Homosexuality and The Old Testament. How to defend the faith

[Freddy]

By self-referential I meant the self was the basis, the standard:

“Would you want to be killed? Obviously not. Would you want a family member killed? Obviously not. And using your God given empathy you’d know that everyone else would feel the same. So it might be a good idea to prevent someone killing for no reason.”

Another standard could be, for example, “the law”, or “social standard”, or - God. As in, every human being was created by God, and in the Divine Image, for eternal purposes - intended for eternal life. God gave life, God takes life. God commanded capital punishment in particular for the crime of murder.
[ Gen 9:5 For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.]

A big problem with a subjective (me) and not an objective (God, or Absolute Truth) standard is illustrated by every psychopath, having no empathy and no care for others. He sees no inherent problem at all with killing any he pleases.

I see what you mean now. Yes, it starts with us. In that I don’t want to be killed. Or I don’t want my goods stolen. Or I don’t want to be hungry. I don’t think that we need God to accept that. And if we can empathise, then we realise that others feel the same. So we grant them the same respect as we would want them to grant us. Or at least, we know that we should. It ain’t compulsory…

And yeah, if you’re a psychopath then you lack empathy so it doesn’t work. Which is effectively an excellent exception that proves the rule.

 

[fide]

I see what you mean now. Yes, it starts with us. In that I don’t want to be killed. Or I don’t want my goods stolen. Or I don’t want to be hungry. I don’t think that we need God to accept that. And if we can empathise, then we realise that others feel the same. So we grant them the same respect as we would want them to grant us. Or at least, we know that we should. It ain’t compulsory…

And yeah, if you’re a psychopath then you lack empathy so it doesn’t work. Which is effectively an excellent exception that proves the rule.

And another example of a non-responsive “type” in a morality that is subjectively deduced in a self-referential culture such as ours today, besides the out-lier psychopath, is the narcissist. I suspect that the psychopath population is growing these days, by the way - just a sense that I have. But I have an even stronger sense that the narcissists are definitely increasing in number. This deeply disturbed “post-Christian” modern Western culture of ours starves empathy and feeds self-love. Hence, it seems, increasing numbers of psychopaths and narcissists.

But both - my point would be - are lacking concern or even awareness of the good of others. The Lord predicted, by the way, a growing coldness in the hearts of men in the last days. To His disciples, to be prepared for the end times, He said:

Mt 24:9 "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.
Mt 24:10 And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another.
Mt 24:11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
Mt 24:12 And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold.
Mt 24:13 But he who endures to the end will be saved.
Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come.

 

[fide]

And no, scholars have not defended the contradictions in the Bible. There are parts of the Bible that directly contradict each other, like the two separate geneologies of Jesus. There are hundreds of such contradictions.

(One genealogy is of Joseph, the other of Mary)
Guided by faith in God, one can see that God is the primary Author of Scripture, and God cannot contradict Himself, nor can He lie.
Guided by faith in men, - the near-perfect “scholars”, the only people who know it all - one can “see” all sorts of reasons why one cannot trust God with anything.

Pray for the gift of supernatural, infused, holy faith !

 

[o_mlly]

You response seem rather dismissive and lacking in empathy.

Yes, but not lacking in sympathy for I have different crosses to bear and do not attempt to cast my evil tendencies as normal, natural, good or moral. Rather, I work to repress them.

 

[goout]

…
Homosexuality has been a concept towards which many Christians have been very good at expressing the hate they supposedly eschewed when they became disciples of Jesus Christ.

First things first:
homosexuality is not a concept any more than heterosexuality is a concept any more than “work” is a concept.
then:
Some Christians hate, just like some atheists hate. Don’t be a hypocrite please!

 

[Hume]

homosexuality is not a concept any more than heterosexuality is a concept any more than “work” is a concept.

Tell me you’re not serious…

Don’t be a hypocrite please!

I don’t subscribe to a prophet that says “They will know us by our love”.

Apparently from your messages, you don’t either.

