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

[JamesCaruso]

It is certainly necessary to take the sacred author’s intentions into mind when interpreting Scripture. However, the conclusion that the Scriptures contain error in any true sense is not a tenable conclusion for one who calls himself Catholic. We cannot limit inerrancy to matters of faith and morals because God is the author of the entirety of Scripture in all of its parts. Let me quote from Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII.

1. The principles here laid down will apply cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labour carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, …He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "(59)
2. It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the “higher criticism;” for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: “On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honour and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.”(60)
   vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

From the same source:

…we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.”(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science…

I.e.; the Bible does not purport to be a science book or a study of the natural world. One might not get that fact from the quotation posted from the same source.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

From the same source:

…we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.”(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science…

I.e.; the Bible does not purport to be a science book or a study of the natural world. One might not get that fact from the quotation posted from the same source.

There is quite a large difference between saying that someone has spoken figuratively and saying that he has erred.

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.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

If you think the Bible contains no inconsistencies, then think about all the other wacky things you have to believe.

Why were there so many debates about Christology and virtually everything else right from the beginning? Faith and works vs. faith alone, the Bible doesn’t contain both ideas? Was the law abolished, fulfilled, both— Jewish Christians vs. Gentile Christians, etc. Why are there thousands - maybe tens of thousands or more Christian sects with varying doctrines? Why are there two creation accounts, and how can their disagreements be reconciled? No Biblical redactor ever disagreed with the book(s) he worked on?

Finally, why do we need the Church to interpret the Bible at all if the Bible is fully coherent and contains no disagreement? Aren’t you undermining the need for the Church by clinging to this view?

If you wish to assert that there are contradictions in Scripture, it is up to you to demonstrate it by providing an example rather than expect me to reconcile every subset of the text with every other subset. It will suffice at the moment for me to say that there are no contradictions in Scripture. As for your question, no, an inerrant Bible does not undermine the need for the Church–as if interpreting the Bible were the sole duty of the Church–because the Bible is not perspicuous. On the other hand, you never answered my question. Don’t you undermine the Church when you insist that there are numerous errors in the Holy Scriptures, contrary to the authoritative teaching of the Popes and Councils of the Church? You do not even profess the idea of limited inerrancy as much as an outright denial of the inspiration of Scripture. Now tell me, why do you trust that there is anything worth extracting from the Bible when the authors who were taught directly by Christ cannot even agree on the fundamental message of the Gospel? Why do you cling to a Church who’s teachings you reject?

 

[JamesCaruso]

There is quite a large difference between saying that someone has spoken figuratively and saying that he has erred.

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.

I have read what you said twice and I still do not understand it. Are you saying (1) that the Bible cannot err with regards to history or science? (2) The Bible can be depended on 100% for inerrancy in more than faith and morals?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

If you wish to assert that there are contradictions in Scripture, it is up to you to demonstrate it by providing an example rather than expect me to reconcile every subset of the text with every other subset. It will suffice at the moment for me to say that there are no contradictions in Scripture. As for your question, no, an inerrant Bible does not undermine the need for the Church–as if interpreting the Bible were the sole duty of the Church–because the Bible is not perspicuous. On the other hand, you never answered my question. Don’t you undermine the Church when you insist that there are numerous errors in the Holy Scriptures, contrary to the authoritative teaching of the Popes and Councils of the Church? You do not even profess the idea of limited inerrancy as much as an outright denial of the inspiration of Scripture. Now tell me, why do you trust that there is anything worth extracting from the Bible when the authors who were taught directly by Christ cannot even agree on the fundamental message of the Gospel? Why do you cling to a Church who’s teachings you reject?

No, try my very simple question: if the Bible isn’t supposed to contain errors, inconsistencies and contradictions, then why does it? Why are there so many of these things?

 

[Abu]

VeritasLuxMea #11
On more than one occasion, the Bible says both X and ~X are true. If the Church, likewise, is saying that both X and ~X are true, then the Church is assaulting the laws of logic and the gift of human reason.
Fortunately, I’m pretty sure that the Church doesn’t want us to think that way.

The Church has stated precisely that the Sacred Scriptures are free of all error, as you have been shown, and as quoted already.

