The Problem and the solution!

[chrysostim83]

Hi Petergee,

Well, perhaps Noah and the Flood was a bad example. The tower of Babel episode might be better: nothing really depends on the event’s having taken place, but the story is still important because it tells us something about fallen man.

About scientific errors, I would need to know more about the issues before I changed my mind. For one thing, the Church cannot possibly have always taught there are no scientific errors in the Bible, for the simple reason that science has only existed for about 500 years. For another, now that science does exist, it is quite certain there are scientific errors in the Bible since the cosmology suggested by Genesis 1 is clearly incorrect (for example, we know that rain comes from clouds and not from the waters that were gathered up above the firmament of the heavens).

That said, it seems to me that this kind of error is compatible with the inerrancy of the Bible, since the ancient “science” involved here is not part of the message of the Bible, but only part of how that message is expressed.

I don’t want to get in a long argument about this. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of some books or other resources that would set the record straight.

 

[JeanneH]

Hi Petergee,

Well, perhaps Noah and the Flood was a bad example. The tower of Babel episode might be better: nothing really depends on the event’s having taken place, but the story is still important because it tells us something about fallen man.

About scientific errors, I would need to know more about the issues before I changed my mind. For one thing, the Church cannot possibly have always taught there are no scientific errors in the Bible, for the simple reason that science has only existed for about 500 years. For another, now that science does exist, it is quite certain there are scientific errors in the Bible since the cosmology suggested by Genesis 1 is clearly incorrect (for example, we know that rain comes from clouds and not from the waters that were gathered up above the firmament of the heavens).

That said, it seems to me that this kind of error is compatible with the inerrancy of the Bible, since the ancient “science” involved here is not part of the message of the Bible, but only part of how that message is expressed.

I don’t want to get in a long argument about this. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of some books or other resources that would set the record straight.

I don’t think that the bible is meant to be scientific or historical, although it is up to a point, but theological.

As far as all bibles saying pretty much the same thing, I think that is so mostly with the exception of the NWT. Their translation is very different from accepted bibles and not used by any theologians but their own.

 

[zach_dunn]

Catholics must,and quickly,accept that the Bible is inerrant and if it appears to be in error it is not and cannot be

Please show me where I have said the Bible is not inerrant.

• here is something God via the Bible told us at the very beginning which if it had been understood and accepted would not have led to the Galileo episode.After centuries we are now starting to see and accept that Galileo was indeed wrong after all,for the earth does not revolve round the sun - twinc

Galileo may be wrong, but that does not mean that the earth is the center of the universe and that everything revolves around it, because it doesn’t. You also failed to answer my question, if you are as literal as you’d like to think you are, what do you make of these Scriptures:

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Psalm 93:1
The LORD reigns; he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

The Bible does not have any errors in it, unless you take everything literally as is shown by these Scriptures.

 

[rdscheirer]

Dear twinc
Please read what the early Church fathers wrote.This website has a wonderful treasury of their writings that may clarify the beliefs of the true Catholic Church and parishoner for you.

 

[twinc]

Dear twinc
Please read what the early Church fathers wrote.This website has a wonderful treasury of their writings that may clarify the beliefs of the true Catholic Church and parishoner for you.

since you failed to give the website,try this all catholic one www.ScriptureCatholic.com and scroll down l/h column to Science.Also try www.kolbecenter.org and www.DaylightOrigins.com - twinc

 

[Oreoracle]

Catholics must,and quickly,accept that the Bible is inerrant and if it appears to be in error it is not and cannot be.

Some Catholics would agree, but they would be hesitant to extend this to anything else they have faith in. For example, even hardcore Obama supporters would frown upon hearing, “Americans must accept that Obama is inerrant and if he appears to be in error he cannot be.” When the stakes become more obvious, people recognize overzealous faith as a hazard, and rightfully so.

 

[Petergee]

About scientific errors, I would need to know more about the issues before I changed my mind. For one thing, the Church cannot possibly have always taught there are no scientific errors in the Bible, for the simple reason that science has only existed for about 500 years.

Well you could say that MODERN science (which is a product of the Church and its doctrines that the world follows certain fixed laws which are knowable and that man has the right and dutry to discover them) is younger than the Church. I would say modern science has been around about 800 years. But it doesn’t make much sense to say that people like Archimedes, Galen and Celsus were not scientists or that sc ience did not exist then.

For another, now that science does exist, it is quite certain there are scientific errors in the Bible since the cosmology suggested by Genesis 1 is clearly incorrect (for example, we know that rain comes from clouds and not from the waters that were gathered up above the firmament of the heavens).

