What does it mean for the Bible to be inerrant?

[JJ59]

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.

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.

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.

I might be a little behind but I’ll give 'er a shot.

I think before you go after contradictions, you should check out how Christians respond first.

Again, that same website deals with the slaughter of the innocents and the creation account:
tektonics.org/qt/slaughtinn.html
tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

As for the “zombies” (Actually, they were saints with glorified bodies)
christian-thinktank.com/oddrise.html

Well, of course it doesn’t prove God! As it’s been said before: When Ben Franklin wrote his autobiography, he didn’t spend time trying to prove his existence first!

Of course, I’m more of a philosopher and theologian, but you can check out those links. Maybe let’s start out with a problem you have with the Bible, and we can go from there? Thanks!

(Also, I read somewhere, but don’t quote me on this, that the Qu’ran is considered more of stories with morals, whereas Christianity has the burden of being constantly historical. Christian apologists always defend well. Just a thought.)

If Catholicism is a rock, what do you think atheism is, if you don’t mind me asking? Christianity gives people hope and true joy from “do unto others” (when it’s practiced well at least). Atheism leaves us with, “There is no meaning of life. Do whatever you want.” Sorry, but if that’s the choice, I’d choose Christianity!

God Bless.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I tried to get to traditon, but the page would not appear, but the other pages you posted did. Not sure why. Thanks.

Now, the books that are not accepted by the KJ. Can you show me a scripture that Jesus quoted that is from any of these books?

The KJV books of the Old Testament are based off the Jewish Canon. The Catholic books of the Old Testament were used by the early Christians. The early Church decided the canon of the Bible:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

As to quoting the books of the Old Testament in the New Testament, you would also have to eliminate other Old Testament books - as many as 8 (such as the Song of Songs) which are not quoted in the NT.

REMEMBER the history:

At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

 

[JRKH]

I tried to get to traditon, but the page would not appear, but the other pages you posted did. Not sure why. Thanks.

Now, the books that are not accepted by the KJ. Can you show me a scripture that Jesus quoted that is from any of these books?

Try** This Link **to the Deutero’s being referenced in the NT.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I had posted this on another thread but it is more relevant here so I am reposting it with slight editing.

Posted by heiscomingintheWhen a truth or revelation was, is given a man, it was to be proved and reproved to be of God. So when proved, it was acceptable as doctrine.

And it is precisely this proof and reproof that is the crux of Church authority for it provides the structure for said proof. Now obviously simply trying to come to agreement within the community without an authoritative “tie breaker” leadership only results in more fracturing as witnessed by the number of non-catholic christian communities around today.

Posted by heiscominginthe
I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the infallible Word of God and if any choose to dispute it, feel free. As for my faith, I stand on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for there are no denominations in heaven and nor should be on earth.

His Word Is My Sword.

Personally I believe that JESUS CHRIST is the infallible Word of God and I stand upon Him and His Word as given to His Church and passed down unbroken through Her. That includes a Bible which contains ALL 72 of the books canonized in council and reproofed by at least 7 additional councils between the years 400 AD and 1500 AD (All prior to Trent).

So - Since The Revelation of the Proper Biblical Canon was given by the Holy Spirit to men and, as you say - “proved and reproved” - time and again in council, why would you accept a canon that is different?

food for thought.

Peace in Christ
James

 

[PJM]

=catholic1seeks;4968610]Even though Genesis consists of a 6-day creation, its literary form allows to believe otherwise.

Your OP Question…

What does it mean for the Bible to be inerrant?

It means that the message it shares is TRUE!

Saint Jerome may have said it best: "Ignorance of the bible is ignorance of God!"

CONFUSED

Dear confused, I pulled two differnt Bible versions and NEITHER mention ANY NAME, so how could there be a “wrong name?” So what exactly is your point? I also checked the “New American Bible” with the same results, so friend your clearly wrong.

Everything, EVERYTHING is God’s Word is TRUE!

However EVERYTHING in God’s Word may not be factual!/COLOR]

Am I contradicting myself? No I am not.

