H
hamburglar
Guest
What’s the Church’s position on Scripture? I know there was controversy on Dei Verbum during Vatican II about this issue and I’m looking for clarification.
- Status
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
The Bible is inerrant, however the Bible must be read according to the “light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.” (CCC #111). When so interpreted it is also infallible.
Here is the pertinent part of the Catechism.
Here is the pertinent part of the Catechism.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
In-Errant (Without error)
Infallible means, essentially, incapable of mistake. A written, unchanging word, cannot make a mistake. It can only be in error, or free of error.
FSC
Infallible means, essentially, incapable of mistake. A written, unchanging word, cannot make a mistake. It can only be in error, or free of error.
FSC
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
The Bible is inerrant. However I am not and if I rely soly on my interpetation I can error.
J
jmcrae
Guest
What was the controversy?
Only a living person can be infallible (not able to teach wrongly) - the Bible is inerrant (without error).
This does not mean that the Bible does not contain fictional stories, allegories, or poetry, however - it simply means that the moral and theological truths conveyed by means of these literary forms are worthy of belief, and ought to be believed.
P
PJM
Guest
From the perspective of 2 Tim. 3:15-17 the Bible “is TRUE” without necessiarly being “factual.”
I suspect that the real challange to accept this truth without accepting either label you seem to suggest as being the defacto guide.
The issue it seems is in proper understanding of what is written.
Love and prayers,
Pat
H
hamburglar
Guest
From the Wikipedia page on Biblical infallibility, there is this quote: “The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice.”
I think maybe my misunderstanding is coming from my perception of the word “inerrant.” I’m thinking inerrant in a way that fundamentalist/evangelicals teach, that the Bible is true historical and scientifically as well. So word for word it is true. But I’m pretty sure this is not how Catholics read the Bible, correct?
I think maybe my misunderstanding is coming from my perception of the word “inerrant.” I’m thinking inerrant in a way that fundamentalist/evangelicals teach, that the Bible is true historical and scientifically as well. So word for word it is true. But I’m pretty sure this is not how Catholics read the Bible, correct?
D
davidv
Guest
It seems that our Catechism uses inerrancy (contains no error) and infallibly (protected from teaching error) somewhat interchangebly in this selection.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Correct. The Scriptures contain a great deal that is fictional. The fiction is intended to make a point, however, and some of it (ie: the Book of Daniel) is most likely based on real people who actually lived, but their stories have been fictionalized to make a moral point (kind of like how Clive Cussler novels are based on lived experiences, but made to be larger than life for entertainment value).
P
patg
Guest
Yes, the church does not teach from a literalistic reading of the scriptures. As mentioned above, the church teaches that there are many forms of writing in the bible and that the bible must be read with consideration and understanding of the times in which it was written. (see Dei Verbum).
P
PJM
Guest
CORRECT
The bible forms include stories, parabels, [fiction] as well as literal truths. It also includes historial accounts [as they recall them] and prophesy which become true when fulfilled.
The key to understanding is knowing which form is being applied. The Bible is NOT a science book.
1 Tim. 3:15
KING JAMES BIBLE
**1st Timothy 3:15 **But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,[SINGULAR] which is the church of the living God,[SINGULAR] the pillar [SINGULAR] and ground of the truth.[SINGULAR]
Translated properly this means that ONLY the CC has the God given power to properly understand and explain the Bible, which is a Catholic Book.
From the Catholic RSV Bible
1Tim.3: 15 “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, **the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” **
WHY is the Bible a Catholic Book?
For all of the historically proveable reasons shown.
- It was men known today to be Catholic who collectedthe OT books for inclusion
- The ENTIRE NT was actually written by men inspired by God and known Catholics
- It was the CC that codeified the Canon of the Bible still in use today
- When all of these acts were COMPLETED THERE WAS IN EXISTENCE ONLY ONE CHRISTIAN CHURCH: THE WAY, CHRISTIAN, AND NOW TERMED CATHOLIC. NO OTHER CHRISTIAN CHURCHES UNASSOCIATED WITH THE CC OF ANY SIGNIFIANT NOTE CAME INTO EXESTENCE UNTIL LUTHER IN THE 1,500’S.
- For all of these reasons the Bible is a Catholic Book, the CC is THEE Bible Church, and
Jesus gave Himself as pleade of Her [the CC teachings on ALL matters reguarding Faith and Morals.]
[Jesus praying to The Father] “I [JESUS]have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, **but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. **[16] They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. **As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. **[19] And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth”
- NO OTHER Church, No other Faith can truely make the claim that Jesus Himself is pledgd to insure it’s truth. ONLY Christ CC can and does.
- There are in excess of 100 verses in the NT that SPECIFY and testify to ONLY One Church as founed by Jesus, only One New Covenant, Only One Faith:
Love and prayers,
Pat
J
journierman
Guest
Good summary.
