Scientific errors in bible

[QNDNNDQDCE]

There is a recent thread on the Sacred Scripture forum on "what the Church means when she says the Bible is free from error. Because of the overlapping subject matter, I would like to weigh in with some of what I said there. The chief question seems to be “can we restrict the Bible’s claims to specific parts of the Bible (for example, matters of ‘faith and morals’) at the expense of other parts (the historical and the scientific)?” This view is called limited inerrancy. I have seen this supported before from chapter 11 of Dei Verbum, which might be interpreted to limit inerrancy to only “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” However, I believe this interpretation is difficult to hold to for a few reasons which I will summarize in brief.

(1) The grammar of the English translation has been changed in a way that introduces a degree of ambiguity that is not present in the Latin text. This is not to say that the Latin is perfectly clear either. If I were responsible for overseeing the writing of this document, I would have ordered it to be revised. I am posting from my phone, which makes copying-and-pasting and typing difficult so I will not go into an in-depth analysis, but I will mention them.

• The sentence structure has been changed in a way that weakens the statement. The Latin says “the truth of the books of Scripture… teaches without error” whereas the English states that “the books of Scripture teach that truth [insert limitation clause here] without error.” This is not a huge change but it builds upon others. The difference is that the Latin seems to designate truth as a quality of Scripture while the English more readily allows that truth is a subset of Scripture. Therefore, while the Scripture teaches truth without error, it also teaches falsehoods which are in error.
• In the English, the word “that” is added which is not present in the original text. What is translated “that truth” is simply “veritatem.” There are no articles in Latin so the proper translation should really be “the truth.” The phrase “that truth” gives the impression of limiting the decleration of inerrancy. By setting salvific truth ls apart from other truth. On critical reflection, however, this doesn’t even make any sense because truth is without error by definition. The statement would be pointless! Nevertheless, the impression still lingers.
• The limitation clause is set off by commas in the Latin which are not present in the English. In my mind, the commas suggest that the “salvation” clause is offering a further descriptiom of the truth of Scripture (or rather, the truthful Scripture), while the English more readily suggests that it is qualifying and limting the sort of truth under discussion.

Taken independently, these points may seem insignificant, but it is my opinion that they radically alter the apparent meaning of the sentence. The second point in particular I have a hard time envisioning as anything other than the product of negligence or malice.

(2) The interpretation of limited inerrancy doesn’t fit in the context of the statement in the document. The argument given is that Scripture is inerran because it is authored by God, who does not err. But in the same chapter, it states, “For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” Right here we have it stated that the all the parts of Scripture are authored by God, not just parts “pertaining to faith and morals.”

(3) Limited inerrancy is contrary to the prevailing teaching of the Church. Leo XIII spoke on this this same matter in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus. Since PD is cited in the footnote to the statement in DV, it is especially worthy of consideration.

“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 the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated.”

He had more to say to that, but I think any discussion about “scientific inaccuracies” must at the very least take a more nuanced position than that the Bible has erred.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Excerpt of apologetics on Leviticus 11 - 20:

So why did Moses use the term “four” to describe creatures with six legs? Likely for the same reason we refer to certain arthropods as having 100 or 1,000, legs—Moses was using a colloquial expression like one might hear on a farm; he was not writing a technical, scientific paper on the anatomy of insects. Idiomatic expressions were as prevalent in ancient times as they are in modern times. Today, we identify certain creatures as centipedes (meaning “hundred feet”), yet the “total number of legs in most species is closer to 30 than to 100” (“Millipedes and Centipedes,” 2008). We refer to other arthropods as millipedes (meaning “thousand feet”), but no millipede has ever been reported as having anywhere near the number of feet suggested by its name. The “most leggy” millipede discovered in modern times had only 750 legs (see “Most Leggy…,” 2006), while the vast majority of millipedes have fewer than 400 legs (“Millipede,” 2009). Yet, we still call these creatures millipedes. Why? Because numbers are often used as more of a designation than a literal number. (Have you ever purchased a “2 x 4,” only to find that it was more like a “1½ x 3½”?) Just as the terms centipede and millipede signify “no more than that such insects have a great number of feet” (Clarke, 1996), the phrase “creep on all fours,” could reasonably refer to something other than insects that have literally only four legs.

