may be freely reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, in print or electronically, under the one condition that prominent credit must be given to “WWW.GREATSITE.COM” as the source.)

The following link, to the Bible Society’s timeline, has more detail and a few dates differ from those I just quoted you. This is a 5 page pdf file, and includes the Dead Sea Scrolls in the timeline. This is very informative.

biblesociety.org.uk/uploads/history_timeline.pdf

I think it is important to study the transmission of Scripture, when considering whether or not the Bible is inerrant (or I should say, whether or not Bible translations are inerrant.)

There are still many Protestants that are unaware of the fact that the KJV originally contained 80 Books–to include the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha remained in the KJV for more than 270 years. If I recall correctly, the Anglican Church was the only Church to actually authorized the KJV.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

NotTooSmart:

This is a rough timeline to show how the Bible came to us.

greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html

Timeline of Bible History

1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.
**
315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.
**
382 AD: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).

500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.

600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.

995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.

1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg’s Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.

1522 AD: Martin Luther’s German New Testament.

1526 AD: William Tyndale’s New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.
**
1535 AD:** Myles Coverdale’s Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The “Great Bible” Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).
**
1568 AD:** The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).
**
1609 AD:** The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

**1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.
**
1782 AD: Robert Aitken’s Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America.

1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

1808 AD: Jane Aitken’s Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman.
**
1833 AD:** Noah Webster’s Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.
**
1846 AD:** The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.
**
1885 AD:** The “English Revised Version” Bible; The First Major English Revision of the KJV.

1901 AD: The “American Standard Version”; The First Major American Revision of the KJV.

1971 AD: The “New American Standard Bible” (NASB) is Published as a “Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation” of the Bible.
**
1973 AD:** The “New International Version” (NIV) is Published as a “Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation” of the Bible.

1982 AD: The “New King James Version” (NKJV) is Published as a “Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James.”

2002 AD: The English Standard Version (ESV) is Published as a translation to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the readability of the NIV.
This English Bible History Article & Timeline is ©2002 by author & editor: John L. Jeffcoat

(III. Special thanks is also given to Dr. Craig H. Lampe for his valuable contributions to the text. This page may be freely reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, in print or electronically, under the one condition that prominent credit must be given to “WWW.GREATSITE.COM” as the source.)

The following link, to the Bible Society’s timeline, has more detail and a few dates differ from those I just quoted you. This is a 5 page pdf file, and includes the Dead Sea Scrolls in the timeline. This is very informative.

biblesociety.org.uk/uploads/history_timeline.pdf

I think it is important to study the transmission of Scripture, when considering whether or not the Bible is inerrant (or I should say, whether or not Bible translations are inerrant.)

There are still many Protestants that are unaware of the fact that the KJV originally contained 80 Books–to include the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha remained in the KJV for more than 270 years. If I recall correctly, the Anglican Church was the only Church to actually authorized the KJV.

Anna

PS: The above does not include the dates of Catholic editions of some of our English translations. I’m sorry I omitted this. Tired today. Perhaps Catholics could help NotTooSmart with history of Bible translations in the Catholic tradition.

Anna

 

[NotTooSmart]

PS: The above does not include the dates of Catholic editions of some of our English translations. I’m sorry I omitted this. Tired today. Perhaps Catholics could help NotTooSmart with history of Bible translations in the Catholic tradition.

Anna

Thank you for the timeline. I remember reading something like this in the blog that I referenced earlier, but it wasn’t laid out quite as nice.

It sort of reminds me that maybe I should have clarified the top option and split it in two

• Inerrant in the original languages and guaranteed preserved inerrant in one or more versions today
• Inerrant in the original languages but not necessarily guaranteed to be inerrant in any version today.

Of course the top would be the position of King James Only and perhaps others. The second was the position of the blog I was reading and what I had in mind.

At any rate once I started reading the blog, I asked myself the silly question “What is the point of having an inerrant Bible in the original languages if it is not guaranteed to be inerrant in at least one version today?”

