I don’t think annalex is saying non-theological facts could be in error.
The text is inerrant throughout. Where the error might come in is our mistakenly interpreting a completely incidental figure of speech for a statement of fact. For example, there is no grounds for interpreting Christ’s statement about mustard seeds as absolutely disqualifying the possibility of a smaller seed somewhere in the world.
Yes he is.
There isn't really any need of us all doing this dance again for the nteenth time. We all know where we stand.
I'll just say that with the Church's hostility to "Biblical literalism" it's no wonder that most Catholics are uncomfortable reading the Bible. After all, they might interpret something "literally" and fall into heresy!
It's most interesting that the beliefs of the church fathers are invoked to "prove" the Catholic position on several issues but are dismissed anytime they are too "literal" on the grounds that "they didn't know then what we know now."
Yes, exactly. Note that in #19 Zionist Conspirator begins by inserting a false interpretation of my post in parenthesis, then proceeds to say that the parenthetical part (his) is condemned by the popes.
On the other hand, I was unclear, because I gave an impression that the Bible is divided in inerrant theological part and fallible non-theological part. What I was trying to say was that the apparent error comes from our reading with the mind different from the mind of the inspired author, and is not the revealed divine truth to begin with.