Issue with Entire Bible being Inspired and Sacred

[dangerousdyls]

Thanks for the clarification e_c.

I guess I need to dig in and get into the nitty gritty of this. I’m trying to grasp this all at once and it’s too much for me to absorb. Hopefully the book and resources you recommended will help sort some things out for me.

 

[Faith1960]

The original post in this thread is exactly why we need more Bible Study.

-Tim-

I agree but I must add something. We need more Bible Study led by qualified people. I once went to one where we used a book. The leader was like blind leading the blind and she didn’t have the answers to the questions in the book so we had to talk it out among all of us.

 

[Faith1960]

To start out let me give you a book to read… Where We Got the Bible …Our Debt to the Catholic Church by : The Right Rev. Henry G. Graham (TAN Books ISBN 9790895551374 ).

I would encourage you to purchase a good Catholic Study Bible and then search for a
Catholic Bible study group at a Catholic Church. You can find lots of Bible study groups
in Dallas but beware not all are Catholic. Search at your church and if they do not have one look for others in your area. If you are a serious student see if your diocese has a
Lay Ministry program.

By all means stay away from sites that are not Catholic … just because it is on the internet does not necessarily make it true. Also be careful of sites that have Catholic in their name … some are not good resources for Catholic teaching that conform to the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Hope this helps.

I found one that had Catholic in its name an after a short while I realized it wasn’t even a Catholic site.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I found one that had Catholic in its name an after a short while I realized it wasn’t even a Catholic site.

I stick to this site. I tend not to take individual posters on this Forum as writing “Catholic truth” or Truth from any other demonination or faith, I’m sure some are, some are very close and some are nowhere near it.

There used to be a couple of priests on here, one is Don Ruggero and there used to be a monk on here (who is sick and not on here as much, may God comfort him), their posts are always enlightening.

Apart from this forum we also have the Ask an Apologist section on here. All my questions on the faith are answered in small articles by apologists. I just google the question and add “Catholic Answers to the end” and it brings me to catholic.com.

Another useful site is the Vatican website: w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html

Catholic bookstores have great starter books as well.

 

[Ron_Conte]

“According to Scripture scholar Raymond Brown, the awareness of these so-called historical errors moved the Church at Vatican II to teach that the Bible is free from error only in matters of faith and morals and not in matters of history and science (New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1169).

Vatican II did NOT say “only” in matters of faith and morals, not did the Council say anything about matters of history or science. That is Brown’s erroneous conclusion.

Past magisterial teachings is very clear and definitive that no errors of any kind, not even on physical science or history are possible. Total inspiration and total inerrancy.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Seven Words on the Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture

1. Pope St. Clement I: “Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.” (Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 45).
2. Pope Leo XIII: “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… For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that 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 unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).
3. Pope St. Pius X 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, ‘Syllabus of Errors,’ n. 11).
4. Pope Benedict XV: “St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error… But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church – nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning – who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point… Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16, 18, 21).
5. Pope Pius XII: “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.” (Humani Generis, n. 22).
6. Pope Pius XII: “The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that ‘the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.’ In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical ‘not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.’ 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.” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1).
7. Second Vatican Council: “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit…” (Dei Verbum, n. 11).

 

[Faith1960]

Vatican II did NOT say “only” in matters of faith and morals, not did the Council say anything about matters of history or science. That is Brown’s erroneous conclusion.

Past magisterial teachings is very clear and definitive that no errors of any kind, not even on physical science or history are possible. Total inspiration and total inerrancy.

So what does it mean when, say, the Bible says something wrong like about the sun, the two different descriptions of the beginning of the universe or other “errors” (I know you say they are no errors so I put the word in parenthesis, for a lack of a better word). Errors, discrepancies, not lining up with what’s known about science and history etc.

 

[e_c]

Anything that looks like physical science in Scripture is something else. It was not a concern of the sacred authors.

 

[JaKael02]

I get the sense the thread author is questioning how man can recognize divine inspiration?

Tough to answer. Most here just take for granted the authority of the Catholic church. But protestants don’t and take for granted the authority of the 66 books of scripture.

This is how I come to conclude in the authority of the Catholic church:

Using what is in the Gospels, extra-biblical writings, natural reason, and faith Christians conclude Jesus is God, not just a prophet or crazy man. This means we can accept what he said as truth. Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.*

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.**

 

[Faith1960]

So what does it mean when, say, the Bible says something wrong like about the sun, the two different descriptions of the beginning of the universe or other “errors” (I know you say they are no errors so I put the word in parenthesis, for a lack of a better word). Errors, discrepancies, not lining up with what’s known about science and history etc.

Anyone?

 

[Faith1960]

Okay…so, I found a link here on CA:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-everything-in-the-bible-true

“According to Scripture scholar Raymond Brown, the awareness of these so-called historical errors moved the Church at Vatican II to teach that the Bible is free from error only in matters of faith and morals and not in matters of history and science (New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1169). Brown supports this claim by appealing to section 11 of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), which reads, “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.” The phrase “for the sake of our salvation” is the key reference used to argue that only those things needed for our salvation (i.e., faith and morals) and not history and science, are free from error.”

