Are There Errors in the Bible?

[Jason Gastrich]

Dear Readers,

I hope you are well, today.

Do you think you've found an error in the Bible? Have you heard an argument against the Bible's inerrancy that you couldn't answer?

I've studied the Word for thousands of hours and I've found answers to all of the alleged, Bible errors. Therefore, I can conclude that the Word of God is inerrant. Glory to Him.

If you think you have found an error, then please post it. I'd be happy to read your post and respond. If I don't know the answer, then I'll do some research and post what I find.

May God bless you richly.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

[Andrew Larkoski]

This is an interesting question. Simply, the Bible is infallible and inerrant because it is inspired by God. That said, there are some eccentricities.

Before the Reformation, there was but one Bible as compiled by the Council of Hippo in the fifth century and other ecumenical councils around the same time. However, during the Reformation, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament and some interpretations that they provided are rather sketchy and do not portray the true meaning of Scripture. Obviously, they interpreted the Word for their benefit, rather than as was guided by God. The Catholic Church simply translated the Word from its original language (thank St. Jerome).

That stated, I refuse to read a Protestant Bible. The Catholic Bible is inspired by God and is infallible. Simply, the Protestant version is not and is erred.

[PhilVaz]

Jason G, I've heard your debates with ex-Fundy turned atheist Dan Barker, nice job as Barker is pretty sharp. People claim (e.g. the recent Michuta-White debate) there are errors in the deuterocanonicals like Judith, haven't looked at detail at those.

Here is an article dealing with some of those errors

One error is when you take the Bible as a modern science text, as it seems to present both a flat and stationary earth, but we need not take those statements literally, just as heaven doesn't literally have "windows" in the sky where God rains both water and food to his people (Gen 7:10f; 8:2; 2 Kings 7:2,19; Isa 24:18f; Jer 51:15f; Mal 3:10).

The Evolution of Bible-Science

Pope Leo XIII (Prov Deus) confirmed there are no errors and that was re-affirmed by Benedict XV (Spiritus Paracl), Pius XII (Div Afflante) and finally Vatican II (Dei Verbum).

Another article dealing with many supposed contradictions

Phil P

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally Posted by Andrew Larkoski

This is an interesting question. Simply, the Bible is infallible and inerrant because it is inspired by God. That said, there are some eccentricities.

Before the Reformation, there was but one Bible as compiled by the Council of Hippo in the fifth century and other ecumenical councils around the same time. However, during the Reformation, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament and some interpretations that they provided are rather sketchy and do not portray the true meaning of Scripture. Obviously, they interpreted the Word for their benefit, rather than as was guided by God. The Catholic Church simply translated the Word from its original language (thank St. Jerome).

That stated, I refuse to read a Protestant Bible. The Catholic Bible is inspired by God and is infallible. Simply, the Protestant version is not and is erred.

It's too bad you took this opportunity to discuss alleged Bible errors and used it to take pot-shots at Protestants.

If anyone has an alleged Bible error, then please post it. I'd appreciate it if those that want to make derogatory comments about non-Catholic Christians avoid this thread and make them elsewhere.

God bless,
Jason

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

Jason G, I've heard your debates with ex-Fundy turned atheist Dan Barker, nice job as Barker is pretty sharp. People claim (e.g. the recent Michuta-White debate) there are errors in the deuterocanonicals like Judith, haven't looked at detail at those.

Thanks, Phil. It's a small world!

Here is an article dealing with some of those errors

One error is when you take the Bible as a modern science text, as it seems to present both a flat and stationary earth, but we need not take those statements literally, just as heaven doesn't literally have "windows" in the sky where God rains both water and food to his people (Gen 7:10f; 8:2; 2 Kings 7:2,19; Isa 24:18f; Jer 51:15f; Mal 3:10).

I wouldn't call this an error. It would be like calling the setting sun the sunset. "Windows" was simply a way to describe something. Some words in the Bible are symbolic and not literal. This is true with all statements.

The Evolution of Bible-Science

Pope Leo XIII (Prov Deus) confirmed there are no errors and that was re-affirmed by Benedict XV (Spiritus Paracl), Pius XII (Div Afflante) and finally Vatican II (Dei Verbum).

This is good, but this isn't evidence to skeptics. They want answers and they don't care if humans give a thumbs up regarding inerrancy.

Take care, Phil.

God bless,
Jason

[Sanosuke]

Dear Jason,

While I am unfamiliar with your work, I am familiar with the Skeptic's annotated Bible. I'm glad that somebody took the time to go through the entire thing and give an answer to it. Often times I'd see atheists just go through the entire book of x and cite every "contradiction" that was mentioned (often times they weren't even contradictions, but "do you stupid people actually believe this?!" type comments). Keep up the good work!

Here's one for you. In Matthew 27:52, it is written that many bodies of saints who had fallen asleep were raised. However, in his testimony before Agrippa, Paul says that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead. (Acts 26:23)

Now I know that there must be an alternative meaning behind Paul's words, as we also know that Lazarus had been raised from the dead before anyone else had. Why does Paul mean in Acts 26:23? Who was the first to rise from the dead?

[Hananiah]

Sanosuke, note that the next verse says that the saints didn't come out of their tombs until after Christ's resurrection. St. Jerome had a good explanation for this one.

"As Lazarus rose from the dead, so also did many bodies of the Saints rise again to show forth the Lord's resurection; yet notwithstanding that the graves were opened, they did not rise again before the Lord rose, that He might be the first-born of the resurrection from the dead." (Aquinas's Gospel Compendium)

I suppose Lazarus's resurrection was in a different class, since he did not rise in an immortal, glorified body, the way Christ did and presumably the saints mentioned in Matt 27:52 did.

