HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:50:22 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Michael Agney (kanga.caltech.edu!magney) wrote:
> In article <Bxt7qC.ILq@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)  
> writes:
> > In article <BxsHEB.5AL@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>  
> cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:
> > >G T Clark (gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> 	The bible is patently not inerrant.Read Leviticus,chapter 18(or
> > >> thereabouts) where it fairly clearly states that insects walk "upon  
> all
> > >> fours... fourfootedly upon the ground".That's quite clearly a  
> mistake,
> > >> no matter what stage it crept in at.
> > >
> > >This isn't a mistake, its an idiom.
> 
> Yeah, but I'm sure someone can come up with an error so great that
> claiming it's an idiom would be ridiculous.  Carl?

As I am the person who said it was an idiom, and this seems to have
provoked some rather stupid responses, I would first like to say that
I have had several years of formal training in Biblical Hebrew and 
continue even today to actively study the language. The people who
contributed the half-baked responses obviously have not the slightest 
knowledge of the Hebrew language or culture. I could post technical
details on this particular useage, but as no one has shown themselves
either interested or capable of understanding what I would post I don't
intend to post any further explanation. Just for the record, yes I
am a Christian, but no I don't beleive in inerrancy. If you are going
to find errors in the Bible you might as well find the real ones and
stop nitpicking out of ignorance over idiomatic use of the language.

--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:57:43 GMT

Question:  Can soemthing that is claimed to be literally innerrant
make use of idiom?

Using a previous example: If I were the author of the bible and I
wanted to speak of a heavy rain, could I have written, "It rained acts
and dogs"?   Current usage permits this construction as being
symatically equivelant to heavy rain, but what about future readers? 

I guess that part of the answer is that the authors of the bible were
writing for themselves and not the future.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | They that can  give up essential liberty
Field Robotics Center,          | to obtain a little temporary safety deserve 
Carnegie Mellon University      | neither liberty or safety. Benjamin Franklin
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | 
(412) 268-3856                  | 
                                | 
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Innumeracy, humorous ... maybe.
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:10:37 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   17 Nov 92 02:57:22 GMT
>FROM:   Bruce F. Webster <bwebster@pages.com>
>
>> In article <BxoJK2.KzI@ccu.umanitoba.ca> 
>>    vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>> >
>> >Speaking of inummeracy...
>> >just didn't understand that the odds of winning that lottery were
>> >about 10 billion to 1 (49 * 48 * 47 *46 * 45 * 44).
Anybody want to figure out how many winners per century?

>> >
>> >He was of course, inumerate himself, as the odds of winning are 
>> >actually about 14 million to 1.
>> >
>
>Well, in a society where high school graduates can't make correct change, I'd  
>be a bit hesitant to call someone who doesn't correctly apply statistics  
>"innumerate"--but given the tenor of his article, it might be just. :-)
>
>In article <1992Nov16.045407.29782@udel.edu> mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don  
>McCoy) writes:
>>
>> Uh, I could be wrong here, but I believe 10 billion to 1 is right.
>> How did you arrive at the 14 million to 1 figure???
>> 
>
>The fallacy of the author's calculations is an easy one to fall into, but  
>here's a quick thought experiment which will illustrate it:  if the lottery  
>required that you correctly picked 48 out of 49 numbers, would your odds of  
>winning be (49*48*47...*4*3*2) to 1? Obviously not; they would be merely 49 to  
>1, the same as correctly picking 1 out of 49 numbers. So the calculations have  
>to be symmetric and work appropriately for any selection of numbers. 
>
>The correct caculation for the number of possible ways of taking n objects r at  
>a time is n!/[r! * (n-r)!]. For picking 6 out of 49 numbers, that leaves you  
>(after factoring out 43! from 49!):
>   (49*48*47*46*45*44)/(6*5*4*3*2*1) = 13,983,816 possible combinations.
>
>Thus, for any random combination, the odds of having chosen that one is 14  
>million to one.
>
>If you're still stuck back on "but the odds should be based on how many numbers  
>are left", here's the fallacy the author of the news article made: the odds of  
>the first lottery ball chosen being correct are not 1/49, they are 6/49. You've  
>picked six numbers ahead of time, remember--any one of those six can match the  
>first lottery ball. If one does, then the odds of any of the second ball  
>matching any of the remaining five numbers is 5/48; for the third ball, 4/47;  
>and so on. Multiplying these odds together, you get a familiar value: 
>   (6*5*4*3*2*1)/(49*48*47*46*45*44) or 1/13,983,816. 
>
>Q.E.D.   ..bruce..
>

Don't the numbers pop out of six separate containers?
Assuming that every jar has all 49 numbers, the odds become 6!/49**6,
or 1/19,223,881.  Or am I missing something?

