Is the scripture infallible?

[Lief_Erikson]

In the RCIA class I was taking today, the instructor told me that the Bible is not infallible. Is that the teaching of the Catholic Church?

 

[juliamajor]

In the RCIA class I was taking today, the instructor told me that the Bible is not infallible. Is that the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Infallible in which way? If you’re talking about syntax, history, geography and non faith oriented stuff i’d agree. But in faith, morals, guide to spiritual life and our relationship with God- i’d say he’s wrong. have him clarify his statement.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Scripture is generally described as *inerrant *rather than infallible.

Whether your instructor intended this distinction or otherwise I cannot say.

tee

 

[briang72]

In the RCIA class I was taking today, the instructor told me that the Bible is not infallible. Is that the teaching of the Catholic Church?

The written Word of God cannot be infallible by itself. Private interpretation destroys that ability. It is with the service of the Magisterium that the teaching of the Word in faith and morals becomes infallible.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 85-86:

CCC 85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.”

CCC 86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

 

[Pwrlftr]

Infallible in which way? If you’re talking about syntax, history, geography and non faith oriented stuff i’d agree. But in faith, morals, guide to spiritual life and our relationship with God- i’d say he’s wrong. have him clarify his statement.

If you believe there are mistakes with regards to history or geography for example, who made the mistake? In other words, do you believe the scriptures are only “inspired” in particular places (faith amd moral perhaps) but not in other places (history or geography)? Or do you believe that there may be some copyist errors?

If you believe mistakes are in the scriptures because the Holy Spirit didn’t safeguard the scriptuers than how can you be sure tradition is also free from error?

I have a ton of questions but the last one I will ask is if you have read the encyclical by Pope Leo XIII dealing with scriptural inerrancy? You can find it at papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The written Word of God cannot be infallible by itself. Private interpretation destroys that ability. It is with the service of the Magisterium that the teaching of the Word in faith and morals becomes infallible.

If “infallible” means “not liable to deceive”, it is infallible - by itself, BTW. Whether it is inerrant, is another matter. The Magisterium is not its master, but its servant, & must heed it, as it contains the whole counsel of God. Which is not to say that it contains enough for our curiosity - nothing does; but it does contain enough for our salvation.​

As it is the Word of God, it is irresistible in carrying out the whole of His Will. So its misuse is sinful, but in no way destructive of it; no more than a whirlwind is destroyed by having a stick shaken at it. What makes it effective is not the Magisterium but the Holy Spirit: without the Spirit of Christ, it is lifeless & dead, like the Magisterium, the Church, & all that is therein.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I think I got the answer to my question from the Religious Tolerance Organization. Here’s what they say:

Some claim that, in its original autograph version, the Bible is inerrant – without error. This belief developed naturally from their conviction that God inspired the authors of the Bible. If God was influencing the writers, then he would not have led them into error. This appears to be the consensus of the popes, and most of the Catholic scholars and other church leaders until the mid 20Hometh century.

Other Catholics teach a more recent concept: that of limited inerrancy. This views the Bible as being without error in certain matters such as faith, morals and the criteria for salvation. However, the Bible contains errors when describing other matters, such as scientific observations and historical events. This belief had its origins in the church with the writings of Richard Simon (1638 - 1712) who rejected Moses as author of the Pentateuch. He partly inspired the literary-criticism method of analyzing biblical passages which became influential among 19Hometh century Christians.

Still other Catholic theologians and scholars have agreed with liberal Protestants by rejecting the inerrancy of the Bible. They interpret it as containing much legend, myth, historical and scientific inaccuracies, religious propaganda, etc. Of these intellectuals, Dominic Crossan is one of the most popular writers among the general public.

religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

Sorry for not phrasing my question more clearly, earlier. I guess that when I asked about infallibility, I actually meant inerrancy.

 

[Ron_Conte]

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n.21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)

 

[briang72]

If “infallible” means “not liable to deceive”, it is infallible - by itself, BTW.​

Then why are there now tens of thousands of Christian denominations if the written Word of God by itself is “not liable to deceive”? Why do some people believe in the Real Presence and others do not? Was the miracle of the loaves and fish a true miracle, or just an extreme act of sharing? Will the unjust be “left behind” at the end of the world, or will they be taken away? Did Jesus have blood brothers and sisters, or were they really his cousins? Was Mary a perpetual virgin, or did she not know her husband until the birth of her first-born son?

