Is the Bible inerrant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Irish_Eyes_826
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Irish_Eyes_826

Guest
How are Catholics supposed to view the Bible? I know we do not interpret it literally. But is it inerrant, fully factual? My religion teacher said that the Bible contains only religious truth, not historical or scientific truth, is this so? Personally, I believe something similar. I think that the Bible is a sacred text, but contains “errors” because it was written by flawed individuals who interpreted the world around them according to their own limited knowledge. I’m not sure if the Bible was really inspired by God… Can something clarify the Catholic teaching on this and what that teaching really means?
 
The Bible is Completely correct, Its interpretted wrong sometimes though, and mostly any scientific facts in the Bible are actually hyperpoles, or parables… which ever.
 
God is the principle author of Sacred Scripture, and we know God will never err or lie. Therefore the Bible is correct in all it asserts as true. Of course, we have to take culture, literary style, symbolism, hyperbole, etc. into consideration when discerning what the Bible actually does assert as true.
 
I have come, tentatively, to the reluctant conclusion that the Bible is
not strictly “inerrant.”

For example, the different resurrection accounts in the Four Gospels.
Read each one carefully, and try to reconcile them.
I guarantee you, you can’t. Your head will be spinning.

Luke’s gospel has Mary and Joseph travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem
for a census, on which trip, Mary gives birth to Jesus right after they arrive in
Bethlehem. The gospel of Matthew, however, seems to indicate that
Mary and Joseph already lived in Bethlehem.

There are several historical inaccuracies in Stephen’s speech in Acts chapter 7.
That is, if the old testament accounts are to be strictly believed.

Luke’s birth of Jesus account describes a Roman census at the time of Christ’s birth,
a census in which the Romans required men to return to their ancestral towns to
register. This kind of empire-wide census would have caused upheaval and chaos throughout the Roman Empire as vast numbers of people clogged the roads returning to their ancestral towns. Nobody believes that the Romans would have done anything so
chaotic and inefficient.

I hate to come to this conclusion, and fought it for years, but there really
seems no way around it.
 
I might recommend you read the Church’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum. It’s not that long; can be read in one sitting.

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

Jesus taught orally. He never wrote a book, nor did He command anyone else to. He created a Church and trained Apostles to spread His message. Not everything Jesus taught was written down. (See John 21:25) Yet, He commanded the Apostles to go forth and teach “ALL” that He had taught them. (Matt. 28:20). The difference is Oral Tradition, also known as Sacred Tradition. ( 2 Thes. 2:15) SOME of what the Apostles passed down to their successors, the bishops, was written down. We call that the New Testament. But no book or message can stand on its own. It requires an authentic and authoritative interpreter. This is what we have in the Pope (successor to Peter) and the bishops in union with him. We call this group the Magisterium of the Church.

Practically speaking, the vast majority of earth’s population was illiterate for the majority of time Christianity has existed. Only in the last hundred years or so have a great number of people learned to read and write. Before that, it really wasn’t necessary. Most labor was manual labor.

The Bible, as we know it, didn’t exist till the 4th century, when the Church decided which books belonged in the Bible, and which did not. We have it on the authority of the Church what books belong in the Bible. The Church at that time went through over 300 books and letters, praying to the Holy Spirit to reveal to them which were Divinely inspired and which were not. They chose 27 from the 300+ documents, and that’s what we have in the New Testament today.

With regard to the Old Testament, there were two versions. Before Christ was born, there was a very large contingent of Jews in Alexandria, Egypt and surrounding areas (this was a big commerce port; Egypt was the bread basket of the Mediterranean). They wanted a version of the Jewish Scriptures, but they spoke Greek, not Hebrew. So, the Jews translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This was called the Septuagent version. Approximately 80% of the direct and indirect references in the New Testament to the Old Testament come from the Septuagent version, so we believe that’s the version most often used by Jesus and the Apostles, and that’s the version we use.

In the late first, early second century, the Jews decided to set the canon for their Scriptures. They were influenced by the fact that the early Christians were converting Jews using the Septuagent version, so they chose the Hebrew version. (This is a little oversimplified, but you should get the picture.) In the 1500’s when the Reformation came around, Martin Luther, on his own authority, decided to use the Jewish version. He didn’t like the Septuagent because it supported things he didn’t like, like Purgatory, etc. That’s why Protestants have 7 less books in their Old Testament than we do.

Also, there is no guarantee that any translation of the Bible is inerrant. All have some errors because there are some things that don’t translate well. For example, some things in the Greek don’t translate well into English. But the Bible was never meant to be a stand-alone instrument, or a be-all, end-all of the deposit of faith handed us by Christ. It is only a tool. Without Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, you are assured to have errors in understanding.
 
The term inerrant when it comes to the Bible is, generally, a Protestant term. I haven’t ever seen Catholic students of the Bible use that term, because actually it is not related to the Catholic viewpoint of the Bible.
Some books of the Bible are historical. Vatican II’s decree on divine revelation taught that the Gospels are historical However, the Genesis account of creation is actually in large part poetic. Saint Augustine for one says about the “days” of creation that these could represent a longer period of time. Catholics are free too believe that Jonah was not actually swallowed by a giant fish. And too, the Bible is not meant to teach science and so the scientific ideas of the day were used to teach religious truths, as in the creation account, though we do not accept this science now. What the Bible actually teaches is inspired by God–however it did not teach the science of Genesis.
At the same time Catholicism maintains that the books of the Bible have a historical basis. When it comes to the Genesis account in Genesis the Church draws its belief from this account in God’s creation of mankind and of the material universe and in original sin, to name two things.
 
