Is Bible Without Error?


#1

“Bible alone” has disproved itself millions of times, as the entire world knows what the bible says, but argue 'til their blue in the face over what it means! Christ’s Church knows what it means - without error. Scripture tells you that it is twisted by the ignorant and unstable. The sooner the Christian knows this, the better.

Therefore, should we trust the bible without a doubt and how could we learn it without error?


#2

Trust the Church that Christ gave us, and let the Church teach us what the Bible means.


#3

That quote sounds very intelligent and thoughtful!

Ooops. Bad for humility. The bible is indeed the word of God, but the bible itself, via Saint Peter, tells us that it can be twisted. It can also be misunderstood. The meaning of those printed words must match up with the teaching that Christ gave to the Apostles.

There is not a single sentence in the bible which can be separated out and used to prove or disprove anything - by itself. Scripture is a seamless garment and the entirety of the bible must be taken into consideration when examining any particular part.

The Church whose members wrote the scriptures has copied and copied and copied those fragile documents over the centuries and preserved it for us. It cannot be separated from that authority.


#4

The Church will teach us and take us through the Bible. If there’s a passage you’re uncertain about, consult a Catholic Priest and refrain from looking at Protestant interpretations because some of them are based on what they think the passage means. I’ve seen some say that hell isn’t really eternal – quoting Bible verses to ‘‘support’’ their position – which is completely false.


#5

What you should say is - ‘are translations’ - without error - lol !

Everybody wants to twist the truth - like a pretzel - so beware - of EVIL !


#6

To answer the title question: Yes. However, one is not permitted to interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. (I think that’s Vatican I if I remember right.)


#7

The Bible is infallible in all that it asserts as true, on any subject, including history and the physical sciences.

Pope St. Pius X condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Lamentabili Sane, ‘Syllabus of Errors,’ n. 11).

Pope Pius XII: “they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Humani Generis, n. 22)."

Pope Pius XII: “The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that ‘the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.’ In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical ‘not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.’ When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as ‘obiter dicta’ and — as they contended — in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1).


#8

Its not translations, its interpretation of the meaning.

Exegesis and theology are more likely trouble spots that linguistics.


#9

As always, it depends on how you define error.

Are there some inconsistencies, sequencing issues and small confusions about the dating of historical events?

Probably.

But is there anything that offsets the truth of scripture on the real matters of faith and morals?

Probably not. It’s still an amazing collection of works that is due respect from even the most ardent atheist for its gravitas and impact on western culture - the dominant culture of this planet for going on 500 years.


#10

The idea that the Bible is only inerrant on matters of faith and morals has been condemned by the Magisterium. See my post above.


#11

i couldn’t’ve said it better

when Jesus ascended to heaven; he didn’t say “read the Bible”

He said “I leave you a Church” and the magesterium derived therefrom


#12

The Bible is without error on issues of Faith and Morals. Other than that there are errors. The Bible does not intrepid itself. The Holy Spirit does the interpretation. He can do that through individuals. But, if there is a dispute the church has the final word. I am told that the church has only placed it’s interpretation on relatively few verses.


#13

Oh, I’m not Catholic. So the magisterium has no more dominion over me than Muslim Sharia.

And in my studies both formal and informal, the notion that scripture is free from minor errors is a purely religious idea.

But if you want to believe that it’s error-free as we have it, I think that’s completely fine.


#14

I agree in that Christ left us a Church rather than the bible. The bible is a product of that Church.


#15

I just trust that the Bible I read today, is the bible that God intends me to read, so it should be all that I need for salvation.


#16

I’m with you except for the last part.

Remember the Church was 400 years old before it decided what the bible even was.


#17

I know there are lots of conflicting ideas of who may have written the Gospels, but again this does not concern me. Even if an all powerful emperor tried to corrupt the Bible, he would have to fight against God, so no contest.

The Bible I read today, is the bible that God intends me to read, that is all I need to know.


#18

Sure. I was responding to “that’s all I need for salvation”.


#19

this is not the best place to delve into this question. Find a Catholic study bible or commentary and read a good answer.


#20

The Bible never was meant to be a history book, a science book nor a sociology book. It speaks of history with the style of history of the day which was very different than ours today. Facts were not as important as letting the good guys shine (or the opposite). It speaks of science typically with the knowledge and understanding of the day (and yet I am extremely surprised when it gets modern science right. Gen 1 can be seen to agree with 5 different modern scientific theories.). When it speaks of society it is speaking of the society that existed then. For example atheists often say that the Bible endorses slavery. It does not. It merely acknowledges that slavery exists in that society and tells how they should be treated and how the slave should act.

On top of that you have to take into consideration the literary genre in which the various parts were written. Gen 1 most likely a song or a poem as can be seen by the cadence “Then God said…” and “Then there was evening and morning the x day”. Gen 2 - 3 were either a story or a play told to make a certain point. I am certain that if you asked the people of the day if they actually believed that a snake spoke to Eve they would say “No”. But as a literary device it makes perfect sense.

There are also the idiomatic expressions whose meaning is completely lost in a different time. For example Peter asked if we should forgive our brother seven times. Christ answered not seven times but seventy times seven times. At that time 7 represented complete fulfillment in the same sense that we might use a million or a billion today (I could have eaten a million of those donuts). Peter was asking “Should we forgive our brother a million times?”.meaning “always forgive”. Jesus’ response was an exaggeration for emphasis: “Not just a million times, but a billion times a million times.”

Then there are different meanings to the words. There are a grand total of about 6,000 Hebrew words used in the Bible. Today there are approximately 30,000 Hebrew words… there were far fewer then. In contrast the English language has near or more than a million words. As a result English as far more words that express a slight variation. Just think of how many different words can be used to express different shades of red. However look but how many completely different meanings the word “yom” could mean. The same applies to the Greek language at that time.

Where the Bible is inerrant is in its MEANING. The words used were the right ones to express that meaning, but that does not mean the meaning is on the surface. It has to be dug out with guidance of the Spirit.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.