Is there error in the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidbrown
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thistle said:
  1. and 4. above seem to contradict 1. and 2.
  2. and 2. in my opinion are saying there can be no errors of any kind (even those which have no bearing on any truth relating to our salvation) whereas 3. and 4. seem to be saying that there can be no errors in anything relating to truths relating to our salvation but they don’t apply to other matters.
Click to expand...
In what way do you beleive this? The church has never taught anything but the bible being totally inerrant. This is what the Church teaches now, that is what Vatican II says, that is what the Church has always taught and beleived. Where’s the contradiction? 🤷
 
You can view discussion on this topic beginning here. Following this thread will link you to other threads and resources. The Bible is free from all error.

“Sidbrown,” a.k.a. “JP Marat,” a.k.a. “Little Les,” has been banned before and he’ll be banned again. But try to stay out of trouble this time, sidbrown, because I’d still like to interact with you on the census of Luke 2. Just give me some time. I’ll be back! 🙂

In Christ,
Pete
 
peary1 said:
It’s all summed up by the Second Vatican Council: "Since therefore, all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to sacred Scripture"

Whether Ochozias was 22 or 42 years of age and ruled one year in Jerusalem has nothing to do with our salvation in Christ. When the popes write their encyclicals on Scripture, please keep in mind that they are not proposing a total and literal translation of the Bible but the Truth of our salvation.
Click to expand...
From what I’ve read so far, there is no Church documentation saying that Scripture is true only when it concerns salvation. A historical type of literature should be correct from a historical standpoint as I understood it. The same correctness is however not expected from other literary genre like apocalyptic writings, poetry.

My question really is what does the Church say about the accuracy of the Bible. Does the Church allow that the Bible does contain error (copyist errors) but that it is ok since it does not affect any doctrine on salvation?
 
sidbrown said:
Is there error in the Bible?
  1. In 1893, Pope Leo XIII issued his major biblical encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, in which he affirmed that “God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true”
  2. In 1920, Pope Benedict XV in his encyclical marking the 15th century of the death of St. Jerome, Spiritus Paraclitus, continued Pope Leo’s teaching: “Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception and no error can occur in the inspired text”
  3. The Second Vatican Council repeated this teaching in Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation): “Since therefore, all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to sacred Scripture”
  4. The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “God is the author of sacred Scripture because He inspired its human authors; He acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error His saving truth”
Although it is affirmed that there is no error in the Bible, here is an example of an error from the Catholic Douay Rheims version:
Fourth Book of Kings 8: 26 Ochozias was two and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
Second Book Of Paralipomenon, chapter 22: 2 Ochozias was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem
Click to expand...
so who says it is an error - I forget the explanation but I have seen this like a lot of other alleged errors and contradictions fully and adequatelly explained - so always accept that there cannot be any errors but only what may seem like errors for God cannot err - twinc
 
The question is not if this can be explained. It can.
The question is also not if this error affects any doctrine of salvation. It doesn’t
The question is what does the Church teach about the Bible being free from error and how do copyist errors fit into that explanation?

The reason I ask this is because if one is asked if your Bible is error-free then you need to define what error-free means. If you are saying that there is no error and then are given examples of copyist errors, do you qualify then what error-free means?

The best explanation I got was that the original manuscripts are the ones free from error. But this explanation encounters difficulty in that it appears that God did not protect His word from being error free in transmission.
 
crazzeto said:
In what way do you beleive this? The church has never taught anything but the bible being totally inerrant. This is what the Church teaches now, that is what Vatican II says, that is what the Church has always taught and beleived. Where’s the contradiction? 🤷
Click to expand...
I would like to explain my beliefs here more clearly, since I don’t believe this posting accuratly relfects them and I appologize for that.

I don’t mean to say that the Church doesn’t teach the bible isn’t inerrant with regards to faith and morals, it clearly is. I do mean to say that the Church does not claim the bible should be viewed as being authorative in matters of science etc, and also allows for certain historical discrepancies. This is because while it was written under the inspiration of the holy spirit, the tool used was human authors, with human weaknesses.

God bless,
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
Click to expand...
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”
Click to expand...
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”
Click to expand...
So it seems that, if interpreted correctly, then Scripture does not have error.
 
