Understanding Inerrancy

[William777]

This question may come across as a bit confused, but I’ll try my best to keep it simple and clear. (In retrospect, it turned into a bit of a ramble…)

The basic problem I am trying to address is one of obedience to Catholic values, but for me it boils down to a correct interpretation of scripture.

I’m going to assume proper thought precedes a morally obedient action, so one must know what one is doing prior to acting obediently. This knowledge seems to depend upon our understanding of scripture, which can be interpreted a lot of different ways… so one is at risk of moral relativism, i.e., struggling with a clear interpretation and understanding of what the Catholic church teaches as right… and potentially making a mistake or committing a sin…

It seems to begin with scripture…

Scripture is said to be inerrant, but it can be so paradoxical and confusing sometimes… it’s hard to say what is right and wrong…

Yet some theologians in the Catholic Church are able to read something like the King James Version of the Bible, and they start counting errors…

My level of discernment is not that keen, so please help me here…

Those theologians must have some criteria by which they see a deviation from it as errant… and, therefore, possibly leading into disobedient behavior… so where did they come up with that criteria, and how do they know it is right (such that they could discern right or wrong conclusions)?

See my point?

I guess what I am trying to ask is - on a general level - how they know an interpretive mistake when they see it?

But I am not just asking in order to count mistakes… What about successful Catholic Saints, like St Francis of Assisi’s and St Theresa of Avila’s ecstacies? I dont see how some of those Saints derived their feelings of love and ecstacy from the New Testament.

Actually, when I look at the New Testament, and I see a lot of Jesus’ comments… He seems kind of mad a lot of the time, and I feel more inclined to being angry… Aside from the merciful miracles, it becomes hard to see how a lot of the rest of it translates into love and compassion…

I hope this is making sense, and I am sorry if it rambled or offends anyone… I am just asking because I would like a better understanding…

Blessings,

wm

 

[William777]

I guess I could further push the envelope by getting into a discussion about what is knowledge as we see it in the Catholic church…

We are supposed to be able to know things, but stuff like the gnostics and illuminati and modern existentialism seem to make it very confused.

 

[patrick457]

Actually, when I look at the New Testament, and I see a lot of Jesus’ comments… He seems kind of mad a lot of the time, and I feel more inclined to being angry… Aside from the merciful miracles, it becomes hard to see how a lot of the rest of it translates into love and compassion…

I have a couple of number of questions. What does ‘love’ mean to you? In your idea, does ‘love’ automatically equal ‘sentimentalism’? If I say that someone is ‘loving’ or ‘compassionate’, would you automatically think of some so-sweet-as-honey-it’d-make-you-diabetic, perpetually-cheerful, hippie-type sort of person?

And as for the other one: what does the Bible mean for you? Are you expecting it to be some sort of divine manual that would give out clearly-defined-with-no-ambiguity, black-and-white-with-no-shades-of-grey answers for each and every question in life?

 

[cathedral765]

I believe that an important point to remember is that the Bible is a complex text, comprised of many different books with varied authorship. Chat with Evangelical or Fundamentalist theologians, and they will say that the Bible is NOT contradictory, is PURE, is without ERROR, and is almostly completely historical. They will also advance the view that the Bible is a single book rather than a collection.

In their view, inspiration is a matter of the Holy Spirit overtaking the faculties of the human writers and making them write exactly and literally what He intended. The problem with this view is that it fails to account for the vast stylistic differences that exist between and among the various works.

The Catholic view is that the Bible is a library of books, with God as the supreme author but with man as the writers. The Holy Spirit guided the writers to convey God’s word, but they did it in the forms, genres, and styles that were available to them at the time. Thus, when we interpret the Bible, we must first consider the genre. Is it poetry, mythology, history, etc.? At the time the Sacred Writers lived, non-fiction was NOT a popular mode of expression.

The Book of Genesis tells us that God created the world, but should we read it as factual history? The Church says no, since the writer could not have been an eye-witness, and biblical scholarship has long since demonstrated that it is a compilation of sources, a redacted text, and that it cannot be attributed to single author.

Is it scientifically accurate? NO! Genesis was written in pre-scientific times, so the authors’ intent could not have been scientific; rather, it is a story which conveys a very specific theology-- that God is the creator. It provides in allegorical form an observation of the creative work of God. Does Genesis mean that evolution is false? NO! Genesis is a theological text; it portrays God’s work; it does not convery scientific facts. Science and theology are unique disciplines.

