Replies

Let's see.

2) I post a link to Catholic Answers that shows 40% do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture and this is illustrated by their answers. You ignore that.

3) I post an article by the Times of London that arrives at the same conclusion and you said that is wrong.

4) I post the Dei Verbum which is quoted in the Times of London and clearly shows a transition from the inerrant word of God to the Church. And your response is this is just a bunch of what the MSM says?!?

So much for serious scholarship.

You expected something different?

;)

Hoss

1. a. Whatever a poster says is his opinion is his opinion, to extrapolate it to all the members of his religious group is like me taking the views of an Oneness Pentecostal and saying all Protestants believe that -- it's silly.
1.b. --> Mark hasn't ever said that "scripture contains errors" -- he has just pointed out that the Bible being an inanimate non-decision making entity is neither fallible nor infallible. However, he HAS pointed out that it is inerrant, i.e. without error. No inanimate non-decision making entity can be fallible/infallible -- that word indicates a decision making capability. however, it can be errant/inerrant AND, the Bible IS inerrant.
1.c. --> I've posted you a link to what The Church teaches -- and those are pretty clear (see post 2471 above)

2. You posted a link to an internet poll of 41 people and you think that you can extrapolate that to say 1.2 billion people think that way? That's stupid, I'm sorry to say

3. I posted a link to Catholic doctrine online and you say that you don't believe what the Church puts in writing, yet you'll believe an MSM like the Times of London? Especially when the article is wrong and only quotes excerpts from the original bishops articles and out of context -- read my post 2479 for more details

4. I posted what Dei Verbum ACTUALLY says (This is what Dei Verbum actually says: "it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error", and " For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired really are the word of God; and it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error " --> this is NOT quoted in the Times of london article, they only refer to it and give their own interpretation of it" --> refer my post 2571 for what Dei Verbum ACTUALLY says

You aren't even reading Dei verbum yourself but quoting from a misquote. REad it if you want to posit serious scholarship instead of hearsay.

Let me repeat this

2. You posted a link to an internet poll of 41 people and you think that you can extrapolate that to say 1.2 billion people think that way?

That's stupid, I'm sorry to say

And, let me repeat what Dei Verbum actually says once more so that you actually READ it

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit,
it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings
God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.....no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out..
The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God's word and of Christ's body.
Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them;
For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology.

Get it?

Finally, you said "the Dei Verbum which is quoted in the Times of London " --> that's a lie, I repeat, that is a lie.

All that the article does say is "The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum," --> no quote from it, nothing.

Very well put.

Let's see.

1) I have a Catholic on this site tell me the scriptures contain errors (several times) and post the references . You ignore that.

2) I post a link to Catholic Answers that shows 40% do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture and this is illustrated by their answers. You ignore that.

3) I post an article by the Times of London that arrives at the same conclusion and you said that is wrong.

4) I post the Dei Verbum which is quoted in the Times of London and clearly shows a transition from the inerrant word of God to the Church. And your response is this is just a bunch of what the MSM says?!?

So much for serious scholarship.

Your excellent evidence once again reveals the stubborn fact that the RCC says one thing, then another, and yet another, all depending on the phase of the moon and the time of day.

For every statement of doctrine, Rome can and does produce an opposing statement of doctrine, equally affirmed.

No wonder Rome grants thousands of annulments each year. Now they're married. Now they're not.