The life of the Sacrificed Son of God, gives assurence to the TRUTH of the** Words** of God. **This means the message is always TRUE, even if it’s a Story, a Parable, or Sacred Tradition handed down from word of mouth for thousands of years. **

NIV Bible Lk. 6:1"**

1: On a sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. 2* But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath?” 3* And Jesus answered, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4* how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” 5 And he said to them, “The Son of man is lord of the sabbath.” **

Douay Rheims 9St. Jerome in 350AD: "

1 And it came to pass on the second first sabbath, that as he went through the corn fields, his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. 2 And some of the Pharisees said to them: Why do you that which is not lawful on the sabbath days? 3 And Jesus answering them, said: Have you not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was hungry, and they that were with him: 4 How he went into the house of God, and took and ate the bread of proposition, and gave to them that were with him, which is not lawful to eat but only for the priests? 5 And he said to them: The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. "

Neither mention any name, so friend what the heck are you reading?

1 Sam. 21:

" Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?” 2 And David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has charged me with a matter, and said to me, Let no one know anything of the matter about which I send you, and with which I have charged you.’ I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place. 3 Now then, what have you at hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever is here.” 4 And the priest answered David, “I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” 5 And David answered the priest, “Of a truth women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy, even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?” 6 So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the LORD, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away."

Friend, I have no idea what your talking about:blush:

Love and prayers,

 

[BSHoop96]

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.

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.

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.

The bible has several different literary styles. It is neither a science book nor a history book. You are judging it as such. As just one example that you speak of, Catholics are not even required to believe the Genesis story as literal to be in communion with the Church. These “errors” that you point out do not change the message.

Many years ago when I was entering the Church a young priest told me that the Bible was meant to explain God and bring his message to common man 2000 years ago. Your heart is not open to it so you’re missing the message. And what a shame as you seem to be studying the bible so intently. Do not dissect it so.

 

[heiscominginthe]

As to quoting the books of the Old Testament in the New Testament, you would also have to eliminate other Old Testament books - as many as 8 (such as the Song of Songs) which are not quoted in the NT.

The point still remains in regards to what canons were accepted, those the catholic church accepted were not considered by Hebrews as ligitimate. So if those whom the Word was given firstly do not recognize the books, wouldn’t the smart move be to do likewise. We are talking OT here.

And if Jesus had quoted even from one canon accepted by the catholic church and not the King James, it undoubtedly would have given the canons validity.

 

[Contarini]

The point still remains in regards to what canons were accepted, those the catholic church accepted were not considered by Hebrews as ligitimate.

In the time of Jesus there was no firm canon. I know that this is disputed by Protestant apologists, but I have not found their arguments convincing. Only the Torah was universally accepted.

So if those whom the Word was given firstly do not recognize the books, wouldn’t the smart move be to do likewise. We are talking OT here.

But that’s an arbitrary decision. Why accept the witness of Jews over Christians on the OT but not on the far more basic question of whether Jesus is the Messiah in the first place?

And if Jesus had quoted even from one canon accepted by the catholic church and not the King James,

I don’t know what you think the KJV has to do with this. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha.

it undoubtedly would have given the canons validity.

Does it work the other way? Jesus didn’t quote from Esther or the Song of Songs or a number of other books. Why do you accept them?

And don’t you accept the other parts of the NT as God’s Word? Why does it have to be only Jesus’ words in the Gospels that count? Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Why aren’t those books canonical in your view?

Edwin

 

[heiscominginthe]

So - Since The Revelation of the Proper Biblical Canon was given by the Holy Spirit to men and, as you say - “proved and reproved” - time and again in council, why would you accept a canon that is different?

Certainly Jesus is the Word of God. Yet, I offer you a challenge. The last chapter of Daniel fortells of a time when the daily offering would be ceased till a time when it would once again be reinstated. The year this occured was 321 AD. Search for information as to what had occured that perticular year in the church. Then add 1290 years to the 321 to find out when the daily offering began once again.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. 13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

 

[catholic1seeks]

YOUR POST,

The reason you can’t find it is because you’re looking in Luke’s Gosepl. I’m talking about Mark’s!

Can you elaborate on your comment on “EVERYTHING in the Bible is inerrant/infallible but not factual.”

It is my understanding the Church does teach that the Bible is inerrant in things not only pertaing to salvation, faith, and morals, but also in science and history. We must also pay attention to the genre and writer’s intention, though.

What is in dark blue above kind of led me to the question on the high priest mentioned in Mark vs. that of Samuel. The intention of Mark was to given an account of the teachings and life of Christ; so shouldn’t the name of the high priest really be inerrant?

