How Do We Explain The Doctrine Of Biblical Inerrancy And In What Does

[Ziggamafu]

Anyone who claims to obey the Church must believe in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The question is whether or not orthodoxy allows for an inerrancy that applies to the holistic message of Scripture and textual perfection in all matters pertaining to our salvation (iow, allows for errors on the human level in some areas) or if orthodoxy forbids anything but a strict belief in absolute textual perfection. Hence this poll.

Primarily, I have self-centered motives; I feel like my position is regarded as heretical by the active participants in the thread and what like to know what the rest of you have to say. I don't place myself above being reproved. But it does seem like I have the greater weight of non-condemned Catholic scholarship on my side.

Here is how I voted (and hence, my position):

Q-1: Choice B

Q-2: Disagree

Q-3: Choice A

Here is quote from the thread on TL on why I feel the way that I do:

[quote]
Was Jehoiachin eight (2 Chronicles 36.9) or eighteen (2 Kings 24:8) when he began to reign? Or does that error not count? Kafka's admirable attempt to interpret the discrepancy I mentioned from Mark is a perfect example of "perfect message" vs "perfect text". The text is the surface; the literal, objective wording chosen by an imperfect - albeit divinely inspired - human author. [b]The message is greater than the words used to convey it.[/b] [s]Anyone who says that there is no contradiction between Mark and 1 Samuel is either a liar or a fool[/s] [edit; I humbly accept the schooling of Res on that one, and I confess that I was unnecessarily harsh to emphasize my point, kind of like what goes on in Psalm 137:9, but I maintain that in contemporary verbiage, the "discrepancy" here is more properly referred to as a contradiction in regards to the text itself]. It is likewise dishonest to euphemize the word "contradiction" by instead choosing to say "discrepancy". Atheists and agnostics pick up on this deceptive tactic and the absurd back-bending "hypothetical explanations" that ensue and are scandalized. [b]THAT IS THE ISSUE I AM CONCERNED WITH.[/b]

Do atheists often point to what they think are errors and contradictions without realizing that Catholic theology or a better understanding of the Bible does indeed provide easy and plausible explanations? Yes, of course. But there are also many other textual "discrepancies" that have no plausible (even if hypothetically possible) explanations, and quite a few that are, plainly speaking, true contradictions on the face of the text itself. To look at them and say they are not an error is to look at a cat and call it a pig. You are fooling no one but yourself. And you scandalize the atheists, who then spread lies mingled with truth that in turn scandalizes others:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk[/media]

And no, the reexamination and subsequent reinterpretation of Church teaching does not mean changing it. We still believe that there is no salvation outside of the Church, even though we now recognize that there are non-Christians who may very well be saved, even if they are aware of the Church but reject it because of sincere misunderstanding / misrepresentation. We did not change the doctrine, we merely clarified the proper interpretation that had been hinted at in centuries past. Every quote that has been offered could either be argued to be in some cases not infallible or in other cases interpreted as applying to the message of the text rather than the text [u]itself[/u], and the doctrine of inerrancy is not thereby reversed or contradicted, but merely has its proper interpretation clarified. Notice that the Church Fathers would read Scripture, primarily, typologically; they were more concerned with the message of any given text that could be seen to concern Christ or His Church rather than the letters of the text itself.

There is a good article to be found @ http://www.ancient-future.net/bible.html
[/quote]

Edited June 9, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[Resurrexi]

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. 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." (Pope Leo XIII, [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i], 20, emphasis added)

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 June 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1276101599' post='2126346']
"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. 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." (Pope Leo XIII, [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i], 20, emphasis added)
[/quote]
How do you believe life on earth was created? Or to be more blunt, how do you reconcile the genesis account of creation versus evolution

Edited June 9, 2010 by notardillacid

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='09 June 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1276101896' post='2126349']
How do you believe life on earth was created?
[/quote]

The first life on earth probably originated through abiogenesis. How is that relevant to the topic of this thread?

[Ziggamafu]

Please note that in the second poll question, I am referring to the literal text of Scripture; that is, the actual writing that the human side of Scripture's co-authorship is behind. I would edit the poll, but I don't know if that would reset the votes.

If I edited it, I would rephrase the question as:

"There are no [i]apparent[/i] discrepancies or problems in Scripture's [i]written text itself[/i]"

...or something to that effect.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 June 2010 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1276102052' post='2126351']
The first life on earth probably originated through abiogenesis. How is that relevant to the topic of this thread?
[/quote]
Are you unable to connect my post to the topic?

Most people think that there is a conflict between the theory of evolution and the literal genesis account of creation. That is not the only example of biblical observations apparently conflicting with fairly well established science. Since the thread appears to be at least somewhat directed at you, I was curious as to your input.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 10:54 AM' timestamp='1276102488' post='2126355']
Please note that in the second poll question, I am referring to the literal text of Scripture; that is, the actual writing that the human side of Scripture's co-authorship is behind. I would edit the poll, but I don't know if that would reset the votes.

If I edited it, I would rephrase the question as:

"There are no [i]apparent[/i] discrepancies or problems in Scripture's [i]written text itself[/i]"

...or something to that effect.
[/quote]

Well, yeah, there may very well be "apparent" discrepancies in Scripture. But that doesn't mean there ARE errors and discrepancies, it means that we don't completely understand the context. The shortcoming is with us, not with the Scriptures.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='09 June 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1276102647' post='2126357']
Most people think that there is a conflict between the theory of evolution and the literal genesis account of creation.
[/quote]

If by literal, you mean "according to the literal sense (the sense which the original author intended)" the I see no conflict between the theory of evolution and the literal Genesis account of creation. I think that the original human author intended to narrate true history in figurative and poetic language. The first chapters of Genesis detail real events that actually happened (the creation of the universe [i]ex nihilo[/i], God's infusing a soul into the first man, the fall of our first parents due to their disobedience, God's promise to our first parents that He would send a Redeemer). That said, the human author did not use the same methods of writing history as modern historical authors do today.

Pope Pius XII explicitly permitted Catholics to support the scientific theory of evolution within certain limits) in [i]Humani Generis[/i], and I see no reason why I ought not to do so.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='09 June 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1276102739' post='2126358']
Well, yeah, there may very well be "apparent" discrepancies in Scripture. But that doesn't mean there ARE errors and discrepancies, it means that we don't completely understand the context. The shortcoming is with us, not with the Scriptures.
[/quote]

I think that we should, in conjunction with offering plausible explanations for apparent discrepancies, call a spade a spade for the sake of intellectual honesty. When there is no [i]plausible[/i] explanation (that is, when the only explanation seems counter-intuitive and unreasonably back-bending), we should not offer one, and instead admit that there is an apparent error or contradiction at this time, and explain the Church's emerging sense of clarification in regards to the doctrine of inerrancy. But of course that hinges on whether or not choice "B" in Question-1 is allowed by orthodoxy.

I believe this removes the impression of self-deception from non-Christians.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1276103377' post='2126362']
I think that we should, in conjunction with offering plausible explanations for apparent discrepancies, call a spade a spade for the sake of intellectual honesty. When there is no [i]plausible[/i] explanation (that is, when the only explanation seems counter-intuitive and unreasonably back-bending), we should not offer one, and instead admit that there is an apparent error or contradiction at this time, and explain the Church's emerging sense of clarification in regards to the doctrine of inerrancy. But of course that hinges on whether or not choice "B" in Question-1 is allowed by orthodoxy.
[/quote]

There is always a plausible explanation for any alleged discrepancy in holy Scripture.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 11:09 AM' timestamp='1276103377' post='2126362']
I think that we should, in conjunction with offering plausible explanations for apparent discrepancies, call a spade a spade for the sake of intellectual honesty. When there is no [i]plausible[/i] explanation (that is, when the only explanation seems counter-intuitive and unreasonably back-bending), we should not offer one, and instead admit that there is an apparent error or contradiction at this time, and explain the Church's emerging sense of clarification in regards to the doctrine of inerrancy. But of course that hinges on whether or not choice "B" in Question-1 is allowed by orthodoxy.

I believe this removes the impression of self-deception from non-Christians.
[/quote]

It is not.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 June 2010 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1276103458' post='2126363']
There is always a plausible explanation for any alleged discrepancy in holy Scripture.
[/quote]

Your explanation for the difference between 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 is plausible? That's like saying that a reasonable explanation for apparent discrepancies inasmuch as making an inaccurate guess is not a discrepancy with truth. And besides, there is a real difference between plausibility and hypothetical possibility.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1276103983' post='2126367']
Your explanation for the difference between 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 is plausible? [/quote]

Yes.

An approximation is not false. It is exactly that: an approximation.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Resurrexi

[zunshynn]

"quoting without context is pretext."

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='09 June 2010 - 10:58 AM' timestamp='1276102739' post='2126358']
Well, yeah, there may very well be "apparent" discrepancies in Scripture. But that doesn't mean there ARE errors and discrepancies, it means that we don't completely understand the context. The shortcoming is with us, not with the Scriptures.
[/quote]


[quote name='zunshynn' date='09 June 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1276103484' post='2126364']
It is not.
[/quote]


[quote name='zunshynn' date='09 June 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1276104236' post='2126370']
"quoting without context is pretext."
[/quote]

yes