So as I started pondering my silly question, it seemed as though there were three logical possibilities.
(1) The Bible is inerrant and preserved, presumably in the KJV. I rejected this, to be honest, because the Christianity as practiced by KJV only folks is not appealing to me and does not seem to reflect the fruit of the Holy Spirit. However, this is a logical possibility considering the facts of how the Bible came to be (and too easily dismissed methinks).
(2) The Bible is inerrant in the original languages but not guaranteed inerrant in any version today. It seemed to me that if one held this position, that it could not consistently be a point of major orthodoxy, since what is the practical use if this is the case.
(3) The Bible is not inerrant in science and history in the original languages.

Both 2 and 3 seem possible, but I opted for 2 as being the more conservative and therefore the safer position.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thank you for the timeline. I remember reading something like this in the blog that I referenced earlier, but it wasn’t laid out quite as nice.

It sort of reminds me that maybe I should have clarified the top option and split it in two

• Inerrant in the original languages and guaranteed preserved inerrant in one or more versions today
• Inerrant in the original languages but not necessarily guaranteed to be inerrant in any version today.

Of course the top would be the position of King James Only and perhaps others. The second was the position of the blog I was reading and what I had in mind.

At any rate once I started reading the blog, I asked myself the silly question “What is the point of having an inerrant Bible in the original languages if it is not guaranteed to be inerrant in at least one version today?”

So as I started pondering my silly question, it seemed as though there were three logical possibilities.
(1) The Bible is inerrant and preserved, presumably in the KJV. I rejected this, to be honest, because the Christianity as practiced by KJV only folks is not appealing to me and does not seem to reflect the fruit of the Holy Spirit. However, this is a logical possibility considering the facts of how the Bible came to be (and too easily dismissed methinks).
(2) The Bible is inerrant in the original languages but not guaranteed inerrant in any version today. It seemed to me that if one held this position, that it could not consistently be a point of major orthodoxy, since what is the practical use if this is the case.
(3) The Bible is not inerrant in science and history in the original languages.

Both 2 and 3 seem possible, but I opted for 2 as being the more conservative and therefore the safer position.

NotTooSmart:

Please do not put yourself down, by saying your questions are “silly.” They are good questions.

I am always very concerned about the “KJV only” stance. If one would take the time to study the history of the KJV, it would be very obvious that this translation contains many errors. Many of the early manuscripts, used in more accurate translations, were not known at the time the KJV was produced.

I think there is a dangerous trend among some Protestant religions, where Protestant leaders discourage their congregations from questioning any part of the Christianity they teach, or the Bible translation they proclaim as “inerrant.” I see it here on the forums, and it breaks my heart.

I think it is dangerous to omit teaching, or discourage studying, the transmission of Scripture, and the history of Christianity and Judaism. This is one area where I do really respect the Catholic Church. The Catholics know their history.

A good friend of mine was appalled by the fact that I have a Catholic Comparative New Testament in my house. She was very disturbed about my studies of Church History, and my many books. At one point in our conversation, she looked at me as if I were the devil himself. I have never had a friend look at me that way. I was deeply hurt by her words and her reaction. The sad thing is, we were long-time friends; but my studies actually ended the friendship.

How can this be? What is going on in Protestant circles that produce such prejudice? I am a Protestant, and I can’t figure it out.

Anna

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

NotTooSmart:

This is a rough timeline to show how the Bible came to us.

greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html

Timeline of Bible History

1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

**1st Century AD: **Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.

315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.

382 AD: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).

500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.

600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.

995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.

1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg’s Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.

1522 AD: Martin Luther’s German New Testament.

1526 AD: William Tyndale’s New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale’s Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The “Great Bible” Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

**1611 AD: **The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

1782 AD: Robert Aitken’s Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America.

1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

1808 AD: Jane Aitken’s Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman.

1833 AD: Noah Webster’s Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.

1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.

1885 AD: The “English Revised Version” Bible; The First Major English Revision of the KJV.

1901 AD: The “American Standard Version”; The First Major American Revision of the KJV.

1971 AD: The “New American Standard Bible” (NASB) is Published as a “Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation” of the Bible.

