Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #46  
Old Feb 17, '12, 5:44 pm
Lokabrenna Lokabrenna is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2011
Posts: 892
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie_Gregg View Post
Now, wait a minute. The implication I see here is that we have to ignore the history of the Jewish people working to codify the Old Testament. That doesn't make any sense. The Jews had the OT long before Christians did. I think we have to acknowledge that.
I agree with this. I knew someone in university who is an Orthodox Jew, and the way she saw the stories in the Tanakh was very different from the way I (raised a Catholic) saw the Old Testament. "What do you mean, Jews don't believe in Original Sin? The Song of Songs is WHAT?" In my mind, Christians over the years have done the same sort of thing that they accuse Muslims of doing to the Bible (ie. going around saying that they know better than the group that actually wrote the text).
  #47  
Old Feb 17, '12, 5:48 pm
po18guy's Avatar
po18guy po18guy is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 24,430
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie_Gregg View Post
Now, wait a minute. The implication I see here is that we have to ignore the history of the Jewish people working to codify the Old Testament. That doesn't make any sense. The Jews had the OT long before Christians did. I think we have to acknowledge that.

Gotta go for now - date with the hubby.
My point is that Jesus was and is a Jew, born of a Jewess, raised under Jewish law, and sent to the lost sheep of Israel. The early Church was Jewish. All of the Apostles were. The 120 in the upper room were. The 3,000 added at Pentecost were. The Church was founded by a Jew for the Jews.

The fact that it has become majority gentile does not mean that Jewish history is now a separate thing, and off-limits to the Church that a Jew founded on behalf of Israel. See what I mean? It is one, continuous history, not Christians vs. Jews.

There is every reason to believe that the Jewish "canon", a response to the rise of Christianity, was steered toward books and doctrines that supported their rejection of Jesus.

Knowing, or even suspecting this, why then go to those who reject Jesus in order to obtain from them the writings that you hope will point to Him? That is what makes no sense.
  #48  
Old Feb 17, '12, 6:10 pm
karaleigh's Avatar
karaleigh karaleigh is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2011
Posts: 324
Religion: Catholic leaning towards Byzantine
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
My point is that Jesus was and is a Jew, born of a Jewess, raised under Jewish law, and sent to the lost sheep of Israel. The early Church was Jewish. All of the Apostles were. The 120 in the upper room were. The 3,000 added at Pentecost were. The Church was founded by a Jew for the Jews.

The fact that it has become majority gentile does not mean that Jewish history is now a separate thing, and off-limits to the Church that a Jew founded on behalf of Israel. See what I mean? It is one, continuous history, not Christians vs. Jews.

There is every reason to believe that the Jewish "canon", a response to the rise of Christianity, was steered toward books and doctrines that supported their rejection of Jesus.

Knowing, or even suspecting this, why then go to those who reject Jesus in order to obtain from them the writings that you hope will point to Him? That is what makes no sense.
Jesus asked the high priest of the temple to release Him from the responsibly He had in attendance to a religious worship among the Jews. Jesus said that He felt the priests were in fault of pompous pride and letting persons die of hunger, diseases, and sinfulness. Jesus was not a proponent of the Jewish form of worship. From slavery, imposed by Jewish worship, it was Jesus who lead Israel into the light of the All Mighty God...and, why the Jewish people insisted upon killing Him. The freedom away from Jewish laws is the divine purpose of Jesus.
__________________
There is no greater love then to apply the love of God...for truly "God is Love." 1John.4:8
  #49  
Old Feb 17, '12, 6:30 pm
po18guy's Avatar
po18guy po18guy is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 24,430
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by karaleigh View Post
Jesus asked the high priest of the temple to release Him from the responsibly He had in attendance to a religious worship among the Jews. Jesus said that He felt the priests were in fault of pompous pride and letting persons die of hunger, diseases, and sinfulness. Jesus was not a proponent of the Jewish form of worship. From slavery, imposed by Jewish worship, it was Jesus who lead Israel into the light of the All Mighty God...and, why the Jewish people insisted upon killing Him. The freedom away from Jewish laws is the divine purpose of Jesus.
Of course, but Jesus also revealed from the Old Testament everything that pointed to Him (Luke 24:27). That is integral to Church history, and the Church is Jesus' Body. We'd best keep it.
  #50  
Old Feb 17, '12, 8:06 pm
Telestia Telestia is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2011
Posts: 208
Religion: Evangelical
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

iT IS LATE FOR ME AND MY BRAIN IS HARDLY WORKING.