 

[goout]

goout:

homosexuality is not a concept any more than heterosexuality is a concept any more than “work” is a concept.

Tell me you’re not serious…

Homosexuality is not a concept.
What do you object to?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

There are two distinct nativity stories. There are two stories of creation. Two distinct stories of the conversion of Paul. Two distinct stories of the death of Judas. Two distinct times Jesus was crucified. Many chronological errors.

I have, this morning, seen three different videos discussing a killing at Wendy’s this weekend, four talking about the autonomous zone in Seattle, and two discussing the new Paper Mario trailer.

None of these videos conveyed the same information in the same way despite being about the same events.

The writers of the Gospels were writing to different people, different types of people, different cultures, and with different purposes in mind. There is nothing surprising about the fact that they would approach topics differently in relation to their target audience.

Different groups will find different points more important, more convincing, etc. It’s reasonable for the author to focus in on those aspects which would be most important to their target. Are you seriously trying to say that the fact that people tell stories differently somehow disproves a story?

As for Genesis, that has been discussed ad-nauseum. The first account deals with God’s role and place in creation. The second deals specifically with humanity’s role and place in creation. There’s nothing contradictory in them, they just focus on different topics. Similarly, the genealogies kept in the ancient world were not like the genealogies we keep now. We believe in exhaustive records that leave no person out. Their intent was more to hit on the major players, and to invoke the theme of the genealogy. For example, I believe it’s Matthew’s genealogy that includes both problematic characters from Jewish history, as well as a couple of non-Jews. This is done to play into the same theme we see throughout the Gospel, that Christ came to forgive sinners and to redeem all of mankind, rather than just the Jews.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Ah, I see. You’re one of those extreme Biblical literalists who takes everything in the Bible way more literallistically than any believer I’ve ever met.

I was scrolling through that list and happened to land on two examples.

#407: Which trees can Adam eat from.

Gen 1:29 - God also said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant on all the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;

Gen 2:17 - except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.

So, a couple things on this.

#1: Have you never heard of generalizations? Take, for example, the statement “All poisons are bad for you.” It’s a pretty good statement, gets across the gist of my intent, don’t ingest poison. However, it does not mean that it is always and everywhere bad to ingest poison. Say, for example, you’ve been poisoned. Generally speaking, the best antidote for a poison is made from the poison itself, after having gone through some sort of process which renders it inert. This is how antidotes, anti-venoms, and anti-virals are manufactured. In those cases, it’s a positive thing to ingest/be injected with, a poison. The added level of specificity doesn’t render my initial statement false for the purpose it was intended to convey.

#2: Beyond the question of generalizations, this is simply disingenuous representation. Literally, verse 16 of Gen 2 add the clarity necessary to completely do away with the argument that this is contradiction, and in fact verifies that Gen 1 is a generalization.

Gen 2: 16-17:

1. The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden 17. except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.

The passage starts with a broad generalization in line with what we see in Gen 1, and then focuses in on the one exception. This is a common method of conveying information that has been used the world over for as long as there’s been information to convey. Nothing weird or contradictory about it, and only the most strictly-litearlistic interpretation of scripture, one which completely ignores surrounding context and storytelling conventions, could think otherwise.

The other passage I landed on dealt with who brought Jacob into Egypt. (#377) The USCCB footnote says:

editors tried to solve the confusion, created by different sources, by supposing that it was the Midianite traders who pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold him to Ishmaelites. In all probability, one source had the brothers selling Joseph to Ishmaelites, whereas the other had them cast him into the pit whence he was taken by Midianite traders.

So yeah, there are differing accounts of the specifics of what happened. Perhaps one account left out the Ishmaelite middlemen. This is not a substantive issue though, as it doesn’t impact the theological significance of the event any.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I glanced at another while I was looking again for the numbers to these two arguments, and randomly picked #389, about Joshua taking the stones from the river.

