What does it mean for the Bible to be inerrant?

[catholic1seeks]

Even though Genesis consists of a 6-day creation, its literary form allows to believe otherwise.

But what about in such cases as the following:

As he was passing through a field of grain on the sabbath, his disciples began to make a path while picking the heads of grain. At this the Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?"He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry? How he went into the house of God **when Abiathar was high priest **and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?” Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. That is why the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.” (Mark 2:23-28)

Abiathar was not the priest. According to 1 Sam, the priest who gave the bread to David was Ahimelech, father of Abiathar.

So Jesus must not have really said this. But if it’s not true, then to what degree** IS** the Bible inerrant/infallible? I once heard that the Bible is only totally truthful for the things pertaining to our salvation. But I’ve also heard the Bible cannot lie; the Holy Spirit guided the sacred writers and nothing was written down except for what God willed to be written.

CONFUSED

 

[severntofall]

Not only is the bible in its current forms (how many translation are there now?) filled with contradictions and errors, it varies significant from the earliest known manuscripts (which no doubt vary from the oral traditions themselves). The catholic church used to argue vigorously that since the bible is so filled with errors it could not be trusted to guide mankind towards god’s will and thus he established the church to fill that role. Correct on the first part, wrong on the second.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

:twocents: In all honesty, I really do believe the Bible is a masterpiece; it’s gotten people to believe in it, to this day. Although it has some nifty stories and some helpful advice (just as any literary work), I simply couldn’t see it as the Word of God, considering the behavior of us humans. :twocents:

However, it’s entirely up to you on whether you want to believe it to be the Truth. There are some with those amazing talents in walking around the “alleged” errors and squeezing through loopholes.

Through my eyes, it’s perfectly alright to accept it, regardless of contradictions you may find.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[severntofall]

:twocents: In all honesty, I really do believe the Bible is a masterpiece; it’s gotten people to believe in it, to this day. Although it has some nifty stories and some helpful advice (just as any literary work), I simply couldn’t see it as the Word of God, considering the behavior of us humans. :twocents:

However, it’s entirely up to you on whether you want to believe it to be the Truth. There are some with those amazing talents in walking around the “alleged” errors and squeezing through loopholes.

Through my eyes, it’s perfectly alright to accept it, regardless of contradictions you may find.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

A single contradiction proves that its not inerrant, hundreds of contradictions proves that its not even coherent. The fact that the gospels continued to have content added and subtracted well after the first century proves that its not even genuine. By the way, the catholic church used to make these very arguments after the reformation.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Not only is the bible in its current forms (how many translation are there now?) filled with contradictions and errors, it varies significant from the earliest known manuscripts (which no doubt vary from the oral traditions themselves). The catholic church used to argue vigorously that since the bible is so filled with errors it could not be trusted to guide mankind towards god’s will and thus he established the church to fill that role. Correct on the first part, wrong on the second.

Thanks for the effort, but you didn’t help with my question. In some defintions of biblical inspiration, only truths necessary for salvation are inerrant. The bible’s not meant to teach history or science. However, I don’t know if the Bible is infallible/inerrant on these matters.

Also, I generally agree that God established a Church for interpretation. You are wrong that the Church has taught or teaches that the Bible contains errors. As a non-Christian, you may think that. But it would be strange for anyone to think the Church taught that.

 

[severntofall]

Thanks for the effort, but you didn’t help with my question. In some defintions of biblical inspiration, only truths necessary for salvation are inerrant. The bible’s not meant to teach history or science. However, I don’t know if the Bible is infallible/inerrant on these matters.

Also, I generally agree that God established a Church for interpretation. You are wrong that the Church has taught or teaches that the Bible contains errors. As a non-Christian, you may think that. But it would be strange for anyone to think the Church taught that.

No, Catholic theologians did in fact teach this, it’s a historical documented fact. They never argued that the bible was of no value, but that it contains too many errors to be relied upon; thus the Church was necessary for proper guidance. This was a major debate between Catholics and reformers (who of course argued that the bible was 100% accurate).

I love your notion that while much of the bible contains errors, the parts that support your beliefs are inerrant. When it comes to the NT, nobody knows what was original and what was added later, but it is known that much was added after the fact.