OT: The Masoretic Text (Jewish OT) was transcribed in circa 500 AD. More recent finds of the Dead Sea Scrolls written circa 500 BC proved the Masoretic Text, written 1000 years later, was word for word identical with the Masoretic Text in more than 95% of the Text. the 5% of variation consisted mostly of obvious slips of the pen and variations of spelling.

The New Testament evidence is overwhelming, There are about 5,370 manuscripts available today to compare and draw conclusions from.

The questionable verses in our current Bible are:

John 1:21 "Who are you then: are you Elijah." There are 5 possible arrangements of these words.

1 John 5:7 Only 1 manuscript out of 1,520 manuscripts of the Gospel Of John that have these words.

John 7:53 - 8:11 All early manuscripts, translations, and the early Church Fathers writings omit this passage in John. Even those later manuscripts that do have it place it in 4 different places in John.

Mark's Gospel 16: 9-20, is most likely a later add on. The original of the ending of Marks' gospel is uncertain.

The Remainder of the NT is sound based upon the manuscripts we do have.

But even if we found no NT manuscripts at all, we can reconstruct the entire NT from quotes of the various New Testament in Greek from the quotes of the early Church Fathers of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century writings, except for eleven verses from 2 and 3 John.

In contrast, There are only 10 copies of Julius Caesar's GALLIC WARS, and no one doubts it, even though the earliest dates 1000 years after the original was written.

The above information came primarily from Christian Scholars: Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks "When Skeptics Ask'.
  #51  
Old Feb 18, '12, 5:53 am
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 17,509
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
Well, it is fairly clear that the idea had its genesis, so to speak, with Luther. He made an attempt to reduce the size of the NT as well, but was stopped, or convinced not to. Was not the Deuterocanon in his 1545 Bibel, but separated, being placed between the OT and NT? That was a judgment call. Since then, some Lutheran denominations have removed the DC completely, and virtually all other "protestant" denominations, numerically speaking, have done so. It all hinges on authority.
This isn't exactly true, either. The disputes regarding the deuterocanon and that of some of the NT books goes way back before Luther - back to Jerome and Eusebius, and does not end even for Catholics until Trent.
The separating of books by Luther precisely reflects the disputed and undisputed books of both the old and new Testaments. It wasn't a judgement call, but a reflection of the historic nature of the view of the canon in the west througout the history of the Church.

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
  #52  
Old Feb 18, '12, 11:54 am
po18guy's Avatar
po18guy po18guy is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 24,430
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
This isn't exactly true, either. The disputes regarding the deuterocanon and that of some of the NT books goes way back before Luther - back to Jerome and Eusebius, and does not end even for Catholics until Trent.
The separating of books by Luther precisely reflects the disputed and undisputed books of both the old and new Testaments. It wasn't a judgement call, but a reflection of the historic nature of the view of the canon in the west througout the history of the Church.

Jon
The difference, of course, being that both Jerome and Eusebius remained in the Church.
  #53  
Old Feb 18, '12, 12:19 pm
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 17,509
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
The difference, of course, being that both Jerome and Eusebius remained in the Church.
All the more reason to understand that Luther's problems were not simply a dispute with Rome. He, when translating, was already not in communion with Rome, and yet he still kept the DC's in his translation. He didn't have to by that time.

And of course, we can't know how Eusebius would have responded to Rome and Carthage, much less Trent. Further, I don't think the canon is quite the issue with lutheranism as it is with other communions that are non-Catholic.

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
  #54  
Old Feb 18, '12, 2:53 pm
po18guy's Avatar
po18guy po18guy is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 24,430
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
All the more reason to understand that Luther's problems were not simply a dispute with Rome. He, when translating, was already not in communion with Rome, and yet he still kept the DC's in his translation. He didn't have to by that time.

And of course, we can't know how Eusebius would have responded to Rome and Carthage, much less Trent. Further, I don't think the canon is quite the issue with lutheranism as it is with other communions that are non-Catholic.

Jon
How right you are. An awful lot of Christian division today seems to be driven by pure anti-Catholicism - but it is becoming anti-Lutheran as well! This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

And, how come the Orthodox get a pass from our misguided brothers?
  #55  
Old Feb 18, '12, 3:02 pm
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 17,509
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
How right you are. An awful lot of Christian division today seems to be driven by pure anti-Catholicism - but it is becoming anti-Lutheran as well! This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

And, how come the Orthodox get a pass from our misguided brothers?
Mainly, ISTM, because western non-catholic Christians have little contact with them or knowledge of them. And I agree with you that, first, it is not the work of the SPirit that divides, and second, that to be anti-Catholic is to be anti our siblings in Christ.

