Is there error in the Bible?

[trumpet152]

Does the Catholic Church say that the Bible is inerrant?

 

[Todd_Easton]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

107. The inspired books teach the truth. “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 the Sacred Scriptures.”
Of course, the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures applies to the original manuscripts only, which are no longer extant.

 

[trumpet152]

So why do I see a number of articles at newadvent.org that imply error? I also notice a number of Catholic posters who don’t see the Bible as inerrant. What’s up with that?

 

[Ghosty]

trumpet152:

So why do I see a number of articles at newadvent.org that imply error? I also notice a number of Catholic posters who don’t see the Bible as inerrant. What’s up with that?

Because Todd Easton didn’t underline the entire pertainant part. They are without error in teaching the truth that God wished confided in Scripture for the sake of our salvation. They can contain errors that do not pertain to our faith or salvation, such as misnaming people, describing certain battles in an incorrect way, ect. The Spiritual Truth in the Scripture is without error, however, meaning that there is nothing inside it which, properly (Catholic) understood will lead one to lose their salvation or contradict the Faith.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Anonymous_1]

Ghosty:

Because Todd Easton didn’t underline the entire pertainant part. They are without error in teaching the truth that God wished confided in Scripture for the sake of our salvation. They can contain errors that do not pertain to our faith or salvation, such as misnaming people, describing certain battles in an incorrect way, ect. The Spiritual Truth in the Scripture is without error, however, meaning that there is nothing inside it which, properly (Catholic) understood will lead one to lose their salvation or contradict the Faith.

Peace and God bless!

are you sure this si correct according to what the Church teaches? I know for certain that Bible has been proven to be very reliable historically i have evenr ead quotes from serious scholars and historians saying that history does not refute any of the hsitorical events int he Bible.

 

[RobNY]

Ghosty:

Because Todd Easton didn’t underline the entire pertainant part. They are without error in teaching the truth that God wished confided in Scripture for the sake of our salvation. They can contain errors that do not pertain to our faith or salvation, such as misnaming people, describing certain battles in an incorrect way, ect. The Spiritual Truth in the Scripture is without error, however, meaning that there is nothing inside it which, properly (Catholic) understood will lead one to lose their salvation or contradict the Faith.

Peace and God bless!

Are you sure Ghosty? This seems to be exactly what it doesn’t mean, but is often misinterpreted as.

107. The inspired books teach the truth. “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 the Sacred Scriptures.”

“For the sake of our salvation,” is a parenthical statement explaning why God wanted to confide truth to Scripture-- for our salvation, not meant as a restrictive on the inerrancy of Scripture. “… that truth which God wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures,” with the parenthical comment explaining why he wanted it confided, “for the sake of our salvation.”

I think the translation of Dei Verbum at the Vatican website bears me out on this one:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.

I say this especially because of how Divnio Afflante Spiritu treats inerrancy.

From Divino Afflante Spiritu:

When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.

For “the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine’s - [6] the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation”; which principle “will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,”[7] that is, by refuting, “in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks.”[8] Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if “copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible,” or, “if the real meaning of a passage remains ambiguous.” Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden “either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,” since divine inspiration “not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.”[9]

Your thoughts, Ghosty?

 

[MaryAgnes]

Ghosty:

Because Todd Easton didn’t underline the entire pertainant part. They are without error in teaching the truth that God wished confided in Scripture for the sake of our salvation. They can contain errors that do not pertain to our faith or salvation, such as misnaming people, describing certain battles in an incorrect way, ect. The Spiritual Truth in the Scripture is without error, however, meaning that there is nothing inside it which, properly (Catholic) understood will lead one to lose their salvation or contradict the Faith.

Peace and God bless!

I have to agree with you, Ghosty. They are without error in teaching the truth that God wished confided in Scripture for the sake of our salvation. How else would we account for two very different creation stories? Two different Geneologies of Jesus? Was the Last Supper really the Passover Meal (in John’s Gospel Jesus died the day of Preparation-the day BEFORE Passover)? And what are the names of the 12 Apostles(Check all 4 Gosples)? Even the historical books contain (historical) error. So, to say the Bible is without ANY error would be incorrect.

 

[RobNY]

MaryAgnes:

How else would we account for two very different creation stories?

The Catechism has the answer:

**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.75

**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."76

Two different stories can be harmonious if we take into account what the Sacred Author intended to impart.

Two different Geneologies of Jesus?

Jimmy Akin has an idea… and I believe he copped it from Eusebius. I had seen this with a chart elsewhere, recently, but I can’t find it right now. EDIT: Found it! It’s a helpful one. Also check out Eusebius’ work here, as well as the thread from which I’m copping all this information.