 

[catholic1seeks]

No, Catholic theologians did in fact teach this, it’s a historical documented fact. They never argued that the bible was of no value, but that it contains too many errors to be relied upon; thus the Church was necessary for proper guidance. This was a major debate between Catholics and reformers (who of course argued that the bible was 100% accurate).

I love your notion that while much of the bible contains errors, the parts that support your beliefs are inerrant. When it comes to the NT, nobody knows what was original and what was added later, but it is known that much was added after the fact.

Catholic theologians do not represent the Church. (But I even doubt what you say here.) It is Catholic teaching that the Bible contains NO ERRORS regarding faith and morals - at least.

ALL OF IT IS INERRANT - not just “my beliefs” that are supported in the Bible. I’m asking about the historical content (e.g., what was actually said). The Gospels, for example, weren’t biographies in the modern sense; they were written to get down the teachings of Jesus to fit a certain cultural context (e.g., Matthew’s for the Jews).

 

[catholic1seeks]

Anyway — is there an answer from the Catholic community??

 

[davidv]

Anyway — is there an answer from the Catholic community??

The encyclical “DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU” addresses this topic in depth. You can find it on the Vatican website.

 

[severntofall]

The Gospels, for example, weren’t biographies in the modern sense; they were written to get down the teachings of Jesus to fit a certain cultural context (e.g., Matthew’s for the Jews).

I guess that’s why the gospel of Matthew contains at least two known lies. Herod’s slaughter of innocents flat out never happened (not mentioned by any historian nor in any of the other three gospels (and the nativity tale told by Luke flat out contradicts it)). The holy zombies that rose from the dead after Jesus’ crucifixion amazingly receives no mention by any historian (dead rising from their tombs and living in Jerusalem no mention any where in history) nor by any of the three other gospels. It is utterly inconceivable that the three other gospel authors found the sky going dark and a curtain tearing worthy of mention but holy zombies rising from the grave and returning to normal life in the city not worth a mention. How much of this stuff needs to be a lie before the book is discredited? How many errors can a book contain before we realize it’s just nonsense? By what standard does anyone consider this book of any value? How many times can it be documented that text was added (and occasionally removed) before it’s understood that people are just making thing up?

Read 18th century catholic theologian Richard Simons if you want to see the churchs perspective on sola scriptura. Catholic scholar Morinus argues that the bible cannot be considers an authoritative text with Church guidance due to the flaws found within the original greek texts. 17th and 18th century Papist argued in earnest that the errors of early manuscripts made the theology of sola scriptura untenable and dangerous.

 

[diggerdomer]

But if it’s not true, then to what degree** IS** the Bible inerrant/infallible?

I once heard that the Bible is only totally truthful for the things pertaining to our salvation. But I’ve also heard the Bible cannot lie; the Holy Spirit guided the sacred writers and nothing was written down except for what God willed to be written.

CONFUSED

I think you’re not far off from what the Catholic Church teaches about the Bible. The Bible records what God wanted recorded that God felt necessary for the truths of salvation. It can err on matters of geography, biology, astronomy, and so on, but it also communicates the truths that God wanted recorded that are necessary for salvation. The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, while at the same time using the capabilities and limitations of the human authors.

I think it might be really helpful for you to read the Catechism para 50-141 which deal with Revelation and Scripture.

Does this help?

Cheers

 

[patg]

There is an excellent discussion of this in Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald D. Witherup S.S. (nihil obstat and imprimatur). It is an easy read and readily available in paperback.

 

[JJ59]

Hi, catholic1seeks

To be perfectly honest, alleged Bible contradictions can be stupefying. I mean, one passage says “No one can see God and live” and then another passage says “Moses spoke with God face-to-face”.

The simple answer is that there are no errors, but the Bible was written by God as well as by humans. Us humans have different ways of saying things, and when a book is put together by 50+ of them, there are different ways of saying things. So the meaning the author was trying to convey behind “No one can see God” would be different from “Moses saw God”. No contradiction.

This website, www.tektonics.org a protestant one, deals a lot with supposed contradictions in the Bible. The apologist, JP Holding, looks at the context in the text, the social context, the original languages in each contradiction and shows that the Bible really is seamless.

So, to answer your quetion, yes, the Bible is inerrant. With our 21st century eyes, though, we often read the Bible as if it was written yesterday, ignoring ancient concepts of hyperbole, poetry, proverbial literature, etc. etc.

