What does the Church mean when she says the Bible is free from error?

[Aloysium]

Gen 1:24 God said, ‘Let the earth produce every kind of living creature in its own species: cattle, creeping things and wild animals of all kinds.’ And so it was.
25 God made wild animals in their own species, and cattle in theirs, and every creature that crawls along the earth in its own species. God saw that it was good.
26 God said, ‘Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground.’

Gen 2:18 Yahweh God said, ‘It is not right that the man should be alone. I shall make him a helper.’
19 So from the soil Yahweh God fashioned all the wild animals and all the birds of heaven. These he brought to the man to see what he would call them; each one was to bear the name the man would give it.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of heaven and all the wild animals. But no helper suitable for the man was found for him.
21 Then, Yahweh God made the man fall into a deep sleep. And, while he was asleep, he took one of his ribs and closed the flesh up again forthwith.
22 Yahweh God fashioned the rib he had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man.

Different points are being made:
This first description tells us that He created the different strata of the universe: heaven, earth, plants, animals, man.
The second tells of the how and why He made us two persons united in love.

 

[JamesCaruso]

The writing of the Biblical texts were inspired by God. If you are looking for truth, you will find it there. If you don’t want to make stupid and possibly dangerous misinterpretations like I did, you will listen to the authority on Biblical interpretation, the Catholic Church.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

Let us be kinder to one another.

Some of us as part of the love of God enjoy reading about and trying to understand better God’s inspired words in the bible, for example accounts of events as well as the Gospel teachings, others prefer to concentrate on the path of right alone. These are not incompatible. We are a catholic Catholic church.

Peace be with you.

 

[miodrag1963]

To use a more appropriate example, if the Pope says that Adam and Eve were created at the same time, except that God took a break after creating Adam to create animals, then he created Eve, then that’s quite clearly insane and nothing that is said after that has any meaning.

Another thing is, if Pope ( or anyone else ) says there are no errors while there they are, then it is the same as saying that black is white and white is black, and that is a sin against the Holy Spirit, which is a very serious thing. We may try to justify that by saying it is necessary, otherwise people would not accept Bible if they thought there are errors, and that would seriously undermine the Church. On the other hand, this way Church may be silently living in a lie and a sin, ignoring criticism and common sense, which has no perspective as we part further from the Middle Ages, and that is also a serious thing that undermines the Church. I would hope for the shift in the minds of believers, so their faith does not depend anymore on any text or mental concoction. Like if we need a new Moses, to lead people the new way, until the whole generation of old way believers is gone, and a new one emerges, that could testify the Scripture in a more natural way.

 

[Spyral]

The Bible contains Truth, not necessarily facts.

That is such a weasely answer. Therefore if it’s a fact but contradicts the bible its not true?

No wonder people are giving up on religion if that is the calibre of the argument.

 

[Abu]

miodrag1963 #44
Another thing is, if Pope ( or anyone else ) says there are no errors while there they are, then it is the same as saying that black is white and white is black, and that is a sin against the Holy Spirit,
I would hope for the shift in the minds of believers, so their faith does not depend anymore on any text or mental concoction.
this way Church may be silently living in a lie and a sin, ignoring criticism and common sense,

A false preoccupation with the shifting sands of ignorance and unbelief – no one has any authority to interpret the Sacred Scriptures as they have been declared such by the Magisterium which has Christ’s authority to teach without error. Thus real Catholics rely on the interpretation of the Catholic Church not on distortions.

“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, with faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14). Again St Paul writes: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2).

In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1Jn 4:6).

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).

So where are the selfists now who don’t want to listen to Christ and His Church but do their own thing? And the same failure to listen to Christ’s Church has produced thousands of sects all differing in some way!

 

[Spyral]

A false preoccupation with the shifting sands of ignorance and unbelief – no one has any authority to interpret the Sacred Scriptures as they have been declared such by the Magisterium which has Christ’s authority to teach without error. Thus real Catholics rely on the interpretation of the Catholic Church not on distortions.