Consider another example of the flexibility of names and numbers. In George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm (1946), the pigs gave the farm animals “Seven Commandments.” The first two commandments were as follows: (1) Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy; (2) Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.” Later, as the story goes, when the pigs realized that the “slower” animals (e.g., sheep) were unable to learn the Seven Commandments, they summed up the commandments of the farm with a single maxim: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” Did the pigs suddenly mean to exclude the birds from the good, four-legged animals? No. The pigs explained that by “two legs,” they meant “man,” and by “four legs,” they meant “animal” (regardless of whether the animals had four legs, or two legs and two wings).

The skeptic must admit the fact that numbers often represent something more than a literal number. But if this is the explanation to Moses’ use of the term “four” in Leviticus 11:20-23, then what did he mean? Why did he use the expression “winged creeping things that go upon all fours” (Leviticus 11:20, ASV, emp. added)? The fact is, he did not define the expression for us (though his contemporaries surely knew its meaning). The phrase likely means that, in contrast to birds (listed just previously—Leviticus 11:13-19), which walk upright, “winged creeping things” walk horizontally—they “go upon all fours.” Skeptics may not like this explanation (as it exonerates the Bible writer of any discrepancy), but they cannot argue with the fact that we often use similar language. If Farrell Till, Steve Wells, or other Bible critics have ever referred to centipedes and millipedes, one wonders why they would have a problem with Moses referring to the flying things that walk horizontally as “winged creeping things that go upon all fours.”

apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=2731

 

[_Abyssinia]

Mustard Seed Mistake or Misunderstanding?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In Matthew 13:31-32, the apostle recorded a brief parable that Jesus taught regarding His heavenly kingdom. “The kingdom of heaven,” Jesus said, “is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.” The central truth of Jesus’ lesson was that the kingdom of heaven (i.e., the church; Matthew 16:18-19; Colossians 1:13), would be very small in the beginning (Acts 2), but in time would become very large. Rather than be a movement that died with its leader (cf. Acts 5:33-39), history shows that Jesus was exactly right in His prophecy: since His death and resurrection 2,000 years ago, multiplied millions of people have become citizens of this heavenly kingdom of which Jesus foretold.

Rather than acknowledge Jesus’ impressively fulfilled prophecy, His critics allege that He blundered in His reference to the mustard seed being “the least of all the seeds” (or as Mark words it, “smaller than all the seeds on earth”—4:31). Since other plant seeds technically are smaller than mustard seeds (e.g., epiphytic orchid seeds found in tropical rainforests), critics claim that Jesus made a scientific mistake (Wells, 2011; McKinsey, 2000, p. 263).

Although the Bible has shown itself to be historically and scientifically accurate time and again over the last 2,000 years (see Butt, 2007), the reader must bear in mind that, just as we often do in modern times, Jesus and the Bible writers frequently used figures of speech. They sometimes used numbers as names instead of literal numbers (e.g., calling the apostles “the twelve” after Judas had died—1 Corinthians 15:5; see Lyons, 2002). They oftentimes referred to things as they appeared instead of as they actually were (e.g., Christians who had died were said to have “fallen asleep”—1 Corinthians 15:6). They used Hebrew idioms, even when writing in the Greek language (e.g., “three days and three nights”—Matthew 12:40; see Lyons, 2004). And, just as we communicate truths in the 21st century through easily interpreted exaggeration (e.g., “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse”), Jesus and the Bible writers also made use of hyperbolic expressions. For example, when Paul noted in his letter to the church in Colosse that the Gospel “was preached to every creature under heaven” (1:23), readers understand that Paul is not technically saying that every living thing on Earth heard the Gospel. He’s not even saying that every person, including every infant, invalid, and mentally-ill person, heard the Gospel. Paul was obviously using a figure of speech to communicate an astounding truth: the then-known world (of both Jews and Gentiles) had been exposed to the Good News of Jesus Christ.