It’s honestly baffling they see this as a contradiction. Jo 4:9 speaks of the twelves stones from the Jordan river still being where they were placed “to this day”, and Jo 4:20 speaks about them being set up in Gilgal, which was their encampment. The problem is that these two are clearly not contradictory:

Jo 4:9

Joshua set up the twelve stones that had been in the Jordan riverbed on the spot where the priests stood who were carrying the ark of the covenant. They are there to this day.

Jo 4:20

At Gilgal Joshua set up the twelve stones that had been taken from the Jordan

Both passages are refencing the fact that they were set up at Gilgal. Even a cursory reading of the passage makes this clear. In Jo 4:3 we see

and [the Lord] command them, “Take up twelve stones from this spot in the Jordan riverbed where the priests have been standing. Carry them over with you, and place them where you are to stay tonight.

So, in verse 9, they picked up the stone and carried them with them, and took them to where they stayed that night, Gilgal, and in verse 20 we see a reiteration of the fact that the stones were set up in Gilgal. Nothing contradictory about it.

So there you go, three “contradictions” addressed. Let’s see here. You have one that ignores the entire concept of generalization despite that generalization being made painfully clear in literally the preceding verse. You have one genuine contradiction which can be easily summed up by “there are multiple accounts, some of which left out unimportant details.” . And lastly you have a non-contradiction that I genuinely cannot comprehend being on the list, and the order of events it pretty clear. It’s only a problem if you once again ignore the surrounding context of the rest of that Chapter.

If that’s the caliber of argument being made about “contradictions,” then I honestly find it both comical and sad that people take them serious.

 

[Freddy]

But both - my point would be - are lacking concern or even awareness of the good of others. The Lord predicted, by the way, a growing coldness in the hearts of men in the last days. To His disciples, to be prepared for the end times, He said:

Bear in mind that everyone except psychopaths can feel empathy. Whether that understanding is used to guide our actions is another matter.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Are you responding to me? I am the opposite.

It was mean to be tounge-in-cheek. Most of these sort of supposed contradictions only hold water when you taking everything in the Bible to be 100% literal.

But what we DO know is that the Bible is full of contradictions, inconsistencies, interpolations, and even forgeries. Many of the stories in the Bible are mythical - not real events. This is obvious and indisputable.

Except for that, it’s not. I already showed how two of the three I looked at (again, randomly. I wasn’t cherry picking ones I was already familiar with)weren’t contradictions at all, and the third was at worst a minor omission.

Beyond that, Catholics have never held that everything in the bible literally happened. Certainly some Catholics have, but that’s never been the teaching of the Church. The Bible relates specific truths about the nature of God’s relationship with humanity. It’s not only a history, though there is much history in it. It’s not only a poem, although Genesis and the Song of Songs are clearly poetic in the original Hebrew. It has histories next to parables next to genealogies, next to books of kingly succession. It is many, many things, many different genres and purposes, spanning 46 distinct works of writing.

There is no evidence for forgery, however. I dispute that claim outright. All other supposed contradictions or inconsistencies likely have as simple an explanation as those I’ve already given.

Do you think the story of Creation is real…

I believe that it tells real history in a poetic manner, not that it relates the literal historical machinations of the formation of the universe and evolution of life. I believe that Noah’s Ark is true, but that it was not a “worldwide” flood in the way that we would use the word “world.” Historically, this word has been used to denote a given territory as often as it’s used to denote the whole globe, so there’s room for either interpretation.

I absolutely 100% believe in the reality of the Exodus, plagues, parting of the waters, et al. I also believe that the dead were walking in Jerusalem after the crucifixion, though not as the crude zombies you described. I also don’t necessarily believe it had to be embodied dead, though it very well could have been.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

There is very little historical justification for the stories in the Bible AT ALL.

There’s very little evidence for most of what we know about ancient history. A scrap of paper here, one letter there. Some pottery or a few coins found in a grave. One single carved headstone with the name of a city. We derive what we know of entire swaths of history from a handful of stone tablets and artifacts. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” We wouldn’t expect to find chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea ~3000 years after the fact, nor would we expect to find the Egyptians keeping record of major defeats. The Exodus in the desert would leave little to no evidence at all, least of all any that wouldn’t be buried by the sands.