Was the Last Supper really the Passover Meal (in John’s Gospel Jesus died the day of Preparation-the day BEFORE Passover)?

Ghosty could answer this for you, but I believe it isn’t necessarily a conflict, in fact, in another thread she says this:

Ghosty:

Actually that’s a common misconception. The first two days of the Passover are feasts, so the fact that the people had to prepare for the feast on the day of Jesus’ execution in John does not negate it being the second day of Passover. What’s more, it would have been the Sabbath of Passover, which itself is a special day of celebration regardless. The first day is the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the second day is the Pilgrim’s Feast. If the Last Supper had been the night before the First Seder of Passover, Jesus would not have joined in the meal, as the first-born son of a Jewish family must fast the day before Passover begins.

And what are the names of the 12 Apostles(Check all 4 Gosples)?

I’m not familiar with this one, but can’t people have multiple names?

Even the historical books contain (historical) error. So, to say the Bible is without ANY error would be incorrect.

As is, the Bible has errors. But we don’t exclude copyist errors. The question is, were the errors originals? Or are they merely things which we are interpreting incorrectly?

 

[MaryAgnes]

RobNY:

The Catechism has the answer:

**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.75

**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."76

Two different stories can be harmonious if we take into account what the Sacred Author intended to impart.

Exactly my point. The inerrant TRUTH of the Sacred Text is

[T]hat truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures. Dei Verbum, 11

So it does not matter if God created mankind before he created the trees, shrubs and grass (the garden) as in Genesis 2 or after as in Genesis 1 … the TRUTH is that God created mankind in his image and likeness. Therefore, NEITHER of the Creation stories has to be true (inerrant)–but the truth they profess does.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

trumpet152:

Does the Catholic Church say that the Bible is inerrant?

Yes.

The following is from Cardinal Augustin Bea, a Vatican II peritus (expert) who asserts the correct understanding of inerrancy in accord with Vatican II “’*In fact, we declare in general that there is no limit set to this inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms” *(Cardinal Augustin Bea, *The Word of God and Mankind, *Fransican Herald Press, 1967, p. 189)

Cardinal Augustin Bea was the Jesuit Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, and was the Vatican II *peritus *chosen to instruct bishops on biblical matters at the opening of Vatican II. His understanding of Biblical inerrancy is in accord with Vatican II. He asserts, as do other post-Vatican II scholars, that ***“Every assertion of the sacred writer–whether it be religious or moral or scientific or historical–is free from error, because God wanted these writers to convey to us unalloyed truth for the sake of our salvation.” ***(MSgr George Kelly, The New Biblical Theorists, 1983, pg. 157)

The dogma of inerrancy is also affirmed in June 29, 1998, by Pope Benedict, who was at that time still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the president of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and the prelate of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. He asserted that “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” is an infallible, immutable dogma of the Catholic Church, “to be believed as divinely revealed,” and is “of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.” This Catholic dogma “require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy” (Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fide, approved and promulgated by Pope John Paul II).

As such, the following proposition, having been condemned by Pope St. Pius X, remains an authentic condemnation of Catholicism: “[The proposition that asserts] Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scripture in such a way that it renders all of its parts free from every error [is condemend.]” (Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, July 5, 1907)

 

[Ghosty]

My main point is that the stories are told with the Spiritual intent in mind, rather than historical accuracy. I’m not so much saying that the people who wrote them didn’t know the facts, or lied, but rather that any errors or inconsitancies found in Scripture should be understood either as not pertaining to the Faith, or altered in order to better highlight the faith.

The perfect example is the Book of Judith, which says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians. There are explainations for this, but it is an obvious historical error. The intent may not have been historical, however, so it’s not an issue. No matter how you cut it, though, the statement that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of a nation that he was not is a historical error, intentional or not.

Peace and God bless!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.

The key to understanding inerrancy is to focus on what is asserted by the inspired authors. It is the divine author’s intent that matters, and that is both the heart and challenge of exegesis. What did sacred author intend? Sometimes we get this wrong and attempt to accuse the Sacred Author of error, when really it is our misunderstanding the author’s intent which is the error.

For example, if the Divine author intended to tailor historical accounts according to the needs of the hearers, consolidating, synthesizing, using different contexts, etc., then is he in error for doing so? Did he intend the account to be strict history, or didactic account of historical events?

 

[Ghosty]

For example, if the Divine author intended to tailor historical accounts according to the needs of the hearers, consolidating, synthesizing, using different contexts, etc., then is he in error for doing so? Did he intend the account to be strict history, or didactic account of historical events?

Therein lies the difference in definition. One can say that the Bible contains real historical errors when it doesn’t intend to treat on history.

