What to do when contradiction happens?

[Abrosz]

That goes without saying.

So why is it missing?

Do you or do you not rely on pastoral/psychological self help books to cure your illnesses?
If not, why do you have a problem distinguishing between science, and scripture?

No, I rely on doctors… provisionally, and when I don’t like their diagnosis, I look for second opinion.

So, the problem is, he doesn’t think the Bible is valuable as a spiritual guide. Therefore, the only use he could possibly see is for its scientific value. Hence, his quandary: it’s not the Word of God, so it must be a science book; but, it’s not a science book, so… what is it?

A legend, a tale, a story. Nothing else. Of course takes are not without merit.

God protected the writers from errors in conveying their moral and religious message, much like the clergy is today.

If that would be true, why didn’t he protect against any other errors? Would that be too hard for God?

Because some things aren’t important to the moral development of humanity?

They are not mutually exclusive.

And YOU just provided a textbook fundamentalist viewpoint.

At least the fundamentalists are consistent. They have something solid to point to, not some undefined and fluid, like the “magisterium”.

 

[Neithan]

So why is it missing?

Because

We all know that the bible is not a science textbook.

At least the fundamentalists are consistent. They have something solid to point to, not some undefined and fluid, like the “magisterium”.

That is a fair critique, though “undefined and fluid” is technically incorrect. The magisterium has produced a formidable amount of verbiage over the centuries and I am not aware of a convenient, official list for all the doctrinal statements and their dogmatic status. Some theologians have attempted the feat, notably Dr. Ludwig Ott, and you can find some compilations of his work online. Here is one: Catholic First - Dogmas of the Catholic Church — look at all the statements that have “De fide” next to them; those are the formally defined, revealed dogmas.

 

[Gorgias]

A legend, a tale, a story. Nothing else. Of course takes are not without merit.

Predictable.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

If that would be true, why didn’t he protect against any other errors? Would that be too hard for God?

Better question: Why should He? What’s the point of making the writing impeccable? It’s not like it’d convince you or anyone else to accept Catholicism. This issue is pretty much one big red herring.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

We all know that the bible is not a science textbook. And yet, many things in the bible are contradicted by science.

If the Bible “is not a science textbook” then why would we expect everything in it to follow scientific principles?

 

[Gorgias]

What you said reminds me of another conversation, where someone asserted that the chance of winning the lottery jackpot is 50%… meaning that you either win it or not.

3.0 is a whole lot different as an approximation for pi than “50% chance of winning the lottery” is. Shame on you for attempting to pass off approximation as if it were invalid statistical analysis.

As a Christian, my conclusion thus far is this: The Bible is not infallible, but God is infallible.

I think the better conclusion might be “human interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily inerrant, but the Bible itself is inerrant.”

It was not even compiled as ‘the bible’ until a few hundred years ago

Actually, more like “1500 years ago”, but as a Protestant, your understanding that it only came about after the Reformation is understandable, albeit erroneous.

Editting to go out on a limb and admit something i’m sure will anger people. I do not believe many Genesis accounts to be something we are meant to take literally

LOL! Welcome to the Catholic Church, where we admit that there is figurative language in the opening chapters of Genesis, and don’t hold to the literal interpretation of “Moses wrote the Pentateuch”! All the way to Moses, though? Hmm… we might want to talk about that.

Bernoulli:

That goes without saying.

So why is it missing?

Because, literally, it goes without saying. Keep up, friend…

If the Bible “is not a science textbook” then why would we expect everything in it to follow scientific principles?

Shh…! You’re making sense, now, and that seems to be underappreciated…

 

[Abrosz]

If the Bible “is not a science textbook” then why would we expect everything in it to follow scientific principles?

You mean logical and rational principles? Of course as long as you claim that it is just a human concoction, and has nothing to do with God, there is no problem. But if is the inerrant word of the Almighty, it MUST be held to a higher standard. No elementary errors - be they mathematical, physical, biological or astronomical are “allowed”. World-wide flood? Virgin birth? Walking on water? These would belong to some folk-tales.