This fact is explained by Fr John Echert of EWTN.
Question on 16/12/2007:
Does the Catholic Church still maintain that all of scripture is inspired and inerrant, or did this teaching change with Vatican II’s Dei Verbum #11, in which only the portions of scripture necessary for salvation are considered to be inspired?
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 20/12/2007 (EWTN):
You are likely working off a badly translated version of Dei Verbum, which changed the word order of the original Conciliar statement, which some use–erroneously–to claim that inerrancy applies only to matters related to salvation. In the text below, I provide an accurate translation, with the correct order: The Church formally teaches that the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely without error. This teaching is not arrived at inductively–namely, that a careful study of the entire Bible has revealed no discrepancies or difficulties–but follows from the fact that God is the ultimate Author of the Bible and falsehood is incompatible with Truth Itself. As taught by the Second Vatican Council: 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 the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

On a literal interpretation:
See rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html: [Fr Brian Harrison refers to The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (*Dei Verbum) of Vatican II, 1963-5].
“The true sense of Dei Verbum, 11, then, is not that the guarantee of inerrancy covers those propositions which a biblical author affirms (or teaches) as opposed to those which he merely “states,” i.e., with less force or deliberation, but still as an expression of his own judgment. Rather, it covers those propositions he affirms (or teaches) as opposed to those which he merely “uses materially,” i.e., those in which what appears on paper, taken in isolation, or in its most superficially literal sense, does not express his own judgment in any way.

”These “materially used” (but not formally affirmed) propositions in Scripture would appear to be of three main kinds. First (and most obviously), there are those which the human author does not himself utter but attributes to someone else, in which case divine inspiration guarantees only the truthful reporting of such propositions, not the truth of the propositions themselves. Secondly, this category would include individual propositions used by the author as part of a parable or other imaginative literary composition, in which the formally affirmed teachings it sets out to convey emerge only from the story as a whole. Finally, there are propositions in which not every word is meant to be understood in the most immediate literal sense, since the author may be “using” hyperbole, metaphor, or other literary devices, even within a passage or book which is substantially ‘straight’ history or didactic teaching rather than fiction of some sort.

”In short, what is essentially guaranteed to be true by virtue of divine inspiration, according to the sentence of Dei Verbum, 11, we are considering, is not the isolated propositions taken in their ‘surface’ meaning and without regard to their historical and literary context, but rather (as the next article of *Dei Verbum *puts it) “that meaning which the sacred writers really intended, and which God, by their words, wanted to make known.” 55 The discernment of that divine and human meaning is what the Church understands by a proper ‘literal’ interpretation of the text - which is not to be confused with a ‘literalist’ interpretation.”

Three are no “errors” or “contradictions” in the meaning which the sacred writers intended – only in the feelings of those who fail to understand and assent to the teaching of the Church on the Sacred Scriptures.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I have read what you said twice and I still do not understand it. Are you saying (1) that the Bible cannot err with regards to history or science? (2) The Bible can be depended on 100% for inerrancy in more than faith and morals?

Yes, my understanding of the Church’s teaching is that the Bible’s inerrancy is not limited only to matters if faith and morals. This is what is stated in Dei Verbum and more clearly by Leo XIII. The basis of the doctrine is that Scripture has God for its author in all of its parts. Because God does not err, neither can the Scriptures error in any of its parts. That said, I would qualify that by also saying the intention of the author must be taken into account. One example would be that many people interpret the first chapter of Genesis figuratively to reconcile it with the modern consensus in the physical sciences. If this is the correct interpretation, then it does not follow that the Scriptures err but that they speak the truth figuratively, which is different. Additionally, I do not think that the inerrancy of Scripture should be applied in a hyperliteral sense. For example, I do not believe that the dialogue in the Bible is a verbatim dictation of what was historically said. I think this also is to be assumed in the authors’ intentions.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

No, try my very simple question: if the Bible isn’t supposed to contain errors, inconsistencies and contradictions, then why does it? Why are there so many of these things?

My answer is that there are no errors or contradictions in the Bible properly interpreted. If you disagree, you may provide some specific example from Scripture. As for you, do you have an answer to my question? Do you disagree with my interpretation of Dei Verbum? If so, why?

 

[JamesCaruso]

The Church has stated precisely that the Sacred Scriptures are free of all error, as you have been shown, and as quoted already.

