Correctness

Originally posted by 667joe
Again, if the provable parts are wrong, why should we accept the unprovable parts as correct? It's not too smart to do!

I will not bother with an idiot such as you.

Originally posted by 667joe
Your statement is not true.

prove it

Originally posted by 667joe
Once one determines that part of the bible is incorrect, that person would have to assume that other parts of the bible may also be not correct. One would also have to realize the possibility, that, (considering the claim that the bible is divine), that the bible is not divine after all.

Well, once again you are just being glib. Have you ever considered the possibility that intelligent, highly educated Christians exist who have responded to objections to biblical inconsistency? No, you just take it for granted that the bible is contradictory, dismissing the possibility that there are other interpretations of problematic verses. Christians have been aware for many hundreds of years that Jesus' ancestries in Matthew and Luke differ and obviously have found some kind of solution.

Originally posted by JS357
While there are factions, the official mainstream RCC position has moved toward the idea that the Bible is inerrant with respect to matters of faith, morality, and salvation, without the need to assert as an article of faith required for salvation, that it is inerrant with respect to human history and science.

This is false. Certainly some progressive Catholics have sought to re-interpret Scripture this way but the Catholic Church has stridently maintained that when Scripture narrates history, it does so inerrantly, whether or not it has any immediate relevance to faith, morality or salvation. This is consonsant with Thomas Aquinas' position that the literal interpretation should be first one, unless there are good grounds otherwise. I would suggest you consult Pope Benedict's Dei Verbum, which is the most recent ordinary magisterial teaching on this matter. I will locate relevant paragraphs when I have time.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This is false. Certainly some progressive Catholics have sought to re-interpret Scripture this way but the Catholic Church has stridently maintained that when Scripture narrates history, it does so inerrantly, whether or not it has any immediate relevance to faith, morality or salvation. This is consonsant with Thomas Aquinas' position that the literal inte ...[text shortened]... inary magisterial teaching on this matter. I will locate relevant paragraphs when I have time.

It's an oxymoron to be a "progressive Catholic" ! I might be glib, but you are full of yourself!🙂

Originally posted by 667joe
Once one determines that part of the bible is incorrect, that person would have to assume that other parts of the bible may also be not correct. One would also have to realize the possibility, that, (considering the claim that the bible is divine), that the bible is not divine after all.

No one, any time, any where, has ever proven the Bible (which contains the Word of God) to be wrong.

Ever!

Genesis 2 says God created man before plants.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Genesis 2 says God created man before plants.

That's been discussed before.

Originally posted by josephw
That's been discussed before.

Why does Genesis 2 have man created before plants when Genesis 1 says otherwise?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why does Genesis 2 have man created before plants when Genesis 1 says otherwise?

Because you can't read well enough to understand why.

It's been explained before. There's no mistake no matter how hard you want to think so.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This is false. Certainly some progressive Catholics have sought to re-interpret Scripture this way but the Catholic Church has stridently maintained that when Scripture narrates history, it does so inerrantly, whether or not it has any immediate relevance to faith, morality or salvation. This is consonsant with Thomas Aquinas' position that the literal inte ...[text shortened]... inary magisterial teaching on this matter. I will locate relevant paragraphs when I have time.

I await.

Originally posted by JS357
I await.

When I have time to, I shall. Of course, since you were the first to claim that the Catholic Church has modified its interpretation of biblical inerrancy, the onus of proof is equally on you.

Originally posted by Conrau K
When I have time to, I shall. Of course, since you were the first to claim that the Catholic Church has modified its interpretation of biblical inerrancy, the onus of proof is equally on you.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

Of cors=rse you are free to deny the accuracy of this source.

Originally posted by JS357
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

Of cors=rse you are free to deny the accuracy of this source.

Although I sometimes disagree with the Catholic church this reference is
very good and I fail to see any inconsistency in the churches view on the
inerrancy of the Bible in it. The errors apparently are in the minds of the
men who find such errors. But I think they should change their view on
the infalliblity of the Pope. No human regardless of position should be
considered infallible with regards to anything in my opinion.

Originally posted by JS357
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

Of cors=rse you are free to deny the accuracy of this source.uoteuo

Well, this does not substantiate your claim that the Catholic Church teaches

the Bible is inerrant with respect to matters of faith, morality, and salvation, without the need to assert as an article of faith required for salvation, that it is inerrant with respect to human history and science.

The Church has always maintained that certain parts of the bible are not intended to be read literally. The Church has always maintained as well however that the bible, when it is clearly to be taken literally, can err in matters of history or science. None of the sources cited in that article suggest otherwise.