My doubts on the book of Exodus

[Anesti33]

George Washington is a real, historical person. He lived and died, he did good things and bad things, just like all of us.

When I was a kid, every child for generations knew the account of Young George Washington and the cherry tree.

St Francis was a real historical person. Everyone knows “preach the gospel always when necessary use words”.

Except neither real man did or said either of these things.

Those are not accounts held in Sacred Scripture. If you are accusing Moses of never leading the Exodus, as a Catholic that is a very serious false charge and I must beg you to recant of your error.

 

[Mmarco]

You must understand that the inerrancy of the Bible is intended only about moral and spiritual teachings. The Catholic Church does not consider the Bible inerrant from a scientific or historical point of view, because the purpose of the Bible is not to teach us history or science. This does not mean that the Bible does not tell also some historical facts, but we do not expect that everything in the Bible happened exactly in the way it is described.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I read a speculation that Moses was a priest of Akhenaten’s monotheistic religion.

After the death of Akhenaten, we know that his successors wiped his memories from the records and suppressed the monotheistic religion. Moses and his household, perhaps other adherents and priests, had to flee Egypt.

 

[Anesti33]

You must understand that the inerrancy of the Bible is intended only about moral and spiritual teachings. The Catholic Church does not consider the Bible inerrant from a scientific or historical point of view, because the purpose of the Bible is not to teach us history or science. This does not mean that the Bible does not tell also some historical facts, but we do not expect that everything in the Bible happened exactly in the way it is described.

This statement is far and away from the attitude you express in general, because I can agree to this statement and not your bald assertions of “corruption” and rank inaccuracy.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Catholics are not Protestant Bible Literalists.

 

[Neithan]

You must understand that the inerrancy of the Bible is intended only about moral and spiritual teachings.

That is a common confusion among Catholics between inerrancy and infallibility. We have to be careful to demarcate the important difference. Infallibility of the magisterium extends to faith and morals only. Inerrancy, however, extends to everything written according to the intentions of the inspired writer. If the inspired writer intended to state a historical fact, then that is free of error.

 

[Anesti33]

But we are rooted in the reality of the Scriptural record, such as the Ten Plagues of Egypt, the first Passover, and the parting of the Red Sea; these events happened: yea or nay?

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

You must understand that the inerrancy of the Bible is intended only about moral and spiritual teachings.

That is a common confusion among Catholics between inerrancy and infallibility. We have to be careful to demarcate the important difference. Infallibility of the magisterium extends to faith and morals only. Inerrancy, however, extends to everything written according to the intentions of the inspired writer. If the inspired writer intended to state a historical fact, then that is free of error.

How can you objectively know the intention of the writer?

 

[Neithan]

How can you objectively know the intention of the writer?

Inerrancy is a matter of faith, so we start with that principle: the inspired writers were free of error when they wrote the text. The interpretation of scripture is undertaken in exegesis.

If there is a clearly apparent error in scripture when compared with our historical study or archaeology, then we have a problem. Either our historical study or archaeology are incomplete or inerrancy doesn’t correspond with reality.

 

[TheLittleLady]

We are rooted in the Holy Mother Church, the rock, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Each word of the scripture is meant to impart us with faith and moral truths.

The Church teaches us the Ten Commandments, these are truth. God revealed these to Moses.

This does not mean it happened the way it does in the movies.

 

[Anesti33]

But it did happen, yes? You are beating around the bush. Answer a “yes or no” question.

 

[TK421]

Hello everyone
Is the story told in the book of Exodus a true historical event? Why is there no any archaeological evidence of thousands of people who died in the desert during the forty years? Also by the time Israelites are said to arrive in Canaan, that country was under Egyptian occupation. How could they enter?

The exodus was likely a series of emigrations out of Egypt and the record in the book of Exodus is not completely historically accurate.

Some of the stories in the OT are written to be mythological, at least to some extent.

Peace.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

How can you objectively know the intention of the writer?

Inerrancy is a matter of faith, so we start with that principle: the inspired writers were free of error when they wrote the text. The interpretation of scripture is undertaken in exegesis.

If there is a clearly apparent error in scripture when compared with our historical study or archaeology, then we have a problem. Either our historical study or archaeology are incomplete or inerrancy doesn’t correspond with reality.

The point is that the infallibility of Magisterium extends to faith and morals only. So the Magisterium cannot establish infallibly a scientific or historically truth.

From the Catechism:

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” (CCC 107, quoting the Vatican II document Dei Verbum 11).

The purpose of the Bible is to teach the saving truth, and not to teach us science or history. The fact that the Bible contains historical errors can be easily proved:

1 King 7:26 contradicts 2 Chr 4:5

1 King 7:26 It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths .

2 Chronicles 4:5 It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held three thousand baths .

2 Samuel 24:9 contradicts 1 Chr 21:5

2 Samuel 24:9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand .

1 Chronicles 21:5 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.

2 Samuel 24:24 contraddice 1 Chr 21:25

2 Samuele 24:9 But the king replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the Lord my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.” So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen and paid fifty shekels of silver fo them.

1 Chronicles 21:24 But King David replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on paying the full price. I will not take for the Lord what is yours, or sacrifice a burnt offering that costs me nothing.” So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels of gold for the site.

2 Samuel 10:18 contradicts 1 Chr 19:18

2 Samuel 10:18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed seven hundred of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers.

1 Chronicles 19:18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed seven thousand of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers.

 

[Anesti33]

You are bogged down in mere details as if we are supposed to be reading a history textbook; we are not. There is no contradiction, there are only eyewitness accounts and inspired authors.

 

[TK421]

A difference of 700 charioteers versus 7000 charioteers isn’t a detail from differing eyewitnesses.

 

[Mmarco]

You are bogged down in mere details as if we are supposed to be reading a history textbook; we are not. There is no contradiction, there are only eyewitness accounts and inspired authors.

You are denying the evidence; those I have quoted are undeniable and objective errors and contradictions, but such errors have simply nothing to do with moral and spiritual teachings, and the purpose of the Bible is to give us moral and spiritual teachings.

 

[Anesti33]

No, they are not errors.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

No, they are not errors.

I think everyone agrees they are not errors. That doesn’t mean that everything is meant to be taken literally. Using figurative or illustrative language doesn’t constitute an error.

 

[Mmarco]

Anesti33:

No, they are not errors.

I think everyone agrees they are not errors. That doesn’t mean that everything is meant to be taken literally. Using figurative or illustrative language doesn’t constitute an error.

This was my point; you cannot expect that everything that is written in the Bible represents a faithful account of what really happened.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

This was my point; you cannot expect that everything that is written in the Bible represents a faithful account of what really happened.

We just have to recognize that things can be true in different senses. I believe that Genesis is true; I also do not believe it is a literal account of the creation of the universe.