-- 
jim tims 
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightm
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:05:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

TP> .>>Who are you to say what kind of mannerisms your children might
  > .>>and might not pick up?  They're human beings, aren't they?
  > .>
  > .>I am their father.

TP> .That's right.  *Not* their owner.

But, whether you agree or not, until the children reach the age of
majority, their father has a moral AND LEGAL obligation to them.  That
includes providing guidance to them.  As I'm sure you're aware, parents
have been successfully sued for not fulfilling that obligation.

Some parents take that obligation very seriously.  Even if I vehemently
disagree with the guidance a parent provides his or her child, I must
respect it.

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                               
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS corrections
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:09:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.97722
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Seventh Circuit Bound)

In article <1992Nov14.202910.2549@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis (Seventh Circuit Bound) writes:
>I'm curious that no one seems to have considered that it may not have
>been the vaccine, but, rather, the *vaccination* that "triggered" the
>virus.  

I'm just posting too much too fast, since you missed it.

>Does anyone know if WHO used sterilized needles?  My impression was that
>poor countries had high rates of needle re-use.

I actually mentioned this as a possibility:

In article <97209@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|	    The only evidence for this theory is the correlation between
|AIDS levels and vaccination levels.  The newspaper did not mention any
|alternative explanations: the greater medical infrastructure left by the
|WHO vaccination campaign is able to detect more cases today, or perhaps
|the campaign involved shared needles.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:49:52 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: itchy.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@itchy

In article <lgf88kINN3cu@news.bbn.com> ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)  
writes:
> I grant you that it is a common fundamentalist practice to grasp at the
> most obscure and silly of straws in order to patch up sagging argument
> (consider the "genealogy of Mary's family" fable used to explain away  
the
> differences between the Matthean and Lucan accounts of the ancestry of
> Jesus).

What's wrong with that?  Seemed reasonable enough when I first heard it.

Of course, there MUST be something wrong with it, else no one would claim
there was :-)

--
| Michael Agney          | Yd - gender neutral pronoun    |
|                        |                                |
|                        | Source:  Stories by Alison     |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu | Tellure, back issues of Analog |
-- 
| Michael Agney          | Yd - gender neutral pronoun    |
|                        |                                |
|                        | Source:  Stories by Alison     |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu | Tellure, back issues of Analog |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Subject: Re: The 2nd amendment- part 3
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:11:27 GMT

In article <721923838.5@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG>, Terry.Preston@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Terry Preston) writes:
|> [...]
|> Indeed.  I suspect more of this sort of misdirection to reach the public
|> as the new Congress convenes and begins to consider legislation like the
|> Brady Bill, a common-sense approach to gun ownership that will help keep
|> guns out of the hands of criminals. [...]`

What evidence do you have that this will happen?  Laws *much stricter*
than the Brady bill have been passed elsewhere before now and do *NOT* 
keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Have you *any* evidence 
*at all* that this new law will accomplish *anything*?  If such 
laws do not accomplish their stated goals, why waste taxpayer money
considering them in Congress - much less paying to administer them 
if they pass?

-- 
J. Giles
From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 18 Nov 1992 20:15:08 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: krusty.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@krusty

In article <1992Nov18.021504.13692@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>  
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> In article <28064@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark)  
writes:
> >
> >       The bible is patently not inerrant.Read Leviticus,chapter 18(or
> >thereabouts) where it fairly clearly states that insects walk "upon all
> >fours... fourfootedly upon the ground".That's quite clearly a mistake,
> >no matter what stage it crept in at.
> >
> 
> It also says that pi=3.