Perhaps you don’t yet know that clouds are simply water vapiour which has been gathered up from below, from oceans. lakes, rivers, plant and animal respiration and man’s industries. Perhaps you also don’t appreciate that Creation was a MIRACLE, not just weather conditions caused by the laws with which God imbued the world He had created. And saying that a certain passage of the Bible “suggests” to you a certain cosmology which is incorrect, is quite a different thing from saying that the Bible affirms an error.

That said, it seems to me that this kind of error is compatible with the inerrancy of the Bible, since the ancient “science” involved here is not part of the message of the Bible, but only part of how that message is expressed.

The Church teaches that all of the parts of all of the books of the Bible are inerrant. Not just those passages which impart whatever it is which you define as the Bible’s “message”. Some passages use figurative language, but there are no errors. God does not make errors. He has ensured that the Bible contains everything which He wanted it to contain, and not one word more or less.

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of some books or other resources that would set the record straight.

Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, 11: ** “the books of the Old and New Testaments, with all of their parts… have God as their Author … all that the inspired writers or sacred authors affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit”**

 

[chrysostim83]

Hi Petergee,

When I asked for resources, I was asking for a book or article that goes into details about how the Scriptures are in fact free from the scientific errors that appear to be contained in them. Do you know of a book or article that shows how Gen 1:7-8 is actually a description of the earth’s water cycle?

In your next response, please moderate your tone. We are both Catholic and fundamentally on the same side of this issue. From what we have said, it is probable that our difference is merely one of words.

 

[Petergee]

Hi Chrysostim83

It’s notoriously difficult to interpret the “tone” of a typed message in an internet forum, but I assure you that my feelings towards you are amicable and fraternal.

I’m not sure why the solemn declaration of the last Ecumenical Council is not a good enough resource to set the record straight for you. As the same Vatican II document declared, “The task of an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office [Magisterium] of the Church alone. Its authority in this manner is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”

You are the one who is claiming that there are “scientific errors” in the Bible. The onus is on you to prove your assertion, not to put the onus on others to produce a book or article proving the contrary.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, as an organ of the Magisterium, declared that the first 3 chapters of Genesis are not legend or mythology, even if the sacred writer did not intend to write with scientific exactitude. Rather these three chapters are a narative of events that truly occurred and can be understood in a literal, historical sense, though certain passages are to be understood in a figurative sense.

 

[chrysostim83]

My assessment of your tone may have been mistaken. Unfortunately, many people have never been told that capitalizing an entire word is the internet equivalent of screaming at the top of your lungs. Also, the mini-lesson in elementary earth science struck me as demeaning and rather rudely expressed.

By saying there are scientific errors “in” the Bible, I only mean that the Bible contains them without asserting them. This may seem like hair splitting to you, but the distinction has some validity. For instance, in English one says that the sun has risen but hardly anyone ever asserts that the sun goes around the earth. Hence, it could be said that our speech contains a scientific error without asserting it. To apply this idea to Gen 1, we could say that the cosmology there represents an early tradition of the ancient Hebrews, but that the sacred author did not believe in that tradition (since otherwise he would have taken more care to bring the creation story of Gen 2 into conformity with Gen 1).

About Dei Verbum, it is not that I find the pronouncements of an Ecumenical Council unconvincing. It’s just that whenever I am shown “the what,” I feel an urgent need to know “the how.” The mere authority of a Council document shows what we should believe, but it does not necessarily show us how it all works.

Finally, the early work of the PBC is somewhat problematic. There are some subtle reflections on it by the Holy Father here.

 

[Petergee]

Sorry if my capitalising of two (2) isolated words in a long post offended you. I am used to writing in other fora which allow no other means of emphasis. My comments about elementary earth science were intended as humorous irony.

I presume that you do not accuse people of promoting “error” every time they mention sunrise and sunset. Neither should you use the word “error” in relation to the Bible.

“How it all works” is something we may not ever understand in this life, though of course we should try to.

I don’t see anything in the then Cd Ratzinger’s (personal occasional) address (not a formal Magisterial statement) which negates any of the Magisterial PBC statements I quoted.

 

[chrysostim83]

In light of the objections raised by Petergee, here is the amended version of my response to twinc, purged of all the paradoxical language which seems to have caused more confusion than insight:

Second, you seem to be in the grips of a false dilemma. “Either the literal and obvious sense of the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, or the Bible itself is a pack of errors and lies.” But there is actually broad scope for recognizing the scientific errors contained in the so-called “literal and obvious sense” of the Bible while moving beyond them to discover the truth that God wanted to express. For example, the literal and obvious sense of Gen 1 contains scientific inaccuracies, but this circumstance (and others) show us that the sacred author intended the details of Gen 1 to be understood in either a non-literal or non-obvious way. This is similar to our saying the sun is rising even though everyone knows the sun does not move in such away that it could truly be said to rise.

