home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!news.bbn.com!bbn.com!ncramer
- From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
- Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
- Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
- Date: 16 Nov 1992 13:24:36 GMT
- Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
- Lines: 26
- Message-ID: <lgf88kINN3cu@news.bbn.com>
- References: <28064@castle.ed.ac.uk> <BxsHEB.5AL@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> <Bxt7qC.ILq@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
- Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
- NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
-
- pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
- |>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.
- |>This renders "inerrancy" a nonsense. Any passage you might previously
- |>have argued was an error, you now argue is an idiom.
- |>
- |>You can be a Christian and believe *anything you want*.
-
- 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).
-
- On the other hand Bill has shown himself to be usually quite knowledgable
- about such things and I, for one, would be interested in hearing a little
- more about this.
-
- NICHAEL
- nichael@bbn.com -- Forward Quarter Guard and Captain, BBN Calvin Ball Team.
-
-