I don't know what "confession" you're talking about, so I don't know how to answer that questiion.
What about the public school teacher that tried to publicly humiliate my wife as a child because she knew "Son of God" means "God incarnate" and he, as a lifelong Baptist, didn't?
What about him? Are you expecting me to defend his public humiliation of your wife or something? Or is that supposed to somehow "prove" that the Bible has errors?
Of course these things aren't going to change the good things you know, just as I will keep the good things I know.
Maybe not, but it wouldn't hurt the two or three Catholic FReepers who do believe in total inerrancy to speak out once in a while instead of allowing the errantists and evolutionists to be the public face of the Catholic Church on FR.
Of what value is holding a doctrine of total biblical inerrancy when it manifests itself as our functionally illiterate brother boldly standing up to proclaim Acts 7:54 of the King James Bible *clearly* proves the Sanhedrin where so mad at Steven they actually bit him!
Anyone functionally illiterate would be unable to read the verse you cite (or any other verse), so I don't understand your point there. But one thing I do believe is that the Catholics of past ages who didn't read the Bible much (note that I didn't say there were "forbidden" to read the Bible; I said they "didn't read it much") were better off for acknowledging that G-d does not lie than the modern Catholic who reads the Bible every day--along with higher critical commentaries written by the likes of Raymond Brown--so that however well he knows the contents he ascribes them to ancient Babylonian mythology adapted much later and then dishonestly attributed to Moses (or Daniel, or whoever). It is one of the greatest tragedies of the Catholic "Biblical movement" that Biblical literacy has been indelibly polluted with "higher criticism." Yes, Catholics who read the Bible but believe it's a forgery are in much worse shape than people who never picked it up but who believed it was inerrant. I suppose you want to argue with me?
Would to God we all took Paul's advice about meat sacrificed to idols as a general instead of a specific.
And now I have no idea what you're talking about.
Your "denomination" or "tradition."
What about him? Are you expecting me to defend his public humiliation of your wife or something? Or is that supposed to somehow "prove" that the Bible has errors?
It is intended to demonstrate theological ignorance is not solely a Catholic fault.
Maybe not, but it wouldn't hurt the two or three Catholic FReepers who do believe in total inerrancy to speak out once in a while instead of allowing the errantists and evolutionists to be the public face of the Catholic Church on FR
You are assuming the Bible is as foundational to Catholics as it is to you: that would be a mistake.
Anyone functionally illiterate would be unable to read the verse you cite...
"Functional illiterate" is not the same as "illiterate." The latter can't read at all, the former can read the words, but doesn't know what they mean.
And now I have no idea what you're talking about.
Paul writes in Corinthians about some brothers being critical of others either because their faith is not as strong, or stronger than our own. This is typified by the controversy over "meat sacrificed to idols." A good modern analogy would be something like the use of alcohol.