Now, does the Bible contradict itself? Well, yes, in a sense because some passage seem paradoxical when considered in the whole of the text. For instance, the Old Testament urges men to stone women for dishonor, but Jesus said, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Was Jesus wrong? Was the Torah wrong? I believe that we have to look at much of the Old Testament as commentary on ancient Judea and Israel and as an illustration of man’s struggle for meaning, to understand right and wrong and to understand God’s plan for us. The Bible includes many things that serve different purposes. Exegesis is the process of finding out exactly what God intends.

Is the Bible inerrant? Too many Evangelicals define the term as “historically factual.” But, the Bible is NOT 100% straight-forward history. Rather, it is a theological and spiritual text birthed by the Church, and in that sense, it is inerrant.

 

[cathedral765]

Another point…If Genesis is not true, then why should I believe any of the Bible?

First, we have to accept that understanding the Bible requires nuance. If we take it as black and white, we’re in trouble!

Second, a truth is an abstract philosophical and human concept; a truism is a statement of fact. For example, the phone book is filled with truisms-- a list of data, and we assume that it is 100% accurate. It is not history, allegory, poetry, etc. And, I would agree that if I choose to deny the factual accuracy of the phone book, then I might as well reject all of it. But, the phone book is a single book; it contains facts but NO truths.

Third, a truth is something like we get from Genesis-- God created the world and man; from Matthew 5 when Jesus delivered the Beatitudes; from the parables that Jesus used as a pedagogical device

Fourth, unlike the phone book which is so simple in its organization, purpose, and message, the Bible is a complex activity that took thousands of years and several church councils to formalize. The Holy Spirit guided men over centuries. Thus, understanding its truths is not a simple matter of reading a line and making a conclusion.

Fifth, some Evangelicals say that to interpret the Bible or question any part of its factual accuracy is to attack the Bible. Let me just turn that around-- to assume that every word of the Bible is literally and factually true is to ATTACK the Bible because it denies the truth of its character and of its history and ultimate manifestation as the recognized Word of God in the 4th and 5th centuries. Biblical fundamentalism, as Fr. Robert Barron argues, is a great heresy.

 

[William777]

I looked up the definition of “gnosis” (i.e. knowledge) in the Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent yesterday, and I came up with this.

---

Gnosticism

The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis “knowledge”, gnostikos, “good at knowing”), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge.

newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
(first paragraph)​

The definition above doesn’t define Christian obedience, as it is focused on gnostic knowledge, but it clarifies that “the soul attains its proper end by obedience to a Supreme Power”.

While undefined in this thread so far - this obedience to a higher power is still at the heart of my question.

The gnostic definition above does seem to suggest one thing - perhaps it is somehow wrong to place knowledge before faith… which would seem to indicate we should put faith before knowledge…

The problem seems to then be - since we DO learn by faith - we have to keep it very clear HOW we arrive at knowledge. If we go to a secular school, we may learn something by logic, which might have nothing at all to do with faith. It might just be a fact which wouldn’t depend upon belief at all. On the other hand, if we learn something by faith, then we know it a different way - by faith and trust in God. In Catholic terms, it seems like knowledge is REVEALED to use through relying upon faith in our Creator first, and not inferred through something like a logical syllogism or paradigm…

The question of inerrancy is still important though… according to the definitions above salvation is dependent upon obedience, so we still run into the problem of trying to interpret God’s will to act accordingly…

I dont know if any of this is right though… Can this post perhaps be moved to the “Ask An Apologist” forum?

Thanks and many blessings!

wm

 

[Mystophilus]

Yet some theologians in the Catholic Church are able to read something like the King James Version of the Bible, and they start counting errors…

My level of discernment is not that keen, so please help me here…

Those theologians must have some criteria by which they see a deviation from it as errant… and, therefore, possibly leading into disobedient behavior… so where did they come up with that criteria, and how do they know it is right (such that they could discern right or wrong conclusions)?

See my point?

I guess what I am trying to ask is - on a general level - how they know an interpretive mistake when they see it?

I hope that this helps. It seems that the basis of the question really revolves around the process of translation.

The process of translation is one of reading the original, interpreting its message, and finding a way to render that message in the target language.

The first step, reading, depends upon one’s understanding of the original, and we understand Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic better now than they did then, not least because we now have access to a lot more ancient manuscripts than they did.

The second step, interpreting, depends upon what one believes to have been meant by the source material. For a Catholic theologian, this necessarily involves considering what the Early Church Fathers, who were reading the untranslated texts in their own first language, understood the text to mean. The same rule is applied in non-religious translation, because it is basic reading methodology.

The third step, rendering, depends upon affinity between languages. How do you translate “snow” for a culture which has never seen it and has no word for it? How do you express a kind of social relationship completely alien to the target language? How do you convey a verb form which could mean two or more different times in the source language when the target language’s tense each refer to single times?