 

[heiscominginthe]

In the time of Jesus there was no firm canon. I know that this is disputed by Protestant apologists, but I have not found their arguments convincing. Only the Torah was universally accepted.

Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all 37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

Acts13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

But that’s an arbitrary decision. Why accept the witness of Jews over Christians on the OT but not on the far more basic question of whether Jesus is the Messiah in the first place?

Because the Jews were the authority over the OT. God did not give it to the Christians first, but the Jews.

I don’t know what you think the KJV has to do with this. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha.

They did so out of appeasment becaause of pressure from catholic authority both in Rome and England. Yet, later found the Apocrypha unworthy.

Does it work the other way? Jesus didn’t quote from Esther or the Song of Songs or a number of other books. Why do you accept them?

Because these books were accepted by the Jewish authority.

 

[diggerdomer]

It is my understanding the Church does teach that the Bible is inerrant in things not only pertaing to salvation, faith, and morals, but also in science and history.

No… unless I’m really misunderstanding what you wrote, this is almost the opposite of what the Catholic Church teaches.

See these para from the Catechism (my bolding ids the most significant sentence in my opinion to your question):

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, 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."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error **teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”**72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

Footnote 72 refers to the II Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum):

1. 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 truth of Scripture is in what God intended written there for the sake of our salvation. Biological, historical, etc. truths are not “for the sake of our salvation” and for that reason (and others) are not what we look for in Scripture as Catholics.

 

[JRKH]

So - Since The Revelation of the Proper Biblical Canon was given by the Holy Spirit to men and, as you say - “proved and reproved” - time and again in council, why would you accept a canon that is different?

Well obviously if I take your dates and add 321 + 1290 the result is 1611. I do not have the time do to health issues to go digging around for your challenge. If you 'd like to make yourself clear p;ease do so, but your response has nothing to do with the question posed.

If the proper canon of scripture was given to men around 400 AD, and was reaffirmed (That is proofed and reproofed a number of times before the Protestant reformation, then why do you accept a different canon?

I note in your discussion above with Contarini that you address why you accept a truncated canon which lead to the next problem.
The Problem becomes that, by rejecting the canon as established by - The Christian Church councils as early as 390 AD AND reaffirmed several times before the “Reformation”, you are, in effect, saying that the councils that set the canon and all those after got it wrong. BUT If they got this, or any part of the canon, wrong then they were obviously protected from error and the ENTIRE canon becomes suspect. You simply cannot have a partially protected Church council - especially one that is determining the inerrant word of God.

I might add that, the Deuteros were accepted by “Church Councils”, that is by groups of Bishops and on several occasions. They were removed on the say so of one person - Martin Luther -

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Once again friends, I am moving a bit of conversation between myself and heiscoming… from another thread to here. for comment.

*Posted by JRKH *

Now it certainly seems obvious that The Church, which had been teaching orally under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for so long, would have a really good idea of what the proper meanings are of the various passages in the Bible texts. So the Sola Scriptura notion that one can seperate the Bible from the Church is a false one.

*Response by hesicoming…*I am not clear as to your meaning that the church taught orally. For when revelation did come by way of the unction of the Holy Spirit orally, it was imediately discerned and then written for the benefit of the entire body of Christ which was spread over great distances. In this way they could all be in once accord, each church having that same teaching from the Holy Spirit.

First of all, Christ taught orally for 3 years. What has been written can be comfortably read in less than a week. I’m sure that Jesus did not spend the rest of that time in silence but rather in even more teaching and explaining to the Apostles.

Second we can look to Paul for a prime example of the Church teaching orally for he recorded thus:

• 2 Th 2:15
  So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by **word of mouth **or by letter from us. *

“Word of Mouth” means orally. Further, since he says “whether”, it is obvious that he has not written down everything that he orally taught.

Thirdly, since the earliest Gospel that we have was written about 65 AD at the earliest, and many of Paul’s letters predate that (7 or 8 anyway) it is pretty clear that there was much oral teaching going on in the years just after Christ’s assention.
A good link for early Church writings is here Give it a look.

By the way The Church, and indeed all churches still do teach orally - Every Sunday from the Pulpit.

And now that I’ve clarified the detail of Oral teaching in the early Church, perhaps you would address the main issue raised about the “Pre-canon” Church having a clear and accurate understanding of the meanings of the various books and letters that were in circulation at the time. These clear and accurate understandsings were passed on in the Church to the successors of the Apostles who in turned passed them on to their successors and so forth.
Therefore isn’t is reasonable to assume that the men who assembled the canon - as revealed to them by the Holy Spirit - would also have a good understanding of the intended meanings of those scriptures? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that they knew what the orginal authors intended?

