[quote="QNDNNDQDCE, post:10, topic:329260"]
There is a difference between there being two accounts of something and two contradictory accounts.
Yes, but there are contradictory accounts.
There is a also a difference between apparent contradictions and logically necessary contradictions.
Yes, but there are logically necessary contradictions.
When we see what appears to be a contradiction, it is our duty as Catholics to acknowledge that we have come to a misunderstanding of the text.
Ironically, the same approach the Biblical redactors took.
OK, since when are Catholics Biblical inerrantists: is this new or have we been doing it all along?
What do we have to gain from playing this game? Besides, does this approach really rescue the Bible? If we have to jam truth down the Bible's throat like pureed squash into a baby, are you really making the Bible any more credible than those who acknowledge obvious mistakes and contradictions?
Let me ask you a question. Why do you rest your interpretation of Scripture on the judgment of the Church when that same Church has judged Scripture to be free of error and contradiction?
It depends what you mean by "free of error." On more than one occasion, the Bible says both X and ~X are true. If the Church, likewise, is saying that both X and ~X are true, then the Church is assaulting the laws of logic and the gift of human reason. In which case, no one can acknowledge the credibility of the Church because it would be physically impossible: we would be living in a world devoid of any meaning, heck - even this conversation that we are having about the subject would be meaningless.
Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that the Church doesn't want us to think that way.