That’s circular - we have the authority to tell you what books are valid and it gives us our authority, also we are the only ones who can tell you what the books say because the books (which you cannot interpret) give us that authority…

 

[JamesCaruso]

That’s circular - we have the authority to tell you what books are valid and it gives us our authority, also we are the only ones who can tell you what the books say because the books (which you cannot interpret) give us that authority…

The books don’t give the Church its authority. That authority was given it by Christ himself. The books, those of the New Testament, were written by the Church, and they explain, in part, how Christ gave authority to the Church to teach, and how he imparted his promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Yes, there is a certain amount of faith required to believe that the writers of the gospels and epistles were telling the truth as to what they witnessed Christ to say and do. But that goes without saying. Unless you were there and saw for yourself, you would have to rely on the words of others. It then turns to you to read the reports and to ascertain for yourself, or rather for the Holy Spirit to ratify within you, that the message is true. Therefore, it is gainful for you to be open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit with a humble spirit and a contrite heart in your attempt to discern the truthfulness of the sacred texts. It may help your incredulity to observe the countless numbers who went before you and who witnessed to the veracity of the gospel even at the cost of their lives, including those who claimed to be eye witnesses of Jesus Christ. If they were perpetuating a lie for either good or bad motives would they have the wherewithal to put their very lives on the line? All of the apostles did so, except John who lived to an old age and Judas who betrayed Christ.

 

[Abu]

Spyral #47
That’s circular - we have the authority to tell you what books are valid and it gives us our authority, also we are the only ones who can tell you what the books say because the books (which you cannot interpret) give us that authority…

The presumption that the argument is “circular” is completely false because the objection is a straw-man.
THINK, of the absurdity expressed above.

It takes real squares to feel that it is circular to acknowledge with reason that the historical accounts in the Gospels factually through eyewitnesses show the establishment of Christ’s Church on Peter the Rock, His miracles, His claim to be God and His Resurrection, and to accept that His Church with His authority can then teach infallibly and tell us what writings are the inspired Word of God!

**For all readers, the falsehood of circularity is shown in the reality that: **

1. The documents of Scripture are HISTORICAL – it is absurd to claim that Scripture is inspired without the authority of God to know that it is inspired.
2. However, HISTORICALLY, the documents of Scripture relate that the man Jesus claimed to be sent by God, claimed to be God, proved His claim by His miracles and His Resurrection, established His Church on St Peter to continue His teaching until the end of time.
3. HIS CHURCH, HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED, then teaches what writings form God’s Word and that all of those writings, and no others, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. No one else can decide what books are inspired or has any authority to do so.

When the Twelve are sent on mission, they are told by Christ “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15).

Those who don’t know their history need to. The authorisation, coming from Christ’s Vicar and His Church, didn’t fall out of thin air, but from Christ’s mandate to teach all that He had commanded.

Since the facts prove the certification and authorisation of the Sacred Scriptures by Christ’s Catholic Church (O.T & NT) from His Vicar, as the canon of the Scriptures for use as the inspired Word of God, all attempts to evade these truths merely show not only the false god of private interpretation but privation and deprivation for those so victimised.

Thus only the Catholic Church has Christ’s authority to interpret the Sacred Scriptures – Her faithful wrote the New Testament.

 

[Spyral]

1. The documents of Scripture are HISTORICAL – it is absurd to claim that Scripture is inspired without the authority of God to know that it is inspired.
2. However, HISTORICALLY, the documents of Scripture relate that the man Jesus claimed to be sent by God, claimed to be God, proved His claim by His miracles and His Resurrection, established His Church on St Peter to continue His teaching until the end of time.
3. HIS CHURCH, HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED, then teaches what writings form God’s Word and that all of those writings, and no others, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. No one else can decide what books are inspired or has any authority to do so.