So what about Jesus’ comment regarding the mustard seed being “the least of all the seeds” (Matthew 13:32)? Was Jesus scientifically inaccurate? Only in the same sense that people are today when they refer to it “raining cats and dogs” during heavy precipitation, or “burning up” during a heat wave. The fact is, Jesus was speaking proverbially in this parable. In Palestine, mustard seeds were used comparatively when talking of very small things. For example, when Jesus taught about how the smallest amount of faith could bring about great results, He referred to this “faith as a mustard seed” (Matthew 17:20). Since the Jews were very familiar with the mustard seed, Jesus referred to what they could understand and appreciate. In their world, where they lived, planted, and harvested, they understood that the mustard seed was the smallest of the seeds they normally planted. And still, it could germinate, take root, and flourish, eventually becoming an eight- to 10-foot tall shrub (Lane, 1974, p. 171).

Similar to how we might say to someone, “everyone knows that two plus two is four,” Jesus told His Palestinian peers that the mustard seed is “the least of all the seeds.” Do most people on Earth likely know that two plus two is four? Yes. But millions of infants are ignorant of this mathematical fact, as are many mentally-ill individuals. Thus, the term “everyone” would be used in a limited sense. Likewise, when Jesus spoke of the mustard seed, He was speaking hyperbolically in a limited sense. The mustard seed “was the smallest usually sown in Jewish fields” (McGarvey, 1875, p. 121, emp. added).

 

[_Abyssinia]

apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2731

Excerpt from paragraphs on ‘Are bats birds.’

Was Moses, who “was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds” (Acts 7:22), so uninformed that he could not tell the difference between bats and birds? Was the God, Whom the Bible claims created bats and birds, unable to classify them properly? How is this not “an obvious contradiction between the Bible and Science,” as Ibrahim Khalil asserted?

The elementary answer to these questions is simply that God did not classify animals 3,500 years ago according to our modern classification system. As far back as Creation, God has divided animals into very basic, natural groups. He made aquatic and aerial creatures on day five and terrestrial animals on day six (Genesis 1:20-23,24-25). Similarly, in the first 23 verses of Leviticus 11, God divided the creatures into land animals (11:2-8), animals “that are in the water” (11:9-12), “birds” (11:13-19), and flying insects (11:20-23). He did not divide animals into mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. In fact, the group of “creeping things” mentioned later in Leviticus 11 (vss. 29-30; cf. Genesis 1:24-25) includes both mammals (e.g., mice) and reptiles (e.g., lizards). Clearly then, God divided animals according to their locomotion and environment rather than whether or not they have hair, lay eggs, and nurse their young.

Still, some may question why the English word “bird” is used for the category in which bats are listed. Why not simply call this group of animals “the flying creatures”? Actually, the term “bird” in Leviticus 11:13 (as well as Genesis 1:20-30) is translated from the Hebrew word ‘ôp, which literally means “flying creatures” (Harris, et al., 1980, p. 654; cf. Brown, et al., 1993). It is derived from ‘ûp, meaning to “fly, fly about, fly away” (Harris, et al., pp. 654-655). That this word is not used solely for “birds” is evident from Leviticus 11:20-23, where it is used with sherets in reference to “winged creeping things” (ASV), i.e., flying insects.

http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/rr/2009/0907a.jpg

Admittedly, bats and birds have many differences, but one major commonality—the ability to fly—is the very characteristic God used to group them together. Why are no other mammals included in this list? Because “bats are the only mammals capable of true flight” (Jones, n.d.)—another reason why Bible translators have chosen to use the term “birds” in these passages, instead of the more general terms “flying creatures.” The rationale among translators seems to be, “if 99.9% of all ‘flying creatures’ are birds, then we will use the term ‘birds’ to translate the word (‘ôp).” Since Bible students should be very familiar with the figure of speech known as synecdoche (“by which a part is put for the whole”—“Synecdoche,” 2009; see Dungan, 1888, pp. 300-309; cf. Genesis 8:4; 21:7), they should have little trouble understanding why translators continue to use the term “birds” to categorize all the flying creatures, including bats. After all, bats make up a very small percentage of all of the animals that fly.

What’s more, notice that bats are placed at the end of the list of birds and just before the list of flying insects. This placement is entirely proper for the only living “flying creature” that is neither a true bird nor an insect.

To accuse God or the Bible writers of categorizing animals incorrectly based upon Linnaeus’ taxonomy in Systema Naturae (1735), or any other modern method of classifying animals, is tantamount to criticizing people for not organizing their wardrobe or cataloging their books according to your own methods. Whether a person chooses to organize his books alphabetically, sequentially, or topically, according to the Dewey Decimal Classification System or the Library of Congress Classification System, is a matter of judgment. Likewise, it is extremely unfair to judge ancient classification systems according to modern man’s arbitrary standards. Skeptics are wrong for imposing their preconceived standards back onto an ancient text. Frankly, placing bats in the category of “flying creatures,” rather than with the land animals, “all that are in the water,” or the “creeping things,” makes perfectly good sense. Bats are, after all, “the world’s most expert fliers” (Cansdale, 1970, p. 135, emp. added), not walkers, crawlers, or swimmers. For Moses’ allusion to bats to be a true error, he would have had to say something to the effect of, “bats are not flying animals.”

Sadly, one significant question often left unexplored in a discussion of the Bible’s treatment of bats and birds is why God classified bats as “unclean.” Was this simply due to many bats’ eerie outward appearance, or that they are nocturnal cave dwellers? Could there be something more? Kyle Butt addressed the wisdom of God’s instruction about bats in his book, Behold! The Word of God (2007). The fact is,

…bats often carry rabies. While it is true that many animals are susceptible to rabies, bats are especially so. The American College of Emergency Physicians documented that between 1992 and 2002, rabies passed from bats caused 24 of the 26 human deaths from rabies in the United States (“Human Rabies…,” 2002). In the Science Daily article describing this research, “Robert V. Gibbons, MD, MPH, of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Silver Spring, MD, reviewed the 24 cases of humans with bat rabies.” From his research, he advised “the public to seek emergency care for preventive treatment for rabies if direct contact with a bat occurs” (“Human Rabies…,” 2002, emp. in orig.). Moses’ instruction to avoid bats coincides perfectly with modern research. Once again, the super human wisdom imparted through Moses by God cannot be denied by the conscientious student of the Old Testament (p. 124).

 

[_Abyssinia]

Is the Bible wrong about pi?

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. (see also 2 Chron. 4:2)

Some critics say that the measurements given for the circular bath do not give a proper value for pi. There are a couple of answers to this, one of which we give a link to below, and which is better than the one I have here. The more common answer is that these verses give an estimate of pi that is rounded to the nearest full digit.

Objection: The fact is that 30 cubits is not the correct answer. If you say that 31.4 is not the correct answer either, then I will allege that your 31.4159265 figure is incorrect as well. Following the stream of logic you have set in motion, there is no correct answer, because every answer involves rounding. Any answer would be automatically false.

Of course there is a certain category error here, since the value of pi is (so we are told by the mathematicians) one of those things that we can never provide the “correct” answer for – it goes on an on and on. So the 1 Kings writer would have either had to estimate or else he would still be writing today.

You are assuming the answer involves rounding without proving as much. The answer is wrong until you can prove it results from rounding. You can’t allege it’s the result of rounding until I prove it’s not.

Despite this, it is well-known and accepted that ancient estimates of distance, length, etc. were not always given down to the levels of our modern measurements (though see below). Thus it is the critics burden to show that rounding is not involved, if anything, since rounding was the norm,

If guesswork is going to be admissible, then many biblical contradictions could be explained away by mere conjecture and theorizing. Nearly every numerical contradiction in the OT, for example, could be lightly dismissed by simple reference to the “rounding” defense.

As we have just noted, however, the “pi” category is of a rather different nature, and rounding was standard procedure in the ancient world. Therefore, this “slippery slope” warning is without substance. I expect accuracy to at least two orders of magnitude, which the ancients understood and depended on themselves, so my demand isn’t unreasonable.

The ancients did measure pi more precisely in some cases – but this is found in places like the Rhynd Papyrus, a book of mathematical equations. The Kings and Chronicles writers were evidently literate, but there is no evidence that they were mathematicians. We would rightly expect accuracy of greater order from specialists in mathematics like the writer of the Rhynd Papyrus, and from Babylonian astrologers. But such an expectation is unreasonable from a non-mathematician.

Put it this way: If we ask how many gallons of fuel a rocket contains, we expect a detailed answer like “4,942,827.78 gallons” from a NASA engineer, if he is involved in a techincal discussion with other engineers. If he’s talking to the press, and he is savvy, he’ll say “4.9 million gallons” rather than bewilder the scientifically inert with more detail. Your average hobbyist (or even a reporter) will say “5 million gallons”.

Are any of them incorrect? No, because there is a semantic contract that correlates the level of precision with the level of expertise. Unless the Bible authors were mathematicians on the level of Archimedes (one of the other few ancients to go this far in looking at pi), then it is unreasonable to expect precision to that level from them.

For more info, here are some interesting sites:

Pi through the ages

History of Pi

A reader-recommended answer

For another answer, from my friends at CMI, see here.

Here’s an interesting result. Skeptic Sam Gibson wrote in to a person styled “Dr. Math” on this issue, and the results of the correspondence are here. On his own site, Sam argues that rounding off pi equates with “rounding off” books of the Bible and taking, say, Romans 7 out of Romans. That’s an apples and oranges equation, as his encounter with Dr. Math shows.

A helpful reader has also made this point:

The Hebrew Rabbi and writer of the earliest known Hebrew geometry textbook (Mishnat ha-Middot,) Nehemiah, states, "Now it is written: And he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and yet its circumference is thirty cubits, for it is written: And a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. What is the meaning of the verse, And a line of thirty cubits, and so forth? Nehemiah says: Since the people of the world say that the circumference of a circle contains three times and one seventh of the thread, take off that one seventh for the thickness of the walls of the sea on the two brims, then there remain, Thirty cubits did compass it round about."

And another has added:

...maybe the circumference actually measured 30.3l213 cubits and the diameter measured 9.64866 cubits. The ancients who perhaps hated fractions as much as school kids do today, simply gave the numbers as 30 and 10 respectively. Why should they not? We do know that they were not into the precision fetish that we are today. Also, if the Bible had to go into as much detail as Skeptics want, I hardly would be carrying it to church. I'd need a wheelbarrow.

-JPH

 

[_Abyssinia]

Excerpt

What was the Firmament of Genesis 1?

The Hebrew raqia (the “firmament” of the KJV, ASV, RSV, et al.) means an “expanse” (Davidson, 1963, p. DCXCII; Wilson, n.d., p. 166), or “something stretched, spread or beaten out” (Maunder, 1939, p. 315; Speiser, 1964, p. 6). Keil and Delitzsch offered this definition in their monumental commentary on the Pentateuch: “to stretch, to spread out, then beat or tread out…the spreading out of air, which surrounds the earth as an atmosphere” (1980, 1:52). In an article discussing the firmament of Genesis 1:6-8, Gary Workman observed that this word is an “unfortunate translation” because it “not only is inaccurate but also has fostered unjust criticism that the Bible erroneously and naively pictures the sky above the earth as a solid dome” (1991, 11[4]:14). Strictly speaking, of course, “firmament” is not actually a translation of raqia at all, but rather, more accurately, a transliteration (i.e., the substitution of a letter in one language for the equivalent letter in another language) of an “unfortunate translation.” Allow me to explain.

The Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek produced by Jewish scholars in the third centuy B.C. at the behest of the Egyptian pharaoh, Ptolemy Philadelphus, for inclusion in his world-famous library in Alexandria) translated raqia into the Greek as stereoma, which connotes a “solid structure” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 774). Apparently, the translators of the Septuagint were influenced by the then-popular Egyptian view of cosmology and astronomy [they were, after all, doing their translating in **Egypt

for an Egyptian pharaoh] that embraced the notion of the heavens being a stone vault. Unfortunately, those Hebrew scholars therefore chose to render raqia via the Greek word stereoma—in order to suggest a firm, solid structure. The Greek connotation thus influenced Jerome to the extent that, when he produced his Latin Vulgate, he used the word firmamentum (meaning a strong or steadfast support—from which the word “firmament” is transliterated) to reflect this pagan concept (McKechinie, 1978, p. 691). In his Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Old Testament scholar W.E. Vine stressed:

While this English word is derived from the Latin firmamentum which signifies firmness or strengthening,...the Hebrew word, raqia, has no such meaning, but denoted the “expanse,” that which was stretched out. Certainly the sky was not regarded as a hard vault in which the heavenly orbs were fixed.... There is therefore nothing in the language of the original to suggest that the writers [of the Old Testament—BT] were influenced by the imaginative ideas of heathen nations (1981, p. 67).

Raqia denotes simply an expanse, not a solid structure (see Harris, et al., 1980, 2:2218). Furthermore, the actual substance of the expanse is not inherent in the word. Numbers 16:38 juxtaposes raqia and pahim (plates), suggesting literally an “expanse of plates.” Here, “plates” specifies the actual material involved in the expansion. In Genesis, “heavens,” not solid matter, is given as the nature of the expanse (Genesis 1:8,14,15,17,20). The original context in which raqia is used does not imply any kind of solid dome above the Earth. The Bible equates “firmament” with the “heavens” (Psalm 19:1), even using the compound “firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:14-15,17). God provided the correct definition on the second day of creation when He “called the firmament Heaven” (Genesis 1:8). It was described further when Isaiah said that the Lord “stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22). “Heavens” always is dual in the Hebrew and, in general, refers to the “heights” above the Earth. As such, there are three particular applications of the word in Scripture. There are the atmospheric heavens (Jeremiah 4:25), the sidereal heavens (outer space) where the planetary bodies reside (Isaiah 13:10), and the heaven of God’s own dwelling place (Hebrews 9:24). As the context requires, “firmament” may be used in reference to any one of these. Birds are said to fly in “the open firmament of heaven” (the atmospheric heavens, Genesis 1:20). The Sun, Moon, and stars are set in “the firmament of heaven” (the sidereal heavens, Genesis 1:17). And the psalmist spoke of God’s “sanctuary” as being “in the firmament” (Psalm 150:1). R.K. Harrison, writing on the word “firmament” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, observed:

The relationship of the firmament to the concept of heaven can be clarified if the firmament is identified with the troposphere, and then by thinking of the celestial heavens either as a topographic dimension beyond the firmament itself, or as the designated abode of God (1982, 2:307).

