How the churches got around errors in scripture.

[polonius]

In 1893 we were still being told by the Pope that “ Inspiration (is)Incompatible with Error�

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCR IPTURE DECLARED THAT:

“For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. “

This was essentially the Protestant teaching as well. But things changed in the 1900’s
The Protestant “Chicago Statement� declared that:

“Article X We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.

That was a safe claim since autographic copies of scripture no longer existed.

But the CatholicChurch at Vatican II came up with still a better explanation.

“ Paragraph #11: “Since, therefore, all that the…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 that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.�

In short, if there is an error, than the matter must not be necessary for our salvation!

New Jerome Biblical Commentary, coauthored by the late Raymond Brown and Thomas Aquinas Collins:

..."Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purposes of God."

Elsewhere, Brown writes,
It is falsely claimed that there has been no change towards the Bible in Catholic Church thought because Pius XII and Vatican II paid homage to documents issued by Leo XIII, Pius X and Benedict XV and therefore clearly meant to reinforce the teaching of their predecessors. What really was going on was an attempt gracefully to retain what was salvageable from the past and to move in a new direction with as little friction as possible."

In sum, if you find an error in scripture, then that passage was not necessary for our salvation!

What a great solution!!!

[dio9]

[Replying to marco]

Yes Babel is rather negative and doesn't really express my thought . Rather closer to my thought is scripture is about Man reaching out to heaven; not God reaching down to Man but rather Man reaching up, trying to find and understand God who is simply there for us to find . Scripture can help us or may confound us. .

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

Yes Babel is rather negative and doesn't really express my thought . Rather closer to my thought is scripture is about Man reaching out to heaven; not God reaching down to Man but rather Man reaching up, trying to find and understand God who is simply there for us to find . Scripture can help us or may confound us. .

We're travelling a fair distance from our theme. In past centuries people have reached out and the result has been a multiplicity of errors and odd interpretations. It would be nice if when we knock somebody answers; when we ask we get. Sadly that doesn't happen and so churches have to deal with their errors in whatever way they can, usually by saying they don't exist.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

You have given the different the different definition of how the church has defined inerrancy. But you have not given any examples of the inerrancy the the Bible has.

The assumption is being made that the Bible does have errors. This is an erroneous assumption if examples of the errors you are speaking of are given.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 32 by marco]

What errors are you speaking of? If there is this multiplicity of errors in the Bible can you name one? You are assuming errors in the Bible with out citing any examples of errors in the Bible.

[marco]

[Replying to post 32 by marco]

What errors are you speaking of? If there is this multiplicity of errors in the Bible can you name one? You are assuming errors in the Bible with out citing any examples of errors in the Bible.

Did you read my post? I said "their errors", relating to Churches. Given that one church says X and another says Y, in denial of X, there must be at least one error. The difference between churches suggests errors in interpretation. This can be caused by faulty translation, ambiguities in the text or even just a missing comma.


As for Biblical errors one can spend an interesting afternoon reading about them. Just look up Biblical errors and be surprised. Some matter very little of course. That's perhaps why the Church suggested that only those parts of the Bible that relate to salvation are inerrant, not bits about mustard seeds.

[EarthScienceguy]

For God to have to repent in the manner you are speaking of would require Him to be surprised at the outcome. Or to have planned a different outcome and then not have that planned outcome come to fruition.

This is an impossibility from both the Biblical text which says that God "Declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"
And from the purely physical possibility of creating this universe. I will not go through the entire proof but it would not be possible for God to create this universe without being omnipresent across all eternity.

So repentance in the manner you are speaking is not possible. Now the Greek word that is being used here is “Nacham�. One meaning is to be sorry for something, but that is not the only meaning of this word. It can also mean “to be comforted or to be consoled, to have pity on, to have compassion on.�

With this definition in mind it is much more likely that God was having pity on the man that he made about what He had to do to the men He had made. This would be analogous to a parent who must discipline their child because they know the consequences of not disciplining their child. God knew what was going to happen to men He created and He was having pity on them.

[Monta]

Not really:
You are Peter and tonight we are having chicken soup.

We go to great lenghts to prove 'our' truth.
Those seeking truth because it is true will often find that
it contradicts 'their' truth.

It helps to read the arguments other people present, and then, once they are understood, disagree with them.

Your statement: "Thou art Peter and tonight we are having chicken soup" suggests to me that you haven't understood what was said.


In your sentence the word "and" is improperly used; the second clause has no relation to the first. It is useful to assume there is sense and meaning in a biblical sentence.

I understood it perfectly even used 'and' as you did in the quote.

You are Charlie and I am Sam your father, do as you are told.
Nothing's wrong with my sentence as nothing's wrong and perfectly understood
with 'you are Peter and and upon this rock' (not that rock).

[EarthScienceguy]

So you are saying that the different denominations and religious fractions come out a misunderstanding of Scripture be it a comma here or a mistranslation there. I believe that could be the case at the local church level but not at the denomination level. The men and women leading the denominations are all too well educated many being able to read the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

There must be another reason for the differences in interpretations unrelated to the text because everyone has the same original texts.

Here is an example that will help explain how this could happen. I write poetry and at times I go to these gathering of poets and we read our poetry and then discuss it. It is an interesting discussion because I can tell people what I meant when I was writing my poetry. Then they will say what it means to them which many times is totally different than what I was thinking when I wrote the poem. Even though they knew exactly what the writers intent when he was writing. Their interpretation was different but because of their life experiences they do not hear what the writer is trying to say.

This is what happens with Scripture. Most of the time, it is sin that men do not want to rid themselves of, so they invent an interpretation of Scripture that allows them to keep their sin. But let us be clear on one thing and that is there is only one correct interpretation of Scripture. God is not a God of duplicity, so any misinterpretation of scripture is a result of man not God.

In the book of Revelation, it speaks of 7 churches and each of those 7 churches are either commended on their theology or rebuked because of their theology. This indicates that some theologies are more Biblical than others are. In each of the different theologies mentioned in Revelation there are believers in Jesus Christ. But they are still condemned based on their theology.
With all that being said there is one thing that determines whether a church is actual a Judeo Christian church. And that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That one must believe on Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. Anything outside of that and the organization ceases to be a Christian organization. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins is the central theme of Christianity.

[Tcg]

There must be another reason for the differences in interpretations unrelated to the text because everyone has the same original texts.

Who is it that you are claiming has the "original texts"? Why is it that they are keeping this fact a secret?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Tcg]

I am assuming you are asking how we know that the texts of the Bible we have are actually what was in the original text.

If we cannot know what was in the original text of the Bible then we cannot know anything about ancient Roman civilization. We have over 25,000 texts of the New Testament some are fragments but all of them agree for the most part. In fact less than 1% of the words in the New Testament are in any type of dispute, take this 1% out and the Bible would still have the exact same message. We have many texts within 100 years of the original text. This is all unprecedented against any other ancient manuscript.

So let me reiterate if we cannot be confident of the original text of the Bible, then we cannot be certain of any event in ancient history, Roman empire, Greek empire we could not be confident of any of these empires ever existing.