If you take the Bible as the inerrant word of God versus stories and ideas written by men, you will be disappointed.

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but no, I won’t. Inerrant does not mean what you think it does, at least not as Biblical Scholars have used the word historically. We believe that the Bible relates the Truth about God’s relationship with humanity, and that’s what is inerrant in it. The only “genuine contradictions” in the Bible are derived from different authors omitting details that other authors chose to include, which isn’t an issue with it’s truthfulness or it’s inerrancy any more than different methods of reporting an event cause issues with how the event actually happened.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Ridiculous. Have you read the Bible? There are contradictions everywhere. There are interpolations. There are forgeries. There are differing translations.

I’ve already talked about the contradictions. I could go through them one by one, I might some time. But in the (admittedly small) sample I’ve already done there was nothing at issue. Given the level of care taken in outlining those three, I’ve no reason to think any of the others will be any more substantive.

What is your point? Are you saying you agree with me and that the Bible is NOT meant to be taken literally? Then you are on my side.

I believe that the theological truths should be taken literally, but that there are portions that are literal, portions that are poetic, portions that are stories. It’s not one big book. You do understand that, don’t you? It’s 46 different works written at different times, in different genres, for different purposes.

Regarding the genealogies of Jesus, the Bible directly says these are Joseph’s ancestors, NOT Mary’s.

Yeah, I already addressed that, My argument wasn’t that they were different people’s genealogies. My argument was that historical genealogies were undertaken in a way that was different from what we think of as proper genealogies today. You can’t impose modern stylistic-standards on ancient writing to claim that that ancient writing is false. That’s disingenuous.

ou can’t be serious. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus, the Bible directly says these are Joseph’s ancestors, NOT Mary’s. You can’t just make up what you want. How about when did Jesus enter Jerusalem? What day was he crucified? How did Judas die? How did Paul get converted? Where did Mary live before Jesus was born?

I started responding to each of these individually, but I honestly don’t have time at the moment. There are pretty solid explanations for all of these supposed discrepancies. I’m sure there’s more than one article on the CA main site, and I’ve heard all of them brought up more than once on the show.

If you can’t accept that there are contradictions in the Bible you are not being intellectual honest. No scholar comes close to taking your position. There’s no reason to continue this point if you aren’t willing to read the Bible.

And if you’re not willing to accept that some apparent contradictions have very reasonable explanations then you’re being intellectually dishonest, and there’s not reason to continue debating.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Paul is believed to have written only 6 of his epistles.

By some scholars. Other attribute all of them to him. You can’t cherry pick your sources and claim that’s evidence. Bother sides have points for and against their positions.

In fact, pretty much all of those points you made fall into that category. some people make those claims based on their interpretation of certain aspects of a writing. Not all do, and there is evidence for and against both positions. You can only claim them to absolutely be forgeries if you ignore a substantial amount of evidence which contradicts that assertion.

So you believe the translation should say “region” not “world”, right? I rest my case.

Well, no, because the word used is world. The question comes to the authorial intent of the word, not the translation. You haven’t rested any case. There are plenty of translations of varying viability, no one has tried to contest that. What we contest is the argument for substantive theological contradictions.

Yet again, you agree with me that the Bible has errors (even if you want to change a translation) but then you say it doesn’t.

Yeah, not what I’m doing. You are approaching the concept of innerancy with a faulty baseline which is never what the Church as intended. I said it’s possible they weren’t embodied, and “the graves were opened” is colorful language for the suden appearance of souls. Or, it literally means that the graves were opened and restored bodies walked out from them. I have no problem with either interpretation.

It is not intellectually dishonest to put forward reasonable explanations for apparent contradictions. What IS intellectually dishonest is to start with a faulty assertion about what Catholics teach in regards to scriptural inerrancy, and then claim that we’re wrong to believe because we don’t fit your wrong definition.