This fact is explained by Fr John Echert of EWTN.
Question on 16/12/2007:
Does the Catholic Church still maintain that all of scripture is inspired and inerrant, or did this teaching change with Vatican II’s Dei Verbum #11, in which only the portions of scripture necessary for salvation are considered to be inspired?
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 20/12/2007 (EWTN):
You are likely working off a badly translated version of Dei Verbum, which changed the word order of the original Conciliar statement, which some use–erroneously–to claim that inerrancy applies only to matters related to salvation. In the text below, I provide an accurate translation, with the correct order: The Church formally teaches that the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely without error. This teaching is not arrived at inductively–namely, that a careful study of the entire Bible has revealed no discrepancies or difficulties–but follows from the fact that God is the ultimate Author of the Bible and falsehood is incompatible with Truth Itself. As taught by the Second Vatican Council: 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 the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

On a literal interpretation:
See rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html: [Fr Brian Harrison refers to The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (*Dei Verbum

) of Vatican II, 1963-5].
“The true sense of Dei Verbum, 11, then, is not that the guarantee of inerrancy covers those propositions which a biblical author affirms (or teaches) as opposed to those which he merely “states,” i.e., with less force or deliberation, but still as an expression of his own judgment. Rather, it covers those propositions he affirms (or teaches) as opposed to those which he merely “uses materially,” i.e., those in which what appears on paper, taken in isolation, or in its most superficially literal sense, does not express his own judgment in any way.

”These “materially used” (but not formally affirmed) propositions in Scripture would appear to be of three main kinds. First (and most obviously), there are those which the human author does not himself utter but attributes to someone else, in which case divine inspiration guarantees only the truthful reporting of such propositions, not the truth of the propositions themselves. Secondly, this category would include individual propositions used by the author as part of a parable or other imaginative literary composition, in which the formally affirmed teachings it sets out to convey emerge only from the story as a whole. Finally, there are propositions in which not every word is meant to be understood in the most immediate literal sense, since the author may be “using” hyperbole, metaphor, or other literary devices, even within a passage or book which is substantially ‘straight’ history or didactic teaching rather than fiction of some sort.

”In short, what is essentially guaranteed to be true by virtue of divine inspiration, according to the sentence of Dei Verbum, 11, we are considering, is not the isolated propositions taken in their ‘surface’ meaning and without regard to their historical and literary context, but rather (as the next article of *Dei Verbum *puts it) “that meaning which the sacred writers really intended, and which God, by their words, wanted to make known.” 55 The discernment of that divine and human meaning is what the Church understands by a proper ‘literal’ interpretation of the text - which is not to be confused with a ‘literalist’ interpretation.”

Three are no “errors” or “contradictions” in the meaning which the sacred writers intended – only in the feelings of those who fail to understand and assent to the teaching of the Church on the Sacred Scriptures.

So, in reporting that there is a reservoir of water between the earth and the sky, the writer is truthful in what he thinks the structure of the universe to be, even though science later shows it to be untrue? Do we reason first, that God did not intend to give a science lesson, and two, God spoke through the existing knowledge of a man who believed the then current view about the structure of the universe, and so was adopting (quoting) the general view of others and reporting it? I can see where there is no intention of any human writer inspired by God to say anything that is untrue, but is that the context in which we can say that nothing in the Bible is untrue? Peace. James

 

[FrancisBenedict]

So, in reporting that there is a reservoir of water between the earth and the sky, the writer is truthful in what he thinks the structure of the universe to be, even though science later shows it to be untrue?

Its called clouds.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

My answer is that there are no errors or contradictions in the Bible properly interpreted.

It’s absolutely loaded with contradictions. We can’t even get that far into Genesis before we start seeing them. So let’s start there:

In Genesis 1:25-27, man is created after animals.
In Genesis 2:18-19, animals are created after man.

In Genesis 1:27, man and woman are created at the same time.
In Genesis 2:18, man was created before animals, woman after animals.

So we can’t even get to Genesis 3 before we encounter humongous contradictions. I don’t think I am disrespecting the Bible in the slightest, I think you are,** inadvertently**, by making it out to be something that isn’t.

Do you want to go on? We can do this for every book if you have a few years to spare.

When we’re talking about the “truth”, how can we expect others to take us seriously if that is the party line we’re going to follow?