Where? (Just out of curiosity.)
-- 
| Michael Agney          | Yd - gender neutral pronoun    |
|                        |                                |
|                        | Source:  Stories by Alison     |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu | Tellure, back issues of Analog |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Biosphere III?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:27:11 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <u926135.721718495@tasman>, u926135@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Adrian
Hassall Lewis) writes:
|> 
|> 	I am rather suprised at this statement.  Under the Madrid Protocol
|> NO alien plants or animals are allowed in the Antarctic.  <<rest deleted>>

<<nitpick here>>

Shouldn't this read "NO alien plants or animals  except for homo sapiens" ?
(I'm suggesting that we qualify as animals, not as plants, despite
all those couch potatoes).

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy)
Subject: Re: Innumeracy, humorous ... maybe.
Organization: Applied Physics: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:59:45 GMT

roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy) writes:
>>vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>
>>>There was an article in our local paper about a year back on the
>>>subject.  The author went to lengths to point out how little people
>>>understand numbers.  In his example he used the 6/49 lottery.
>>>You know, pick 6 different numbers from 49.  He stated that people
>>>just didn't understand that the odds of winning that lottery were
>>>about 10 billion to 1 (49 * 48 * 47 *46 * 45 * 44).
>
>>Uh, I could be wrong here, but I believe 10 billion to 1 is right.
>>How did you arrive at the 14 million to 1 figure???
>
>The 10-billion figure is the number of sequences of six numbers
>selected from a pool of 49.  But the sequence doesn't matter; if
>you picked 1-2-3-4-5-7 as your bet, and it came out 7-4-5-2-3-1,
>you'd still win.  So you have to divide by the number of
>permutations of six numbers, which is 6! (6 factorial) or 
>6 * 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 = 720.  10 billion / 720 is about 14 million,
>no?
>
Right, if order doesn't matter.  Thought it did in lotteries, but
then again, I don't play.

Thanks,  ..don...

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: someone@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Organization: Texaco
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:47:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.021504.13692@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
|> 
|> It also says that pi=3.

Where does it say that?  I haven't heard that one yet.

-- 
Larry D. Pyeatt                 The views expressed here are not
Internet : pyeatt@texaco.com    those of my employer or of anyone
Voice    : (713) 975-4056       that I know of with the possible
                                exception of myself.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: blindfolded trick
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:51:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.231544.15567@fwi.uva.nl>, delft@fwi.uva.nl (Andre van Delft) writes in part:
|> I am still puzzled. Can anyone explain me how Rostelli does the trick?
[referring, I think, to a couple of blindfold stunts]
|> 
|> Andre van Delft

These stunts are common magic tricks well known to magicians.
There are many, many, ways that magicians can see through blindfolds
(remember--they are cheating as much as they can).  Since I'm not 
a magician, and many of the techniques are "secret", I'm in no position 
to attempt to explain the particular effects described.

Walk into a magic store and ask them what they think.  I
think you'll enjoy the reply!

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Ethics
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:48:20 GMT

In a recent post, Carl suggested that the results of the Nazi's
"research" has not been made public because of the means used to
obtain it.  So the question is this: If information has be obtained
using an unethical means, is it ethical to use the information anyway?
I don't see a problem with using such information, as long as the
people who gathered the initial data are punished by society for their
unethical behavior.  In the aforementioned case of the Nazis, they
were all imprisoned or executed and will obviously not benefit from
their efforts, so why not use the information?

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | There never did, there never will, and
Field Robotics Center,          | there never can exist a parliment, or any
Carnegie Mellon University      | description of men, or any generation of
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | men, in any country, possessed of the right
(412) 268-3856                  | or the power of binding and controlling
                                | posterity to the `end of time,' or of
The opinions expressed are mine | commanding for ever how the world shall be
and do not reflect the official | governed, or who shall govern it...
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | -Every age and generation must be as free
or any other organization.      | to act for itself, in all cases, as the
                                | ages and generations which preceeded it.
                                | Thomas Paine
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Where has Galileo been all these years?
Organization: University of Central Florida
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:10:52 GMT

