Is the Bible Inerrant?

[Anna_Scott]

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”)

Which Bible translation do you believe to be inerrant, and why?

Anna

 

[DavidPalm]

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.

Yes, I agree with this. Anna, I can tell that the matter of the Bible’s place in the Christian faith unsettles you a bit. I would suggest that it should all point to the fact that our Lord simply did not set up His faith the way that the various vying Protestant groups contend that He did. He never said one word about anybody writing a book, let alone that it would become the sole rule of faith. But He definitely did speak of establishing a Church and being always with it, even to the end of the age.

 

[swariffin]

The Bible is not a history book…although it does contain history. The Bible is not a science book, so it’s “world view” is based on “pre-scientific” understanding of the nature of the universe. The Bible is not a book of psychology…but does hit on psychological issues that have plagued mankind as long as humans have walked the Earth.

The Bible is not some high theological treatise which details the nature and being of God…it is a very human attempt and record of a small portion of humaities experience with God…it is inspired in that men moved by the Holy Spirit to recored these experiences, filtered through human experience and ideas…the writings of scripture point us to the Source…it is not the Source itself…it is a marvelous, wonderous very HUMAN book written over time by very imperfect people…it is such a human book I would think if most of the Bibles were slapped…dust would fly off their covers.

Amen to that. It is much better than claiming it to be dictated by God word by word, and later having problems to explain the historical/scientific error in it.

 

[AmateurPianist]

let alone that it would become the sole rule of faith.

Just one point.

I am a Protestant who adheres to the dreaded “Sola Scriptura”. At least I think I do. However, once I was told that I do not because I also believe in the Charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit. So obviously I do not adhere to what some folks define as Sola Scriptura.

I do not believe that the Bible is the “sole rule of faith”.

And while there are some groups who will claim that the Bible is the “sole rule of faith”, they are the exception rather than the rule. No Protestant teachings on Sola Scriptura that I have read that sound intelligent at all claim that the Bible is the “sole rule of faith”.

The issue in my mind is not whether the Bible is the sole rule of faith but what is the relationship to the rule of faith that is the Bible to other rules of faith out there.

Anyway, back to your thread.

 

[piejesu]

Which Bible translation do you believe to be inerrant, and why?

Anna

Well first of all it would have to be a complete bible, you know, 76 books…no…let’s not go there.

Assuming that God is God, and that He is utterly, perfect, in all that He is, and that He chose to reveal Himself to human kind through human authors, and that He knows all things, even before they happen in time, because God exists outside of time, and that He knew ahead of time that there would be discussions such as this one on the Catholic Answers forums; doesn’t it seem logical to assume what God has revealed, and how He has revealed it, would not have some divinely built in factors to safeguard His perfect will?

Anyone, can find whatever they want to find in sacred scripture. If you are looking for errors, you will find them. If you are looking for truth, you will find it. If you are looking for salvation, you will find it. If you are looking for excuses…yup…you will find them. God reveals Himself to us in sacred scripture. The flip side of that is the often very disturbing fact that in sacred scripture God reveals us to ourselves.

 

[piejesu]

Oh, and by the way…“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott is indeed and excellent book, with excellent references. My favorite area is the discussion of the various types and aspects of grace.

Try it, you’ll like it!

 

[DavidPalm]

And while there are some groups who will claim that the Bible is the “sole rule of faith”, they are the exception rather than the rule. No Protestant teachings on Sola Scriptura that I have read that sound intelligent at all claim that the Bible is the “sole rule of faith”.

When I use the word “rule”, I’m speaking of a standard. In the original reformation understanding of sola Scriptura, there was to be no other standard besides the Bible against which a Christian would judge his faith (or the faith of others).

What other standards do the Protestants you are reading use to judge the orthodoxy of their faith?

 

[AmateurPianist]

When I use the word “rule”, I’m speaking of a standard. In the original reformation understanding of sola Scriptura, there was to be no other standard besides the Bible against which a Christian would judge his faith (or the faith of others).

What other standards do the Protestants you are reading use to judge the orthodoxy of their faith?

Well for starters I have been reading about John Wesley, whom I like.

Now Wesley believed in the primacy of Scripture, but believed that it should be interpreted in the light of history, reason, and experience. Still the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith as opposed to the other three.

I like this methodology and have come to adopt it myself.

As an example, I started a thread here a while back asking about gay marriage in the light of history (there was a guy here…still is…who thinks gay marriage is ok with God…this guy interestingly enough is Sola Scriptura). I determined that there was no historical precedence for gay marriage outside of the last 20 years or so. Therefore I concluded that gay marriage is a new, creative invention of this time period and most likely wrong. Now if somebody comes to me with a Scripture where gay marriage is in the Bible, I can revisit this, but until then it is wrong…

This methodology for me saves Scripture wars where both sides pull out their respective Scriptures and debate it to no logical conclusion. I don’t like God’s written word as a debate tool.