I have come, tentatively, to the reluctant conclusion that the Bible is
not strictly “inerrant.”

For example, the different resurrection accounts in the Four Gospels.
Read each one carefully, and try to reconcile them.
I guarantee you, you can’t. Your head will be spinning.

Luke’s gospel has Mary and Joseph travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem
for a census, on which trip, Mary gives birth to Jesus right after they arrive in
Bethlehem. The gospel of Matthew, however, seems to indicate that
Mary and Joseph already lived in Bethlehem.

There are several historical inaccuracies in Stephen’s speech in Acts chapter 7.
That is, if the old testament accounts are to be strictly believed.

Luke’s birth of Jesus account describes a Roman census at the time of Christ’s birth,
a census in which the Romans required men to return to their ancestral towns to
register. This kind of empire-wide census would have caused upheaval and chaos throughout the Roman Empire as vast numbers of people clogged the roads returning to their ancestral towns. Nobody believes that the Romans would have done anything so
chaotic and inefficient.

I hate to come to this conclusion, and fought it for years, but there really
seems no way around it.
Matthew makes no mention of where Mary and Joseph were before the birth of Christ, thus it does not contradict Luke, which clarifies that they were in Nazareth first. Just like Luke making no mention of the Magi doesn’t mean they did not come to see Jesus, and any other number of details found in one account and not the other. The same sort of thing applies to many biblical stories that are told in different ways in different places, like the accounts of Jesus appearing to various people after the Resurrection.

The book of Acts records the speech that St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, gave immediately before his martyrdom. It does not state that every element of the speech was factually accurate. Evidently the inspired author considered the speech sufficiently important to include it in (presumably) its entirety, despite the fact that Stephen appears to have misremembered some minor details of salvation history. Again, the same idea applies in other places in which a normal human being is recorded to have said something which may not agree with an inspired account of what actually happened. What the Bible asserts is that this person said something, not that they were 100% correct in what they said.

Finally, Luke does not specifically record that an Empire-wide census took place around 4 BC-1 AD, but merely that “In those days a degree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town” (Luke 2:1-3). Notice the word “census” does not appear in the passage; that’s something Biblical exegetes who were fuzzy on the actual history added over the centuries. In fact I have heard it claimed that there was a different kind of widespread enrollment at this time, though not a census. I can’t personally vouch for that claim nor for exactly what sense the Greek phrase translated “the whole world should be enrolled” would have had in the original, but the point is that it is often our own personal or corporate ignorance or narrow-mindedness that may seem to make some Biblical passage appear to contradict secular history or another Bible passage, when it in fact does not.
 
Holy Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and infallible in matters of faith and morals. That is all you need to know. Now get to a Bible study class!
 
How are Catholics supposed to view the Bible? I know we do not interpret it literally. But is it inerrant, fully factual? My religion teacher said that the Bible contains only religious truth, not historical or scientific truth, is this so? Personally, I believe something similar. I think that the Bible is a sacred text, but contains “errors” because it was written by flawed individuals who interpreted the world around them according to their own limited knowledge. I’m not sure if the Bible was really inspired by God… Can something clarify the Catholic teaching on this and what that teaching really means?
Well, people’s views change over time. I hope you investigate this matter more, over the course of your life.

Yes, it’s the easiest way to explain the matter in 25 words or less, that the bible is not a science or history book. It’s altogether a different level of spiritual and intellectual maturity to look at the Bible as being inerrant, which is what the Church has always held.

This is a doctrine that was so always believed that it was never formally set down.

But, now after centuries, with lots of time on their hands, scholars are looking at this subject in a deeper way and flushing out better explanations for what at least superficially appear to be “errors” in Scripture.

We know beyond a doubt that the earth rotates, and the sun does not “rise” or “set” as may be stated in the Bible. but, the writers of scripture wrote in manners of human expression that their readers would understand. So, they may have used common expressions about the sun rising or setting. Our constant desire is to look beyond the words for the meaning that God wants to convey.

there are many forms of literature in the bible, and these forms do not necessarily agree with modern forms of literature. Something that mystifies us may have been perfectly comprehensible to the ancients.

the whole bible is the gospel, the “good news.” Personally, I am rewarded by all the Bible study that I have ever done. Surely, it sometimes takes me years to figure something out. In the first place, “that’s just me.” the bible is often saying so many things at the same time, it’s a challenge to sort out all of them.

Some people are Protestants for many years of their lives. Then, they sometimes encounter something in Scripture that they never noticed before, and it is life changing. They sometimes become Catholics.

Inerrancy is a technical concept, and it may not be exactly what you thought it was. It’s a negative concept, to start off with. It says that there’s nothing in error as far as the salvation truths that the Bible teaches. That’s different and maybe a long way from what you may think inerrancy means, that everything in the bible is a literally true statement.
 
How are Catholics supposed to view the Bible? I know we do not interpret it literally. But is it inerrant, fully factual? My religion teacher said that the Bible contains only religious truth, not historical or scientific truth, is this so? Personally, I believe something similar. I think that the Bible is a sacred text, but contains “errors” because it was written by flawed individuals who interpreted the world around them according to their own limited knowledge. I’m not sure if the Bible was really inspired by God… Can something clarify the Catholic teaching on this and what that teaching really means?
The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant with regard to the truths necessary for our salvation.
 
**The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant with regard to the truths necessary for our salvation. **

This is more or less what I am trying to say in my post above. I should have been more clear. I did not mean to scandalize anyone, and I hope I didn’t. God bless all of you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top