The Old Testament

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frindon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Petergee said:
The two stories are different, but they are not inconsistent.
Click to expand...
They are inconsistent in that they give 2 differnt accounts and sequences of events. Yet they are both without error/inerrant.
 
Vince1022 said:
You mean “two” chapters of Genesis? What about chapters 3 and 4?

Again, the Catholic Church does not teach they are “inerrant” (see the Catechism).
Click to expand...
The Church by way of the Catechism say all scripture is without error. Are you says that inerrant and without error mean different things? if that is what you are saying please give a definion of each.
What about chapters 3&4?

And I do so very much your correction of my spelling error. unlike scripture I am not inerrant.😃
 
Petergee said:
How about actually answering my question?
If you think inerrant does not mean “without error” then what do you think it means?
Click to expand...
It can mean a lot of things. I really don’t care about that word, I care about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the truth of the Scriptures. And as the Church does not use that word I don’t understand why it’s so important to you.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
The Church by way of the Catechism say all scripture is without error. Are you says that inerrant and without error mean different things?
Click to expand...
No, I’m simply saying that the Church does not use the word “inerrant” when referring to Scripture. So, anyone teaching or sharing the Catholic faith would, it seems, be wise to use the same words and understanding that the Magisterium uses, to avoid any confusion.
 
Vince1022 said:
It can mean a lot of things.
Click to expand...
Wow, now you say that “inerrant” not only has a different meaning than “without error”, but actually has “a lot” of other different meanings. So you should have no trouble naming at least one of these many meanings --??? Come one now, you’ve had a lot to say here, so why do you keep twisting and turning to avoid answering this simple question?
 
Vince1022 said:
No, I’m simply saying that the Church does not use the word “inerrant” when referring to Scripture. So, anyone teaching or sharing the Catholic faith would, it seems, be wise to use the same words and understanding that the Magisterium uses, to avoid any confusion.
Click to expand...
If the conversation of anyone teaching or sharing the Catholic faith was restricted only to verbatim quotes from the Catechism, I doubt whether anyone would learn much.

What on earth would you say to an honest and sincere enquirer who said "I don’t understand this passage in the Catechism, or why it says what it says. Would you please explain it to me? "
 
Petergee said:
Wow, now you say that “inerrant” not only has a different meaning than “without error”, but actually has “a lot” of other different meanings. So you should have no trouble naming at least one of these many meanings --??? Come one now, you’ve had a lot to say here, so why do you keep twisting and turning to avoid answering this simple question?
Click to expand...
What I mean to say is, using the word “inerrant” is open to many meanings.

One could use it and mean the same as what the Church teaches.

Or, one could use it in a way that the Church disagrees with…for instance, if one thinks that everything in the Bible is without any error whatsoever…be it historical, geological, astronomical, physical, or whatever.

So, if one claims the Bible is “inerrant” and one’s understanding of that word means the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. (as Bishop Ussher claimed in the 17th century based on a literalistic reading of the Old Testament) then, in that case (and there are so many other similar examples) yes I would say the Bible is not “inerrant,”

But, if one claims, as the Catholic Church teaches, that the Bible being “inerrant” means that Scripture teaches firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures…then yes, I would agree the Bible is “inerrant”

Does that help?
 
Petergee said:
If the conversation of anyone teaching or sharing the Catholic faith was restricted only to verbatim quotes from the Catechism, I doubt whether anyone would learn much.

What on earth would you say to an honest and sincere enquirer who said "I don’t understand this passage in the Catechism, or why it says what it says. Would you please explain it to me? "
Click to expand...
Of course teaching is not restricted to the Catechism. But why not start there? Why introduce, first, terms or concepts the Catechism (or any catechism) does not use?

Why not start with what the Catechism teaches? Is there a better place to start? Wikipedia, or dictionary.com?

If someone asked about a passage in the Catechism, that’s great. I would do my best to explain it. Note, though…back to the topic of this thread…nowhere does the Catechism use “inerrant.” So I would explain what the Church means about the truth of Scripture, as the Catechism (and all catechisms prepared based on it) teach.
 
Vince1022 said:
What I mean to say is, using the word “inerrant” is open to many meanings.

One could use it and mean the same as what the Church teaches.

Or, one could use it in a way that the Church disagrees with…for instance, if one thinks that everything in the Bible is without any error whatsoever…be it historical, geological, astronomical, physical, or whatever.

So, if one claims the Bible is “inerrant” and one’s understanding of that word means the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. (as Bishop Ussher claimed in the 17th century based on a literalistic reading of the Old Testament) then, in that case (and there are so many other similar examples) yes I would say the Bible is not “inerrant,”

But, if one claims, as the Catholic Church teaches, that the Bible being “inerrant” means that Scripture teaches firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures…then yes, I would agree the Bible is “inerrant”

Does that help?
Click to expand...
That same argument can be made useing the words “without error” If you do not have an understanding Of what the Church means by the words then you come to the incorrect conclusion. You have still failed to show how using inerrant is differant thw withou error.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
That same argument can be made useing the words “without error” If you do not have an understanding Of what the Church means by the words then you come to the incorrect conclusion. You have still failed to show how using inerrant is differant thw withou error.
Click to expand...
Right. Without an understanding of Church teaching, any number of conclusions could be reached. So, as the Church does not use the word “inerrant,” neither do I.
 
After this, can we sort out whether water is “colorless” or “without color”? That’s been weighing on my mind lately. 😉
 
Vince1022 said:
Right. Without an understanding of Church teaching, any number of conclusions could be reached. So, as the Church does not use the word “inerrant,” neither do I.
Click to expand...
And that is fine, you do not have to use the word if you choose not to, but do not say that is not the same thing, or that it not what the chruch teaches as they are the same thing.
 
Vince1022 said:
Right. Without an understanding of Church teaching, any number of conclusions could be reached. So, as the Church does not use the word “inerrant,” neither do I.
Click to expand...
That particular edition of that particular Catechism (which as its preface notes, is intended as a guide for others to produce cetchisms saying the same things in different words) may not use the word “inerrant”. “The Church” most definitely uses the word inerrant. Do not confuse the words of a particular Cathechism with “the Church”. Can’t you see that you are making the same mistake regarding the precise words of that particular catechism, as the mistake made by those who you rightly condemn regarding the precise words of the Bible (or a particular edition of it)?
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
That same argument can be made useing the words “without error” If you do not have an understanding Of what the Church means by the words then you come to the incorrect conclusion.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. Thanks!

Given that the Church does not use the word “inerrant” anyone who does so is open to the possibility of arriving at an incorrect understanding of what the Church teaches.
 
Petergee said:
That particular edition of that particular Catechism (which as its preface notes, is intended as a guide for others to produce cetchisms saying the same things in different words) may not use the word “inerrant”. “The Church” most definitely uses the word inerrant. Do not confuse the words of a particular Cathechism with “the Church”. Can’t you see that you are making the same mistake regarding the precise words of that particular catechism, as the mistake made by those who you rightly condemn regarding the precise words of the Bible (or a particular edition of it)?
Click to expand...
Where does the Church, today, use the word “inerrant”?

As you mention a “particular edition of that particular Catechism” can you clarify? Are there multiple Catechisms that the universal Catholic Church has the option of referring to? I thought there was only one. And that one does not use “inerrant.”

Thanks for any reference or clarification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top