The context of Genesis 1:6-8,14-22 makes it clear that Moses intended his readers to understand raqia simply as the sky above the Earth.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Excerpt of a response on Genesis 1:14 - 16

fortherecordapologetics.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/is-it-okay-for-bible-to-classify-moon.html

At first, it appears that the Bible has committed a huge scientific fail. However, before the skeptic can credibly present this challenge, he must first consider one thing - The Hebrew words or (“light”) and ma’or (“lights”), both used to describe the moon and the “light” it gives to the earth, do not absolutely define their source of light. The Hebrew word or (Strong’s 0215), which is translated “light” in verse 15, can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up.” Interestingly, the same word is also used in Proverbs 29:13, which states the the Lord gives light to the eyes of both the oppressor and the poor man.[5] In short, or does not guarantee that the one who possesses the light is the one who actually produces the light. Likewise, the Hebrew word ma’or (Strong’s 3974), used to identify the sun and moon, does not absolutely define their source of light. The word literally means “place of light,”[6] and is used in the Old Testament to identify the celestial bodies, the lights of the Tabernacle, and metaphorically of a face or eyes that “shine.”[7] Interestingly enough, ma’or is most commonly used to describe the lights of the Tabernacle - lights which are clearly not self-producing lights![8] In summary, neither or or ma’or necessarily describe self-producing lights, but rather simply identify the presence of light, both of which perfectly describe the moon’s light-giving ability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Bible does not err in calling the moon a “luminary” since the Hebrew words or and ma’or do not directly identify the source of light, but only proclaim that light is present. From a practical perspective, no two words could better describe the role of the moon in God’s creative purpose. In matters such as these, one should always be careful to examine the language behind any given word so as not to falsely assume that an error is present.

 

[TimothyH]

Why? It is the Word of God and His relationship with us. It is not a history book nor a science book. It is not the purpose. The purpose is to reveal God to us and His will for us.

The purpose of scripture is our salvation. That is the reason God gave us his written word - for the sake of our salvation.

-Tim-

 

[_Abyssinia]

Revelation 8:10 - there is question whether is verse is referring to literal stars or is it a metaphorical verse

 

[TimothyH]

Lots of theological errors in modern science writing too. That doesn’t invalidate the science.

As the CCC says, the purpose of scripture is to “firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

Does anybody really think that these “scientific” statements in the bible are truths which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished us to know?

That is the exact reason why God gave us his written word - for the sake of our salvation.

You hit it on the head. The Bible was written so that we might be saved, and everything in it for the sake of our salvation is without error.

The Bible was not written for the sake of history, nor for the sake of science, but for the sake of salvation.

-Tim-

 

[_Abyssinia]

Genesis saying that the Earth was formed before the sun is said to contradict the nebular hypothesis but the nebular hypothesis has been said to be dead

icr.org/article/6223

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

That is the exact reason why God gave us his written word - for the sake of our salvation.

You hit it on the head. The Bible was written so that we might be saved, and everything in it for the sake of our salvation is without error.

The Bible was not written for the sake of history, nor for the sake of science, but for the sake of salvation.

Hi, Tim. I understand this reading of the Catechism (which is quoting from Dei Verbum) but I do not think this is what the text is getting at. This is the context of that statement.

"11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

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. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

The basis of inerrancy is that all of Scripture is authored by the Holy Spirit and that the authors of Scripture wrote everything that God wanted and nothing more. It is for this reason that limiting inerrancy only to certain parts of Scripture makes little sense. In Providentissimus Deus (which, again, is cited in Dei Verbum in the very spot in question), Leo XIII discusses this question and excludes any system of interpretation which says that the authors of Scripture have erred. I will quote it again here because It is very relevant.

“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 the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated.”
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

It is also my opinion that the English translation of Dei Verbum in this place is a poor and misleading one. A more direct translation of the sentence quoted in the Catechism might be something like this:

“Thus, since everything which the inspired authors or holy writers have asserted must be held as asserted by the Holy Spirit, we therefore declare that the truth of the books of Scripture, which for the sake of our salvation God willed to be committed to the Sacred Letters, teaches solidly, faithfully and without error.”