1973 AD: The “New International Version” (NIV) is Published as a “Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation” of the Bible.

1982 AD: The “New King James Version” (NKJV) is Published as a “Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James.”

2002 AD: The English Standard Version (ESV) is Published as a translation to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the readability of the NIV.
This English Bible History Article & Timeline is ©2002 by author & editor: John L. Jeffcoat

(III. Special thanks is also given to Dr. Craig H. Lampe for his valuable contributions to the text. This page may be freely reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, in print or electronically, under the one condition that prominent credit must be given to “WWW.GREATSITE.COM” as the source.)

The following link, to the Bible Society’s timeline, has more detail and a few dates differ from those I just quoted you. This is a 5 page pdf file, and includes the Dead Sea Scrolls in the timeline. This is very informative.

biblesociety.org.uk/uploads/history_timeline.pdf

I think it is important to study the transmission of Scripture, when considering whether or not the Bible is inerrant (or I should say, whether or not Bible translations are inerrant.)

There are still many Protestants that are unaware of the fact that the KJV originally contained 80 Books–to include the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha remained in the KJV for more than 270 years. If I recall correctly, the Anglican Church was the only Church to actually authorized the KJV.

Not as Holy Writ, though - as the Articles of Religion make very clear. The 14 (15, if the “Letter of Jeremy” is reckoned as separate from Baruch, rather than as chapter six of it) are reckoned as useful, but not as inspired, so they have no weight for establishing doctrine.​

Anna

That leaves out a lot of versions and translations, and includes some of little importance. There is no such thing as “[t]he “English Revised Version” Bible” - it is called the Revised Version (the RV of the Apocrypha was published in 1895). What other language would it be in: Hausa ? The RSV, NEB & NAB are not so much as mentioned. It is a very safe guess that these three have all had millions more readers than any of the private versions in the list.​

 

[survive]

The Bible is a divinely-inspired compilation of divinely-inspired works of history, songs, advice, law and prophecy, from a theological viewpoint, for the purpose of instruction in spiritual and moral truth as well as practical wisdom, written in styles that include classical history and Hebraic memorizable poetry.
It is free from error. That doesn’t make it devoid of all figures of speech. No communication in words can ever be devoid of all figures of speech. So far nearly all the “contradictions” and “absurdities” anyone has ever been able to point to amount to obvious figures of speech, normal generalizations or rare and obscure translation problems. The more people try to talk me out of believing in the Bible’s inerrancy the more the grasping at straws they end up doing makes me shake my head and walk away more convinced of the Bible’s reliability than ever.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The Bible is a divinely-inspired compilation of divinely-inspired works of history, songs, advice, law and prophecy, from a theological viewpoint, for the purpose of instruction in spiritual and moral truth as well as practical wisdom, written in styles that include classical history and Hebraic memorizable poetry.
It is free from error.

That doesn’t make it devoid of all figures of speech. No communication in words can ever be devoid of all figures of speech. So far nearly all the “contradictions” and “absurdities” anyone has ever been able to point to amount to obvious figures of speech, normal generalizations or rare and obscure translation problems.

The more people try to talk me out of believing in the Bible’s inerrancy the more the grasping at straws they end up doing makes me shake my head and walk away more convinced of the Bible’s reliability than ever.

Survive:

This is a quote from one of my earlier posts on this thread:

There are more than 5,000 New Testament Manuscripts known today. Not all 5,000 manuscripts contain all the Books of the N.T.

There are over 100,000 variants among those Manuscripts (that is a very low estimate.) Many of the variants are obvious scribal errors, such as skipping a line or two—many different kinds of errors.

A scribe, for example, may write notes in the margin of a manuscript. Then, the next scribe to copy the manuscript would decide to incorporate the notes into the main body of the text. Then the text would be copied many times again containing this error. You get the idea.

There are some variants that seem to be intentional. Changing just one or two words can change the meaning of a passage–very tempting for a scribe wanting to emphasize his beliefs about what the passage really means.

