Do Catholics believe that there are errors in the Bible due to written translation, mans free will, etc..?

-- Matthew Daniel (muse21@hotmail.com), May 23, 1999

Answers

Most assuredly there are errors due to mans involvment. Were there not we would firmly be based as a family of amn in the love God The Father and Christ His Son.

When I began t study Philisophy a number of years ago our prof placed a pencil in top of a styrofaom cup and and asked the class of thrirty five students to describe it five hundred words. Result: Thirty five seperate descriptions based on a simliar theme.

Our hope due to free will is to allow the Holy Spirit to touch and give us the gift of faith.

Peace And Well Being.

Jean B.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.iamg.net), May 23, 1999.

Then how do we know the very things that the Catholic Church is based on are truth or not? How do we know what is truth and what is not?

-- Matthew (muse21@hotmail.com), May 23, 1999.

Matthew,

The message that God revealed in the Scriptures and handed down by the Apostles is entrusted to the Church. We see in the Scriptures that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth" The Scriptures have been guarded by the Church for 2000 years. If it is a true Catholic translation of the Latin Vulgate hen it is a true translation of the originals as we today can get to. It is really the message that God wishes to convey that is without error. Many Protestant Bibles and even current modern ones are freely translated without any real Church authority overseeing them. So can a certain version have "human" error introduced yes. historically the Church has when a misprinting has been found and a major error proved. The Church did it's best to collect up any misprints and burn them. This is where many of the Protestant "the Catholic Church burned Bibles" to keep them from the people stories come from.

I would suggest reading the document "The Splendor of Truth" to understand Divine Revelation. There are also three documents that help with Scripture, "On The Study of Sacred Scripture", "Promotion of Biblical Studies" and "The Interpretation of the Bible in The Church"

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), May 23, 1999.

Matthew,

Sometimes the worst way to find out what the Church teaches is to ask a Catholic. Try a book "Free From All Error". Not sure of the author. Also check the writings of Fr. William Most at trincomm.org. My faith is strongly precisely because I haven't spent significant amounts of time in the presence of modern theologian.

- go forth and forgive men's sins... Veni Spiritus Sanctus!!!

-- ubi (ubi@petros.com), May 23, 1999.

Good answer just above. The book "Free From All Error" is indeed by the late Fr. William Most. It is still in print. It is excellent and defends and explains very well the official Catholic teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture, namely, that there are no errors in the Holy Bible because it is the Word of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived. In short, the Bible is inerrant and this is the Catholic Church's official teaching. So I must disagree with my brother Jean above.

That being said, it is not true that because the Bible is without error that it must be interpreted "literally". In many cases literal interpretation of the words of Scripture is directly contrary to what the author of that Scripture intended.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 23, 1999.

David ,

If the bible is inerrant and is not always to be taken litterally then what exactly did the author mean in 1 Timothy 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach"

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), May 23, 1999.

Well, Michael, I think it means that a bishop should be above reproach morally.

It might surprise you to learn that we do have married clergy in the Catholic Church. Some Anglican and Lutheran clergy who convert and receive a dispensation to the priesthood are married. Some of our Eastern Catholic priests are married. But the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church just follows the good Biblical advice of St. Paul, who says that it is best that Church leaders be single, and chooses candidates for the priesthood from men willing to be like St. Paul.

Now, are you implying that this verse indicates that a bishop must be married? That would pretty much eliminate St. Paul himself, not to mention Timothy and Titus, eh?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 23, 1999.

First go to the Greek and find that the word "bishop" is not in the Bible.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), May 24, 1999.

episkopos in Greek = "bishop" in English.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 24, 1999.

Bishop [ME bisshop. fr bisceop, biscop: akin to OS biskop bishop, OHG biscof, MD bisskop; all fr a prehistoric WGmc word BORROWED fr. (ASSUMED) VL biscopus, ebiscopus](WTNID)

The term "biship has been 'borrowed' if you will. It is not the true meaning, especially of what a biship is today.

episkopos in Greek = "overseer" in English. (Websters Dictionary)

The first 'definition' of "bishop" in the "Websters Third New International Dictionary - and seven language dictionary" is: 1.a chief priest of a non-Christian religion.

I find this very curiuos.

The term "bishop" comes from a 'middle' and 'old' English term the Celts used in their "religious" orders. Please refer to Celtic resources and study those terms and how they used them.

The search for Truth continues,

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), May 30, 1999.

Very intriguing, Jamey?

Do catholics find error in the N.T. considering the succesion of Peter when Mark, Luke, and John fail to mention "upon this Rock"?

Does "Rock" really mean a stable foundation upon which to build his church which is built on truth? Notice Jesus asks who does Peter say that he is. Peter's answer and Jesus's answer are identical. They both speak the truth!

Their names Jesus................Simon

They are called Christ...............Peter

they are sons of the living God.......son of Jona

"For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto Thee" ....revealed what?..........the truth-that Christ is the son of God! Simon as anyone who believes the truth is blessed. And upon that Rock(solid foundation of truth)shall Christ's church be built. The gates of hell will not prevail against the truth! Christ is the temple!

"that thou art Peter(little rock or stone), and upon this rock(big rock,solid foundation-truth) i(Jesus) will build(constuct)my church."

When you build a building you construct it on a solid foundation (rock). What is this foundation but anything other than truth?

There is a succesion but it is the succesion of "truth" not the Papacy! There are two keys to the kingdom of heaven, they are "the commandments of God" and the "testimony of Jesus Christ"

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), May 30, 1999.

"When you build a building you construct it on a solid foundation (rock). "

A note to the "Rock", The God is "The Rock" - Deut. 32:4, 2 Sam 22:3. Jehovah God is the Rock of which His Kingdom is built upon.

Who is the cornerstone? Jesus Christ - Eph 2:20.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), May 30, 1999.

And to who did Christ give these two keys? Peter! As refered to in Is 22:22. And to who did Christ grant the power to bind and loose? Peter! Do you sort of see the pattern.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), May 31, 1999.

Jamey, right again!

God is the rock!

God is the truth!

God is the solid foundation!

Jesus is the cornerstone!

To Br. Rich and all other catholics:

Please refer to Revelations Ch.2-3 note all first paragraphs concerning the writings to the angels of the churches. All first paragraphs describe he (JESUS) who is telling John what to write. Now look closely at Ch.3 verse 7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write;(describing Jesus) These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the KEY OF DAVID, he that OPENETH, and no man SHUTTETH, and SHUTTETH, and no man OPENETH;"

Now as Br. Rich has pointed out refer to Isaiah 22:22, who holds the "Key of the house of David"?............the messiah?

Notice also Isaiah 22:20 this person who will have the "keys" laid upon his shoulder is called "my servant ELIAKIM the son of HILKIAH".

Hitchcocks bible names dictionary states that these words mean:

ELIAKIM= resurrection of God

HILKIAH=God is my portion

Easton's bible dictionary also says that HILKIAH means:

Hilkiah: portion of Jehovah. (1.) 1 Chr. 6:54. (2.) 1 Chr. 26:11. (3.) The father of Eliakim (2 Kings 18:18, 26, 37). (4.) The father of Gemariah (Jer. 29:3). (5.) The father of the prophet Jeremiah (1:1).

(6.) The high priest in the reign of Josiah (1 Chr. 6:13; Ezra 7:1). To him and his deputy (2 Kings 23:5), along with the ordinary priests and the Levites who had charge of the gates, was entrusted the purification of the temple in Jerusalem. While this was in progress, he discovered in some hidden corner of the building a book called the "book of the law" (2 Kings 22:8) and the "book of the covenant" (23:2). Some have supposed that this "book" was nothing else than the original autograph copy of the Pentateuch written by Moses (Deut. 31:9-26). This remarkable discovery occurred in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign (B.C. 624), a discovery which permanently affected the whole subsequent history of Israel.

Now , could "bind and loose" also mean "Open and shut"?

Could the "Transfiguration" also contain the "keys"?

Moses "binds" "opens" the Law of sacrifice on earth, Jesus "looses" "shuts" the burden of sacrifice on earth, along with Elijah who testifies of the messiah, complete the "KEYS" to the kingdom of heaven.

In one great vision is seen the salvation plan!

Rev. Ch 12:17 "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God (Moses&Jesus) and have the testimony(Elijah) of Jesus Christ"

Hum, I seem to see a circle or maybe parrallel lines here anyonelse?

Now, sorta see the REAL pattern here?

The bible interpets itself!

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), May 31, 1999.

I didn't see anyone say that Christ somehow gave up His supreme power. He has just shared it with Peter and his successors. That is why He granted Peter care of the flock in John 21:15> Peter is now the visible shepherd of Christ's flock, The Church.

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), May 31, 1999.

Br Rich,

Please refer to good lexicon. The "church" you are refering to in Matthew is not "your" church. The intepretation of "church" is incorrect. It is only found two times in the gospels. And what's further interesting is that when the same Greek word is found eleswhere in the New Covenant the CC have translated it into "assembly." Why is this?

The search for Truth,

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), May 31, 1999.

"Church" is a different subject, Peter and his successors are the visible leaders of "The Church". It was to Peter alone and to the other Apostles with Peter that Christ granted His authority.

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), June 01, 1999.

The gospels when speaking of the church use te greek term EKKLESIA (latin: ecclesia, french: eglise, italian: chiesa) what ekklesia are they talking about?

ENRIQUE

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), June 01, 1999.

If we're going to use Ephesians 2:20 as a basis for discussion, let's make sure we include all of it. The scripture says that the church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone".

According to this scripture, the Church is built upon all of the apostles and prophets, not just Peter. And that Jesus is the chief cornerstone, not Peter.

To stay true to scripture, we cannot exclude the role of the apostles and prophets as the foundation upon which the Church is built, nor can we give to Peter what clearly belongs to Jesus alone.

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), June 01, 1999.

I just finished a quick online search of scriptures relating to the apostles, Peter and the question of authority as referenced in the NT. The thing I found interesting is that different scriptures can point us to different conclusions.

Most indicate that all apostles are treated on equal footing.

Several indicate that there was an inner circle in the leadership of the apostles consisting probably of James. John, Peter and later, Paul.

Others indicate that Peter was, even among the inner circle, the leader for he is singled out several times in ways different from all of the other apostles.

Still others indicate that the leadership was clearly divided between Peter, who was the apostle to the Jews, and Paul, who was the apostle to the Gentiles. Neither seemed willing to tread on the other's territory of authority.

Perhaps in some way, all of these points of view were accurate at various times and the differences simply reflect the evolution of relationships and leadership that typically occurs in any new organization.

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), June 01, 1999.

David,

We did not give Peter any authority, Jesus did! And it was His to give. Your observations of the Scriptures are good. The role of Peter did develope but we do see in the Scriptures the Primacy granted him. The Catholic Church today is as the Scriptures state built upon the Successors of the Apostles the Bishops, with the pope as the successor of the primary Bishop. With Christ as the chief corner stone, the standard to which the rest are aligned.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), June 01, 1999.

Brother Rich,

I agree that Jesus gave Peter authority, but in my earlier post, I was attempting to clarify that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. Ephesians 2:20 is the most precise theological description we have of the Church as a building analogy and it clearly does not designate Peter in a special role, that is reserved for Jesus, the chief cornerstone. Peter is one of the apostles and therefore part of the foundation of the church. It seems that Protestants want to completely remove all of Peter's authority while Catholics tend to elevate Peter above the other apostles.

I guess my view is somewhat different.

Let's look at Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and th gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven."

It may surprise you to learn that I do not hold the traditional Protestant view regarding the rock that Jesus spoke of. Most try to emphasize that in the Greek, Peter is "petros" [masculine] and rock is "petra" [feminine] therefore, Jesus could not have been referring to Peter when he said rock. I recognize that in Aramaic, the language that Jesus most likely was speaking at this time, the term/name is "cephas" which has no masculine or feminine differences. So in my view, Jesus was indeed saying to Peter that he is the rock upon which the church was going to be built.

Where I make a departure from the Catholic view is that I believe that Peter was "primus inter pares" [first among equals]. That Peter's inspired confession was the first of his fellow apostles who would also share in the authority that Peter was given. I do this for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Ephesians 2:20 makes a powerful case for that viewpoint. Second, the same authority given to Peter regarding binding and loosing is also given to the remaining apostles in Matthew 18:18. Third, Peter was sent by other apostles as in submission to their shared authority in Acts 8:14. Fourth, Peter was questioned and held accountable to the leadership of the Jerusalem church in Acts 11:1-18. Fifth, Peter was publically rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14. Sixth, in all of Paul's letters, there is no reference of Peter's primacy, in fact, Paul holds the churches personally accountable to himself and does not refer to Peter as a source of their authority.

This is a list I constructed in about 15 minutes so it is rather incomplete, but it lends some reason for my view and hopefully some thoughts for consideration. With all of that said, I also clearly see Peter as holding a position of leadership among the apostles, it's just that I do not hold that it is a position of primacy.

It may also surprise you that I believe that when Peter went to Rome to assume the leadership of the church, it was with the full intention of providing unified leadership for all of the scattered churches. Since he was the last of the apostles, with the exception of the aging John, it made sense that he needed to operate as one who's equals had died. I also contend that he was martyred before he personally could accomplish much of anything along those lines. I have no doubt that it was Peter's intention to establish a source of leadership for the church with Rome as the base.

Wish I had time to explore this further, but I need to submit this now . . . time for bed :-) Maybe more later.

Night all.

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), June 01, 1999.

A few questions to your site:

4. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the "first" (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

Not quite all lists, the book of Matthew is the first of the Gospels  why not Peter's writtings? There is an answer, right?

50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

If you really believe the church in Rome is referred to as this does this same hold true when we reach the book of Revelation and "Babylon the Great"? Why or why not?

The search,

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 02, 1999.

If I understand your first question properly it has to do with why Matthew's gospel is the first in our Bible and not some writing of St. Peter.

My answer is twofold: first, there is no theological significance to the order of writings in our Bibles; that was done long after they were written. (BTW, Jamey, care to tell us how you know Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew?)

Second, as I've tried to point out here many times, writing Scripture is not the quintessential, most important function of an apostle. Notice how few of the apostles wrote anything; notice too that several books of the New Testament were written by non-apostles (how do you know that these are Scripture?).

The Christian Faith is not based primarily on writings. It is based on the Tradition (paradosis) passed on by Jesus through His apostles; some of that Tradition was written down but nowhere in any of those writings are we told 1) that all of the Tradition is written down or 2) that we should only follow that part of the Tradition that is written down.

St. Peter received the primacy from Christ, as the various articles on that Web site demonstrate. He exercised that authority in the early Church and passed it on to his successors. Writing Scripture was a secondary task for which he was given special graces by the Holy Spirit.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Oh, I forgot your question on Babylon. It could refer to pagan Rome in the book of Revelation. More likely it refers in Revelation to Jerusalem since we are told in chapter 11 that the "Great City" is that city in which "also their Lord was crucified"; obviously this is Jerusalem. St. John really doesn't give us any reason to believe that the "Great City" of chapter 11 is different in identity from the "Great City" ("Babylon") of later chapters so I don't think it can be Rome in either place.

Beyond that, even if it was Rome it would be the pagan city of Rome, not (as you wish it to be) the Church of Rome that is referred to.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Irenic . . . had to look that one up, David :-) Thanks! Derived from the namesake of Irenaous?? Just wondering since the dictionary lists the word's application as "primarily theological". I thought perhaps it may have originated as a reference to the Apostolic Father's character or nature.

By occupation, are you by chance an author? You certainly have a strong command of the language.

Thanks also for the links. Have read some and will continue. Interesting reading. Perhaps, if time permits, I'll post something to engage discussion in response.

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), June 03, 1999.

Let's just try this . . . once more ???

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), June 03, 1999.

"Irenic" from the Greek, irene = "peace".

I am an author as a hobby, a software engineer by profession. Thanks for your kind words.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Nice point David Palm! The Bible actually denies that it is the COMPLETE rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ's work is in Scripture (Jn 21:25), and Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition that is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim 2:2). He instructs us to "stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" (2 Th 2:15). We are told that the first Christians "were perservering in the doctrine of the apostles" (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching that was given long before the New Testament was written -- and centuries befor the canon of the New Testament was settled.

It's interesting to see Paul say to Timothy, who was a bishop, "Thou hast learned, from many who can witness to it, the doctrine which I hand down, give it into the keeping of men thou can trust, men who will know how to teach it to others besides themselves." (2 Tim 2:2). In other wordds, Timothy, one of the successors to the apostles, was to teach what he had learned from his predecessor, Paul. The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I must praise you for your constant memory of me, for upholding your traditions just as I handed them on to you" (1 Cor 11:2).

The first Christians "occupied themselves continually with the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a Bible. The fullness of Christian teaching was found, right from the first, in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book.

This does not mean the Bible is invalid, but means that it is NOT the SOLE authority! In fact the Gosples themselves are oral Tradition that has been written down.

Well HOW do we know that what had been handed down by the Catholic Church is correct doctrine and practice? We KNOW it is correct because Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Mt 16:18).

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by Tradition. The term does not mean legends or mythological accounts, nor does it mean transitiory customs or practices that come and go as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, etc. Tradition means the teachings and theacching authority of Jesus and, derivatively, the apostles. These have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary that Christians beliece in and follow this Tradition as well as the Bible. (Lk 10:16) The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (Jn 14:16).

In light of the original question.... my studying has payed off -- I found a great book on this subject "The Catholic Church and the Bible" written by Peter M.J. Stravinskas, printed by Ignatius Press. Here is the answer :

"Perhaps the best guide for discovering the "Catholic" understanding of the Bible is the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revalation (Vatican II, Dei Verbum) The Constitution opens with a careful explanation of the basic notions undergirding the process of divine revalation, grounding it in the life and ministry of Jesus, Who "completed and perfected revelation and confirmed it with divine guarantees" (no.4). Clearly teaching the divine inspiration of the sacred authors and, therefore, the inerrant quality of their writings, the Constituition affirms "that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth that God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to be confided to the sacred Scriptures" (no. II; CCC 107) This serves as a response to a rationalism that would deny the inerrancy of Scripture."

-- Matthew (muse21@hotmail.com), June 03, 1999.

Someone wrote... "Do catholics find error in the N.T. considering the succesion of Peter when Mark, Luke, and John fail to mention "upon this Rock"? "

Answer... NO, not at all. If all the writers wrote the same thing, we would only need one book.

-- Rev. Raymond A. Burkle (cyclist@ncn.net), June 05, 1999.

The Church teaches that there is no error in Scripture - the divinely inspired writings. However, there can be errors made in translation from the original tongue. This is especially true when a translator is subjecting Scripture to his/her own biased theological system. This can be seen in many non-Catholic translations. The most notorious is the New World Translation (the standard Bible for the Jehovah's Witnesses).

This translation purports to give a word-for-word rendering from the Greek as to not bias the meaning. However, this is done for some words such as "soul" (although sometimes translating awkwardly as "soulfull" or the like since this word has many meanings) and for others such as "spirit" it is not rendered consistently. This simple word, for example, is translated as "spiritual life" (Heb 12:19), "spirit you show" (Gal 6:18), "spirituality" (Jude 19), "inspired expression" (1John 4:1), and "inspired utterance" (1Tim 4:1). Since some of these passages refer directly to the Holy Spirit (the Spirit says. . .) this would too obviously imply the personality of the Spirit. Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Holy Spirit is a person (something the Arians of old never did!).

At times this translation has added words and omitted others to completely change the meaning of a passage. In Colossians 1:16-20, the word "other" has been added altering its meaning implying that the Son is one of the created things. The NWT usually appeals to such texts as Luke 11:41-42 and Luke 13:2, 4 where "other" is inserted by some translations. However, the problem is that adding "other" in Colossians makes the passage say the opposite of what Paul meant. He meant that the Son is the Creator not the created. The meaning in the passages in Luke are not changed by adding "other" for clarification. This is a BIG difference (see also Acts 10:36; Phil 2:9). At times the NWT, against its stated practice, inserts "other" without brackets implying again that it is part of the inspired text.

In Philippians 2:9 Jesus name is said to be above every [other] name according to the Witness's. They have inserted "other" because they beleive that the name "Jehovah" is actually the name that is above every name without exception. Thus Jesus name is only above every 'other' name except Jehovah's name. Amazing what adding to God's inspired word can do.

At times their translation omitts words from Scripture because they say to much. John 14:14 is changed from "you may ask ME for anything in my name, and I will do it" to "if you ask anything in my name, I will dot it." The reason for the omission is that since Jesus is not God (in their view) we cannot rightly approach him in prayer.

Well enough with the Witness. Some Protestant translations, such as the NIV, also can be shown to have been translated incorrectly due to theological bias. I've read excellent examples of this from works by James Akins from Catholic Answers.

-- Jorge (jtrujillo7203@hotmail.com), June 20, 1999.