I understand that the Magisterium is the servant and not the master, but I still don’t understand how the written Word alone is infallible. It requires proper interpretation. Otherwise it can be quite misleading.

 

[rwoehmke]

It is a mistake to believe that inspiration by the Holy Spirit of the human authors was basically dictation. The human authors were able to use whatever literary skills and techniques they had to put across those truths intended by the Holy Spirit, thus there is no conflict between some portion being, for example, a myth, a legend, pure fiction and the lesson/knowledge it is meant to impart.

It is foolish to lay the Bible open to ridicule by insisting in a “literalist” fashion that every fact of any kind is absolutely true. Such insistence turns away intelligent people who might otherwise accept those parts pertaining to Faith and Salvation and be brought into the fold of beleivers. Even Thomas Aquinas was not that foolish.

 

[Pwrlftr]

It is a mistake to believe that inspiration by the Holy Spirit of the human authors was basically dictation. The human authors were able to use whatever literary skills and techniques they had to put across those truths intended by the Holy Spirit, thus there is no conflict between some portion being, for example, a myth, a legend, pure fiction and the lesson/knowledge it is meant to impart.

It is foolish to lay the Bible open to ridicule by insisting in a “literalist” fashion that every fact of any kind is absolutely true. Such insistence turns away intelligent people who might otherwise accept those parts pertaining to Faith and Salvation and be brought into the fold of beleivers. Even Thomas Aquinas was not that foolish.

Using allegory is not the same thing as making an error. Do you think there are errors in the scriptures? If so, why are they there?

 

[rwoehmke]

Allegory is a way of interpreting some of the scriptures. The scriptures as we have them include myth, legend, fiction, historical narrative, parables, apocalyptic material, and more. I personally believe that Jesus and some Old Testament persons did perform miracles. They are not fiction. In fact I believe that the only fiction in the New testament are most of Jesus’s parables.

Now that being said, there are problems with the time line from Creation to Moses. Strain as one might, it is quite obvious that the first human arrived on earth much earlier than 4000 B.C. There is no evidence what so ever for a World Wide Flood of the proportions described in the story of Noah. That does not say that Noah never existed or that he did not experience a great flood. Either the site of Jericho has not been accurately identified or its walls never did come tumbling down and the town put to the torch.

The structure of the Universe as derived from the OT does not at all fit with what we know about it today. Errors? I wouldn’t call them that, but I would say the writers of Scripture worked with the best knowledge of geography, astronomy, geology etc. as were known at the time. Certainly God or the Holy Spirit knows such things that we have not yet learned today, but was not a part of what was inspired except in that they were tools that made sensible the transfer of what was God’s Revelation to man. We depend on the Bishops in union with the Pope to teach us the correct and necessary knowledge from Scripture and Tradition needed for salvation.

 

[Newbie2]

Infallible in which way? If you’re talking about syntax, history, geography and non faith oriented stuff i’d agree. But in faith, morals, guide to spiritual life and our relationship with God- i’d say he’s wrong. have him clarify his statement.

Yes.

Scripture is generally described as inerrant rather than infallible.

Whether your instructor intended this distinction or otherwise I cannot say.

tee

Yes

It is a mistake to believe that inspiration by the Holy Spirit of the human authors was basically dictation. The human authors were able to use whatever literary skills and techniques they had to put across those truths intended by the Holy Spirit, thus there is no conflict between some portion being, for example, a myth, a legend, pure fiction and the lesson/knowledge it is meant to impart.

Excellent point, as evidenced by the differing accounts in the different Gospels of the same events. If it were dictation, such accounts would all be same, would they not?

 

[DarkMark]

The Holy Bible is infallible and inerrant (at least in the originals, since we can still have translations errors), at least this what my Catholic teachers has told me, and what I read in the encyclicals/letters of Popes.

There cannot be any errors or contradictions in the Bible, since the Magisterium defines Scriptures as the Word of God. Are there “apparent” contradictions? Yes, but there are not really contradictions as many scholars pointed out.

The Bible cannot decieve, but most choose to interpret Scriptures without the Authority of the Catholic Church, and thus come to conclusions that are false.

“Everything that the hagiographer affirms, states, or implies ougth to be taken as affirmed, stated, or implies by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Truthfulness has to do with agreement between what one expresses and what one thinks or feels; inerrancy means absolute freedom from error. Consequently, in Holy Scripture there can be no errors whatsoever because, since all of it is inspired, God himself is the author of all its parts” (The Navarre Bible: Gospels and Acts, Page 19)

“For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.”
Augustine,To Jerome,Epistle 82,1:3(A.D. 405),in NPNF1,I:350

 

[MH84]

The Holy Bible is infallible and inerrant (at least in the originals, since we can still have translations errors), at least this what my Catholic teachers has told me, and what I read in the encyclicals/letters of Popes.

