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

[HisChildForever]

I am a bit shocked that some people voted there are errors in the Bible.

[KnightofChrist]

There are no errors in scripture.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='09 June 2010 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1276109749' post='2126392']
There are no errors in scripture.
[/quote]

[size="1"][IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/like.gif[/IMG] [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showuser=8635"]Mister Ed[/url] likes this.[/size]

[MIKolbe]

i was intrigued about the question posed about "Was Jehoiachin eight (2 Chronicles 36.9) or eighteen (2 Kings 24:8) when he began to reign?"

I found this answer and it seems reasonable:
[quote]"Eight years old"... He was associated by his father to the kingdom, when he was but eight years old; but after his father's death, when he reigned alone, he was eighteen years old. 4 Kings 24. 8. [/quote]

This seems reasonable to me.

[cmotherofpirl]

Could some of the kings have shorter or longer reigns? Can the differences between the versions of the flood be easily reconciled? Are there older fragments of events mixed in with newer fragment? Does it really matter?

I guess it depends on how you define error.

[KnightofChrist]

"In many cases in which the sacred authors are accused of some historical inaccuracy or of the inexact recording of some events ... a knowledge and careful appreciation of ancient modes of expression and literary forms and styles will provide a solution to many of the objections made against the truth and historical accuracy of Holy Scripture." - Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pius XII

[KnightofChrist]

"If I come upon anything in the Scripture which seems contrary to the truth, I shall not hesitate to consider that it is no more than a faulty reading of the manuscript, or a failure of the translator to hit off what his text declared, or that I have not managed to understand the passage." - Letter 82:1, St. Augustine

[kafka]

I've thought about Abiathar so much in the past two days I feel like I know him

I am going to let it rest in my mind for a while and then put together all the thoughts I've gathered into one article or post.

Ultimately concerning the Gospel of Mark, Jesus who is God, knew who was high priest at the time David took the Bread of Presence, and from this the rest may be explained.

Edited June 9, 2010 by kafka

[KnightofChrist]

Vatican II wrote, in <On Revelation> #11: "Since all that is
asserted by the human author should be considered as asserted by
the Holy Spirit, therefore the books of Scripture are to be held as
teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error, the truth <which
God wanted to be confided to the sacred letters for the sake of our
salvation>."

We note the Council says whatever the human writer asserts is
asserted by the Holy Spirit. We just saw that word <assert> in
connection with genre. The Council means to use that framework.

Some foolishly take the underlined words as restrictive and say
only things needed for salvation are free of error - all else,
science, history, even religion, may be in error. But those who
make this mistake do not notice that the Council itself added some
footnotes. Note 4 sends us to a text of Leo XIII which excludes
errors of every kind. And other notes cite Vatican I (DS 3006)
saying the principal author is the Holy Spirit. But He cannot be in
error. Therefore. Pius XII, in His <Divino afflante Spiritu> said
that these words of Vatican I are a <solemn definition>. So the
foolish commentators think Vatican II is contradicting a solemn
definition!

- [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/ERRORS.TXT"]Father William Most[/url]

[LouisvilleFan]

And the point of having a poll about something that is clearly defined by the Catechism is...?

[cmotherofpirl]

Throwing quotes doesn't answer the question.
Again it depends on how you define terms. There are two different versions of the flood, one says a pair of animals, the other seven animals. Is it important?

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

Both numbers show order and providence. Is that not what the story is supposed to convey? That is what I focus on. I mean when I think of the flood I wonder where all the water went, if there was enough to go up to the mountains, where did it all go? But ultimately the story teaches that God is in control, there is order, and there is providence and the humans are sinful and God acts to repair it.

[Ziggamafu]

See, and the last two comments reflect an aspect of my own position (which I came to after reading most of Raymond Brown's works in a row). It is not about the words, it is about the message - the Divine Revelation - that the words, written under Divine Inspiration, convey. If the humans are truly co-authors with God (primary Author), then that for which they are truly responsible (the words, ideas, and techniques employed in the writing process) may have apparent errors in areas not pertaining to our salvation. If we say that the words are textually perfect, we run into at least two problems (I had thought of more, but my children just distracted me to the point that I've forgotten):

1. God would be the only true Author, denying the true co-authorship of his created servants.
2. As dictator of Scripture (or worse, as mind-controller of "human pens"), God, who is not the author of confusion and who is indeed Truth itself, would be responsible for apparent (even if not, after all, actual) errors and problematic (non-clear) texts.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='10 June 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1276198040' post='2126911']
See, and the last two comments reflect an aspect of my own position (which I came to after reading most of Raymond Brown's works in a row). It is not about the words, it is about the message - the Divine Revelation - that the words, written under Divine Inspiration, convey. If the humans are truly co-authors with God (primary Author), then that for which they are truly responsible (the words, ideas, and techniques employed in the writing process) may have apparent errors in areas not pertaining to our salvation. If we say that the words are textually perfect, we run into at least two problems (I had thought of more, but my children just distracted me to the point that I've forgotten):

1. God would be the only true Author, denying the true co-authorship of his created servants.
2. As dictator of Scripture (or worse, as mind-controller of "human pens"), God, who is not the author of confusion and who is indeed Truth itself, would be responsible for apparent (even if not, after all, actual) errors and problematic (non-clear) texts.
[/quote]
For the record I think Mr Brown had a terribly bad effect on the faith of the ordinary catholics who read his popular garbage.
However, I have never subscribed to the idea that each and every word in the Old Testament had to be perfectly placed: God-inspired and directed doesn't neccessarily mean God-dictated. That smacks to much of the KJV type people. I don't expect the scriptures to be a newspaper account of pre-history, or a scientific document. So it doesn't matter to me if there are two different versions of how many animals were to be in the ark, writing the stuff down didn't start til the exodus. Or there might be a northern kingdom version placed next to a southern kingdom version,and that the editing was done during the Babylonian capativity. God-inspired it, the Catholic Church guarentees it as the Word of God, so that is good enough for me. Isn't that the bottom line?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='10 June 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1276199651' post='2126926']
For the record I think Mr Brown had a terribly bad effect on the faith of the ordinary catholics who read his popular garbage.
However, I have never subscribed to the idea that each and every word in the Old Testament had to be perfectly placed: God-inspired and directed doesn't neccessarily mean God-dictated. That smacks to much of the KJV type people. I don't expect the scriptures to be a newspaper account of pre-history, or a scientific document. So it doesn't matter to me if there are two different versions of how many animals were to be in the ark, writing the stuff down didn't start til the exodus. Or there might be a northern kingdom version placed next to a southern kingdom version,and that the editing was done during the Babylonian capativity. God-inspired it, the Catholic Church guarentees it as the Word of God, so that is good enough for me. Isn't that the bottom line?
[/quote]

YES. Brown can definitely have a bad effect on someone who doesn't already know how Catholic theology works, what Church teaching is, and the relationship between the two. But Brown had the respect of Paul VI and John Paul the Great (and, at least from at least one quote that I recall, of then-Joseph Ratziner), and even conservative Protestant scholars like F.F. Bruce, who endorsed Brown's [i]Introduction to the New Testament[/i].