(I think with your specific passage, the original text says “in the days of Abithar the High Priest”, not “when”. Kind of like saying “In the days of Pope Benedict XVI”, but referring to, say, 2003, before he was Pope, but was alive and well in any case. Maybe Abithar was one famous dude back then, and so saying “in the days of Abithar the High Priest” would be like giving a more interesting context than “when Ahimelech was High Priest”, if Ahimelech wasn’t that much of a celebrity. Just a thought.)

That’s just my view. God Bless you on your journey!!!

 

[severntofall]

Hi, catholic1seeks

To be perfectly honest, alleged Bible contradictions can be stupefying. I mean, one passage says “No one can see God and live” and then another passage says “Moses spoke with God face-to-face”.

The simple answer is that there are no errors, but the Bible was written by God as well as by humans. Us humans have different ways of saying things, and when a book is put together by 50+ of them, there are different ways of saying things. So the meaning the author was trying to convey behind “No one can see God” would be different from “Moses saw God”. No contradiction.

This website, www.tektonics.org a protestant one, deals a lot with supposed contradictions in the Bible. The apologist, JP Holding, looks at the context in the text, the social context, the original languages in each contradiction and shows that the Bible really is seamless.

So, to answer your quetion, yes, the Bible is inerrant. With our 21st century eyes, though, we often read the Bible as if it was written yesterday, ignoring ancient concepts of hyperbole, poetry, proverbial literature, etc. etc.

(I think with your specific passage, the original text says “in the days of Abithar the High Priest”, not “when”. Kind of like saying “In the days of Pope Benedict XVI”, but referring to, say, 2003, before he was Pope, but was alive and well in any case. Maybe Abithar was one famous dude back then, and so saying “in the days of Abithar the High Priest” would be like giving a more interesting context than “when Ahimelech was High Priest”, if Ahimelech wasn’t that much of a celebrity. Just a thought.)

That’s just my view. God Bless you on your journey!!!

If the humans got so many things wrong when they scribed god’s word then by what basis do you assume that they got anything correct? By what standard do you assume that the bible is the word of god? During the course of human history there have been written millions of books and hundreds if not thousands of texts considered to be the “word” of a god. What has caused christians to assume that the bible (admitted to be filled with errors and contradictions) is the one book that can be said to speak for god? Faith? Let me tell you what faith is. For approximately 90% of us, faith is the belief that what our parents believed is true. For example, if you, shortly after your birth had been kidnapped and then lovingly raised in Saudi Arbia by Sunni Muslims you would now be a devote Muslim. You would now consider the Quran the word of god and Mohammed god’s greatest prophet. That my friend is what faith is.

 

[Axion]

There’s a difference between blind faith and informed faith. I read about the founder of Islam and I see someone who conducted Massacres, led wars and preached violence. When I look at jesus and his teachings I see something else.

Most of the alleged “contradictions” in the bible are nit-picking, as above, or due to translational errors or differences between Christian and Jewish OT versions.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Faith? Let me tell you what faith is. For approximately 90% of us, faith is the belief that what our parents believed is true. For example, if you, shortly after your birth had been kidnapped and then lovingly raised in Saudi Arbia by Sunni Muslims you would now be a devote Muslim. You would now consider the Quran the word of god and Mohammed god’s greatest prophet. That my friend is what faith is.

Yet you tell us what faith is for a certain number of people (“90% of us”). You don’t say what it really* is*.

You also confuse faith with religion itself. Of course, in one sense you can use “faith” to mean the realm of beliefs a certain religion. But in your context, we need to be defining faith in a different way. Faith allows us to submit ourselves to something Higher; it’s an assent to the beliefs: an assent to God’s Revelation.

 

[Doolin]

My view is that the Bible in the original manuscripts are inerrant. Yet the originals do not exist today. We do not have 'inerrant" verisons. So the answer is… there are no contridictions and it cannot be disproved because the historical evidence to the contrary is about as errant as can be.

Many Blessings,
Doolin

 

[catholic1seeks]

FOUND my answer:

Now it is completely obvious that if God is the author, there can be no error. Pius XII, in his encyclical on Scripture, Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), after quoting this statement of Vatican I, commented: “In our age, the Vatican Council, to reject false teachings about inspiration, declared that these same books [of Scripture] must be considered ‘as sacred and canonical’ by the Church, ‘not only because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church.’”

