Do you hold the Bible as Inerrant/inspired/infallible?

[The Biblicist]

If He were the One writing it (like He wrote the Ten Commandments), then of course, yes He could.

He did write them. Have you ever studied the term "inspired" in 2 Tim. 3:16 and the contextual meaning of "private interpetation" in 2 Pet. 1:20??

The term "inspired" provides a picture as though the words of scriptures came directly from the vocal chords of God Himself. The contextual definition of "private interpretation" means the instruments used by God to write the scriptures did not express their personal opinions but expressed precisely the opinion of the Holy Spirit which moved them to use words He chose.

The contradictions amongst the gospel writers alone prove the NT is not perfectly accurate.
These 4 wrote their recollections approx. 50 years after the events happened,
and approx. 20 years after Paul wrote his epistles.

There are no such contradictions between the gospel writers. All such supposed contradictions can be easily explained by one of the following responses:

1. You are confusing transcribal errors with writer errors.

2. None of the gospels are designed to be a complete biography of Christ's life.

3. Each gospel has a different design and purpose. For example Matthew's gospel is designed to be manual for discipleship and thus he arranges things in TOPICAL order rather than CHRONOLOGICAL order at times.

4. Some "contradiction" are purely imaginary and failure to consider all the contextual circumcstances and contrasts.

5. There is a difference between paradoxical and contradiction.

However, the Scriptures have always been plenty good enough for God's purposes!
.

Jesus said the scriptures "cannot be broken" and the Greek term translated "broken" here is also used for the bandages wrapped around a corpse before burial. It cannot be unravelled so you can find a hole in it.

Finally, although I regard TS a friend, and although I do agree with much of what he says, I believe the canonization of the scriptures old and new are clearly and explicitly a matter of prophecy (Isa. 8:16-20) which Jesus clearly and explicitly confirmed in John 16:15 and which the apostles clearly and explicitly realized was their prophetic job to fulfill (2 Thes. 2:15; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-20; 1 Jn. 4:5-6; 2 Pet. 3:15-17; etc.) and that the entire scriptures were completed during the life time of the apostle John near the end of the first century and confirmed as such by Tertullian to be the "whole volume" as given to the churches by the apostles. What few books Tertullian did not explicitly cite were cited by previous writers. Both the Old Testament apocrapha and New Testament apocrapha were rejected as scriptues but both used as we use commentaries and devotional books today. Rome was not the first to canonize the scriptures and Romes canonization violates the canonization of the Old Testament by those God entrusted it too as the Jews rejected the Old Testament apocrapha.

 

[Yeshua1]

If He were the One writing it (like He wrote the Ten Commandments), then of course, yes He could.

All of the Scriptures were merely INSPIRED by the Almighty, not written by Him.

The contradictions amongst the gospel writers alone prove the NT is not perfectly accurate.
These 4 wrote their recollections approx. 50 years after the events happened,
and approx. 20 years after Paul wrote his epistles.

However, the Scriptures have always been plenty good enough for God's purposes!
.

God was it ultimate author though! he used people to write the texts down, but the Holy Spirit was involved in the process to make sure everything that was written was fully accurate and correct!

 

[Yeshua1]

Catholics theologians have Differing views however, what has been consitently asserted is and and With this in mind Catholics cannot believe in error being contained in the scripture.

Therefore regonizing that in literary respects that as DHK suggested that for instance when referrencing pi the bible may have rounded therefore it is a true statement but it isn't exacting. And DHK is right that their systems were different than ours and must be taken into account. However, that being said recognizing this is the case we cannot therefore make assumptions to our view of emperical collection. Therefore where exacting isn't called for neither should it be expected. The problem is when exacting is expected when it wasn't suggested in the first place. In a literary fiction (for instance the parables) we cannot assume what is meant is literal. However, people not being able to distinguish literary genre may well impose a literalistic interpretation when only a theological point is being made.

Does the RCC view Jonah as historical truth, or a parable?

Adam and eve really alive, or biblical myth?

That the exodus and plagues and miracles in OTr eal or stories?

Asking, as had a RC Bible that in preface stated that the Church does NOT view them as "Fundamentalists' would and do?