Since the Church has declared them infallible, and the Church councils are never wrong when they make a declaration, then isn't it true that the scriptures are in fact infallible? It seems to me the Catholics take a great deal of pain in trying to convince us Church pronouncements are never wrong, yet they ignore the inspiration of the scriptures.
Yeah, the reason I put the word infallible in quotes was because, at least according to Church Tradition, “infallibility” doesn’t necessarily equate “impeccability”. The discussion I had on another thread about the OT being infallible but not impeccable revolved around this point. The person I was discussing with insisted that if there were physical errors from transcription, for example, then that meant the Bible couldn’t be infallible. So, this person insisted that the OT had no physical transcriptional errors, in order to maintain a belief of infallibility in the OT.
Personally, I agree with kosta and others that say that while the Bible may be physically altered and/or contain transcriptional error, that doesn’t mean it’s not infallible. It just means it’s not impeccable. But I was wondering what kosta’s take was on the OT when compared to the NT. Does he think there are more alterations in the NT? Does he believe there are any alterations in the OT at all? etc. Just a point of curiosity; I have no argument ready to spring.