I have heard this too, but it seems like a convenient suggestion doesn’t it? Because there is no way of knowing, that the translations have errors in them or whether they were copied completely.

 

[Newbie2]

That’s why Christianity is a faith, not a science.

 

[MH84]

That’s why Christianity is a faith, not a science.

So we are to have “faith” that the Scripture are inerrant? How come so many people here are telling us whether the Scriptures are inerrant or not?

 

[Newbie2]

Yep.

I dunno why so many ask about it. Even if the discussion is strictly on the aspects of translation, we’d have to read and understand Greek, Hebrew and possibly Aramaic in order to determine if the translation is genuine.

Since (most of us) don’t understand these languages, we have to have a measure of faith that they’re reliable translations.

 

[inthecloud]

Or do you believe that there may be some copyist errors?

As Hershel Schanks has showed us, there were serious copists errors in the OT. Some favor the LXX some the MT text.
The whole first part of Samuel 1, 11 who was quoted by Josephus was missing from both the surviving versions of the LXX and the MT and was only found when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.
It seems that a copyist just omited copying a whole line of a scroll sometimes during the I century and that mistake got to both the LXX and the MT. Only 2000 years latter we got the full text of Samuel 1,11.
That is probably the most glaring copyist mistake on the “infalible Bible”.
But there are more in the OT. In the NT I do not know. I got from Jewish scholars.

 

[loscampos]

First we must have a question or hypothesis: Which has more authority, the church or scripture? We could also make this into a statement: The bible has more authority than the church. The converse statement would be: the church has more authority than the bible.

After the question we must look for any scripture verses that explicitly state one or the other.

The argument for Biblical authority:

            2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”

The argument for Church authority:

            Mat 18:15-18 “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

            1 Tim 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Now that we have some explicit scripture verses we must find their implied meanings. As a side note, we could bring points on what constitutes the church, what is the body of the church, how do we determine if a book in scripture is inspired if it isn’t explicitly stated and so forth? All of these topics we will dive deeper into in further essays, but in order to stay on the current topic we will not go into all of these points that could be brought up.

Our second task is the context and the meanings of theses verses. In 2 Tim 3:15 we find that scripture is important for teaching and reproving etc. An underlying problem with this verse to prove scripture has more authority than the church is; if two people are teaching two different things from the same scripture. If the two in dispute are using the same scripture for correction and reproof, how then shall the dispute be settled? Mat 18:15-18 clearly states they must go to the church to settle the matter. The next question is then, why do we go to the church to settle the matter and not only scripture? We go to the church because it is the pillar of truth. This is an important concept because Jesus himself is truth. He is passing down his authority on truth to the church. This is especially clear if we continue on and finish reading 1 Tim 3:16, he refers to binding and loosing. Although this topic can be further talked about, we will use only what is relevant. The church is the truth because it can leave things out of heaven, something the bible in itself cannot do.

Lastly do either one of these points contradict themselves or any other passages pertaining to authority. “The bible has more authority than the church,” contradicts itself and the authority of the church. Continuing from our example on two people disputing each other from the same verse, not only does the bible tell us to go to the church to settle disputes, it tell us that it is not for private interpretation. This is made clear in 2 Pet 1:20 “Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation,” We can go in many different directions with this verse, but we will stick to the framework of authority. The altercation between the two people has part of its roots in conflicting interpretations. Within a larger context, if these two were leaders of different churches in Christianity, if neither church has authority over each other, then aren’t they both just interpreting the bible as their own? The main point is that there is a singular reference to adjudicate differences and it is a singular church and not scripture.

Does the statement “the church has more authority than the bible,” contradict itself or other teachings. The answer is no, not only for the reasons stated above; we could also look at binding again in more depth, as well as the spirit leading us in truth and so forth. Used in conjunction with each other 2 Tim is a great leading point into the other two verses.

Following a clear path used equally on both sides of the argument the following can be stated:

“The bible has more authority than the church,” is not explicitly stated, not implied, contradicts itself, does not fit within the context of authority.

Conversely “the church has more authority than the bible,” is explicitly stated as well as implied in many others, does not contradict itself and fits perfectly within the context of authority.

taken from: lococatolico.com/Essays.html