“But then,” Pius XII adds, “when certain Catholic authors, contrary to this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, in which authority of this kind is claimed which enjoys immunity from any error whatsoever, for these books ‘whole and entire, with all their parts’-when these authors had dared to restrict the truth of Holy Scripture to matters of faith and morals … our Predecessor of Immortal memory, Leo XIII, in an encyclical, Providentissimus Deus… rightly and properly refuted those errors…”

Some writers had said that matters of natural science or history, or things said in passing, are not protected by inerrancy. Only things pertaining to faith and morals, they said, are so protected. Pius XII pointed out the obvious: that if God is the author, there can be no error whatsoever, of any kind. And he spoke of the teaching of Vatican I on this point as “a solemn definition.” Raymond Brown, however, insists there can be errors, even in religious matters! The next chapter will consider these charges.​

“Chapter 6: Inspiration and Inerrancy-General”

For anyone wanting to know more about biblical inspiration, inerrancy, etc., see the following:

“The MOST Theological Collection: Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars”

 

[JJ59]

If the humans got so many things wrong when they scribed god’s word then by what basis do you assume that they got anything correct? By what standard do you assume that the bible is the word of god? During the course of human history there have been written millions of books and hundreds if not thousands of texts considered to be the “word” of a god. What has caused christians to assume that the bible (admitted to be filled with errors and contradictions) is the one book that can be said to speak for god? Faith? Let me tell you what faith is. For approximately 90% of us, faith is the belief that what our parents believed is true. For example, if you, shortly after your birth had been kidnapped and then lovingly raised in Saudi Arbia by Sunni Muslims you would now be a devote Muslim. You would now consider the Quran the word of god and Mohammed god’s greatest prophet. That my friend is what faith is.

Hi, severntofall.

They didn’t get things wrong. I’m just saying that if there’s someone saying “No one can see God” and another person saying “Moses saw God”, they could have different definitions of what it is to ‘see God’, and there’s no real contradiction. We can figure out what this is by, like I said, context, original languages, social context, etc.

That’s actually an excellent question. I believe the Bible is the Word of God for a number of reasons: The impact it has had on people over history, the sheer beauty and majesty of the words, but, most importantly, the fact that there’s so much proof going for it.

Which leads me to your next section on faith. Faith, understood in the time when the New Testament was written, was trust based upon evidence. (I’ll lead you to another good article from the same website, tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html)

I believe that Christianity, specifically Catholicism, holds up well under scrutiny. (Not perfect, because if there was a perfect case for Christianity, it would be just a fact and there would be no room for trust.)

God Bless.

 

[severntofall]

They didn’t get things wrong. I’m just saying that if there’s someone saying “No one can see God” and another person saying “Moses saw God”, they could have different definitions of what it is to ‘see God’, and there’s no real contradiction. We can figure out what this is by, like I said, context, original languages, social context, etc.

Actually, that wasn’t a contradiction that I would have used myself. I’ve already pointed to the blatant lies found within the G of Matthew. Consider the contradictions between the creation stories. In the first creation story god created man and woman simultaneously, but only after he created all the creations in the land, air and sea. In the second account, god made man, then created the beast of the land and birds of the air. He then created woman. This is just one of the massive contradictions and lies found within the book. There is no way both accounts are true. In the first two pages of the bible, two contradictory accounts of creation and it just gets worse after that.

That’s actually an excellent question. I believe the Bible is the Word of God for a number of reasons: The impact it has had on people over history, the sheer beauty and majesty of the words, but, most importantly, the fact that there’s so much proof going for it.

If you were a Muslim you would be saying the exact same thing of the Quran (trust me I’ve heard it ad nauseum), exactly the same thing. The bible does accurately mention certain actual historical figures and events (as does the Quran), but by and large the book fails miserably to provide any credible evidence of the existence of a god. I would love to hear some of your examples of the bible holding up well.

I believe that Christianity, specifically Catholicism, holds up well under scrutiny. (Not perfect, because if there was a perfect case for Christianity, it would be just a fact and there would be no room for trust.)

God Bless.

Catholicism IMO holds up better to scrutiny than most other Christian denominations I’ll agree, but that’s like saying that a rock makes a better pillow than a cactus.