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

[PJM]

=QNDNNDQDCE;10915130]What exactly does a statement like this mean and how does it fit in with Providentissimus Deus?

here’s just one example

Matt.7: [3] Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? [4] Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? [5] You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye"

The Bible authors used a great many forms of authorship.

And the bible is NOT a history book, or a science book.

So While it shares always God’s TRUTH, it is not always factual in doing so.

 

[aragonjohn1]

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.

"In his great encyclical on biblical studies, Providentissimus Deus (1893), Pope Leo XIII cites these words of Augustine and adds that Augustine’s insight was by no means singular, but it represented the consensus of the tradition: “. . . emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error . . .” Leo XIII re-asserted this teaching with fervor. Leo also stated in no uncertain terms the traditional teaching that the inerrancy of the Bible may not be restricted to matters of faith and morals, but rather is plenary in scope:

But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it — this system cannot be tolerated.

In addition, Leo draws attention to the weight of this teaching:

And so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican."

also look at Dei Verbum
catholic education

phil vaz

God bless

 

[Vouthon]

For me this is fairly simple:

God only teaches what is necessary for our salvation, that is, matters pertaining to faith and morals. All of the Bible, therefore, must have some import to give with regards to our faith and morals.

When writing these books, the sacred authors were not divorced from their contexts. God made use of their “powers and abilities”. They thus spoke through the cultural, scientific and everyday language of their time, as a medium whereby to express spiritual truths as well as matters of faith (such as the dogmas of the incarnation and resurrection).

There are no inerrant scientific or other “facts” in the Bible. There are only matters of faith and morals revealed for our salvation which are often “cloaked” in the scientific, cultural and linguistic modes common to the period in which these divine truths were revealed to the sacred authors. God would not reveal something unnecessary for our salvation since that is the end of the entire Sacred Tradition: to bring man to God’s salvation in Christ.

So yes, the Bible is inerrant but the Bible is a book of faith and morals not of science.

To bring us to salvation and faith, the Bible does not have to be free of literal contradictions since there are different ways of expressing truth.

It is legitimate for one author to trust the science of his day and express a divine truth through the medium of that understanding, while another expresses the same truth through a different understanding. The Truth is one, inerrant and vivifying; yet it is revealed through fallible human authors with their own preconceptions, limited worldview, linguistic, social and political context.

Even the Gospels are not “biographies” of Jesus’ life. They were written for our salvation. They describe the truth that God’s son became man, lived, died and rose for us. The sacred authors are therefore selective with the facts and often will present the truth (say Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem) with slightly different details based upon their own recollections and what they want to convey. Nevertheless that Jesus entered Jerusalem did occur, for example, and has been revealed for our salvation since it fulfilled OT prophecy.

 

[Vouthon]

Consider Dei Verbum 19:

The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

Avery Cardinal Dulles commenting on this paragraph explained:

Dei Verbum 12, following Divino Afflante Spiritu, attaches great importance to literary criticism and form criticism. “Attention must be paid,” it declares, “to the customary and characteristic styles of perceiving, speaking, and narrating that prevailed at the time.” For an application of these principles one may consult Dei Verbum 19. Discussing the historicity of the Gospels, the Council here points out that the original reports of the “words and deeds of Jesus” underwent developments at the stage of oral transmission because the message was reformulated to address the varying situations of the churches. Then the sacred writers, composing the four Gospels, made further adaptations in view of their literary and theological perspectives.

To be correctly understood, Dei Verbum 19 should be read in light of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s 1964 instruction on the historical truth of the Gospels,10 which is referenced in a footnote. This instruction treated the three stages of the Gospel tradition more amply. While holding that all four Gospels are genuinely historical, the Council alerts us to the fact that they are not, and are not intended to be, verbatim reports or descriptions such as might come from an audio-visual tape. The Gospels are proclamatory documents, written from faith to faith. The Council’s broad understanding of historicity thus obviates fundamentalist oversimplification

 

[Vouthon]

Avery Cardinal Dulles also noted:

**In its treatment of inspiration and inerrancy, Dei Verbum 11 had manifested the Council’s recognition of the human (name removed by moderator)ut of the sacred writers, with all their personal and cultural limitations. Vatican II speaks freely, not only of God as the “author” of Scripture, but also of the human authors as “true authors.”…In its treatment of inerrancy in Dei Verbum 11, the Council refrained from stating explicitly that every declarative sentence in the Bible is true. It says instead that the books of Scripture (in the plural) teach firmly and without error the truth that God wanted to commit to them for the sake of our salvation.

The unity of the Bible, founded upon its divine inspiration, is of decisive importance for a Christian reading of the Old Testament. In chapter 4, the Council states that the books of the Old Testament “acquire and show forth their full meaning (significationem completam) in the New Testament . . . and in turn shed light on it and explain it” (Dei Verbum 16). The passage from prophecy to fulfillment and from type to antitype is a staple of classical Christian exegesis…

Dei Verbum thus seems to attribute inerrancy to the Bible as a whole, more than to individual passages, which must then be read in the context of the whole.**

 

[Vouthon]

And the bible is NOT a history book, or a science book.

So While it shares always God’s TRUTH, it is not always factual in doing so.

Amen

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI agrees from the Second book of his trilogy:

Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here: How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus’ death? It seems obvious that the historical reality is correctly described in John’s account and in Mark’s. The real group of accusers are the current Temple authorities, joined in the context of the Passover amnesty by the “crowd” of Barabbas’ supporters.

 

[Robertanthony]

All those seeking in the Bible and the Church a coherent, cohesive, understandable system are in for a sore disappointment. “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. Well, it doesn’t actually mean that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church…

In an ideal world, “parting the sea” would mean “parting the sea” and not a tidal surge that meterology can easily explain. In an ideal world, we would know if 5000 really ate *whole raw *fish, we would know if some were sick because washing one’s hands was not all too common back in those days. In an ideal world, God’s “inspiration” would have prevented people to write stuff that causes the modern man to burst out laughing. Whatever contrived explanation you can come up with, reading that the Earth is static or that it is the center of the universe, or that the sun revolves around it is factually incorrect, untrue and lessens the credibility of everything else. Why do most Catholics think that Adam and Eve are myths? Everything written in Genesis is allegory, literary device, drunk man’s divagation, all of it is just that, but Adam and Eve were real. It’s hard to believe the one small truth that is hidden in the plethora of lies told by a verbose mythomaniac. God is a mystifying god, he loves confusion. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t have “graced” us with something no one (even Scott Hahn or his transgender wife) can make sense of or know why it was written. Book of “Revelation” p). What does the Book of Revelation actually reveal? (answer: God is a mystifying god, so the Book of Revelation reveals nothing that anyone can actually comprehend). That it’s called “Revelation” shows the extent of God’s dismal humor.

 

[Pete_Holter]

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

…]

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

Greetings in Christ, raikou!

Here is my take: on InerrancyDei Verbum.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Feldwebel]

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.

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII, ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, 20

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican

Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture.