polonius wrote:I believe in a literal six days of creation, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal worldwide flood, a literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead, reject macroevolution, and believe the earth is at the center of the universe.So did the Catholic church until Galileo came along and the whole story fell apart.
This is the popular view, but it’s not so simple. Perhaps sometime later this can be debated in another thread.
onewithhim wrote:I personally don’t think that anything written down by humans will be totally error-free. I think that they can get the main thought and the very important details right, but there are some things that will be exaggerated, embellished, or missed (being picked up, usually, by someone else).
I would agree with this.
JehovahsWitness wrote:I don’t know what that means.
As onewithhim mentioned above, humans make mistakes. Humans penned the autographs. They weren’t directly written by God. Given the limitations, personalities, genre, purpose, etc, humans will not write with any degree of perfection. If it’s claimed that they would write differently when they authored text that would be scripture, then somehow language is working differently at those times. I would doubt that they even knew at the time they were writing that they knew what they wrote would eventually be part of a canonized sacred text.
I doubt Mark thought after he wrote his account, “This book is so great it will eventually be considered on par with the Torah.” Or Paul thinking, “These letters I’m writing are so inspired that it will be considered the very words of God.”
Now, I’m not saying their writings are not inspired. But I doubt it’s in the inerrant, perfect form when we speak of inerrancy.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=985750#p985750