1. the initial post of this thread explains the objections where historical fact opposes the bible. The answer - the bible is Truth not fact. Go figure:shrug:
2. Lots of people claim to be god, lots of supposed resurrections and various other similar myths at the time. If someone reads harry potter in 2000 years are they to assume that Voldemort and wizards were real?
3. A church was established. It claimed to have authority, then again why wouldn’t it? This is the circular argument. The church was established, said it had authority, legitimised certain documents which say it had authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority, which enabled it to decide on the legitimacy of certain documents which give it authority — ∞

A game of chineese whispers or telephone perhaps…

 

[westNwewaxation]

The books don’t give the Church its authority. That authority was given it by Christ himself.

Bingo. It is not really that hard to understand what we are supposed to believe.

Ralph Martin has talked about this, and how we are obliged to believe what God has spoken to us, especially if we identify as Catholics, by which we are implicitly saying we believe the teachings of the Church are in fact the teachings of Jesus.

“… the root sin of the world is refusal to believe in Jesus and the place He holds next to the Father as a revelation of the Father. The root sin is to reject the truth. “Whoever believes in the Son, has eternal life. Whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath” (John 3). Something’s really at stake when God’s word is spoken, when God’s word is read, when God’s word is taught, when God’s word is spoken in conversations. Speaking God’s word is a form of spiritual warfare.”
The Sin of Unbelief

 

[Abu]

The puerility of post #50 by Spyral is self-defeating, going around in circles and tailing into gibberish.

The historian Eusebius in his Church History, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God.

 

[Aloysium]

1. the initial post of this thread explains the objections where historical fact opposes the bible. The answer - the bible is Truth not fact. Go figure:shrug:
2. Lots of people claim to be god, lots of supposed resurrections and various other similar myths at the time. If someone reads harry potter in 2000 years are they to assume that Voldemort and wizards were real?
3. A church was established. It claimed to have authority, then again why wouldn’t it? This is the circular argument. The church was established, said it had authority, legitimised certain documents which say it had authority, which enabled it to decide on the . . . ∞

A game of chineese whispers or telephone perhaps…

:twocents:

I know absolutely no “facts” about Spyral but the post reveals truths about him. Scripture can be seen as doing something similar in that it plants seeds in our human soul that bear spiritual fruit with the grace of the Holy Spirit. It guides us to and helps us understand the Way, who is Jesus Christ. We are meant to contemplate its meanings and follow its moral teachings; doing so brings us closer to God.

Reading myths and stories can be interesting and fun. I find Harry Potter to be rather boring and superficial, nothing close to Narnia or Lord of the Rings. At any rate they are something different than scripture and you can tell someone does not know much about either category of writing when they make such comparisons.

As to circular arguments: Some questions are like asking, “How do you know 3-2=1.”. One can explain: 2+1=3, 1+2=3, 1+1+1=3, etc - this is not a circular argument. How else does one communicate something that is true. That’s how it is: one understands or one doesn’t.

BTW: Where is all the emotion in the post coming from. If it is out of frustration about not understanding Catholicism, I would suggest going to the Bible and the catechism, rather than arguing with people on forums.

 

[Spyral]

My experience of arguing theology and/or apologetics with catholics tends to go : the grass is green. Why? because the grass is green. Why? because the grass is green ad infinatum.

While 3-2=1 and 2+1=3 are different, repeating that 3-2=1 over and over does not explain it or make it true. In this case it is true and can be shown to be true. The same is not necessarily true of church teaching.

Emotion is coming from various things including being a catholic for 20-odd years before questioning and having life crumble around me. Trying to deepen my faith has resulted in more pain and depression than before. I find it lacks answers and I am annoyed by the arrogance that perfuses it in regards to ‘traditionalism’, the clericalism and eliteism that flourishes, the whining about different orders (People saying the Jesuits suck… but the new pope who is great is a Jesuit… ) and so on. It’s quite petty and sad.
Protestantism is not well developed and too simplistic.
At this stage I might as well sacrifice goats to the great sun god Ra to bring the rain!

 

[JamesCaruso]

My experience of arguing theology and/or apologetics with catholics tends to go : the grass is green. Why? because the grass is green. Why? because the grass is green ad infinatum.