>>In Galileo's day, almost every government required a permit to
>>print a book, and the Papal States (central Italy, ruled directly by
>>the Pope as temporal sovereign) were no exception.  When Galileo
>>finished his book, A DIALOGUE CONCERNING THE TWO GREAT WORLD SYSTEMS
>>(meaning the earth-centered system of Ptolemy and the sun-centered
>>system of Copernicus) he applied directly to Pope Urban VIII, with
>>whom he was personally acquainted, for the necessary permit.  The
>>Pope granted the permission, on condition that the book give a
>>balanced presentation, and in particular that it contain his own
>>favorite argument against Copernicus, one that he had invented
>>himself and was particularly proud of.  Galileo agreed and got the
>>permit.  When the book came out, the Pope was chagrined to find that
>>his argument was indeed presented, but not as he had expected.  The
>>book was written in the form of a conversation among friends, and
>>the Pope's argument had been put into the mouth of a character
>>called Simplicio (=the idiot).  Moreover, the other speakers then
>>covered the argument with ridicule.

What was the Pope's argument against Copernicus?

Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
University of Central Florida
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:20014 alt.messianic:3483
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:07:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov21.060733.156
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov16.233223.19865@imagen.com> avi@seal.imagen.com writes:

>   My point is that "Yeshua" that was stoned is not neccesarily the one you 
>   refer to as Jesus.

So, how many of these Yeshuas who got stoned & hung up did so on the Eve
of Passover?  (Hint: Yeshua "ben Panthera" and "ben Stada" were both
hanged on a tree on the eve of Passover. WHAT a coincidence!)
>
>   Now - if this is the same man you call Jesus, I would think, that flying 
>   in the air is a pretty significant miracle, at least as equally impressive
>   and probably more than "healing the sick" or "walking on water" - so how come
>   the New Testament does not mention it even in one word ?

Interesting question. I don't know. But I *do* know that the "miracle of
levitation" is attributed to Jesus twice in the _Toldoth Jeschut_, a
book in the Rabbinical literature that beyond any doubt refers to the
founder of Christianity. (Of course, *they* say that he accomplished
it by the theft of the Ineffible Name from the Temple).

>
>   As far as I'm concerned, it is thus NOT CREDIBLE anymore as an Historical
>   document, because - how can you tell what was revised and what was not.

I agree. The best we can hope to do is to see "what was claimed when."
>
>1. If the passages about the crufixion were edited in - how can you be SURE that 
>   the anti-Jewish passages were not ?

No, it was not "edited in." Rather, the Gospels were composed AFTER the
cross-story was first invented (c. 50-60). What the gospels said when
they were first circulated among the churches is pretty much what they
say now.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: On topic? Right!
Date: 22 Nov 1992 00:23:58 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1453@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
writes:
>In article <1e0q8iINNl8q@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>|> Please note, I said "self-policing."  Perhaps you don't know what that term
>|> means.  It means that an organization with whom a person is affiliated makes
>|> that affiliation conditional upon behavior of the individual.  E.g., if a
>|> televangelist is affiliated with a particular church, and behaves in a way
>|> inconsistent with the policies of that church, it's incumbent upon that church
>|> (not the government, which is what the guarantee of religious freedom is all
>|> about) to sever the association with the individual.
>
>O.K., so now the televangelist simply goes out and starts his own church, and
>ordains himself.
>
>And do not think this is all that unusual - many of the televangelists, especially
>the most obnoxious of them, *already* have thier own church  (or just what do you
>think PTL or the Crystal Cathedral is?).

>Given the ease of doing this, there really is *no* *way* to do any
'self-policing'.

Please note:  I have NEVER advocated trying to stop the televangelists from
preaching.  I *HAVE* pointed out that it's the height of hypocrisy for churches
to continue to allow the televangelists to claim to represent the churches in
question, but then to disavow the televangelists.  Self-policing would simply
entail the churches severing their connections with televangelists who are
misrepresenting the churches in question.

Now, HAVE I FINALLY PUT THINGS CLEARLY ENOUGH THAT EVEN YOU CAN UNDERSTAND?  I
admit, I did use words of more than one syllable.  Perhaps if they give you
trouble, you can ask someone to translate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: Alan.Moorman@f31.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Alan Moorman)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com