If you disagree, you may provide some specific example from Scripture. As for you, do you have an answer to my question? Do you disagree with my interpretation of Dei Verbum? If so, why?

My loyalty is to God first: God, who is truth. Insofar as the Church guides us towards God, who is truth, then good. I believe it does.

But if the Pope comes out tomorrow and speaks infallibly saying something that is obviously not true (e.g., Mohammed’s place is equal to that of Christ), then yeah, goodbye Church. Have a great day.

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.

 

[Abu]

VeritasLuxMea #31
My loyalty is to God first: God, who is truth. Insofar as the Church guides us towards God, who is truth, then good. I believe it does.
But if the Pope comes out tomorrow and speaks infallibly saying something that is obviously not true (e.g., Mohammed’s place is equal to that of Christ), then yeah, goodbye Church.

This shows a grave disregard for Christ who gave us His Church with St Peter as His Supreme Vicar, and a selfist attitude of feeling that a personal judgment on dogma or doctrine trumps infallibility.

There are no “errors” or “contradictions” in the meaning which the sacred writers intended – only in the feelings of those who fail to understand and assent to the teaching of the Church on the Sacred Scriptures.

In Genesis 1:25-27, man is created after animals.
In Genesis 2:18-19, animals are created after man.
In Genesis 1:27, man and woman are created at the same time.
In Genesis 2:18, man was created before animals, woman after animals.

So we can’t even get to Genesis 3 before we encounter humongous contradictions.

Such a poor idea of Sacred Scripture is mind boggling after being shown the requirements for understanding the Sacred Scriptures! Such a shallow approach to the ancient writers and their intent to teach religious truths reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of Christ’s Church and Her teaching.

Dom Bernard Orchard is the general editor of A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Nelson, 1953, which affirms on Genesis Chaps 1 & 2:
“On the sixth day God peopled the earth first by the creation of the terrestrial animals and secondly of man.” (p 182).

Gen. 2:4-25
“The present section sets forth the creation of the creation and condition of the first human pair. It is not a second account of the creation of the world, though the production of plants ands animals is introduced at those points in the story where their relation to man requires it.” (p184).
Gen 2:19
“The animals in question are only those of Paradise….concerned with the story of Adam and not with the creation of the world, this is the first time the writer has occasion to mention them, and he does not mean they were created after man.” (p 185).

Readers can rest assured that the faithful Catholic exegetes know what they are doing but not every Tom, Dick or Harry who feels like voicing a mere opinion.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Those are not contradictions, much less an example of p and ~p. There are different admissible readings, none of which introduce contradictions into the text, so I will just give the simplest interpretation. 2:19 states that the animals were formed after it states the creation of Adam, not that the animals were formed after Adam. The verb translated “formed” in the KJV may be taken in the pluperfect sense. This is reflected in the ESV (“the LORD god had formed”) and the Latin, which renders it as an ablative absolute (“having been formed”), indicating that the animals were already created. As for the creation of man and woman, Genesis 1 merely records that they were both created on the sixth day, not that they were created simultaneously. Genesis 2 does not ever say that the creation of woman occured on a separate day from the creation of man and gives no strong reason to suspect otherwise. How then is there a contradiction? The fact that you cannot imagine any manner of reconciling these passages demonstrates a total absence of charity on your part toward the author.

My understating of your position on inerrancy is that you acknowledge your view is a departure from the Church’s teaching, but that your dissension is permissable because the Church has not issued an infallible declaration on the inerrancy of Scripture. Is this accurate?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Its called clouds.

Funny. I probably did not make it clear, either that, or you’re putting me on. Genesis 1:7 says: “And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.” The firmament referred to everything visible under the vault (arch) of the sky-- the stars, the sun, the moon, and the clouds. In ancient times it was thought that another layer of water lay between the firmament and the highest heavens. This is how I have heard it interpreted. I am just pointing out that the Bible seems to reflect the “science” of the times. I believe it also indicates that the sun moves and the earth is stationary, which would conform to most people’s view at the time.

 

[Swc651]

I’m curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Please explain. We might have different definitions of the word “contradiction.”

Starting at the very beginning (literally): there are two creation accounts in Genesis.

The gospels also contain numerous contradictions. Whether that’s a problem for a faithful Christian is another matter, but they’re there. Now, I hate to use such an anti-Christian source, but here is a good list of contradictions in the gospels for you to review. Again, I don’t like the source, but the source is irrelevant.