So, to clarify, do you disagree with what Raymond Brown is saying? You say no histocial error, but he leaves room for historical error

What does it mean in the last paragraph under “Then What Does It Mean”, where they quote st. Augustine and he says: …“I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty…”

Doesn’t that mean that there ARE errors in the Bible or, if not, what does it mean?

 

[Ron_Conte]

So what does it mean when, say, the Bible says something wrong like about the sun, the two different descriptions of the beginning of the universe or other “errors” (I know you say they are no errors so I put the word in parenthesis, for a lack of a better word). Errors, discrepancies, not lining up with what’s known about science and history etc.

These are not errors. We simply have to understand the text properly. Some things are explained in figures, such as the seven days of creation. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are highly figurative.

 

[Ron_Conte]

What does it mean in the last paragraph under “Then What Does It Mean”, where they quote st. Augustine and he says: …“I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty…”

Doesn’t that mean that there ARE errors in the Bible or, if not, what does it mean?

“the text is faulty” refers to errors of copyists, editors, and translators, not to errors in Sacred Scripture.

 

[e_c]

Anyone?

Once again, anything in Scripture that looks like physical science is something else. It was not a concern of the sacred authors.

How many poems are there about the universe that get general relativity, cosmology, or any such thing wrong but get the human heart right? If I ask the poet what he intended by what he wrote, he would certainly say “to teach about love/death/hope/pain/whatever using images from our experience of the natural world.”

Pull up a particular verse or two and we can have a go at it.

 

[Ontheway]

“Entirely inerrant” – does this mean you disagree with what PaulfromIowa said above?

I’m really struggling with the concept of it being “inerrant”. Can you give a deeper explanation of inerrant? For example, if some of these writers accepted slavery, wouldn’t that mean their thinking/writing was errant?

We have the same problem with the founding fathers. I have seen slave quarters at George Washington’s estate. Many people think of GW as the father of our democracy. How can one reconcile the declaration of independence with slavery?

I am no expert on the OT, but these stories were written by men a few thousand years ago. It is not possible to apply today’s standards to their realities and their way of thinking.

Did God give Israel permission to destroy their neighbors in order to create a homeland? Did God give us the right to destroy the native Americans so we can have Hollywood? This struggle for land is part of human history. Is it part of God’s plan?

Finally, as men they were sinners. (as are we) They were not perfect creatures. When God sent them messages, they wrote them down, along with the story of their times.

The question that remains for me is our take on the OT. As Catholics we do not interpret the NT literally. It stands to reason that we would not treat the OT differently.

I can see how the sola scriptura folks would be in a quandary, but it is for them to work out.

 

[Faith1960]

“the text is faulty” refers to errors of copyists, editors, and translators, not to errors in Sacred Scripture.

So how are we to know what the text is supposed to mean?

 

[Ron_Conte]

So how are we to know what the text is supposed to mean?

We can recognize the errors particular to an edition (errors of copyists, printers, editors, translators) by comparison to other editions.

Example: “the murderer’s bible” – an edition in which the printer inadvertently omitted “not” from the verse “thou shalt not kill”. And the adulterers Bible, where a printer error omitted “not” from “thou shalt not commit adultery”.

We also have the witness of Tradition and the guidance of the Magisterium. So the truths of Scripture are not lost when editors or translators err.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Once again, anything in Scripture that looks like physical science is something else. It was not a concern of the sacred authors.

How many poems are there about the universe that get general relativity, cosmology, or any such thing wrong but get the human heart right? If I ask the poet what he intended by what he wrote, he would certainly say “to teach about love/death/hope/pain/whatever using images from our experience of the natural world.”

Pull up a particular verse or two and we can have a go at it.

Pope Pius XII taught: “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.” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)."

The teaching of the Magisterium is that every assertion of Scripture on every subject, including physical science and history. To claim that the Bible contains nothing on the subject of physical science is to contradict this papal teaching.

Examples of truths on physical science in the Bible:

1. Prior to the 1930’s, the common view of scientists is that the physical universe had always existed. But the Bible has always taught that Creation had a beginning. In the 1930’s, scientists proposed that the universe had a discrete beginning (the Big Bang).
2. The creation of the human race by God, and our distinction from the lower animals.
3. That all human persons are descended from Adam and Eve
4. That a worldwide flood event caused great devastation in the history of the world

 

[Faith1960]

“the text is faulty” refers to errors of copyists, editors, and translators, not to errors in Sacred Scripture.

History and geography in the Bible aren’t always correct. Is that due to the copyists, editors and translators?

 

[e_c]

I suppose that I was a little sloppy in wording that. Thank you for pointing it out. So let’s make a distinction.

There are assertions in Scripture that, if interpreted faithfully, necessarily involve assumptions with great bearing on physical science.

The authors were not doing physical science.

Clear as mud? I mean that you ought not to read the text as you would a paper by Isaac Newton. If we did, we would not get ex nihilo creation from Genesis, for instance, even though it teaches it.