Bible Contraditions? Bible Inerrancy?

Viral TikTok Muslim Finds Bible Contradiction?
4 août 2022 | Testify
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAs5IuRJFM

0:47 If your Christian faith is not the least Ecclesial, you may have a kind of a point.

A Catholic needs strict inerrancy (in autographs, which on non-essentials may have been garbled - like a Catholic commenter says the original reading of how many years between Exodus and Temple is lost and the now extant text is erroneous on a cipher).

Why so? Because, we do not just have the Bible, we also have Tradition and Magisterium, very main documents involved being official Creeds and the most official one is Nicaea - Constantinople.

We may have different opinions on whether "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is original text (in the Latin version) or whether Filioque was an addition, B U T : "qui locutus est per prophetas" corresponds perfectly to what the Greeks says "τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν" so, it is not a "one-sided" addition. It clearly is what bishops in 381 actually decided and Pope also subscribed (personally or through legates) what all Christians must believe, on pain of heresy. That is, of putting oneself outside the relation with Christ in His Church, since outside His Church.

Saying that "your Pope isn't very inerrantist, if he made the magic wand comment?" is misunderstanding "Catholic" = "in communion with Pope Francis" ... on my view of what it means to be Catholic, the Pope died a few days ago in Topeka. A Pope OF Rome, residing, through the occupation of Rome by Apostates, IN Topeka.

I not saying everyone who accepts Pope Francis is an Apostate in God's eyes, you may avoid committing his apostasy without feeling qualified to call him an Apostate and bow down to Topeka, you may be in error of how much you need to share with the ones you are in ecclesial communion with - in my Swedish Church days I thought women priests wrong, but though (like Lewis apparently?) it was sufficient to be in a parish where there wasn't one.

My Novus Ordo second Father confessor told me "but you would still have been responsible for women priests by being in communion with them!"

Ouch.

Plus, accepting women priests in SwCh is official policy while the "magic wand" quote is more like an officious expression of what he wished to promote - but he promoted apostasy from "in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem, Creatorem Coeli et Terrae" exchanging omnipotentem into sth like "reticentem" - a god who steps back from his creation before it's finished and lets it decide how his image shall evolve.

It's still a rule, if you have expressed and not regretted what "Bishop Jorge" (like an Arian Intruder in Alexandria) expressed, you are not a Catholic and you cannot be head of a body where you are not even a member.

0:53 "we are not dictationists"

Well, I am for certain passages. Like two of them in Exodus 30.

I am equally not for certain other parts, like St. Luke certainly wrote a Gospel and Acts in his own words. God didn't chose them with his stepping back and taking dictation from God - but God chose them through his choices.

For instance, Acts of Apostles 7:49, Luke could have chosen - and God not interfered - to say "as the prophet saith THAT Heaven is God's throne, and the earth God's footstool" - St. Luke as minute observer and lover of the LXX preferred the oratio recta that we have.

But He could not by a garbled memory have chosen to say "Heaven is my throneroom, and the earth my pillow" - even if each of the statements is theologically true, it would be misstating what the prophet had actually said. Heaven is both God's throne, and His throne room (where angels and blessed risen and blessed souls adore Him). It is His footstool (meaning also He keeps it in place, Geocentrism!), but also his pillow (a pillow often snatched away from Him during His years between Jordan and Calvary). But the words of God to the prophet (which the prophet recorded by dictation from God), were not those statements, but the ones we find in Acts. If the free will and human weakness of St. Luke had somewhat five seconds inclined him to a misquote, God would have made St. Luke go for a pee or for a coffee before he came back to work with refreshed memory. God could not have allowed St. Luke a misquote.

Again, if it had been in English, St. Luke could possibly have written "stool" even if "footstool" had been more correct, but "footstool" and "pillow" are two different objects with two different uses in everyday life.

1:58 The solution requiring least learning is obviously to say "for one of the passages we have a corrupted text" ...

I think you will come up with a more learned one (as I think there is a better learned solution for "480 years" - either they exclude years when occupation interrupted rites, and the total chronological is longer, which explains David anointed 1032 BC (implying temple in 952 BC) after Exodus in 1510 BC - or the timelines of Judges overlap, two mentions of 20 years' Philistine occupation doesn't mean it was two occupations, but same one was described by different tribes).

Before going on, I will now go to the Haydock comment, where I will see what older writers have as explanations.

For IV Kings 8:26:

Ver. 26. Twenty. In 2 Paral. xxii. 2, we read forty, by mistake of the transcribers, as Ochozias, (Joachaz, or Azarias, 2 Par. xxi. 17.) would thus be older than his father, who died at the age of forty. 2 Par. xxi. 20. All the original versions, and many copies of the Sept. read "twenty-two" in both passages; and those who would admit no mistake, are forced to have recourse to explanations which can give no satisfaction. De Dieu would include in the reign of Ochozias the six years of Athalia's usurpation, and the thirteen of Joas, during his minority. Others would date from the separation of the two kingdoms, &c. But would the Holy Ghost cause the same fact to be recorded in two places in such a different manner? The best chronologists acknowledge a mistake in the Hebrew text of Paral. (Cajet. Salien, Petau, T. &c. C.) as the letters which denote these numbers are not unlike (Mariana:) c (20) might easily be exchanged for m (40.) H. --- Daughter. That is, grand-daughter; for she was daughter of Achab, son of Amri, v. 18. (Ch.) unless she was only adopted by Achab. W.

For II Paralipomenon 22:2:

Ver. 2. Forty-two, &c. Divers Greek Bibles read twenty-two, agreeably to 4 K. viii. 18. (Ch.) with the Syr. and Arab. The Rom. (C.) and Alex. Sept. have "twenty." H. --- Ochozias was the youngest son, and his father died at forty years of age. C. xxi. 20. C. --- Others would date from the birth of Amri, (Broughton) or of Athalia. But is most probable that we should read 22, as 4 K. C. --- The contradiction has so much perplexed the commentators, that Walton (prol. 36) puts it among the quædam apora; and De Dieu says, "I would rather plainly confess that this difficulty is to us inexplicable." The error here, "is plainly owing to a mistake of one of the Heb. numeral letters," c, being put instead of m, which was formerly more similar than it is now. "In Origen's Hexapla, one of the Greek copies (probably that found in Caracalla's time) reads here cb, by rendering the number 22, eikosi kai duo, all which proofs make the mistake indubitable, and strongly recommend this method of correcting it." Kennicott. --- Mariana, T. &c. had already suggested this plan, (H.) which is very plausible. D. --- Ochozias might reign twenty years with his father, and only one alone. 4 K. viii. 26. W.

Net line : both hagiographers were inerrant, in the apparent contradiction, one may have suffered a transscription error or there may be some twist about terminology, like when a reign begins or how long one reigns.