 

[vsedriver]

But if is the inerrant word of the Almighty, it MUST be held to a higher standard. No elementary errors - be they mathematical, physical, biological or astronomical are “allowed”.

who says they are ‘errors’? only you see them as errors. A religious person doesn’t see these as errors because the book isn’t about these things. The bible is about God’s relationship to Man. As such it uses poetic language, allegory, and other literary tools to convey its message.

The idea that any inspiration by God must be perfect in all understanding isn’t necessary. It’s a standard you have chosen. Literary teaching doesn’t require scientific accuracy.

 

[Abrosz]

who says they are ‘errors’? only you see them as errors.

An error is a discrepancy from the truth. It is not subject to personal opinion.

who says they are ‘errors’? only you see them as errors. A religious person doesn’t see these as errors because the book isn’t about these things. The bible is about God’s relationship to Man. As such it uses poetic language, allegory, and other literary tools to convey its message.

So the factual inaccuracies and errors are logically necessary, otherwise the message is lost? A very peculiar cop-out, indeed.

 

[vsedriver]

An error is a discrepancy from the truth. It is not subject to personal opinion.

True, which is why there are no errors in Scripture. It is a literary art form. I could just as easily say that Guernica is full of errors. What part of this are you not getting?

So the factual inaccuracies and errors are logically necessary, otherwise the message is lost? A very peculiar cop-out, indeed.

have you never heard of ‘poetic license’? Have you never, ever read a message story with ‘factual inaccuracies’? Again, I repeat, the author was telling us there was a big round bowl in the Temple. He was not concerned with teaching geometry.

God’s relationship with man is expressed via literature and is not a book of science or mathematics.

 

[Dovekin]

I am not sure I want to read the bible as architectural manual, though that is what this section is, in part. When it says a diameter of 10 and circumference of 30, it may be a motivated approximation, rather than an error.

The author may be trying to instruct the builder that an error of 5% is acceptable. That is, these instructions do not have to be carried out with precision. They describe how to build a temple, but leave some leeway for the builder to adapt to local conditions.

Imprecision is not always an error. It sometimes is, as when I get 11 eggs instead of 12 in a carton. It sometimes is not, as when I start a soup with 3.9 quarts of water instead of the gallon in the recipe.

 

[Pattylt]

I understand that the Bible is not a science textbook. Science didn’t even exist back then. There are only a few verses that are questionable as far as science today understand things and these really don’t phase me at all…I’m more concerned with some of the internal contradictions and historical issues.

But, please understand that for someone that wasn’t raised to consider the Bible as a written collection of the word of God, it sure comes across nowadays as legends and myths in much of it. Just as it is hard for the believer to NOT consider it as inspired, it is equally hard for a modern day non believer to consider it as inspired. For you, it’s the Holy Bible. For me, it’s an ancient collection of stories not grounded in modern thinking.

@Abrosz is requiring it to be read with a modern lens. I don’t require that but I also don’t think it makes it error free and logically consistent either. Not all atheists require a fundamentalist reading of the Bible but many do. Some, like me, allow for poetic license and liberal reading but still don’t find it to be an inspired work to place above the Iliad and the Odyssey and often find many similarities between them. It’s very hard to read the Bible as believers read it. I just wanted you to know that there really are problems with the Bible and many religious people agree there is, too, without demanding a fundamentalist reading.

 

[o_mlly]

the Bible … sure comes across nowadays as legends and myths in much of it.

Yes, much of the OT is, especially in the books before the stories of the Kings of Israel and Judah, truth wrapped in the various extant oral traditions known to Israel. In these later books, we find accounts that are much more like histories written by the Romans and Greeks.

In order to make the transcendent immanent, the scribes melded their revealed truths into the stories of Israel’s traditions.

While the scribes were principally theologians, I do not believe we can dismiss them as being completely ahistorical. The inspired writers wrote at particular times in which contemporaries could and, presumably would, challenge historical errors in their writings about events occurring within living memory.

Exegetes believe the Yahwist epic was compiled during the reign of Solomon or shortly thereafter (950-900 BC) and fixed in writing during the Babylonian Exile (586-539 BC). Scholars place the Elohists epic composition around 800 BC during the Divided Monarchies.