The_Scott said:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

So it seems that, if interpreted correctly, then Scripture does not have error.
Click to expand...
This seems to be a misleading way to describe inerrancy. The inerrancy of Scripture is not dependent on the reader’s interpretation skills. Its inerrancy is dependent upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
 
Inerrancy does not apply to any translations.

Inerrancy applies only to the truth taught in the original documents.

We have no original documents.

The documents we do have are copies and the copies contain error. Is the number of the Beast 666 or 616? Manuscripts disagree and IT DOESN’T MATTER.

There are words in scripture that we cannot translate - because we can only guess at their meaning.

Scripture is not the pillar and foundation or the bulwark and ground of truth.

The ancient authors were not interested in historical truth as we understand it today - i.e., they could not have cared less whether some king was 22 or 42.

Ancient writers were interested only in the deeper truth - truth that matters - truth about God and His people and their relationship to God.

The ancient authors used literary devices to tell that truth … poetry, analogy, metaphor, irony and even playing fast and loose with what we consider “facts.” E.g. was Methuselah a real old guy or did the ancient author use the common (for the time) technique of telling his readers how honored someone was by exaggerating his age?

Our idea of “scientific history” did not exist until a few hundred years ago ( it was invented in Germany and is impossible to attain even today, but we cling to the illusion ). Trying to read scripture through those glasses distorts scripture and damages faith.

Like Christ is both God and man, scripture is both divinely inspired and very human; therefore scripture is not going to be easily categorized, quantified, codified, known, understood or grasped. Get over it.

Scripture is inerrant but there may be human flaws (to our unworthy eyes) … get over it.
 
You know what is a truth now, that is also confirmed through geology and archaeology.

I don’t know if you guys have been following this, but the “History Channel” just ran a special on the “Exodus” Decode. Very impressive 2-hr show. All ten plagues confimed and explained, The Ring, with the Seal of Egypt, Joseph wore has been found dated and confimed. Parting of the Reed Sea is explained and confirmed with 3-stone engavings in Greece. The mountain in Sinai where Mose’s received the Ten Commandment was located. And on and on and on. ALL FACT.

Only thing that was wrong in the Holy Bible was the actual time line was slightly off. Which also explains why nothing has ever been located till this past decade. And the way we interpreted the Bible in certain areas has been wrong. We looked in the wrong area because of wrong interpretations. The Bible itself though is 100% correct. WE have been wrong.

The parting of the Red Sea in truth is the Parting of Reed Sea which actually existed right where the Bible explains and also exited in this area before the Suez Cannal was opened. The salt beds are in the desert today to prove it. We just can’t dig there to gain the artifacts that are definatly there. The area of the Ten Commandments was thought to be where St Catherines is at the base of Mt Sinai. This never fit the three actual clues the Bible gives us . They actually followed the Bibles geography and found the mountain. The mountain found fits the Bibles description perfectly. And there was a Natural Spring found on top of the mountain which was though to be very, very rare in this region. Its in the Sinai desert. In hebrew the name of the mountain is translated to GODS MOUNTAIN.

Most importantly, in the Old Testament the Bible calls GOD, L. Well in the land of Sinai an insrcription was also found in ancient alphabet which is the correct language it should be in for Slaves. Not Egyption Hieroglyphics. It was engarved by a slave and said. “My God L please don’t forget me”. And it dates back 3800 years.

Matter of fact the only thing that could be found to be the icing on the cake for the confirmation of Exodus is the Holy Grail. And they have found a miniture solid gold ancient piece which “is” exactly what it would look like according to the Bible. And its 3800 years old and dated and confirmed. Its from Greece where many of Mose’s people landed, Also found in Greece was the oldest map ever found my MAN–Period. And it clearly deplicts the journey of Mose’s from Egypt to Greece. Its perfectly preserved in color and content, its a very clear pictural description of the Exodus Its time dated correct. Mose’s was given Gold and Gold swords by the Pharoh. These were found and dated and are time correct.

The biggest problem existing today is actually getting Egypt to agree to any digging for Biblic Artifacts. Thats not happening. They do not allow this there anymore. And after this show was aired, I’m positive it will be just that more difficult.

But the actual date was moved up to 1475. So the Bible is off slightly over 100 years. All the pieces fit if you move the time line? And the actual content of the Bible then clearly becomes 100% correct.