A good example of this is found in the KJV of the Bible, 1 John 5:7-8: the phrase “these three are one,” is only found in 16th Century Manuscripts. The earlier manuscripts do not contain this phrase.

Compare the KJV to the ESV and NIV (not my favorite translations-but used by many Protestants):

**1 John 5:7-8 (KJV): ** 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
**
1 John 5:7-8 (ESV): ** 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

1 John 5:7-8 (NIV): 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

It is likely that whatever Bible translation you hold in your hands, contains portions of a number of different manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even in the Old Testament, Bible translators may use some texts from Hebrew manuscripts and some from Greek manuscripts, etc. There are manuscripts in many languages.

How close is a particular Bible translation to the original text (knowing we do not have any original text?) Can’t say for sure.

Having said all this, I do believe that God will always preserve His Truth in order to reveal His plan for our salvation, and also to illuminate our path and guide us to righteousness through Christ our Lord and Savior.

God’s Word is “living and active.” I believe the Holy Spirit brings God’s message to life through Scripture, in spite of our human shortcomings in the transmission of Scripture.

So, I can definitely see Divine Inspiration in the Bible.

I can also see very human accounts of the human encounter with God.

I know, from my own experiences, that some Protestant leaders equate questioning the inerrancy of the Bible translation, they place in your hands, with blasphemy. That is why some Protestants hold on to the KJV and dare not question its origin.

Questioning a Bible translation is not questioning God; it is questioning the human beings who were responsible for the translation.

I accept God by faith. I accept Christ by faith.

When it comes to the accuracy of a particular Bible translation, I do not blindly trust the people involved in the translation process. I embrace the “test everything” method.

**1 Thessalonians Chapter 5: ** 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Hope this helps,
Anna

I did say, “I do believe that God will always preserve His Truth in order to reveal His plan for our salvation, and also to illuminate our path and guide us to righteousness through Christ our Lord and Savior. God’s Word is “living and active.” I believe the Holy Spirit brings God’s message to life through Scripture, in spite of our human shortcomings in the transmission of Scripture.”

It is unsettleing to me that we have no originals, no autographs. So, we are left trying to find a translation that is the closest to the originals. But, how can copies of copies of copies, etc. really be inerrant?

Could you shed some light on this?

Anna

 

[survive]

It is unsettleing to me that we have no originals, no autographs. So, we are left trying to find a translation that is the closest to the originals. But, how can copies of copies of copies, etc. really be inerrant?

Could you shed some light on this?

Anna

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. 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, 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.
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.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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. 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, 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.
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.

I agree with most of what you have said. I agree that the manuscripts reveal an “astounding consistency of meaning.”

I am aware of the strick rules that apply to a Jewish Scribe (Sofer,) who is entrusted with copying the Torah, or Pentateuch.

My next door neighbors are Jewish (wife 77 and husband 80.) The wife’s grandfather spent his life copying the Torah for Jewish Temples; and my friend explained the process to me–facinating story about her grandfather.

As you know, you can still find hand-written scrolls of the Torah in many Jewish Temples today. I have seen one in my friend’s Temple. The Scrolls are still written on special parchments–in sections, using a quill, (or another approved utensil) dipped in ink. It can take a year-- to year and a half to make one full copy of the Torah: keep in mind this is only the 5 Books of Moses. They ususally cost in excess of $50,000, today–due to the time involved in producing the handwritten Scroll.

Remember, the early Christians were under persecustion. They did not always have the luxuary of time required to accurately transcribe each writing, letter etc. Paul’s letters are a good example. He was writing and fleeing persecution, as were his fellow Christians, and even those who were copying his letters.

Most of the early Christian population was poor and uneductated. There was only about a 10% literacy rate at the time of Christ. And of that 10%, some could read, but not write. Not all those who copied the early Christian writings were as skilled as the Jewish scribes of the past; many were not specially trained Sofers.

Yet, it is amazing that God’s message is still preserved; and I beleive that God will always preserve His message of Salvation.