I’m out for the day, have a good one. We’ve gotten pretty far off topic anyways, though I’d be happy to continue this over PM.

 

[fide]

@NightOwl -

The genealogy given by Luke gives a hint to the resolution, for the people of faith:
Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Since the two accounts do not agree as to Joseph’s ancestors, we can see in the “as was supposed” to indicate that Mary’s line, not Joseph’s, is being given, and the relation of Joseph to Heli was “in-law” - the son-in-law, to father-in-law - although sometimes generations can be skipped to emphasize particular ancestors in the line, but not necessarily every ancestor. The relation could as well be grandson-in-law to grandfather-in-law, Heli being perhaps Mary’s grandfather.

The tendency to not always differentiate between blood relatives and in-law relatives can also be seen, and demonstrated scripturally, in the case of citing the “brothers of Jesus.” These “brothers” can be seen as actually cousins, and not by blood, but by in-law relation.

The Catholic Faith is well-stated in the Catechism:

II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”
107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

 

[fide]

“It directly says” is the favorite among “sola scriptura” apologists at work in every misreading and biased exegesis they believe in, in their determination to justify denominationalism and independence from the One Church that Jesus formed and sent.

With a self-determined bias against the Church, wanting to find the autonomy that the misguided heart seeks, Holy Scripture is “misunderstandable”. The very words of God became “misunderstandable” to Eve, led by the evil one, tempting her heart toward disordered self-love. So she began to believe her own heart, and her mind and heart fell into darkness. Adam, not innocent at all in his silence - silent Adam - fell in the same trial, choosing against the express will of God.

Trust God! If you don’t understand how this could say this or that, when SURELY it says something that contradicts something else, then a wise and faithful seeker of Truth would merely keep listening! Stop falling into the cynicism that is in fact a lie of satan tempting you. He wants your soul. Trust God.

Keep reading - keep listening - trust Him - and you will begin to see beyond what seems “obvious” now. When you persevere, after the due time, you will begin to hear, and believe, and live. As Jesus said in a scene following such a trial of faith:

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
Joh 6:67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"
Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;

If you want the praise of men, turn to the opinions of men. If you want the enduring Truth of God, listen to God until you hear something that only God can say to you. Then you will begin to know.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

To be honest, theological gymnastics to account for these discrepancies undermines the validity of scripture.

It’s not theological gymnastics to point out flaws in an argument, nor have Catholics every held that every words of scripture is 100% factually accurate. Again, that’s not what we mean by inerrant. I already addressed in my first post that these are accounts given by multiple people to multiple people. I have no issue acknowledging that there are discrepancies. What I do take issue with is people who claim that those discrepancies somehow disprove the Bible.

I also take issue with people who ignore the surrounding context to try to create a discrepancy where none exists (which was the case for two of the three examples I worked through earlier).

Take, for instance, this supposed discrepancy about when Jesus was crucified. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the apparante contradiction, as explained by Tim Staples:

The third theory is the one that I believe is true. The Gospel writers, especially the synoptics, commonly referred to the time of day in three hour blocks of time. This makes sense when you remember they did not have watches back then! The time of day was usually given as a general time rather than a specific time one could note by glancing at his watch.

In fact, and again as Craig Blomberg points out, every single instance of references to time in the synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles uses the times of the “third,” “sixth,” or “ninth” hours (Matt. 20:3, 5; 27:45-46; Mark 15:33-34; Luke 23:44; Acts 2:15; 3:1; 10:3, 9, 30; 23:23), except for one. And that one, found in Matt. 20:9 was given in the context of one part of the parable of the laborers in the vineyard that required specificity because of the nature of the story.

The bottom line here is this: It is highly unlikely that every one of these many events just happen to have happened precisely at these times. These are general blocks of time, folks!

Thus, “the third hour” would represent 9 to 12 noon. “The sixth hour” would represent noon to 3, and “the ninth hour” would represent 3 to 6 pm.