Now is this Sola Scriptura? I dunno.

One source I have read says no and titles this “Prima Scriptura”. Now I like that title better myself anyway. Other sources I have read say yes, this is still Sola Scriptura. Now this methodology is within the scope of the statement of faith of my church, which I presume is Sola Scriptura, but who knows, maybe not.

Now for the sake of these forums I call this Sola Scriptura, partly to irritate you all and partly to get you thinking in terms of the definition rather than the title. But if it is Sola Scriptura, it is a very nuanced understanding of it.

The problem in my mind with any definition of Sola Scriptura that defines the Bible as the only rule or standard of faith is what do you do if the Bible is genuinely ambiguous or silent on any certain topic. The example of the canon of Scripture that is often raised here is a good example of this. I don’t have a good answer for this question yet.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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.

Hello David
I have been posting on CAF for about two years now and I cannot tell you the number of times that I have seen Catholics quote Matt. 16:18-19 to show (according to them) that Jesus gave to Peter the vicarship of Christ on earth as well as the power to bind and loose. Which I have always taken to mean that it was to Peter and to him alone that Jesus gave to be His representative and also to him and him alone the power to author, set, or change doctrine. That is why I am surprised to learn according to your above quote that that is indeed not the case and that the pope is merely the guardian of that doctrine.

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.

I’m confused in this quote you seem to have the pope along with the ecumenical councils not Jesus as the author of “Catholic Tradition” when you state “the objective content is most officially captured in the solemn, doctrinal pronouncements of both ecumenical Councils and the Popes.” These two quotes appear to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. Perhaps you could clarify.

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,

Are you saying here that Jesus wrote the Catholic catechism?

 

[djeter]

Fr. Aidan Nichols in “The Shape of Catholic Theology” explores how Catholics came to view Scripture. I have cut, pasted, stitched and summarized below:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/02/how-is-scripture-the-word-of-god/

Doesn’t deal with the problem of inerrancy ( I have another post for that later) but is interesting nontheless.

In Christ,

dj

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well first of all it would have to be a complete bible, you know, 76 books…no…let’s not go there.

Assuming that God is God, and that He is utterly, perfect, in all that He is, and that He chose to reveal Himself to human kind through human authors, and that He knows all things, even before they happen in time, because God exists outside of time, and that He knew ahead of time that there would be discussions such as this one on the Catholic Answers forums; doesn’t it seem logical to assume what God has revealed, and how He has revealed it, would not have some divinely built in factors to safeguard His perfect will?

Anyone, can find whatever they want to find in sacred scripture. If you are looking for errors, you will find them. If you are looking for truth, you will find it. If you are looking for salvation, you will find it. If you are looking for excuses…yup…you will find them. God reveals Himself to us in sacred scripture. The flip side of that is the often very disturbing fact that in sacred scripture God reveals us to ourselves.

The number of books in the Canon is not anything that I would argue about. They probably shouldn’t have been removed.

I agree that God will ensure that His truth prevails. I also agree that Scripture can reveal things about ourselves.

You said, “If you are looking for errors, you will find them.”

In a previous post, you said, “Knowing God is the author of sacred scripture, I think I’d be careful about saying it contained inaccuracies or errors. Can God err?”

You still did not answer my question:

Which Bible translation do you believe to be inerrant, and why?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

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.

If the Vulgate is a “perfect copy and translation of the inerrant word of God,” why does the Catholic Church use and suggest translations other than the Douay-Rheims Bible?

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.

You are assuming I have no knowledge of the transmission of Scripture.

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.

I do not accept Sola Scriptura. I acknowledge the fact that the books/letters of the N.T. were transmitted through oral tradition, long before they were written. I acknowledge the role of tradition.

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).

I am aware of the CC’s claims to Apostolic succession, etc.

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.

Indeed, many manuscripts contain both errors and intentional changes. Many translations used by Protestants contain such errors.

Are you certain the Latin Vulgate, in its original form, is without error?

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,

I am aware of this variant. Not all Protestants are living in ignorance regarding the transmission of Scripture.

The English Standard Version places the variant in the footnotes, not the body of the text.

Matthew Chapter 6:
9 Pray then like this: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.[a] 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done,** on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread,[c] 12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.[d] 14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you,
**
Footnotes:****
a. Matthew 6:9 Or Let your name be kept holy, or Let your name be treated with reverence
b. Matthew 6:10 Or Let your kingdom come, let your will be done
c. Matthew 6:11 Or our bread for tomorrow
d. Matthew 6:13 Or the evil one; some manuscripts add For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen

Another interesting point about this prayer: In Luke’s account, the disciples said to Jesus, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” This indicates that some heard the prayer from John, before they heard it from Jesus.