I just won’t say that there aren’t errors of history in the Bible because that would be a false statement without in-depth clarification. What’s more important is affirming that whatever errors appear, they do not represent misrepresentation on the part of the authors, and they indicate that a different understanding of the intent, aside from historical, is needed for that writing. In essence, I agree completely with itsjustdave1988 and, I think, RobNY. Sources that talk about errors in Scripture, however, are usually taking the meaning I’m using here.

Peace and God bless!

 

[MaryAgnes]

Ghosty:

My main point is that the stories are told with the Spiritual intent in mind, rather than historical accuracy. I’m not so much saying that the people who wrote them didn’t know the facts, or lied, but rather that any errors or inconsitancies found in Scripture should be understood either as not pertaining to the Faith, or altered in order to better highlight the faith.

The perfect example is the Book of Judith, which says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians. There are explainations for this, but it is an obvious historical error. The intent may not have been historical, however, so it’s not an issue. No matter how you cut it, though, the statement that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of a nation that he was not is a historical error, intentional or not.

Peace and God bless!

I agree

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ghosty:

Therein lies the difference in definition. One can say that the Bible contains real historical errors when it doesn’t intend to treat on history.

I just won’t say that there aren’t errors of history in the Bible because that would be a false statement without in-depth clarification. What’s more important is affirming that whatever errors appear, they do not represent misrepresentation on the part of the authors, and they indicate that a different understanding of the intent, aside from historical, is needed for that writing. In essence, I agree completely with itsjustdave1988 and, I think, RobNY. Sources that talk about errors in Scripture, however, are usually taking the meaning I’m using here.

Peace and God bless!

I think we are saying the same thing, but I cannot say there are errors in the Bible for the same reason I cannot say that “faith alone” justifies without a heck of a lot of qualifications. It would be contrary and dangerous to the faith to do so. There’s much more qualifications needed when saying “faith alone” really means “faith which includes love and hope, and oh yeah, repentence, and don’t forget being born from above.”

Likewise, inerrancy (as defined by Catholic teaching to be the absence of all error in what the sacred author affirms) is dogma, and saying the Bible errs is in my view contrary to dogma, and can be easily understood as the Jesus Seminar has concluded, blaming the sacred texts for errors, when instead the error is in misunderstanding the texts.

It is tantamount to saying the sacred author erred in what he wrote, and as the Jesus Seminar asserts, Jesus didn’t really raise from the dead as the authors clearly assert, but was likely to be eaten by dogs. The search for the “historical Jesus” is filled with conclusions that are contrary to the inerrant assertions of the Sacred Writers, because they have an a priori view that the Bible is not inerrant.

Catholics would have to have so many qualifications to such an assertion that the “Bible is not inerrant” to make such a dangerous statement “true” that I, instead, prefer to join with the saints…

**St. Justin Martyr, ***Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, *(ca AD 155):

I am totally convinced that no Scripture is contradictory to another, I shall admit instead that I do not understand what is spoken of (65)

From St. Irenaeus’ *Against Heresies *(ca. AD 180/199):

If, however, we are not able to find explanations for all those passages of Scripture which are investigated…we must leave to God, the One who made us, knowing full well that the Scriptures are certainly perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and by His Spirit. [2, 28, 2]

St. Augustine of Hippo, *Letter to Faustus, *AD 400, & *Letter to St. Jerome, *AD 405:

“If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.” (Augustine,Reply to Faustus the Manichean,11:5(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:1)

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 manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. (Ltr LXXXII. (A.D. 405.), reply to St. Jerome’s letters LXXII., LXXV., and LXXXI)

 

[Ghosty]

Catholics would have to have so many qualifications to such an assertion that the “Bible is not inerrant” to make such a dangerous statement “true” that I, instead, prefer to join with the saints…

Very true! My line of reasoning was primarily in response to this:

So why do I see a number of articles at newadvent.org that imply error? I also notice a number of Catholic posters who don’t see the Bible as inerrant. What’s up with that?

There seemed to be confusion between saying that the Bible is inerrant, and the Bible is always presenting facts. I definately could have been clearer with my statement. My apologies!

Pax!

 

[malachi_a_serva]

MaryAgnes:

So it does not matter if God created mankind before he created the trees, shrubs and grass (the garden) as in Genesis 2 or after as in Genesis 1 … the TRUTH is that God created mankind in his image and likeness. Therefore, NEITHER of the Creation stories has to be true (inerrant)–but the truth they profess does.

Here is how I always understood this, yes it is from Kent Hovind. Regardless, I believe it to make sense.

Contradictions in the Bible?
Do Genesis chapters 1 and 2 conflict? When scoffers claim that the Bible is full of contradictions, they almost always cite Genesis 1 and 2 as examples.

