From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:10:08 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Nov19.013809.21993@medtron.medtronic.com>, ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
(Peter White) writes:
|> : 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. 
Thank you for letting me in on the group you are perhaps trying to
lump me in with. It helps with understanding. My faith is not going
to crumble if I have to say that there are some small errors in the 
Bible. I would still have at least inspiration and depending on
one's definition, infallability. But, at the same time, I don't want
to throw out inerrancy if I don't need to.
|> 
|> 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.
Have you ever read the Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross? He is a scientist
and does a very excellent job of showing how the big bang theory of
creation can be seen to fit with the Biblical account. He doesn't
ask you to murder your intellect. In fact you have to have a better
intellect than mine to understand all the formulas he uses. The formulas
are from people like Einstein. 
I haven't met any of the sort of Christians you describe above. It would
disappoint me too if someone maintained something that wasn't true or
worse was intentionally deceptive in the attempt to prove a point.
|> 
|> 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.
Please be kind enough to remember, that so far, you've shown it to
yourself, but not necessarily to everyone else. Also, to try to show
where my thinking is, I'm not over here jumping up and down about this
and thinking you are stupid or idiotic because of your position. Your
position, (as much as I know so far), seems quite reasonable to me. As
yet, it doesn't seem more reasonable to me than mine. 
Perhaps some of your other errors will convince me of the general
concept although at this point I'm not ready to include the Judas
accounts in the category of minor errors. 
|> --
|> Dale Skiba

-- 
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