From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:38:09 GMT

Peter White (pwhite@ems.cdc.com) wrote:
: I agree that things look deceptive when they don't follow the simplest
: story, but it is very clear to me that things are not always what they
: seem to be; things are not always simple. 

Yes, things do not always follow the simplest story.  It is just that
science and statistics, it has been demonstrated that it is best to use
the smallest, simplest model that ADEQUATELY describes that data.
However, I agree with you here this is not always applicable in
metaphysical/supernatural concepts where we can not observe everything.

But, this is a bit different.  Since the Bible claims to be a source of
supernatural truth, you can not really test anything that you add to it.
Therefore you must be VERY careful with adding things to a book that you
claim to be a source of truth...  as David Hollingsworth has replied to you.

> I would go even further and call into question anyone's intentions
> who participates in the practice of creating ad-hoc theories.  More so if  
> the discussion is about the potential (or lack of) unity and inerrancy of  
> a particular work.  It strikes me as extremely ironic that the person who  
> is tossing about possibilities as if brainstorming for a fourth-rate  
> murder mystery is trying to advocate looking at the Bible as the Word of  
> Truth.

: I don't know if you believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I do, but I don't
: think that that is necessarily the simplest way to interpret the events
: described in the Bible. However, I do think it is the truth.
: So, I don't think that "the simplest explanation rule" is one to always
: apply. 

I'm not really talking about the resurrection of Jesus here.  I am talking
about two accounts of the death of Judas Iscariot that are impossible to
reconcile.  The fact that two people wrote conflicting accounts on the
death of Judas has no relevance in determining the truth value of the
resurrection of Jesus! 

: In trying to determine if there are errors in the Bible, I ask is there
: a set of different assumptions one can make besides those made by the one
: who claims to see an error. If I can find a set which the text doesn't
: demand isn't true, then I don't necessarily have an error. 

I feel that it has been irrefutably demonstrated that the two accounts
of the Death of Judas conflict.  To "fix" them , you have to add so many
assumptions that you come up with something that is very different from
the original accounts.

Our difference in opinion seems to be what an "error" in the Bible
really means.  You seem to be saying that any small error in any of
the Bible proves the resurrection false.  This sounds like what the
(well intentioned) fanatics say in a church that I can no longer
attend.  They believed in ABSOLUTE BIBLICAL INERRENCY. 

I did for a while too -- until I noticed that they extended this
into areas totally inappropriate.  They had a pamphlet titled "God's
Science".  It made sense only if you knew nothing about Astronomy,
Physics, Chemistry, Geology, BASIC Logic and Biology.

I looked into their Creation "Science" hoping it could answer my
VERY basic questions in the pamphlet.  Instead I found that these
"researchers" knew very little about what Science is really is about.
In some cases they even pre-screened their data to support their
position!  This was even worse than the "evangelical athiests" that
say Science disproves God.  I was severely disapointed in these
"Christians" intentional deceptions.  I wonder how God will judge
them.  If you want exact references of this, check out talk.origins.

After it was irrefutably demonstrated that THEIR interpretation of
Genesis was deceitful, I tried to get to the center of the problem,
what does "Divine Inspiration" mean.  The "fanatical" Christians
believed that every word was directly written by God.  They also
believed that all translators are guided by God, so there will be
no errors introduced there either.

Even minor errors like the Judas contradictions (does it really
matter all that much how Judas died) show that this ABSOLUTE
DIVINE INSPIRATION is bogus.  At first, I was really disapointed
that there were more than a few of these minor errors.  But, maybe
it is better this way.  If every word was absolutely perfect, we
would never have to think and then our cranial capacity would be
totally wasted :-)

: I feel like we've exhausted these subjects without coming to an 
: agreement. I'd like to try some others, if you have any.

Agreed.  You have had enough of the Judas contradictions.  In the
next week I'll put something together on another of the "more than
a few" minor errors in the Bible.  None of these errors disprove
the resurrection.  All they show is that absolute Biblical inerrency
is idiotic heresy.

--
Dale Skiba