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally Posted by Sanosuke

Dear Jason,

While I am unfamiliar with your work, I am familiar with the Skeptic's annotated Bible. I'm glad that somebody took the time to go through the entire thing and give an answer to it. Often times I'd see atheists just go through the entire book of x and cite every "contradiction" that was mentioned (often times they weren't even contradictions, but "do you stupid people actually believe this?!" type comments). Keep up the good work!

Thanks for your encouragement. It was quite a project! However, writing a point by point rebuttal was well worth it. I learned a great deal and I've been able to bless many others with my CD-ROM and workbook.

Here's one for you. In Matthew 27:52, it is written that many bodies of saints who had fallen asleep were raised. However, in his testimony before Agrippa, Paul says that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead. (Acts 26:23)

Now I know that there must be an alternative meaning behind Paul's words, as we also know that Lazarus had been raised from the dead before anyone else had. Why does Paul mean in Acts 26:23? Who was the first to rise from the dead?

This is an excellent question and it's one that I address in my lectures and CD-ROM. The answer lies with the Greek meaning of this English word translated "first."

Of course, there were many others that were raised from the dead before Jesus Christ. Elijah raised a child from the dead, for instance.

The word "first" in Acts 26:23 is "protos." This word means "foremost in importance." I don't think anyone will argue that Jesus Christ's resurrection was the foremost in importance.

God bless,
Jason

[Sanosuke]

The word "first" in Acts 26:23 is "protos." This word means "foremost in importance." I don't think anyone will argue that Jesus Christ's resurrection was the foremost in importance.

Did you mean to say that no one will argue that Christ's resurrection was NOT the foremost in importance? Because I certainly would argue that it is.

That is a very satisfying explanation. If others raise good questions, and I am equally as satisfied with your answers, I will certainly buy your work. I would love having a contradiction-refuting source all in one place.

Hananiah:
"As Lazarus rose from the dead, so also did many bodies of the Saints rise again to show forth the Lord's resurection; yet notwithstanding that the graves were opened, they did not rise again before the Lord rose, that He might be the first-born of the resurrection from the dead."

Thanks for responding, Hananiah. However, here is what Jerome never seemed to answer in this passage: if Jesus is the first to rise from the dead as Paul says, but the saints rose from the dead before Jesus did (Matthew clearly states that they rose, and only came out of the tomb after Jesus' resurrection, meaning that they did indeed come back to life before Jesus). Saint Jerome seems to be just referring back to the fact that they didn't leave their tombs until after Jesus had risen, indicating that Jesus should be the first to proclaim the good news to the people and the gentiles. He seems to say nothing about who was actually revived to life and at what time like Paul seemed to be arguing in Acts.

To simplify that confusing garble of text I just wrote:

-Matthew argues for the primacy of Jesus' death.
-Jerome argues for the primacy of Jesus' death.
-However, Paul seems to be saying that Jesus was actually the first person to be resurrected, which is inaccurate.

JasonG's explanation harmonizes the Scriptures as well as explains that Paul wasn't concerned about who rose from the dead first, but whose resurrection was the most important. Indeed, Matthew seems to be hitting on the same point when he says that the people did not leave their tombs until after Jesus' resurrection. The "proto" in Acts 26 conveys the same message that Matthew and Jerome convey: the "primacy"--the supreme importance of-- of Jesus' death. Although others rose first, Jesus was the first to proclaim the good news.

I had seen many Bible studies before today which said that Matthew was illustrating that Jesus' resurrection was more important than those saints who also rose. Since JasonG's answer is completely within the exegesis of my other Bible study's, such as my Saint Jerome's Commentary on Holy Scripture, I am certain that his answer is right on the money.

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally Posted by Sanosuke

Did you mean to say that no one will argue that Christ's resurrection was NOT the foremost in importance? Because I certainly would argue that it is.

Haha. I'm glad you caught what I meant to say. Christ's resurrection was DEFINITELY the foremost in importance.

That is a very satisfying explanation. If others raise good questions, and I am equally as satisfied with your answers, I will certainly buy your work. I would love having a contradiction-refuting source all in one place.

Glory to God. His Word is perfect and true. As I wrote my rebuttal, I constantly went through the cycles of wonder and awe, each time, discovering that there were answers.

<snip>

I had seen many Bible studies before today which said that Matthew was illustrating that Jesus' resurrection was more important than those saints who also rose. Since JasonG's answer is completely within the exegesis of my other Bible study's, such as my Saint Jerome's Commentary on Holy Scripture, I am certain that his answer is right on the money.

Amen. Many alleged errors from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible can be harmonized and explained by looking at the ancient Hebrew and Greek text.

God bless,
Jason

[_Christopher_]

Thanks for this thread Jason. It is good to see you do this work.

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally Posted by _Christopher_

Thanks for this thread Jason. It is good to see you do this work.

Thanks Christopher and God bless you.

Jason

[King's X Fan]

Thanks for this thread Jason. I have a question.

The bible says that people who eat and drink of the body of Christ "unworthily" will suffer sickness and even death. In today's Sunday masses, we very often see every adult member of the congregation go up for communion, yet we don't see people suffering sickness and death. Presumably, not every single person is in a state of grace. Is the bible in error here?

Thanks again.

[Br. Dan, OCD]

Hello,

This is not really an "error" as such but what about the apparent contradictions surrounding the Passion of Jesus? For instance, did Jesus carry the cross "by himself" as St. John said or was it with Simon's help, as the synoptics say?

Thanks for your time.

[Sanosuke]

King's X Fan, I assume you are talking about 1 Corinthians 27. The exact words are: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." It says nothing about sickness or death, nor does John 6. Is there another verse which you are thinking of, or are you perhaps mistaken?