Peace
James

 

[severntofall]

I might be a little behind but I’ll give 'er a shot.

I think before you go after contradictions, you should check out how Christians respond first.

Again, that same website deals with the slaughter of the innocents and the creation account:
tektonics.org/qt/slaughtinn.html

No, the book of genesis clearly provides a order of events in each account and they contradict one another (not to mention all known science).

tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

An interesting point to make here is that the G of Matt claims that Herod ordered the massacre of all boys under 2 within Bethlehem and it’s vicinity. Jerusalem, which was the closest inhabited location near Bethlehem and no more than a 2 two hour walk away (6 miles) from Bethlehem would easily have been within the vicinity. Again, it’s very difficult to image that such an event would have escaped the notice of historians not to mention the other Gospel authors. This event you have gone a very long way towards demonstrating the divinity of Jesus and only Matthew found it worthy of mention. Let’s not forget that the nativity description found in Luke contradicts that of Matt…in other words, they both cannot be true. One might be true, but at least one account is a lie.

As for the “zombies” (Actually, they were saints with glorified bodies)
christian-thinktank.com/oddrise.html

Yes, Holy Men rising from the grave and returning to Jerusalem and nobody but the author of Matthew noticed! Now, all four mention the sky turning dark (a common occurrence barely worthy of mention) which could have been caused by cloud cover or an eclipse (assuming that it actually happened hint: it didn’t). Ultimately an event which is not unheard of gets mentioned by all four gospels. All four also mention a piece of cloth ripping upon his death (again didn’t actually happen) but even if it did it would be hardly an unheard of event. However, only Matthew finds dead holy men rising from their tombs (which all simultaneously cracked open) and hanging out with people in Jerusalem worthy of a mention. Seriously, an event unrivaled in the annuls of human history, holy men rising in mass, and only Matthew mentions it!

 

[Contarini]

Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all 37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

Acts13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

Could you try to explain how this actually answers my question?

Because the Jews were the authority over the OT. God did not give it to the Christians first, but the Jews.

And here I think your dispensationalism is coming into play. I reject the theological premises that lead you to think that there is some intrinsic distinction between “Jews” and “Christians,” rather than between believers under the Old Covenant and the “new Israel” based on faith in Christ fulfilling the promises of the Old Covenant (ironically, it’s common in mainline circles to agree with dispensationalism on this point out of “political correctness”!), or horizontally between Christians and rabbinic Jews as rival claimants to continuity with Second Temple Judaism. It makes no more sense for Christians to accept the authority of rabbinic Judaism on the Old Testament canon than it does for Protestants to accept the authority of the Council of Trent (indeed, arguably less, since we believe that Jesus brought new revelation and we presumably don’t believe that the Reformers did).

They did so out of appeasment becaause of pressure from catholic authority both in Rome and England.

Do you have any actual historical evidence for this, or do you just believe it because your theological assumptions lead you to think it must be true?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

An interesting point to make here is that the G of Matt claims that Herod ordered the massacre of all boys under 2 within Bethlehem and it’s vicinity. Jerusalem, which was the closest inhabited location near Bethlehem and no more than a 2 two hour walk away (6 miles) from Bethlehem would easily have been within the vicinity

Nonsense. I live in a fairly small town (Huntington) about 20 miles from Fort Wayne (which in terms of modern travel conditions is closer than the distance from Jerusalem to Bethlehem). But if someone said that something happened in “Huntington and its vicinity” I wouldn’t think of including Fort Wayne. I’d assume that the event happened in Huntington and the smaller towns and rural areas around it–and if there were no smaller towns (if, for instance, someone said instead that something happened in “Markle and its vicinity”), I’d assume that it referred to people living in isolated farms near the town. That’s the most reasonable way of understanding the reference in Matthew–it referred to Bethlehem and anyone who happened to live right outside the town. For that matter, since I’m not an inerrantist, I’m happy to concede the possibility that the author of Matthew didn’t quite understand the geography and threw in that phrase even though it was somewhat misleading. I’m even willing to concede that the story may not be literally true–I just don’t think it’s as obviously false as you are claiming.