Oh I forgot one piece. The Hail and Fire storm that was one of the Ten Plagues. This couln’t be explained. But what did confirm it was a time correct stome found with Hiroglyphics on it stating that the strange event of Hail and Fire did take place. On the same stone is the inscription of the parting of the Reed Sea in Hieroglyphics

You guys get a chance to see this special by the History Channel watch it, Its seriously facinating. I’m sure it will be on serveral times again. The History Channel also knew that those who have doubted the Bible for the past decades. Will now also claim that all the Natural events that were indeed the work of God in the 10-plagues, were nothing more than natural events? And they would be correct in this assessment also. But hey, thats there problem. This is also exactly what we are seeing now with evolution and physics. Just a blatant refusal to believe till MORE facts are presented. No fear they “are” coming.

Sorry about the long post, I found it pretty interesting. 😃
 
I used to like History specials on this subject matter, not so much anymore. It’s their mission to secularize the bible… Last I saw they were still fond of the “reed sea” theory, and they denied Joseph, Mary and an infant Christ went to Egypt.

I’m glad to read though, that at the very least they’re willing to admit that the pleges took place, and seemingly conceed that the Red Sea did indeed part. Though I don’t expect them to stop airing programming propagating the reed sea lie.
 
I’ve always considered learning history from the History Channel to be like learning how to hunt rabbits by watching Elmer Fudd.
 
quasimodo said:
I’ve always considered learning history from the History Channel to be like learning how to hunt rabbits by watching Elmer Fudd.
Click to expand...
LOL!!! They used to be pretty good, then they started trying to sell the contravertial, dramatic and sensational in an effort to get ratings. They’re now an utter failure in terms of their mission at any rate…
 
quasimodo said:
Inerrancy does not apply to any translations.

Inerrancy applies only to the truth taught in the original documents.

We have no original documents.

The documents we do have are copies and the copies contain error. Is the number of the Beast 666 or 616? Manuscripts disagree and IT DOESN’T MATTER.

There are words in scripture that we cannot translate - because we can only guess at their meaning.

Scripture is not the pillar and foundation or the bulwark and ground of truth.

The ancient authors were not interested in historical truth as we understand it today - i.e., they could not have cared less whether some king was 22 or 42.

Ancient writers were interested only in the deeper truth - truth that matters - truth about God and His people and their relationship to God.

The ancient authors used literary devices to tell that truth … poetry, analogy, metaphor, irony and even playing fast and loose with what we consider “facts.” E.g. was Methuselah a real old guy or did the ancient author use the common (for the time) technique of telling his readers how honored someone was by exaggerating his age?

Our idea of “scientific history” did not exist until a few hundred years ago ( it was invented in Germany and is impossible to attain even today, but we cling to the illusion ). Trying to read scripture through those glasses distorts scripture and damages faith.

Like Christ is both God and man, scripture is both divinely inspired and very human; therefore scripture is not going to be easily categorized, quantified, codified, known, understood or grasped. Get over it.

Scripture is inerrant but there may be human flaws (to our unworthy eyes) … get over it.
Click to expand...
Again, I do not have any issue with the errors as I am a Catholic. I don’t use the Bible alone as a rule of faith and therefore errors are more easily explained in the context of Tradition.

However, that is not the way to explain to an unbeliever like a Muslim. The best way is to give the definition of the Church of the Bible’s inerrancy and ensure our explanation is rock solid based on the Church’s teaching. However, as can be seen there are numerous ways of interpreting the Church’s doctrine.

Is inerrancy confined to those of Salvation? If inerrancy is not confined to matters of Faith, does it pertain to historical, logical and non-faith matters when applicable. For example Kings is an historical document, is it not? If it is then shouldn’t it be accurate at least in terms of non-contradictions?

Copyist errors in the Bible? An admission that there is and that this is ok goes to the argument of a unbeliever that God did not protect the Bible from corruption. Is the Church teaching that because God used fallible scribes that it is ok to find copyist errors in the translations?

I find this last one hard to digest as I have always believed in God’s promise that He will always be with us and that Hell will not triumph over God’s Church. Isn’t copyist error a form of corruption?