In each of these steps, a Catholic theologian or any other translator looking at the source material can judge that the translation, e.g. the KJV, has erred. I know people who work for the United Bible Societies, and their general comment on the KJV is “Lovely expression, pity about the translation”. Still, that is far more complimentary than what they say about the NIV.

Thus, the criteria by which they see a deviation are 1) understanding of the source languages and correctly identifying the source manuscripts, 2) understanding of the message of the source materials, and 3) understanding of how to communicate the message of the source materials.

Does that help?

 

[Mystophilus]

The problem seems to then be - since we DO learn by faith - we have to keep it very clear HOW we arrive at knowledge. If we go to a secular school, we may learn something by logic, which might have nothing at all to do with faith. It might just be a fact which wouldn’t depend upon belief at all. On the other hand, if we learn something by faith, then we know it a different way - by faith and trust in God. In Catholic terms, it seems like knowledge is REVEALED to use through relying upon faith in our Creator first, and not inferred through something like a logical syllogism or paradigm…

There is not that great a disjunction between faith and logic, since we rely a lot upon faith, even in the most ‘logical’ of contexts. In the physical sciences, for example, one is taught that various objects and organisms behave in various ways, but one does not have the time to re-enact every experiment and study ever performed so as to ascertain that they do behave in these ways. Instead, one has faith in the system of scholarship having performed that vetting process.

Much the same happens in other fields, including Catholic theology. The Catholic reliance upon the Magisterium and the Tradition are based in the faith that the Church has tested and validated the beliefs which are handed down. One can later choose to re-examine those beliefs, in something like the same way that one can choose to re-examine the calculations of the speed of light; assuming that both the original process and the re-examination are correctly performed (and that the universe is stable), the answers will always be the same.

 

[PJM]

=William777;9716250]This question may come across as a bit confused, but I’ll try my best to keep it simple and clear. (In retrospect, it turned into a bit of a ramble…)

The basic problem I am trying to address is one of obedience to Catholic values, but for me it boils down to a correct interpretation of scripture.

I’m going to assume proper thought precedes a morally obedient action, so one must know what one is doing prior to acting obediently. This knowledge seems to depend upon our understanding of scripture, which can be interpreted a lot of different ways… so one is at risk of moral relativism, i.e., struggling with a clear interpretation and understanding of what the Catholic church teaches as right… and potentially making a mistake or committing a sin…

It seems to begin with scripture…

Scripture is said to be inerrant, but it can be so paradoxical and confusing sometimes… it’s hard to say what is right and wrong…

Yet some theologians in the Catholic Church are able to read something like the King James Version of the Bible, and they start counting errors…

My level of discernment is not that keen, so please help me here…

Those theologians must have some criteria by which they see a deviation from it as errant… and, therefore, possibly leading into disobedient behavior… so where did they come up with that criteria, and how do they know it is right (such that they could discern right or wrong conclusions)?

See my point?

I guess what I am trying to ask is - on a general level - how they know an interpretive mistake when they see it?

But I am not just asking in order to count mistakes… What about successful Catholic Saints, like St Francis of Assisi’s and St Theresa of Avila’s ecstacies? I dont see how some of those Saints derived their feelings of love and ecstacy from the New Testament.

Actually, when I look at the New Testament, and I see a lot of Jesus’ comments… He seems kind of mad a lot of the time, and I feel more inclined to being angry… Aside from the merciful miracles, it becomes hard to see how a lot of the rest of it translates into love and compassion…

I hope this is making sense, and I am sorry if it rambled or offends anyone… I am just asking because I would like a better understanding…

Blessings,

wm

GREAT QUESTION:thumbsup:

Let’s begin by recognizing that there is ONLY ONE INFALLIBLE rule for right understanding of the bible [a catholic book]

That rule is: NEVER -EVER CAN ONE VERSE OR PASSAGE MAKE VOID, INVLAIDATE, OR OVER RULE ANOTHER PART.

BY “Ierrerancy” means the following:

1. All right understanding MUST absolutely conform fully and completely to what the CC Teaches on matter of Faith-beliefs and ALL Moral issues.
2. This is assured by the following verses; each specifically and exclusively given to the Apostles and through them today’s CC. THEY CAN BE SEARCHED AT

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:15-19
Mt. 28: 16-20

Then look at John 14:16-17
John 20:19-22
John 17:15-19

Only the CC has the caommad and mandate from Jesus Christ Himself
Only the CC has the Guidence of the HS and Jesus of Faith and Moral Teachings
Only The CC has the “fullness of Christ Truth”

God Bless,
Pat /PJM