On a more general note: as Catholics, we have the Church to interpret scripture, so maybe that’s a leg up. Yet still, there’s a reason why there are so many non-Catholic Christian groups and that is, you can find many different traditions expressed in the Bible, sometimes the authors are basically arguing with each other in the text. Haha. We know that Gnosticism is not “true” because the Church tells us, not because it isn’t represented in the Bible. It is.

Yeah somehow certain people are unwilling to accept that the Bible is written by men. There are multiple versions of many of the teachings from Genesis to the flood to Job, Sodom, and, of course, the Gospels overlap and contain different “accounts.” I don’t understand why we perpetuate the idea of an inclusive, understandable and infallible written account of God and existence. Not everyone does. Some think that the point of Christianity is to continuously question everything in an effort to gain a fuller (though necessarily incomplete) understanding of God. That’s why he gave us a brain. Imagine a world where religious differences and questioning the common assumption was encouraged rather than suppressed. Maybe the Book would be less susceptible to perversion and would less often serve as the basis for terrible acts. For some reason, many are unwilling to say “I think this is what God wants” rather than " the bible says this is WRONG and you are sinning."

 

[JamesCaruso]

Yeah somehow certain people are unwilling to accept that the Bible is written by men. There are multiple versions of many of the teachings from Genesis to the flood to Job, Sodom, and, of course, the Gospels overlap and contain different “accounts.” I don’t understand why we perpetuate the idea of an inclusive, understandable and infallible written account of God and existence. Not everyone does. Some think that the point of Christianity is to continuously question everything in an effort to gain a fuller (though necessarily incomplete) understanding of God. That’s why he gave us a brain. Imagine a world where religious differences and questioning the common assumption was encouraged rather than suppressed. Maybe the Book would be less susceptible to perversion and would less often serve as the basis for terrible acts. For some reason, many are unwilling to say “I think this is what God wants” rather than " the bible says this is WRONG and you are sinning."

There are two accounts of Moses and the Jewish people crossing the Red Sea, too. They are side by side, but scholars can date them to two different times by the words of the writers. I was taught in a Catholic university by a priest that one account is an eyewitness account-- the sea congealed and all the Egyptians were lost-- which makes it seem like a storm arose and the Egyptians and their ships were all sunk. The second account, that of Moses raising his staff and parting the sea so that dry land appeared, was written some 600 years later. The priest characterized it as an “idealized” version. He said that the truth conveyed by the story is that God liberates his people. Whether this interpretation stands since I was taught back in the mid 70’s, I don’t know, but it sounded reasonable to me. If the Church has a different teaching, I’d like to hear it.

 

[Abu]

Swc651 #35 15/6/13
I don’t understand why we perpetuate the idea of an inclusive, understandable and infallible written account of God and existence. Not everyone does.

“We” don’t. Listen and learn.

As a companion of Christ, Saint John wrote: “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by on, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).

That’s precisely why we listen to Christ and His Church – She who has the Sacred Scriptures and Scared Tradition and Christ’s Magisterium.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).

Real Catholics, therefore, rely on the interpretation of the Catholic Church not on idle chatter. What a waste of time fantasizing on seemingly differing accounts of some events instead of on the reality of the message of faith and reason.

 

[Abu]

JamesCaruso #36 15/6/13
There are two accounts of Moses and the Jewish people crossing the Red Sea, too. They are side by side, but scholars can date them to two different times by the words of the writers. I was taught in a Catholic university by a priest that one account is an eyewitness account-- the sea congealed and all the Egyptians were lost-- which makes it seem like a storm arose and the Egyptians and their ships were all sunk.

There were no ships – chariots with men, and drawn by horses.