At the same time, I believe we must follow the discovery of manuscripts to see how they compare with the manuscripts known to be in existance, today. The Dead Sea Scrolls were an incridible find. Who knows what is yet to be discovered.

I do think we must choose our Bible translations carefully, to ensure that we hold and live by words that reveal God’s truth as fully as possible. I do wish we had the originals.

Anna

 

[DavidPalm]

I do think we must choose our Bible translations carefully, to ensure that we hold and live by words that reveal God’s truth as fully as possible. I do wish we had the originals.

Anna

I think, Anna, that you are hitting on one of the very important reasons why our Lord did not just leave us a book but rather a living Church. With a book, even a divinely inspired and inerrant book like the Bible, we are cast back on our own devices again and again to determine the correct reading, the correct translation (do you know the original languages), the correct interpretation, and so on. And then whose interpretation has any more authority than anybody elses? And how was this all supposed to work for the individual Christian in all the centuries during which it was impossible for him to have his own copy of the Bible, even if he could read?

I think the solution to your reasonable questions lies in a different direction that in just persuading yourself that your selection of ancient manuscripts and vernacular translation is as good as possible.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think, Anna, that you are hitting on one of the very important reasons why our Lord did not just leave us a book but rather a living Church. . . . .

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

If you read many of my posts, you will find that I am a Protestant, who is questioning Protestantism. So, I carefully consider what Catholic forum members have to say.

I agree that oral tradition plays an important role in Biblical interpretation. That is certainly true for Judaism, where Oral Tradition (Midrash and Talmud) is considered equally divine with the Torah/Tanach.

I think Protestants have simply traded one tradition for another. That is demonstrated by Protestant forum members, who cannot seem to get through a post without mentioning Luther, Calvin, or another reformer.

I’m digressing. Back to the topic of interpretation of Scripture:

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.

The Early Church Fathers and Pope John Paul II do not seem to be in agreement with the definition of “hell.”

**Justin Martyr (151AD) **
We have been taught that only they may aim at immortality who have lived a holy and virtuous life near to God. We believe that they who live wickedly and do not repent will be punished in everlasting fire (“First Apology” 21).

[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons (“First Apology” 52).

**From “The Epistle of Barnabas” (70-130AD) **
The way of darkness is crooked, and it is full of cursing. It is the way of eternal death with punishment. (“Epistle of Barnabas”)

**From “Second Clement” (150AD) **
If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment (“Second Clement” 5:5)

**From “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” (155AD) **
Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire (“Martyrdom of Polycarp” 2:3)

**From Athenagoras of Athens (175AD) **
We are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we will live another life, better than the present one…or, if they fall with the rest, they will endure a worse life, one in fire. For God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, who are mere by-products. For animals perish and are annihilated. On these grounds, it is not likely that we would wish to do evil. (“Apology”)

**From Theophilus of Antioch (181AD) **
Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (“To Autolycus” 1:14)

From Irenaeus (189AD)
[God will] send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and blasphemous among men into everlasting fire (“Against Heresies” 1:10:1)

The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . *t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever (“Against Heresies” 4:28:2)

**From Tertullian (197AD) ***
But the godless and those who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire, divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility (“Apology” 44:12–13).

By the time we reach Pope John Paul II, “hell” has an entirely different definition. So, the interpretations of the fate of the lost in the afterlife, does not appear to be fixed, even within the Catholic Church.

Quote from Pope John Paul II:

HEAVEN, HELL AND PURGATORY
Pope John Paul II

"Hell is the State of Those who Reject God

At the General Audience of Wednesday, 28 July 1999, the Holy Father reflected on hell as the definitive rejection of God. In his catechesis, the Pope said that care should be taken to interpret correctly the images of hell in Sacred Scripture, and explained that “hell is the ultimate consequence of sin itself… Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.

1. God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”.

In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life."

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM#Hell

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com

. . . It does seem that Pope John Paul II broke from the traditional Catholic interpretation of Hell.

Could you shed some light on this?

Anna

 

[Roy5]

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.