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
  #56  
Old Feb 19, '12, 2:13 pm
onemangang's Avatar
onemangang onemangang is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2010
Posts: 715
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telestia View Post
iT IS LATE FOR ME AND MY BRAIN IS HARDLY WORKING.

OT: The Masoretic Text (Jewish OT) was transcribed in circa 500 AD. More recent finds of the Dead Sea Scrolls written circa 500 BC proved the Masoretic Text, written 1000 years later, was word for word identical with the Masoretic Text in more than 95% of the Text. the 5% of variation consisted mostly of obvious slips of the pen and variations of spelling.

In the book "When Skeptics Ask", by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, was there any mention of the deuterocanonical books? The books Protestants removed from the bible, that are in, both Catholic, and Orthodox bibles today?

The Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew (Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees,) or Aramaic (Tobit). And what about the deuterocanonical book of Baruch, it was found in Qumran in Greek!

http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon...__0-index.html


Quote:
The New Testament evidence is overwhelming, There are about 5,370 manuscripts available today to compare and draw conclusions from.

The questionable verses in our current Bible are:

John 1:21 "Who are you then: are you Elijah." There are 5 possible arrangements of these words.

1 John 5:7 Only 1 manuscript out of 1,520 manuscripts of the Gospel Of John that have these words.

John 7:53 - 8:11 All early manuscripts, translations, and the early Church Fathers writings omit this passage in John. Even those later manuscripts that do have it place it in 4 different places in John.

Mark's Gospel 16: 9-20, is most likely a later add on. The original of the ending of Marks' gospel is uncertain.

The Remainder of the NT is sound based upon the manuscripts we do have.

But even if we found no NT manuscripts at all, we can reconstruct the entire NT from quotes of the various New Testament in Greek from the quotes of the early Church Fathers of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century writings, except for eleven verses from 2 and 3 John.

In contrast, There are only 10 copies of Julius Caesar's GALLIC WARS, and no one doubts it, even though the earliest dates 1000 years after the original was written.

The above information came primarily from Christian Scholars: Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks "When Skeptics Ask'.
I think it would have been better stated "The questionable verses in our current N.T. are" Rather than "The questionable verses in our current our bible are!" there are some discrepancies in the O.T. as well.

Do our books today contain errors? Yes! The Bible may contain errors due to copyists, translators, editors, and printers! I believe he Catholic Church position on the inerrancy of Scripture, lies within the original manuscripts given by divine revelation!

Peace and Love in Christ
  #57  
Old Feb 19, '12, 7:40 pm
Curious Seed Curious Seed is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 20, 2011
Posts: 404
Lightbulb Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traverse View Post
Salutations to all.

In a recent thread the subject of the bible being inerrant came up. It was shared by a participant in that thread that it might be more suitable to have a new thread on the subject.

So what do you think? I understand what the catholic church teaches on the matter, that it is inerrant, and I also understand that many denominations believe such as well. But it is certainly the habit of some to consider it a product of its time, a book written by infallible men about their experiences with God and nothing more.

I do not see the logic in believing in God when you learn from Him in a book that you do not trust. I see those who suggest that the bible is not inerrant, yet able to derive teaching from it where they see fit, as an unjustifiable means of gaining knowledge. I do not understand how they discern what to dismiss in the word and what to hold fast to.

Any thoughts and opinions?

Thank you.


Is the Bible inerrant ?

Well, may I reverently suggest you are amply unqualified to answer that question, with any modicum of authority.

You would not, nor I, dare to determine the correctness of a textbook on medicine, or law, or history, or otherwise.

So, what leads you to make an exception of the Bible ?

First, and most evidently, the Bible is a canon of books - what do you know of the what and why of that which was included and excluded ?

Secondly, what of the wherewithal wilds found in and through language ?

Are you fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ?

English came from Erasmus' Latin; and what do you know of Latin.

Indeed, how competent are you in English.

Thirdly, what were and what are, the ways of history ?

Do you know the confluence of thinkers and events, in the final bringing of the Bible to press ?

So, until one is willing to devote plenty of time and thought toward all of that - one is, kidnapped by one's own ignorance.

No less as one is held captive, if in need of a doctor, lawyer, or mechanic.

So, knowing we are unlikely to qualify ourselves to give satisfactory personal analysis on the inerrancy of the Bible, what are we to do ?

We are to trust in a Church that is qualified to give judgment.

Which begs the question, which Church ?

A tough question, certainly, but answerable - unlike that of the inerrancy of the Bible, for you, me, and probably everyone else, in the Forum.

  #58  
Old Feb 19, '12, 10:28 pm
onemangang's Avatar
onemangang onemangang is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2010
Posts: 715
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
How right you are. An awful lot of Christian division today seems to be driven by pure anti-Catholicism - but it is becoming anti-Lutheran as well! This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

And, how come the Orthodox get a pass from our misguided brothers?
Your statement is something I dealt with in a "non-denominational Evangelical" community, more specifically, with Calvary Chapel. This is from there home page under What we believe.

We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.

Sounds nice, but talk to many of them about Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or Anglicans, and they will commence to bashing. Interestingly enough, all the "faults" they point out in those aforementioned Traditions, are the seemingly Catholic Traditions. Infant baptism, structured Liturgy, Ecclesiastical polity, Eucharistic Confection, Stained glass windows, Stations of the Cross, the sign of the Cross, Vestments and anything else that smacks of the Catholic Church.

It's almost like a drive by shooting on the Catholic Church, those that are standing a bit close, get caught in the crossfire unintentionally!

As for why do the Eastern Orthodox get a pass? I can tell you from experience that some in the Calvary Chapel crowd, don't even know what the Eastern Orthodox church is. When I left Calvary Chapel I told a few people that my theology has grown to be very E.O, some thought I was becoming some sort of Hindu The first question posed to me was rhetorical of course, it was "So, you don't believe in the bible brother?"

Sorry to go off thread for a moment, but if you point out some errors in the bible we have today, some of these people think that you have somehow apostatized.
  #59  
Old Feb 20, '12, 3:25 am
GaryTaylor's Avatar
GaryTaylor GaryTaylor is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: March 30, 2010
Posts: 20,766
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
How right you are. An awful lot of Christian division today seems to be driven by pure anti-Catholicism - but it is becoming anti-Lutheran as well! This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

And, how come the Orthodox get a pass from our misguided brothers?
Actually they don't when the topic in specific comes up. I have heard those who worship the Bible lump all the Apostolic Churchs in one pot.

Amazing spectacle to view really. They walk around a stage and hold that Bible as if God himself handed it to them.

From this perspective its impossible to give authority to any Tradition. For the result is to undermine your own.

Hence we have GODS WORD worshipped but interpreted as private revelation to who-ever happens to be preaching the word.

I'm facinated how a couple verse's are taken, then affirmed by what God specifically revealed to the preacher in person about those specific verse's.

Quasi unaminous testimony of the ECFs is what the Bible is. Thus the Sacred Tradition of the Church which proceeded from Jesus to the Apostles thus[Church] and then....................to the Bible. And so the History went.
__________________


"Eternal Father, I offer Thee the Most Precious Blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus, in union with the Masses said throughout the world today, for all the Holy Souls in Purgatory, for sinners everywhere, for sinners in the universal church, those in my own home and within my family. Amen." St. Gertrude
  #60  
Old Feb 20, '12, 8:45 am
Curious Seed Curious Seed is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 20, 2011
Posts: 404
Lightbulb Re: Is the bible inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryTaylor View Post
Actually they don't when the topic in specific comes up. I have heard those who worship the Bible lump all the Apostolic Churchs in one pot.

Amazing spectacle to view really. They walk around a stage and hold that Bible as if God himself handed it to them.

From this perspective its impossible to give authority to any Tradition. For the result is to undermine your own.

Hence we have GODS WORD worshipped but interpreted as private revelation to who-ever happens to be preaching the word.

I'm facinated how a couple verse's are taken, then affirmed by what God specifically revealed to the preacher in person about those specific verse's.

Quasi unaminous testimony of the ECFs is what the Bible is. Thus the Sacred Tradition of the Church which proceeded from Jesus to the Apostles thus[Church] and then....................to the Bible. And so the History went.


So sad to see so much infighting within the Christian community of believers.

Catholics smugly badmouth Protestants for their worship of the Bible, to the exclusion of Tradition; Protestants smugly badmouth Catholics for their worship of Tradition, to the exclusion of the Bible.

Of course, I overly extend my point, but really, the wide measure to which it is true is so very sad.

Both act as if the other were Satan possessed; the Deceiver must be smiling.

Could Catholics and Protestants not embrace each other, as cousins in Christ who champion Matthew 16:16, and get on with evangelizing those in need of God, according to Mark 16:15 - to those who know not the Bible, Tradition, or Christ.

Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8460Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Weejee
5147CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: 77stanthony77
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3742Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: daughterstm
3322Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3285Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3224Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3112For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Kellyreneeomara



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:21 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.