From: mtx014@cck.cov.ac.uk (Robert Low)
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith (Was: Re: I've forged a cancel of a sendsys)
Reply-To: mtx014@cck.cov.ac.uk
Organization: Plato's rest home for the incurably geometric
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:05:12 GMT

In <1992Apr8.201422.1176@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>In article <srqjlpn.rohwerwd@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>>     As you should know by now, the Bible contains many contradictions
>>and errors and as a consequence does not stand up to logic.  A couple
>Please expound... I see no logical failure in either of these or in anything
>else in the Bible.  The only failure in logic I see is that it does not

This rather depends on what one means by "I see no logical contradictions
in the Bible". (See for example the recent thread on two of the
three accounts of Pauls experience on the road to Damascus.)

Position 1. The Bible is TRUE(tm) and HARMONIOUS(tm) in the original
autographs. All errors or contradictions you may see are the result
of transmission error or mistranslation.

Logically irrefutable, but not much use---how can you tell which
bits *haven't* been corrupted?

Position 2. The Bible is TRUE(tm) and HARMONIOUS(tm) in some form
of the Greek and Hebrew texts as we have them. Anything that looks
like a contradiction or an error is because either (a) everything
we know about physics, chemistry and history is wrong, (b) we're translating
the languages all wrong, or (c) bits of (a) and (b) as required.

Also logically irrefutable, but also not much use. Reinterpreting
language to make it all T&H in the face of eveything known about
said languages and history leaves us also unable to trust any of 
the passages that have not perforce been radically changed; when
will more information come to light demanding radical 
re-interpretation of the resurrection experiences, or the crucifixion?

Position 3. Some currently available translation (KJV, NIV perhaps)
is T&H; anything that looks like an error or a contradiction is
due to our limited understanding.

Logically irrefutable, but also not much use. How do you know
that your understanding of non-contentious passages is any better
than your understanding of contentious passages?

The other positions I know about are combinations of these three.
There may be other positions I am unfamiliar with. However,
as it stands, what we know about the languages in which the
manuscripts were written and the history of (at least some of)
the periods involved says that the Bible does indeed contain historical
errors and logical contradictions. (The information about the
census of Quirinius as given in Luke, and the conversion narratives
in Acts, to name one of each.)

Note that this is not a position held only by non-Christians
and "Anti-supernaturalists"; a great many devout Christians, from
lay-people up to leaders of denominations accept it, as do
plenty ancient historians and specialists in the languages
involved. (Professional historians are *much* more skeptical
about primary sources than is commonly realised, contrary to the 
usual conservative claims about how the Bible is singled out
for particularly harsh treatment.)

>adhere to anti-supernaturalism, which is not a valid basis for any argument
>(rather an often abused presupposition).

There is also the calumny that the mainstream scholarship on
the textual history of the Bible is a result of denying the supernatural
and not accepting God's ability to do whatever God wants. (Somebody
who only reads conservative works such as Geisler and Nix's Intro to
the Bible, or Harrison's Intro to the OT is very likely to pick
up this impression.) The best way to disabuse yourself of this notion
is to read the mainstream work, and see whether it is the work
of atheists and anti-Christians. There is no assumption that God
could not carry out miracles, inspire prophecy as the conservatives 
understand it, and so on; simply an investigation into whether that
is the most reasonable explanation of the evidence.

--
Robert Low  email(JANET): RobLow@uk.ac.coventry.cck
	    smail : Mathematics Department, Coventry Polytechnic,
		    Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, England.
Keep an open mind---but not so open your brain falls out.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc