Doesn't the New Testament contain many errors?
Moderator: Moderators
Doesn't the New Testament contain many errors?
Post #1Beginning with the Gospel of Matthew (and particularly in Matthew), aren't there many obvious errors and contradictions? Would these exist in a divinely inspired writing?
Re: Doesn't the New Testament contain many errors?
Post #22[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]
Elijah John Posted:
However, the popes have taught that:
"I conclude that the Catholic Church teaches the absolute inerrancy of Holy Scripture, that is, that the Bible is wholly and entirely free from all error. This is “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church� affirmed by Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, Pope Pius XII’s Divino afflante Spiritu, and Vatican II’s Dei Verbum.
Vatican II taught that: There was furious debate over this passage on the floor of the Council, producing a number of widely varying revisions of the text. Upon reading its fourth draft4, a minority of Fathers were not satisfied. They were disturbed that it could be interpreted in such a way as to limit inerrancy exclusively to those truths revealed “for the sake of our salvation� — i.e., strict matters of faith and morals — while admitting the possibility of error where the Bible mentioned things of an historical or scientific nature.
COMMENT: But they are wrong. Although the general principle up to Vatican II was that scripture is completely inerrant (like that of the fundamentalists), a number of Catholics (including myself) don’t take that Church teaching to be true.
Examples might include: The virgin birth of Jesus, and perhaps even the Resurrection and Assumption.
Elijah John Posted:
_________________Also, I think your RCC sources are outdated. Now the Church considers the Bible to be an error free source for all that we need for salvation, faith and morals, but the RCC does not consider the Bible a book of science or literal history anymore.
However, the popes have taught that:
"I conclude that the Catholic Church teaches the absolute inerrancy of Holy Scripture, that is, that the Bible is wholly and entirely free from all error. This is “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church� affirmed by Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, Pope Pius XII’s Divino afflante Spiritu, and Vatican II’s Dei Verbum.
Vatican II taught that: There was furious debate over this passage on the floor of the Council, producing a number of widely varying revisions of the text. Upon reading its fourth draft4, a minority of Fathers were not satisfied. They were disturbed that it could be interpreted in such a way as to limit inerrancy exclusively to those truths revealed “for the sake of our salvation� — i.e., strict matters of faith and morals — while admitting the possibility of error where the Bible mentioned things of an historical or scientific nature.
COMMENT: But they are wrong. Although the general principle up to Vatican II was that scripture is completely inerrant (like that of the fundamentalists), a number of Catholics (including myself) don’t take that Church teaching to be true.
Examples might include: The virgin birth of Jesus, and perhaps even the Resurrection and Assumption.
Re: Doesn't the New Testament contain many errors?
Post #23RESPONSE: Are you then claiming that God inspired error.?Elijah John wrote:I think it's a given here, (as has been demonstrated time and time again) that the NT contains many errors and contradictions. However, this is not incompatible with the notion of Divine inspiration. There is a human element in all this, and that accounts for the imperfections.polonius wrote: Beginning with the Gospel of Matthew (and particularly in Matthew), aren't there many obvious errors and contradictions? Would these exist in a divinely inspired writing?
Inspired is not the same as dictated.
Did Paul write any of the Pastorals?
Post #24Real World Jack posted:
RESPONSE: I'm afraid not. It does not appear that Paul wrote 1 or 2 Timothy and not Timothy. Paul is usually credited with writing 14 letters but 7 is more realistic figure.
From Wikipedia:
The author of First Timothy has been traditionally identified as the Apostle Paul. He is named as the author of the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not the work of Paul, but rather are unattributable Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd centuries.[1] Most scholars now affirm this view.[2][3] As evidence for this perspective, they put forward that the Pastoral Epistles contain 306 words that Paul does not use in his unquestioned letters, that their style of writing is different from that of his unquestioned letters, that they reflect conditions and a church organization not current in Paul's day, and that they do not appear in early lists of his canonical works.[4]
Then of course, we have a letter in which the author identifies himself as the Apostle Paul, which is addressed to someone by the name of Timothy, which clearly seems to have been written while Paul would have been imprisoned, and in this letter, Paul tells Timothy, "only Luke is with me", which gives us clear evidence of who this author would have been, and also giving us an understanding that this author could have very well used the two years of Paul's imprisonment, to write these two letters to, Theophilus
RESPONSE: I'm afraid not. It does not appear that Paul wrote 1 or 2 Timothy and not Timothy. Paul is usually credited with writing 14 letters but 7 is more realistic figure.
From Wikipedia:
The author of First Timothy has been traditionally identified as the Apostle Paul. He is named as the author of the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not the work of Paul, but rather are unattributable Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd centuries.[1] Most scholars now affirm this view.[2][3] As evidence for this perspective, they put forward that the Pastoral Epistles contain 306 words that Paul does not use in his unquestioned letters, that their style of writing is different from that of his unquestioned letters, that they reflect conditions and a church organization not current in Paul's day, and that they do not appear in early lists of his canonical works.[4]
