Correctness

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, this does not substantiate your claim that the Catholic Church teaches

the Bible is inerrant with respect to matters of faith, morality, and salvation, without the need to assert as an article of faith required for salvation, that it is inerrant with respect to human history and science.

The Church has always maintained that cert ...[text shortened]... r in matters of history or science. None of the sources cited in that article suggest otherwise.

You seem to be agreeing with me on the point that the Church acknowledges that the Bible can err on matters of history and science, when taken literally. You seem to disagree on whether the Church has changed its official position in this regard. Because the findings of history and science increase over time, more such errors have been found and can be expected to be found in the future. Biblical statements previously taken to be true will be agreed to be false, at least in as they concern literal accounts of history and science, although they may still be taken to convey truths of faith and morals. How's that?

Originally posted by JS357
You seem to be agreeing with me on the point that the Church acknowledges that the Bible can err on matters of history and science, when taken literally. You seem to disagree on whether the Church has changed its official position in this regard. Because the findings of history and science increase over time, more such errors have been found and can be expecte ...[text shortened]... nd science, although they may still be taken to convey truths of faith and morals. How's that?

You seem to be agreeing with me on the point that the Church acknowledges that the Bible can err on matters of history and science, when taken literally.

No. The Church teaches that the bible can never err. False interpretations can err and sometimes a discerning reader must recognise that a non-literal interpretation is required.

Because the findings of history and science increase over time, more such errors have been found and can be expected to be found in the future. Biblical statements previously taken to be true will be agreed to be false, at least in as they concern literal accounts of history and science, although they may still be taken to convey truths of faith and morals. How's that?

No. I don't think your language here accords with what the Catholic Church teaches. Certain readings and interpretations of the bible can be errant. Recent developments in scientific and historical research may force a new reading but this does not mean the bible itself was wrong. And every Catholic must have the courage to accept that when the bible explicitly teaches something to be taken literally, it must be accepted whether or not it is consonsant with current scientific and historic scholarly opinion.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]You seem to be agreeing with me on the point that the Church acknowledges that the Bible can err on matters of history and science, when taken literally.

No. The Church teaches that the bible can never err. False interpretations can err and sometimes a discerning reader must recognise that a non-literal interpretation is required.

Because th ...[text shortened]... cepted whether or not it is consonsant with current scientific and historic scholarly opinion.

I guess I misinterpreted your statement, 'The Church has always maintained as well however that the bible, when it is clearly to be taken literally, can err in matters of history or science."

Originally posted by JS357
I guess I misinterpreted your statement, 'The Church has always maintained as well however that the bible, when it is clearly to be taken literally, can err in matters of history or science."

I'm sorry, I meant to say cannot err.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I'm sorry, I meant to say cannot err.

OK, then we simply disagree. The situation is complex and nuanced, such as at:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

Originally posted by JS357
OK, then we simply disagree. The situation is complex and nuanced, such as at:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

I'm not sure I understand you. The Church permits every Catholic to accept or reject evolution and so it remains a matter of private choice whether to interpret Genesis 1 as literal or not. But this really has nothing to do with what the Church teaches on inerrancy of Scripture. The doctrine of inerrancy does not mean that every interpretation of the bible is correct or that the meaning of a particular passage is even knowable. It just means that the inspired meaning, what God intended, cannot be wrong.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I'm not sure I understand you. The Church permits every Catholic to accept or reject evolution and so it remains a matter of private choice whether to interpret Genesis 1 as literal or not. But this really has nothing to do with what the Church teaches on inerrancy of Scripture. The doctrine of inerrancy does not mean that every interpretation of the bible ...[text shortened]... is even knowable. It just means that the inspired meaning, what God intended, cannot be wrong.

Double talk!

Originally posted by 667joe
Double talk!

I have no idea what you are talking about. I by the way am not Catholic. I am just trying to explain what Catholic doctrine entails.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have no idea what you are talking about. I by the way am not Catholic. I am just trying to explain what Catholic doctrine entails.

You are saying what's wrong is actually right. That is double talk!

Originally posted by 667joe
You are saying what's wrong is actually right. That is double talk!

No, I'm not. I am saying that a literal reading might be wrong whereas a non-literal may be right. The important point here is that propositions have truth-values, not sentences.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I'm not sure I understand you. The Church permits every Catholic to accept or reject evolution and so it remains a matter of private choice whether to interpret Genesis 1 as literal or not. But this really has nothing to do with what the Church teaches on inerrancy of Scripture. The doctrine of inerrancy does not mean that every interpretation of the bible ...[text shortened]... is even knowable. It just means that the inspired meaning, what God intended, cannot be wrong.

That is a correct interpretation of the doctrine, I believe. But I also think that because of that, we can make no further headway. If you accept the doctrine, further discussion of inerrancy is wasted time.

Originally posted by JS357
That is a correct interpretation of the doctrine, I believe. But I also think that because of that, we can make no further headway. If you accept the doctrine, further discussion of inerrancy is wasted time.

Quite right! He wants it both ways!

Originally posted by JS357
That is a correct interpretation of the doctrine, I believe. But I also think that because of that, we can make no further headway. If you accept the doctrine, further discussion of inerrancy is wasted time.

I don't accept the doctrine.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I'm not sure I understand you. The Church permits every Catholic to accept or reject evolution and so it remains a matter of private choice whether to interpret Genesis 1 as literal or not. But this really has nothing to do with what the Church teaches on inerrancy of Scripture. The doctrine of inerrancy does not mean that every interpretation of the bible ...[text shortened]... is even knowable. It just means that the inspired meaning, what God intended, cannot be wrong.

At least we have not drifted from the topic of the OP.

I would like to consolidate my response to this post and two of you brief subsequent ones.

First, regarding "It just means that the inspired meaning, what God intended, cannot be wrong." I believe this MAY capture the essence of the lengthy and sometimes arcanely worded explanations found in official RCC documents. But it would take further study to approach a full understanding of the matter. The pivotal word is 'cannot' instead of 'is not.' It means (to me) that any investigation of apparent discrepancies must proceed on the basis of this tenet or doctrine, from start to finish. Anyone proceeding on a different basis is not being guided by this doctrine and is vulnerable to drawing erroneous conclusions, in the eyes of the RCC, and that is that.

Second, I acknowledge your saying that you are not an RC and I will keep that in mind. How have your gained your understanding of RCC doctrines? And third, I get it that you don't accept the doctrine. Would you care to explain your position on the correctness of the Bible?

Originally posted by Conrau K
No, I'm not. I am saying that a literal reading might be wrong whereas a non-literal may be right. The important point here is that propositions have truth-values, not sentences.

However, if the Bible is comprised of sentences, not propositions, then the Bible has no truth-value.