Many years later, around 400 BC, scholars believe the priests and scribes brought these epics together in literary form that they call the Priestly tradition. So, there is reason, I believe, to attach a scale of historicity to the Old Testament. The scale would have its highest rating for factual accuracy during the period of the Babylonian Captivity and the reigns of David and Solomon and would descend in accuracy as events moved back in time.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

But if is the inerrant word of the Almighty

It’s not, so your premise is wrong.

 

[Bernoulli]

Abrosz:

But if is the inerrant word of the Almighty

It’s not, so your premise is wrong.

The inerrancy of the Scriptures is Catholic doctrine, interpreting everything in the literal historical sense is not.

You asked:

What’s the point of making the writing impeccable?

This is answered, for example, in Providentissimus Deus:

21. 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 – –

God cannot be the author of errors.

 

[whatistrue]

So the factual inaccuracies and errors are logically necessary

No one said they were necessary. What was said was that, in the context of the Scripture, absolute scientific accuracy according to modern understanding is simply not relevant to the purpose for which it was written.

 

[Abrosz]

True, which is why there are no errors in Scripture. It is a literary art form. I could just as easily say that Guernica is full of errors. What part of this are you not getting?

The Guernica is a piece of art, and does not purport to be the inerrant word of God, or even inspired by God.

God’s relationship with man is expressed via literature and is not a book of science or mathematics.

I think that God would be capable to convey his message in an accurate form, without errors. Funny that you, the believer have a much lower opinion about God’s ability than I do.

Of course the solution is childishly simple. Even if there is a God, he has nothing to do with what some humans believe about him. The books comprised in the bible are human stories, made up by simple humans, and there is nothing “divine” about them.

Furthermore, all the stories about the “miracles” concerning Jesus are strongly asserted to be factually correct. Walking on water, feeding a multitude of people, resurrection, virgin birth are all accepted (by the believers) as factually correct, not just some poetic “stories”. That is a serious problem on your part. What are the criteria to separate the factual stories from the hyperbole?

 

[Abrosz]

I am not sure I want to read the bible as architectural manual, though that is what this section is, in part. When it says a diameter of 10 and circumference of 30, it may be a motivated approximation, rather than an error.

You missed the point. Even in those times people had a better approximation. The fact that the human author of that book did not know it any better, shows that was the work of some non-so-educated story teller, and there was no divine origin.

 

[Abrosz]

No one said they were necessary. What was said was that, in the context of the Scripture, absolute scientific accuracy according to modern understanding is simply not relevant to the purpose for which it was written.

Ever since are the factual inaccuracies preferable to actual reality?

But the question is much more problematic. Which are the books and the verses which qualify to be historically accurate? Are the books describing the alleged miracles performed by Jesus just “stories”, or do they represent the historically precise description of the actual events?

 

[vsedriver]

The Guernica is a piece of art, and does not purport to be the inerrant word of God, or even inspired by God.

Literature is a form of art. Art is an excellent medium for passing on a message. It can transcend all times and cultures, even cultures who don’t have PI. You see, the natives in the Amazon basin would understand that the author was talking about a big round bowl and not giving them a lesson in geometry.

I think that God would be capable to convey his message in an accurate form, without errors

except that the human mind is incapable of communicating on God’s level. Think of it as being dumbed down for a human audience.

The Godly perfection is in the message, not in the individual words and sentences.

Even if there is a God, he has nothing to do with what some humans believe about him.

facts not in evidence

The books comprised in the bible are human stories, made up by simple humans, and there is nothing “divine” about them.

you are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion doesn’t negate mine, which is based on revelation and reason.

as factually correct, not just some poetic “stories”. That is a serious problem on your part.

no problem for me at all. I happen to believe in eye witness accounts and I ‘get’ art.

What are the criteria to separate the factual stories from the hyperbole?

context and sacred tradition. People who have issues with Sacred Scripture are often ignorant of the importance of Sacred Tradition. And if there is a question, it can be taken to the magisterium for explanation. (see the Council of Nicea and the Arian Heresy)