Would it change anyting about your Confession if I told you of the man I know who has been in a traveling Gospel singing troupe for thirty years that asked me if the book of Romans was in the Old or New Testament?
What about the public school teacher that tried to publicly humiliate my wife as a child because she knew "Son of God" means "God incarnate" and he, as a lifelong Baptist, didn't?
Of course these things aren't going to change the good things you know, just as I will keep the good things I know.
Of what value is holding a doctrine of total biblical inerrancy when it manifests itself as our functionally illiterate brother boldly standing up to proclaim Acts 7:54 of the King James Bible *clearly* proves the Sanhedrin where so mad at Steven they actually bit him!
Would to God we all took Paul's advice about meat sacrificed to idols as a general instead of a specific.
I don't know what "confession" you're talking about, so I don't know how to answer that questiion.
What about the public school teacher that tried to publicly humiliate my wife as a child because she knew "Son of God" means "God incarnate" and he, as a lifelong Baptist, didn't?
What about him? Are you expecting me to defend his public humiliation of your wife or something? Or is that supposed to somehow "prove" that the Bible has errors?
Of course these things aren't going to change the good things you know, just as I will keep the good things I know.
Maybe not, but it wouldn't hurt the two or three Catholic FReepers who do believe in total inerrancy to speak out once in a while instead of allowing the errantists and evolutionists to be the public face of the Catholic Church on FR.
Of what value is holding a doctrine of total biblical inerrancy when it manifests itself as our functionally illiterate brother boldly standing up to proclaim Acts 7:54 of the King James Bible *clearly* proves the Sanhedrin where so mad at Steven they actually bit him!
Anyone functionally illiterate would be unable to read the verse you cite (or any other verse), so I don't understand your point there. But one thing I do believe is that the Catholics of past ages who didn't read the Bible much (note that I didn't say there were "forbidden" to read the Bible; I said they "didn't read it much") were better off for acknowledging that G-d does not lie than the modern Catholic who reads the Bible every day--along with higher critical commentaries written by the likes of Raymond Brown--so that however well he knows the contents he ascribes them to ancient Babylonian mythology adapted much later and then dishonestly attributed to Moses (or Daniel, or whoever). It is one of the greatest tragedies of the Catholic "Biblical movement" that Biblical literacy has been indelibly polluted with "higher criticism." Yes, Catholics who read the Bible but believe it's a forgery are in much worse shape than people who never picked it up but who believed it was inerrant. I suppose you want to argue with me?
Would to God we all took Paul's advice about meat sacrificed to idols as a general instead of a specific.
And now I have no idea what you're talking about.
What about him? I suspect the lifelong Baptist knew that Jesus didn't become incarnate to take multiple wives and father multiple children...
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.- Genesis 6:1-4