While you may have explained why there are errors you have yet to show me how I can go back to Scriptural basis or Church documents to explain these errors.
 
crazeeto

I used to like History specials on this subject matter, not so much anymore. It’s their mission to secularize the bible…

Thomas Jefferson likewise wanted to secularize the Bible. He rewrote the gospels and had them published, with all the miracles left out! :eek:

The French philosopher Voltaire disliked the Bible so much he predicted it would disappear from human history within a hundred years. A hundred years later Voltaire’s home was occupied by the Geneva Bible Society. 👍
 
sidbrown said:
Is there error in the Bible?
  1. In 1893, Pope Leo XIII issued his major biblical encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, in which he affirmed that “God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true”
  2. In 1920, Pope Benedict XV in his encyclical marking the 15th century of the death of St. Jerome, Spiritus Paraclitus, continued Pope Leo’s teaching: “Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception and no error can occur in the inspired text”
  3. The Second Vatican Council repeated this teaching in Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation): “Since therefore, all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to sacred Scripture”
  4. The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “God is the author of sacred Scripture because He inspired its human authors; He acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error His saving truth”
Although it is affirmed that there is no error in the Bible, here is an example of an error from the Catholic Douay Rheims version:
Fourth Book of Kings 8: 26 Ochozias was two and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
Second Book Of Paralipomenon, chapter 22: 2 Ochozias was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem
Click to expand...
There is no errors in the Bible in truths it asserts. Is the Age of the king being asserted? Or is his place in the line of kings and the duration of his rule being asserted?
 
=sidbrown;6104444]Is there error in the Bible?
  1. In 1893, Pope Leo XIII issued his major biblical encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, in which he affirmed that “God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true”
  2. In 1920, Pope Benedict XV in his encyclical marking the 15th century of the death of St. Jerome, Spiritus Paraclitus, continued Pope Leo’s teaching: “Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception and no error can occur in the inspired text”
  3. The Second Vatican Council repeated this teaching in Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation): “Since therefore, all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to sacred Scripture”
  4. The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “God is the author of sacred Scripture because He inspired its human authors; He acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error His saving truth”
Click to expand...
Although it is affirmed that there is no error in the Bible, here is an example of an error from the Catholic Douay Rheims version:
Fourth Book of Kings 8: 26 Ochozias was two and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
Second Book Of Paralipomenon, chapter 22: 2 Ochozias was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem
Click to expand...
***When the Church teaches and professes the Doctrine of Biblical Truth; She [Mother Church] is not testifying to historical truth; but to MORAL truths.

Becaue the biblical history preceeds by a very long time, written records; they relied on word of mouth and stories to continue and recall historical events. This process could cause differnt understandings, differnt recall of specifics. What can’t be in error are Moral Teachings, what God did, what God taught.***

Love and prayers,

Pat
 
Pat,

Thanks for your answer. Can you point to me the Church documents saying that the Bible only testifies to moral truths? I am not sure that the Church makes this distinction.

Thanks
 
Hi everyone! I’m going to ask about something my Dad presented to me this past weekend. I apologize if it repeats something already covered. As a busy Mom of 4 I don’t have time to read through all 38 pages on this thread or search the whole forum. My Dad brought up the whole issue of biblical mistakes in conversation. He said the King James Bible has over 1,000 errors and that the Douy Reems(sp?) 600 some(he stated specific numbers, that I don’t recall, for both of these) so the Catholic Bible is a more accurate version. I asked for an example of a mistake and he refered to the two men hanging on crosses with Jesus. Jesus said the one would be in paradise with Him today. Dad said that’s impossible because when Jesus saw Mary on Sunday He said He had not yet accended to His Father so if two days later He hadn’t been to paradise how could the other man have been? That, due to wrong punctuation, the meaning was changed from Jesus trying to say that I’m telling you today that you will be with me in heaven at the end of time. My Dad believes that all people sleep after they die until the end of time when the dead will be raised for the final judgement and second death. His source is the Seventh Day Adventist church.
He also stated the they didn’t break the legs of the two men to make them die faster but to prevent them from running away as they would be taken down for the sabbath and then put back up on the cross after sabbath was over to finish being crucified. I’ve never heard this one before. He claims that there is historical evidence that men being crucified would be put in a cell for the sabbath and that they would scrape together dirt into a pile and suffocate themselves in it to avoid being put back on the cross since they had broken legs and couldn’t run away.
Being that the two other men weren’t dead by the sabbath and would have been put back on the cross the following Sunday is another example of the same error since the one man wasn’t even dead that same day.
Have any of you heard stuff like this before and how do I respond? I love my Dad but he has no respect for the Catholic faith and is a constant source of attacks. I’ve never been one for debates but I would sure like to educate myself so I am better prepared in the future.
Thanks, Rebecca
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top