From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:43:37 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Nov16.142915.20767@medtron.medtronic.com>, ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
|> Peter White (pwhite@ems.cdc.com) wrote:
|> : In article <1992Nov11.012018.3204@medtron.medtronic.com>, ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
|> : |> Peter White (pwhite@ems.cdc.com) wrote:
|> : |> 
|> : |> Wait a minute, you have not answered ALL of the questions.  You seem
|> : |> to have difficulties finding all the contradicions, so I will list
|> : |> the contradictory answers I see impossible to SIMULTANEOUSLY resolve.
|> : |> 
|> : |> Q1:  Mathew 26:14-15, 27:3-8 clearly says Judas returned ALL
|> : |>      the money to the priests.
|> : I understand how one can get that, but I think it takes some inference
|> : as opposed to being clearly stated. It seems to clear to say that Judas
|> : showed up with all the money. However, the priests did not want to take 
|> : it back. The verse which describes the throwing of the money does not
|> : say that he threw it all, that has to be inferred.
|> 
|> Hmmm,  your reasoning seems very strange to me.  If it is written that
|> he arrived with all the money, and then it is written that he threw the
|> money, it does not take much inference to say that he threw all the money.
|> I think it takes MORE inference to say that he did not throw all of it.
|> 
|> For example, if I was taking an English Literature class, and I wrote
|> "He arrived with all the money" and then wrote "he threw all the money",
|> my instructor may ask why I am being redundant.
|> 
|> But, that is just my opinion.  I think things look deceptive if you have
|> to assume things that do not follow the simplest story.  For your story
|> to work, Judas would have kept some of the money, and bought a plot and
|> died there.  But then there would be two fields of blood, the one that
|> Judas bought and the one that the priests bought.  This looks alot like
|> "smoke and mirrors" to me.
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. 

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. 

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 like we've exhausted these subjects without coming to an 
agreement. I'd like to try some others, if you have any.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc