Varying forms of speech is not an error, figurative language among others is admitted. Not everything has to be taken in the literal historical sense. Nevertheless, there are passages where scholars think the Bible has an error that cannot be explained as figurative language, or that such an explanation would be ad hoc.Those two statements don’t go together. I guess I don’t understand what you mean by without historical or scientific error.
This seems like splitting hairs to me. So we agree that the bible is not necessarily historically or scientifically accurate? I think that is probably the important point.Varying forms of speech is not an error, figurative language among others is admitted. Not everything has to be taken in the literal historical sense. Nevertheless, there are passages where scholars think the Bible has an error that cannot be explained as figurative language, or that such an explanation would be ad hoc.
If God can create the heavens and the earth, then he also has the power of final edit. I just trust that the Bible I read today, is the Bible that God intends me to read.The whole Scripture is given for the sake of salvation,
No all-powerful Roman Emperor ever tried that, but it is exactly what the all-powerful Emperor of China is doing now. The Bitter Winter blog reported a few months ago:Even if some all powerful Roman Emperor wanted to corrupt the Bible for his own use, he would have to fight against God, so no contest.
No… The Catholic Church doesn’t Teach thatFactual errors can appear in Scripture
(Bold mine)“this does not necessarily mean that he was believed to be equal to God the Father prior to his death and resurrection. This largely depends on how the Greek word harpagmon is translated in verse 6 (‘Something to be grasped after / exploited’)…”
(Bold mine)”If ’harpagmon’ is rendered as ’something to be exploited,’ as it is in many Christian Bible translations, then the implication is that Christ was already equal to God prior to his incarnation. But Bart Ehrman and others have argued that the correct translation is in fact ’something to be grasped after,’ implying that Jesus was not equal to God before his resurrection. Outside of this passage, ’harpagmon’ and related words were almost always used to refer to something that a person doesn’t yet possess but tries to acquire.[8]
It is widely agreed by interpreters, however, that the Christ poem depicts Jesus as equal to God after his resurrection. This is because the last two stanzas quote Isaiah 45:22–23 (‘Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess’), which in the original context clearly refers to God the Father.[8]“
Yes, this is what Vatican II says, and people try to interpret it in the limited way (that only that which was for the sake of salvation was taught solidly, faithfully, and without error, even though there is no “only”), but in the citation in the above definition we get a rather wide acceptance of Biblical inerrancy. For instance, Divino Afflante Spiritu recalls, “When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus , published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.”Rather, it’s “[t]he books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”