Aaron, Fr John Whiteford, the person you urge us to consider, writes of the purpose for which scripture was written, and says it was not to provide a ‘Dictaphone account’. It was intended to convey the truth of God’s economy of salvation. As Fr John writes:
We believe that Scripture does not contain any error in anything that it intends to convey. (My emphasis.)
What he writes about the Gospels can be applied to all scripture:
The Gospels do not have the intention of providing a strict chronology, they have the intention of telling us who Jesus Christ was, what he did, and what all that means. If they fulfill that intention accurately, to hold up standards that they did not intend to fulfill is wherein lies the error. (My emphasis.)
If there are incidental inaccuracies of fact, they need not concern us, and indeed, in the locked thread, I quoted what St John Chrysostom said about this (though you ignored that)
Remember that the Bible is the book of the Church and is to be understood only within the Church. Remember also that no translation is inspired – only the original Greek text is God-inspired.
Aaron, you write:
I am completely stunned that anyone could read the quote from St John of Kronstadt at the top of the page and say he meant anything other then that Scripture is perfect.
Note that St John of Kronstadt says that the Bible is sometimes written not in true narratives but in figurative language, and this surely is the point: the Bible is true for what it intends to convey, namely God's revelation of Himself and of the whole economy of salvation. It is, as Olga keeps trying to make you understand, 'complete'. It is simply not appropriate to use the word 'perfect' - no one does. We do not doubt what St John wrote but we note that he was writing with emphasis for the reason given.
Edited by Andreas Moran, 19 March 2014 - 09:51 AM.