My doubts on the book of Exodus

[Eric_Hyom]

How can you objectively know the intention of the writer?

If God can create the universe and life, he has the power to edit the Bible. Even if some all powerful Roman Emperor wanted to corrupt the Bible, he would have to fight against God, so no contest.

What I read in the Bible today, is what God intends me to read. I have to be inspired and encouraged and to search for a greatest good meaning.

 

[Neithan]

Consider that the inspired writer(s) of the Chronicles, familiar with the Syrian alphabet, was attempting to copy the data from the earlier books, written in the Phoenician alphabet, and may have made some mistakes. Their intention was to quote from those earlier books. Inerrancy is intact because the inspiration is sourced in the original report. That’s just one possible speculation to explain the discrepancy. The point here is that we can’t isolate some text or even one book, but look at inspiration as encompassing all of scripture holistically as the word of God, the primary author.

Edit: notice how the Chronicles numbers seem rather inflated. It’s possible there is something else going on there with the writer’s intent, more symbolic than historic.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Even something as simple as “wow! My friend scored a million yards in the game last night!”

 

[Neithan]

Yeah, maybe. But if they say, “Wow! My friend scored one million four hundred and fifty thousand yards…!” It’s a bit obscure as to what exactly they are trying to communicate with that kind of exaggerated precision. It’s possible there is a combination of issues (exaggeration, symbolism and copy errors). The message is still intact — a rather large number of something.

 

[JerryZ]

The Israelite first and the Jews even now have stuck to a tradition so strong that has endured 2 diasporas, countless wars and persecutions to be based on a fable.
A people do not honor a fable, please not for “thousands”…“THOUSANDS” of years. There must some pretty powerful stuff there that warrants that kind of perseverance.
So yes I believe in the book of Genesis.

Peace!

 

[TheLittleLady]

So yes I believe in the book of Genesis.

Which of Genesis’ creation accounts do you believe?

 

[Mmarco]

Consider that the inspired writer(s) of the Chronicles, familiar with the Syrian alphabet, was attempting to copy the data from the earlier books, written in the Phoenician alphabet, and may have made some mistakes. Their intention was to quote from those earlier books. Inerrancy is intact because the inspiration is sourced in the original report.

Wrong. We do not have the original manuscripts, therefore if you admit the possibiity that some copists may have made errors, then there may be many other errors throughout the Bible.

 

[Neithan]

We do not have the original manuscripts, therefore if you admit the possibiity that some copists may have made errors, then there may be many other errors throughout the Bible.

That is true. Inspiration does not extend to copying or translation. It is in the intention of the writer.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

We do not have the original manuscripts, therefore if you admit the possibiity that some copists may have made errors, then there may be many other errors throughout the Bible.

That is true. Inspiration does not extend to copying or translation. It is in the intention of the writer.

According to this view, the Bible we have could not be considered inerrant.

 

[Neithan]

Which is another reason sola scriptura is a problem.

 

[Mmarco]

Which is another reason sola scriptura is a problem.

I suppose that protestants would say that God prevented the copists and the translators from making errors.
As far as I understand, this is not however the position of the Catholic Church.

 

[Neithan]

Protestants, defending sola scriptura, came up with the idea of divine preservation of the apographs, in addition to divine inspiration of the autographs. I think that’s pretty difficult to defend.

 

[Mmarco]

Protestants, defending sola scriptura, came up with the idea of divine preservation of the apographs, in addition to divine inspiration of the autographs. I think that’s pretty difficult to defend.

I totally agree. I have read that we have many fragments of copies of the New Testaments, and they are all different. I suppose the same is true for fragments of copies of the Old Testament.

 

[Neithan]

So we do need the church because Christianity is not a “religion of the book” (as Muhammad misunderstood) [CCC 108]. The problem with asserting a limited biblical infallibility — faith and morals only — and rejecting inerrancy, is then you appeal to something that appeals to error, and the ground of faith evaporates. The faith is based on historical accuracy, in particular the Resurrection, but also salvation history. If it was possible for the original inspired writers to err in their intent, then the faith is based on errors and is not true faith at all. What we need to discern is that intention.

The last word on this from the magisterium was written a decade ago by Pope Benedict XVI in Verbum Domini

1. […] Certainly theological reflection has always considered inspiration and truth as two key concepts for an ecclesial hermeneutic of the sacred Scriptures. Nonetheless, one must acknowledge the need today for a fuller and more adequate study of these realities, in order better to respond to the need to interpret the sacred texts in accordance with their nature. Here I would express my fervent hope that research in this field will progress and bear fruit both for biblical science and for the spiritual life of the faithful.

 

[Neithan]

Why didn’t God preserve the autographs and end this speculation and uncertainty?

Perhaps because he never intended a “religion of the book” with everyone interpreting it however they see fit, leading to innumerable bickering versions like in Protestantism or Islam.

Why didn’t God preserve the autographs and give everyone a perfect understanding of them? That would seem to require a constant interference with free will.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Why didn’t God preserve the autographs and give everyone a perfect understanding of them? That would seem to require a constant interference with free will.

I would add that even if God had preserved the autographs, the atheists would still find all kinds of issues with them. Like St Augustine said: it is justice for God to neglect people who do not seek Him.

 

[Gorgias]

Why didn’t God preserve the autographs and end this speculation and uncertainty?

Because text copying is a human, not a divine activity.

According to this view, the Bible we have could not be considered inerrant.

We consider the autographs inerrant, not every translation produced by various translators.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

According to this view, the Bible we have could not be considered inerrant.

We consider the autographs inerrant, not every translation produced by various translators.

My point is that we do not have the autographs (the original manuscripts), therefore our version of the Bible (the only one we have) cannot be considered inerrant, because it is the result of many copying operations. and copists can make errors.
From this point of view, our version of the Old Testament is more likely to contain errors since it is the result of more copying operations with respect to the New Testament.

 

[Mmarco]

The problem with asserting a limited biblical infallibility — faith and morals only — and rejecting inerrancy, is then you appeal to something that appeals to error, and the ground of faith evaporates. The faith is based on historical accuracy, in particular the Resurrection, but also salvation history. If it was possible for the original inspired writers to err in their intent, then the faith is based on errors and is not true faith at all. What we need to discern is that intention.

I think you have missed my point. You wrote:" 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."

My point is that there is no objective way to know if the intention of the author was to state a historical fact or to give an allegorical teaching. The Magisterium has never said that every single verse of the Exodus is to be interpreted literally as a faithful accont of what really happened. Actually, a recent document by the Pontificial Biblical Commission says exactly the opposite, i.e. that the accounts of the battles against cananites are to be considered allegorically (see " Inspiration and Truth in Sacred Scripture" published in 2014) .

As far as Resurrection is concerned, it is a fundamental dogma of the christian faith. It is obvious that Resurrection is to be considered an historical fact; this is stated clearly and explicitly non only in the Gospels, but also in Paul’s letters.

 

[Mmarco]

The problem with asserting a limited biblical infallibility — faith and morals only — and rejecting inerrancy, is then you appeal to something that appeals to error, and the ground of faith evaporates. The faith is based on historical accuracy, in particular the Resurrection, but also salvation history.

Maybe this is true for your faith, but not for my faith. The reason why I believe in Jesus Christ, is that I find that the christian concept of God and of divine love is the highest possible concept. I find that the idea itself that God loves us so much that He chose to assume the human nature and accepted to suffer crucifission in order to save us, expresses such a high concept of God and of divine love that it can comes only from God. In other words, by no means my faith is based on the accounts of the Old Testament, but it is the christian concept of God’s love that makes me believe that Christ is the true God.