While 3-2=1 and 2+1=3 are different, repeating that 3-2=1 over and over does not explain it or make it true. In this case it is true and can be shown to be true. The same is not necessarily true of church teaching.

Emotion is coming from various things including being a catholic for 20-odd years before questioning and having life crumble around me. Trying to deepen my faith has resulted in more pain and depression than before. I find it lacks answers and I am annoyed by the arrogance that perfuses it in regards to ‘traditionalism’, the clericalism and eliteism that flourishes, the whining about different orders (People saying the Jesuits suck… but the new pope who is great is a Jesuit… ) and so on. It’s quite petty and sad.
Protestantism is not well developed and too simplistic.
At this stage I might as well sacrifice goats to the great sun god Ra to bring the rain!

Words are symbols we use to convey meaning. Large numbers of people agree on what the symbols mean. They do so in order to be able to communicate and to be understood. So you honestly have a problem with the statement that grass is green?

 

[Abu]

Spyral, as a self-styled Agnostic/Confused/Lapsed/Heretic/Apostate, would be wise to take the opportunity here to look at the historical facts that lead to the acceptance of the redemption of mankind which Jesus the Christ lovingly brought about and His establishment of His Church which enables the salvation of all who are worthy of that salvation.

 

[Micosil]

…

1. Lots of people claim to be god, lots of supposed resurrections and various other similar myths at the time. If someone reads harry potter in 2000 years are they to assume that Voldemort and wizards were real?
   …

Are you aware of any other resurrection account which has 100+ witnesses to its credit? Or perhaps people that were so convinced it was true they went out and willingly had themselves martyred? I suppose you can come up with a convincing explanation of why the tomb was empty, too; trust me, they’ve all been refuted.

Anywho, going back on topic. I think the following Bible verses explain beautifully how one needs to be guided to properly understand the Scriptures…

Acts 8:30-31:

30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

 

[Spyral]

Are you aware of any other resurrection account which has 100+ witnesses to its credit? Or perhaps people that were so convinced it was true they went out and willingly had themselves martyred?

These witnesses are where today? it’s a big game of chinese whispers. No non-biblical witness accounts were recorded until after the fact. No non christian testimonies exist. If the formerly dead Muhammad got up and was walking around downtown quite a lot of non-muslims would be writing about it.


Can you imagine a movement today claiming that a soldier in World War Two rose physically from the dead, but when you asked for proof all they offered you were a mere handful of anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980’s? Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof?

I suppose you can come up with a convincing explanation of why the tomb was empty, too; trust me, [

I never said anything of the sort. But you believe what you want to believe.]("http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-
)

 

[PJM]

=raikou;10849542]What does the Church mean when she says the Bible is free from error?

Some people say that the Bible contains apparent factual errors and contradictions. How should I react to these? Should I attempt to figure out how these verses were probably misinterpreted in a way that the original writer (and thus, the Holy Spirit) did not want to convey? Or should I accept that factual errors do exist in the Bible, but that such errors are not relevant to our salvation?

Does inspiration mean that the writer is enabled to teach a truth relevant to our salvation but does not eliminate human limitations or errors in matters not relevant to salvation (for example, inability to remember an event in accurate detail)? Or are such apparent errors not really errors because they were actually intended to serve a purpose other than historical/factual accuracy?

If possible, please support your replies with official Church documents. Thank you.

Understand what the Bible is: God’s devinely Inspired Word [meaning Teachings]

It is NOT a history book
It is NOT a science book

It IS the TRUTH without always being factual.

Because the bible dates to more than 2,000 years of Jewish faith developement and then the NT era, and the levels of litercy were widely varied, and writting itmes costly and rare, TRADITION of mouth to mouth recounting took place.

One should seek the MORALS. the lessons God wants us to know and ignore those who try to prove thier errant positions through lack of logic and commonsense.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

It IS the TRUTH without always being factual.

What exactly does a statement like this mean and how does it fit in with Providentissimus Deus?