With this understanding, we can easily reconcile Mark 15:25 and John 19:14-16. And remember this as well: St. John uses language that plainly says he is giving a general time of the multiple events he was describing. He says, “it was about the sixth hour” in John 19:14.

Thus, Jesus would have been crucified near the end of St. Mark’s “third hour,” which corresponds just fine with St. John’s “about noon.”

 

[ProdglArchitect]

As for the day of Christ’s death, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the "discrepancy’ that comes form a common idiom in use during Christ’s life.
From:

The phrase “day of Preparation” is a Jewish idiom for Friday, the day that Jews made preparations for observance of the weekly Sabbath.

All three Synoptics use the idiom this way and say Jesus died on that day. Mark is explicit: “And when evening had come, since it [the day Jesus was crucified and died] was the day of Preparation [Greek, paraskeuē ], that is, the day before the Sabbath ” (Mark 15:42; emphasis added).

Luke is explicit as well. In reference to the day of Jesus’s crucifixion and death, he writes, “It was the day [ hēmera ] of preparation [ paraskeuēs ], and the sabbath was beginning” (Luke 23:54).

Matthew’s use of paraskeuē is a bit more implicit. He identifies the day Jesus died to be “the day of preparation” (Matt. 27:62). He then speaks of Pilate appointing guards to guard Jesus’ tomb on the day “after the day of preparation,” which he clearly identifies as the Sabbath in 28:1.

Even the Gospel of John itself, like the Synoptics, uses paraskeuē to refer to Friday in the other two passages where it’s used.

In John 19:31, the evangelist refers to the day of Jesus’ crucifixion as paraskeuē . But within the same verse it becomes clear that he’s not talking about the day on which Jews prepare for Passover, but the day before the Sabbath , Friday:

Since it was the day of Preparation [ paraskeuē ], in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away” (emphasis added).

Notice the problem the Jews seek to solve is having the bodies on the crosses on the Sabbath . This implies that the day on which the request to remove the bodies is made is the day before the Sabbath, Friday. And it’s that day that John calls paraskeuē , “the day of Preparation.”

This interpretation is strengthened a few verses later when John tells us why they sought a nearby tomb: “So because of the Jewish day of Preparation [ paraskeuē ], as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there” (John 19:42). They needed to quickly bury Jesus lest they violate the Sabbath rest, which was soon to begin that Friday after sundown.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The point I’m trying to make is that, while we acknowledge some factual errors in the recorded word (though not as many as the author of that “discrepancies” chart seems to think"), most of them are minor clerical errors likely derived from the decision to omit certain inconsequential details while writing down the verbal history, (Such as the omission of the Ishamelties from one explanation of how Joseph came to Egypt.), or simply the result of varying points of view relating the story to different target audiences. Other so-called discrepancies are frequently derived from an inability to literally translate certain concepts, and the loss of meaning behind certain idioms; as well as the change in stylistic conventions (such as with your genealogies example.). As I’ve said before, that does not impact it’s inerrancy as Catholics have understood the word, which is related directly to the theological and relational information being presented.

Consider - if you think it unfair for me to analyze Jesus’s genealogies through the lens of “modern stylistic standards”, why can;t I claim you should analyze those passages against homosexuality in the same way?

There is a substantial difference between a declarative statement about the nature of a given action, and the way in which a type of record is presented in a narrative. We don’t keep genealogies like the Jews did, so it is intellectually dishonest to claim that, since they didn’t list out every last person in the family tree like we would, that their genealogy is false.

There really aren’t.

Except there really are, and a few have been presented. You simply refuse to acknowledge them because you don’t want to. You’ve made up your mind that they are false so any evidence to the contrary gets lost in your confirmation bias. If reasonable explanations exist, in order to remain intellectually honest it is necessary that you acknowledge that they may not actually be discrepancies. You are unwilling to do that, so there’s literally no point in continuing this conversation. To that end, I bid you well, but I’m not going to continue spending the time it requires to research and write up these responses.