(As an aside, I can’t resist adding that all caps is never the only way to emphasize a word.)

 

[Ignatius]

exactly - thank you - it seems not many have realised,that 97% of Catholic school leavers give up the faith.

97%??? I think you must mean Anglicans, are you calling Anglicans Catholics? The Catholic Church is actually growing in England and according to a recent article in the Guardian there are actually more Catholics in church on any given Sunday than Anglicans.

 

[Petergee]

I can’t resist adding that all caps is never the only way to emphasize a word.

I’m afraid that like your earlier claim that “there are errors in the Bible”, this is another sweeping statement which you have not thought about before making. Try not to use words like “never” unless you have made certain that there are no exceptions.

See e.g. cathnewsusa.com/

 

[chrysostim83]

The remark on emphasizing words was meant to illustrate the use of asterisks when italics are unavailable. For example, instead of writing there are NO errors in Scripture, try writing there no errors in Scripture. This particular method works on the website you mentioned (see my comment on “Bishops in Final Bid to Amend Senate Health Care Bill”). It might also be possible to use HTML tags, but I’m waiting on the webmaster to get back to me on that.

On so-called sweeping statements, I fail to see how an existential statement (“there is x such that …x…”) can be among them. Perhaps a better term for the reality you wanted to describe would be “ill-founded.”

Finally, on the topic of this thread, your advice about ill-founded statements should have been given to the OP. For twinc said the Bible is a problem for Catholic, but the only evidence offered was a vague gesture to these forums, and when others pressed him for details, he could not provide any.

 

[Petergee]

Asterisks are of limited use in emphasising a word. As evidence the fact that I didn’t even realise you had used them until you pointed it out. And yes I have tried using asterisks, smileys, and HTML tags and the moderator edits them out of posts on such sites.

I certainly don’t defend the nonsensical argument twinc made. But others have already comprehensively refuted it and I see no point in simply repeating what they said.

 

[twinc]

97%??? I think you must mean Anglicans, are you calling Anglicans Catholics? The Catholic Church is actually growing in England and according to a recent article in the Guardian there are actually more Catholics in church on any given Sunday than Anglicans.

No the case stands as stated for it is well known and accepted that the Catholic population rose as the result of a massive Catholic influx from Catholic countries like Poland etc - Protestant sources report a 2/3rd falling away - twinc

 

[Abu]

Petergee
I’m afraid that like your earlier claim that “there are errors in the Bible”, this is another sweeping statement which you have not thought about before making

.

So how do you view this sweeping statement posted recently concerning doubts about the Scriptures?

If you don’t agree with Brown’s scholarship that’s fine. If I do agree with it, that’s fine too.

 

[grannymh]

There is more to Scripture than simply the literal sense, twinc.

And may I respectfully point out that there is a great deal more to reading Scripture than two Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes taken out of context.

For example.

Knowing which truth of Scripture is taught firmly, faithfully, and without error, read paragraphs 107 and 137.

If you are looking at a particular passage, then read all five paragraphs under the section titled “The Senses of Scripture”.

If you are interested in the Catholic criteria for interpreting Scripture, then read paragraphs 109 -119.

If you are concerned about the inspiration and truth of Scripture or the purpose of Scripture or the unity of the Old and New Testaments, there are other paragraphs to read.

In my humble opinion, the solution is to take the time to understand Scripture from the Catholic perspective.

Suggested paragraphs are 101 - 141.
Link to the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

Please share these websites with family and friends.

 

[zach_dunn]

And may I respectfully point out that there is a great deal more to reading Scripture than two Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes taken out of context.

I don’t think they are taken out of context. I was not using them to “prove” that Creationism and the literal sense are false, twinc seems to be somewhat of a literalist and he was emphasizing the literal sense a lot. As I’ve said, I am not saying that the literal sense means nothing, I am not belittling it, I simply pointed out the Church teaching that there is more than the literal sense to be taken account. And to get this teaching across, it only required two paragraphs from the Catechism.

For example.

Knowing which truth of Scripture is taught firmly, faithfully, and without error, read paragraphs 107 and 137.

Yup.

If you are looking at a particular passage, then read all five paragraphs under the section titled “The Senses of Scripture”.

Check.

If you are interested in the Catholic criteria for interpreting Scripture, then read paragraphs 109 -119.

Mmhmm.

If you are concerned about the inspiration and truth of Scripture or the purpose of Scripture or the unity of the Old and New Testaments, there are other paragraphs to read.

In my humble opinion, the solution is to take the time to understand Scripture from the Catholic perspective.

Was I not? Is the Catholic perspective Creationism?

Suggested paragraphs are 101 - 141.
Link to the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Alright, I don’t understand why my belief is not taken from the “Catholic perspective?”