Luke Chapter 11:
1 Now Jesus[a] was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” 2 And he said to them, "When you pray, say:

"Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread,** 4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation."

Footnotes:**
a. Luke 11:1 Greek he
b. Luke 11:3 Or our bread for tomorrow

**
Luke Chapter 11 (Douay-Rheims): **

1 And it came to pass, that as he was in a certain place praying, when he ceased, **one of his disciples said to him: Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. **2 And he said to them: When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. 3 Give us this day our daily bread. 4 And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.

Questions:

1. If the Vulgate is a “perfect copy and translation of the inerrant word of God,” why does the Catholic Church use and suggest translations other than the Douay-Rheims Bible?
2. Do you believe all Bible translations used in the Protestant Sector are in error?

Anna

 

[DavidPalm]

Hello David
I have been posting on CAF for about two years now and I cannot tell you the number of times that I have seen Catholics quote Matt. 16:18-19 to show (according to them) that Jesus gave to Peter the vicarship of Christ on earth as well as the power to bind and loose. Which I have always taken to mean that it was to Peter and to him alone that Jesus gave to be His representative and also to him and him alone the power to author, set, or change doctrine. That is why I am surprised to learn according to your above quote that that is indeed not the case and that the pope is merely the guardian of that doctrine.

Hi Richard, good questions. Just to establish that I’m not just making this up, here is the Catholic Church’s official teaching from the definition on papal infallibility:

1. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. ( 6Pastor Aeternus, my emphasis)

The deposit of Faith originates with our Lord and the revelation that He passed on to the Apostles. But in the course of time there have been many, many instances in which some point of doctrine or morals needed to be explicated or clarified. It is in these cases that the Catholic Church, either by way of the bishops meeting in ecumenical council or by a solemn pronouncement from the Pope, gives a definitive ruling. This is the role of “binding and loosing”; not the creation of a new doctrine, but the clarification of what is true and what is to be rejected.

I’m confused in this quote you seem to have the pope along with the ecumenical councils not Jesus as the author of “Catholic Tradition” when you state “the objective content is most officially captured in the solemn, doctrinal pronouncements of both ecumenical Councils and the Popes.” These two quotes appear to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. Perhaps you could clarify.

Let’s take an example: the deity of the Holy Spirit is part of the deposit of Faith passed on by our Lord to the Apostles. But over the course of time, certain individuals questioned this and taught otherwise. They could even cite passages of Scripture in favor of their alternative view. So eventually the bishops met in ecumenical council and this resulted in a solemn, definitive teaching the Holy Spirit really is God. So this truth–which was always part of the deposit of Faith–comes to be explicated more fully and more precisely through these official actions of the Church. Does this help?

 

[piejesu]

You still did not answer my question:

Which Bible translation do you believe to be inerrant, and why?

Anna

I don’t think I ever said that any translation was inerrant. What I was trying to say is that any time you strain at gnats with the sieve of human understanding, you are going to come up with a mess. If I missed the whole point of the thread, please accept my apologies.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well first of all it would have to be a complete bible, you know, 76 books…no…let’s not go there.

Assuming that God is God, and that He is utterly, perfect, in all that He is, and that He chose to reveal Himself to human kind through human authors, and that He knows all things, even before they happen in time, because God exists outside of time, and that He knew ahead of time that there would be discussions such as this one on the Catholic Answers forums; doesn’t it seem logical to assume what God has revealed, and how He has revealed it, would not have some divinely built in factors to safeguard His perfect will?

Anyone, can find whatever they want to find in sacred scripture. If you are looking for errors, you will find them. If you are looking for truth, you will find it. If you are looking for salvation, you will find it. If you are looking for excuses…yup…you will find them. God reveals Himself to us in sacred scripture. The flip side of that is the often very disturbing fact that in sacred scripture God reveals us to ourselves.

The number of books in the Canon is not anything that I would argue about. They probably shouldn’t have been removed.

I agree that God will ensure that His truth prevails. I also agree that Scripture can reveal things about ourselves.

You said, “If you are looking for errors, you will find them.”

In a previous post, you said, “Knowing God is the author of sacred scripture, I think I’d be careful about saying it contained inaccuracies or errors. Can God err?”

You still did not answer my question:

Which Bible translation do you believe to be inerrant, and why?

Anna

I don’t think I ever said that any translation was inerrant. What I was trying to say is that any time you strain at gnats with the sieve of human understanding, you are going to come up with a mess. If I missed the whole point of the thread, please accept my apologies.

Piejesu:

I am really very interested in the Catholic perspective regarding whether or not you believe the Bible is Inerrant, on this Thread entitled: Is the Bible Inerrant.

Since we have no autographs of any book in the Bible; I’m simply asking which Bible translation you consider to be inerrant, if any. I thought that was the topic.

Anna