“43. The Israelites did not cross the present-day Red Sea. At the head of the Gulf of Suez there were fairly shallow reaches of water leading up to the Bitter Lakes. The Hebrew word for these shallow reaches meant the “Sea of Reeds”, because of the Papyrus reeds which were plentiful there. Exodus 14:21 tells us that when the Israelites arrived on the scene a “strong wind” drove the waters back, probably towards the Lakes. An out-sized ebb-tide could also have drained other waters south towards the Gulf of Suez. The Israelites were able to cross on the exposed land; but the Egyptians following them were trapped as the waters returned, deep enough to drown them. The Israelites certainly saw in this a manifestation of God’s special providence on their behalf. The call of Moses, his commission to lead the people of Israel out of captivity, and the drastic way in which Pharaoh was compelled to let them go - these elements were not natural events; and the Jews have ever since rightly celebrated their exodus or deliverance as miraculous. They would be quite unmoved by any references to the partial intervention of merely natural factors and would simply ask why these should have become operative at that particular time, in that particular way, and with such results.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Moses+and+the+Red+Sea&db=5

It is a waste of time to concentrate on seemingly differing accounts when the essence of the Sacred Scriptures is teaching about God’s providence, faith and morals.

 

[JamesCaruso]

There were no ships – chariots with men, and drawn by horses.

“43. The Israelites did not cross the present-day Red Sea. At the head of the Gulf of Suez there were fairly shallow reaches of water leading up to the Bitter Lakes. The Hebrew word for these shallow reaches meant the “Sea of Reeds”, because of the Papyrus reeds which were plentiful there. Exodus 14:21 tells us that when the Israelites arrived on the scene a “strong wind” drove the waters back, probably towards the Lakes. An out-sized ebb-tide could also have drained other waters south towards the Gulf of Suez. The Israelites were able to cross on the exposed land; but the Egyptians following them were trapped as the waters returned, deep enough to drown them. The Israelites certainly saw in this a manifestation of God’s special providence on their behalf. The call of Moses, his commission to lead the people of Israel out of captivity, and the drastic way in which Pharaoh was compelled to let them go - these elements were not natural events; and the Jews have ever since rightly celebrated their exodus or deliverance as miraculous. They would be quite unmoved by any references to the partial intervention of merely natural factors and would simply ask why these should have become operative at that particular time, in that particular way, and with such results.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Moses+and+the+Red+Sea&db=5

It is a waste of time to concentrate on seemingly differing accounts when the essence of the Sacred Scriptures is teaching about God’s providence, faith and morals.

Tell Bible scholars, notably Catholic ones, that it is a waste of time. Your account above is just one attempt to interpret the scriptures and by no means the only one; it was my understanding before I took the course in Catholic theology. Whether there were ships or boats, or the sea was shallow and suddenly there came an onrushing flash flood, the eyewitness account if you bother to go and read it, seems like a “natural” means used by God to save his people, and the part of the account dated 600 years later seems like a strictly supernatural means used by God, or a story meant to emphasize that it was God who liberated the Jewish people. Ask yourself, how does God usually intervene to work in your life, by natural means, or by supernatural means? I am not denying God’s ability to act in supernatural ways, just pointing out that he is not limited to acting supernaturally, and most often does not.

It is a proper use of Bible scholar’s time to reconcile seeming differences in Biblical passages. One person may call it a lie, and another an “idealized version,” but the later allows one to understand that the spiritual truth being conveyed in both accounts is the same, and so the Scriptures remain free from error in matters of faith and morals.

Aside: Today I had a toothache. I went to the dentist unannounced, originally scheduled for next Wednesday. The dental assistant seemed genuinely amazed that I was able to be fit in almost immediately, but another patient had canceled their appointment. The examination revealed that I needed an endodontist, and my dentist was not optimistic theirs could take me on such short notice on a Friday afternoon. But he did, and I had the necessary work done. I saw God’s hand even in these small coincidences and improbabilities. Others thought I was just a lucky fellow. I should start a thread on all the natural coincidences that people attribute to God’s Providence.

 

[bsroufek]

As stated earlier by another poster, I’ve read the Bible completely a number of times and personally find it free from doctrinal error.

One account might say that “the thieves” reviled Jesus, while another account says one did and the other defended Jesus. But in this case, remember that only Mary and John were at the foot of the Cross, while the others had fled. So those who weren’t John must have relayed what they understood from other accounts.

In the Genesis Creation Story, we have one account where man was created AFTER the animals and another account where the animals were made (I will make a suitable partner for him) and brought to Adam one by one, to see what he would name them.

These above two differences and maybe a couple of other minor detail differences in the Gospel accounts are the only inconsistencies I have found in my readings. These inconsistencies are minor details and don’t affect the doctrinal truths of the Bible, IMO.

So I wholeheartedly accept the Church’s declaration that Scripture is inerrant.