1. Genesis 1:11 has the trees made on day three before man; Genesis 2:9 has the trees made on day six after man.
2. Genesis 1:20 has birds made out of the water on day five; Genesis 2:19 has birds made out of the ground (after man) on day six.
3. Genesis 1:24, 25 has the animals made on day 6 before man; Genesis 2:19 has the animals made on day six after man.

A careful reading of the two chapters will show the solution for each of the supposed contradictions.

Explanation of supposed contradiction 1:
A. Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.
B. Genesis 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.
C. Genesis 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day six in the Garden of Eden.
D. The trees described in Genesis 2:9 are only in the Garden of Eden; the rest of the world is already full of trees from day three. The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have the power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day six and was only trees that are “pleasant to the sight and good for food.”

Explanation of supposed contradiction 2:
The birds created out of the ground on day six are only one of each “kind” so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day five.

Explanation of supposed contradiction3:
Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Genesis 2:19) and select a wife (Genesis 2:20). Since Adam could not find a suitable mate (God knew he wouldn’t), He made Eve (Genesis 2:21-22).

There are no contradictions between these two chapters. Chapter 2 only describes in more detail the events in the Garden of Eden on day six. If ancient man had written the Bible (as some scoffers say), he would never have made it say that the light was made before the sun! Many ancient cultures worshipped the sun as the source of life. God is light. God made the light before He made the sun so we could see that He (not the sun) is the source of life.

Dr. Kent Hovind.

 

[RobNY]

Ghosty:

Therein lies the difference in definition. One can say that the Bible contains real historical errors when it doesn’t intend to treat on history.

I just won’t say that there aren’t errors of history in the Bible because that would be a false statement without in-depth clarification. What’s more important is affirming that whatever errors appear, they do not represent misrepresentation on the part of the authors, and they indicate that a different understanding of the intent, aside from historical, is needed for that writing. In essence, I agree completely with itsjustdave1988 and, I think, RobNY. Sources that talk about errors in Scripture, however, are usually taking the meaning I’m using here.

Peace and God bless!

I think we agree in substance. The whole deal with intent is exactly what I was trying to address when quoting the relevant portion to MaryAgnes for explaning the Genesis creation stories.

Oh and, you never responded to my fan club comment.

itsjustdave1988–

Thanks for all the good references.

Just a question, I know that there are many, apparent biblical contradictions. What are your favorite sources for reconciling difficult passages or inconsistencies?

 

[MaryAgnes]

malachi_a_serva:

Here is how I always understood this, yes it is from Kent Hovind. Regardless, I believe it to make sense.

Contradictions in the Bible?
Do Genesis chapters 1 and 2 conflict? When scoffers claim that the Bible is full of contradictions, they almost always cite Genesis 1 and 2 as examples.

1. Genesis 1:11 has the trees made on day three before man; Genesis 2:9 has the trees made on day six after man.
2. Genesis 1:20 has birds made out of the water on day five; Genesis 2:19 has birds made out of the ground (after man) on day six.
3. Genesis 1:24, 25 has the animals made on day 6 before man; Genesis 2:19 has the animals made on day six after man.

A careful reading of the two chapters will show the solution for each of the supposed contradictions.

Explanation of supposed contradiction 1:
A. Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.
B. Genesis 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.
C. Genesis 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day six in the Garden of Eden.
D. The trees described in Genesis 2:9 are only in the Garden of Eden; the rest of the world is already full of trees from day three. The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have the power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day six and was only trees that are “pleasant to the sight and good for food.”

Explanation of supposed contradiction 2:
The birds created out of the ground on day six are only one of each “kind” so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day five.

Explanation of supposed contradiction3:
Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Genesis 2:19) and select a wife (Genesis 2:20). Since Adam could not find a suitable mate (God knew he wouldn’t), He made Eve (Genesis 2:21-22).

There are no contradictions between these two chapters. Chapter 2 only describes in more detail the events in the Garden of Eden on day six. If ancient man had written the Bible (as some scoffers say), he would never have made it say that the light was made before the sun! Many ancient cultures worshipped the sun as the source of life. God is light. God made the light before He made the sun so we could see that He (not the sun) is the source of life.

Dr. Kent Hovind.

I believe Scripture Scholars would have a problem with Hovind’s explanations, given the Creation accounts are thought to be myth.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

MaryAgnes:

I believe Scripture Scholars would have a problem with Hovind’s explanations, given the Creation accounts are thought to be myth.

But if the RCC allows for one to believe in a literal 6 day creation so it isn’t contray to church teachings so Scripture Scholars (if they are Catholic) should not have a problem with it?

Is that not right?