E
ewsussek
Guest
How can you quote the Bible to prove it is inerrant? That is illogical. The key messages and themes are accurate, but specific details may be in question. Take into consideration that the New Testiment was written long after Jesus returned to heaven, when the authors we elderly.
Factor into this translation. The Bible is translated into several older languages into Latin and Greek then translated into modern languages. Something must have been lost in translation.
Lastly, the Bible lacks definition. For example, In Genesis God created the world in seven days. How do we know it was a day, there were no clocks or calendars.
I think it is important to understand the key messages and not quibble over details.
Factor into this translation. The Bible is translated into several older languages into Latin and Greek then translated into modern languages. Something must have been lost in translation.
Lastly, the Bible lacks definition. For example, In Genesis God created the world in seven days. How do we know it was a day, there were no clocks or calendars.
I think it is important to understand the key messages and not quibble over details.
P
PJM
Guest
Welome to CAF!
- The entire New testement was written by the various authors within less than 60 years after Christ death. These are men who knew Christ by their lifes experiences, except for Luke [a follower of Christ and deciple of Paul], and Paul who God blesed with Infused knowledge.
John.14: 26 [quoting Jesus] “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you”
When dealing with Godly matters one must be carefull not to presume to know more or better than God. Nor should one doubt what God is capable of.
As fo the translations" again you seem to forget the power of the Holy Spirit? Wile a word may have changed here or there; NEVER in the Approved Catholic Bibles has the truth been altered. That is God’s personal promise.
Genesis is “the story of creation.”** It is neither a historical or scientific accout.** It’s truth is in the Fact that God is the Creator [to make out of nothing] of everything and everyone. That is the message, not how it was acomplished or how long it may have taken. Quite possibly it all happend in an instant, as God WILLED it inti existence.
This is precisely why we need the Church, chosen by Christ to be the only valid interpertor of His Divinely Inspired book. [2 Tim. 3:15-17]
1Tim.3: 15 "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
Love and prayers my friend,
Pat
C
chase200mph
Guest
The bible is a collation of contradictory viewpoints, it is absolutely neither Infallible nor Inerrant. To make apologies for the bible as a means of support for any doctrinal view is to ignore countless other denominational views while declaring a victory that no-one here can support. This line of reasoning is invalid if for no greater reason it must apply without bias to other doctrinal views against the accordance you deem comfortable. Please try again…
P
PAboy57
Guest
John 21 Verses 24 - 25
It is this disciple who testifies about the things he has recorded here and we know that his testimony is true.
But Jesus did many other things; if all were written down, the world itself would not hold the books recording them.
St. John assures all of us that His testimony is true. I believe.
It is this disciple who testifies about the things he has recorded here and we know that his testimony is true.
But Jesus did many other things; if all were written down, the world itself would not hold the books recording them.
St. John assures all of us that His testimony is true. I believe.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
You start with an incorrect statement. The Bible does non of the books in the Bible contridict any of the other ones. also one when reading the Bible must read each book contained within in the context of which it was written. Style of writting used, who was the person that wrote it and to whom was he writing. There is fiction, poetry, history, and other types of writting all contained withing. the thing is the all lead to the plan Of God’s love and salvation.
P
PJM
Guest
***Dear Other,
Are you aware friend that there is an alternative choice to heaven?
One can certainly understand why an unbeliever would freely choose NOT to accept the Bible which is ALWAYS true, but not necessarly always factual. *
We accept it because its truth has been saving souls of may who belief and UNDERSTAND it for some 2,000 years. And because of verses like 2 Tim. 3:15-17; John 14:16-17 and John 17: 14-19 [especially v. 19].**
May God grant you Wisdom and Understanding!
You do beleive in God don’t you?
Love and prayers,
Pat**
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
I agree with this completely, but a true testimony does not mean that everything in it is inerrant. I know of no errors in the Bible that would detract for the testimonies of the apostles or prophets, but I do know of incidental errors that are not the result of translations, copying, etc. So when people claim that the Bible is inerrant the impression they present to “others” is that the Bible is word-for-word perfect, and that is simply not true.
J
jmcrae
Guest
It is inerrant with respect to the moral, spiritual, and theological truths that it conveys.
Further, the Bible was never intended to be a stand-alone document, apart from the Holy Tradition that produced it. Nor is it meant to be understood outside of the Liturgy. The early Hebrews read the Torah in Liturgy; they didn’t take it home, and they didn’t have Bible study clubs. When the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, ratified by Pope Innocent I, gave the canon of the New Testament, they were not thinking of what is suitable for Christians to read while sitting alone at home, or in a discussion group, but rather, what is suitable to be read out at Mass.
- Status