Edwin

 

[PJM]

=catholic1seeks;4985372]The reason you can’t find it is because you’re looking in Luke’s Gosepl. I’m talking about Mark’s!

:banghead:I am sooooo SORRY!:bigyikes:

Your are absolutely correct. Some day you’ll have share how you came across this miss- stament of fact.

Can you elaborate on your comment on “EVERYTHING in the Bible is inerrant/infallible but not factual.”

Actually what I said, or should have said is: "Everything in the Bible is truthful, but not necessarily factual."

Your example is just one of many samples of what I mean.

Indeed 1 Sam 21:1 has the High Priest “Ahimeleck”, Mk. 2:26 calls the HP “Abiathar”, and Mt. Ch. 12 mentions no name, Luke’s account (ch. 6) mentions no name at all for the HP. As they were written later, they may have discovered the error?

Your example proves that “not every word” isFactual however does this change the truthfullness of the account? No it does not! The point is that the "Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath!"

Here is an example of text with three samples of "not being factual"

Mt. 16: " 9 “Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11 How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Phariseesand Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Were their EXACTLY 5000, or 4000? NO! These simply mean large crowds. And is Jesus really calling the Priest "loaves of bread’? Of course not… see verse 12.

Does any of this actually change the message, which is truth? No, it does not.

How about the story of Creation: Did God actually do it in six days?

**Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not! **It could have been 6000 days. or 6 seconds; after all what God did is to to “Will” the Universe into being.

Again, does it change the truthfull message that God is our Creator? No, it does not.

I once heard it said that there are in excess of a million words in the bible. Given that even in the time of King David that Jewish History was Oral, not yet written down, and passed from mouth to ear, ear to mouth and so on, over a period of thousands of years, one has to expect some amount of loss of fact. However, it is TRUTH, that we seek, and TRUTH that we are given and assurred of.

It is my understanding the Church does teach that the Bible is inerrant in things not only pertaing to salvation, faith, and morals, but also in science and history. We must also pay attention to the genre and writer’s intention, though.

The position of the RCC is that the Bible, while not always 100% Factual, is nevertheless, 100% TRUTHFULL, to what God wishes us to know, and obey.The RCC holds that SIGNIFIANT histroical FACTS are truthful, but does not take a position of science, as the understanding of the same, obviously evolves with enlightened understanding. Not so with history, at least to same degree. Thus, She stresses “Signifiant History”… the birth, life and death of Jesus for example.

It is the RCC itself, as the only Church actually founded by Christ, that holds “the key’s to heaven” (Mt.16:19), and has the assurence of the Blood of Chrsit and the constant presence of the Holy Spirit, that cannot be in error on any and all matters of faith and ot Morals.

What is in dark blue above kind of led me to the question on the high priest mentioned in Mark vs. that of Samuel. The intention of Mark was to given an account of the teachings and life of Christ; so shouldn’t the name of the high priest really be inerrant?/

QUOTE]

I would use "could have /should have, but NOT MUST HAVE! It has NO bearing on the Moral of the Story! Zip, zerro, none, and so is a none issue. Actually it may have had a bearing on the “time frame,” but that too does not alter the Moral Truth of the Story.

Love and prayers,

 

[PJM]

=heiscominginthe;4985370]Certainly Jesus is the Word of God. Yet, I offer you a challenge. The last chapter of Daniel fortells of a time when the daily offering would be ceased till a time when it would once again be reinstated. The year this occured was 321 AD. Search for information as to what had occured that perticular year in the church. Then add 1290 years to the 321 to find out when the daily offering began once again.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. 13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

My dear friend in Christ,

May I humbly suggest that your working too hard!

It seems to me to be prudent to concern ourselves with the TRUTH of the MESSAGE of God, and less concerned about the many insignifiant details, which neither add to or take away from the TRUTH that God is trying to share with us, teach us, and give us for our benefit.

Love and prayers,

 

[catholic1seeks]

No… unless I’m really misunderstanding what you wrote, this is almost the opposite of what the Catholic Church teaches.

See these para from the Catechism (my bolding ids the most significant sentence in my opinion to your question):

Footnote 72 refers to the II Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum):

The truth of Scripture is in what God intended written there for the sake of our salvation. Biological, historical, etc. truths are not “for the sake of our salvation” and for that reason (and others) are not what we look for in Scripture as Catholics.

IN BOLD ABOVE: That does not mean the rest is not inerrant. See THIS POST.