I agree with your post in its entirety. You list numerous human errors of copying and interpretation. They do not speak to the original intent of the inspired author.
Regarding “God speaking through prophets” I was merely pointing out that to say, with Leo XIII, “God utters” is nothing close to “Protestant nonsense”.
***I agree with your post in its entirety. You list numerous human errors of copying and interpretation. They do not speak to the original intent of the inspired author.***
Very good. We must remember though, that we finite humans are attempting to describe infinite God with finite understanding and language. Boy, do we fall short.
***Regarding “God speaking through prophets” I was merely pointing out that to say, with Leo XIII, “God utters” is nothing close to “Protestant nonsense”.***
There is a long way between ‘God utters’ and ‘God dictates’. The difference is in kosta’s excellent classification of the inspired as reporters. They tell us what they know in their own words and understandings. The Day of Resurrection is a case in point. The Sermons is another. In both examples, the ‘eyewitness account’ would have landed the eyewitness in the hoosegow because the details are so different. But the message is the same. And that is what the Church has the authority and responsibility to handle.