Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!orchid!clyde!rutgers!topaz!christian
From: christian@topaz.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The moderator's rule
Message-ID: <11062@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 15-Apr-87 04:07:30 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.11062
Posted: Wed Apr 15 04:07:30 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Apr-87 05:24:43 EST
Sender: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 30
Approved: christian@topaz.UUCP
In-Reply-To: <10734@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>

It seems like there are several issues here.

I'm going to deal with the whole motivational question separately, with
reference to the Dubuc-Huybensz debacle.

I have to agree with Steve Rice that we do not need to allow serial transits
of the biblical inaccuracies.  It's simply a question of tedium, of argument
by data overload.  [I would not allow repeated lists of this sort. --clh]

It seems to me that those who want to bring up these inaccuracies really
need to put up some sort of defense for them.  After all, we've already
established that various christians have quite different opinions as to how
critical these "inaccuracies" are.

The various "inaccuracies" vary greatly in their implications.  For example,
there is a passage in Samuel (not at my fingertips, unfortunately) where the
hebrew text literally says that Saul was one year old when he began to
reign.  This is so obviously defective that nobody is particularly upset
when the translators point this out(as my RSV does).  If we are going to
attack individual problem spots, we cannot bind them together without some
theories as to what the problems mean *as a whole*.  Simply bombarding the
group with problem spots does not constitute a theory.

If people want to discuss particular problems, then, we should permit it.
If they want to discuss what it means to scripture as a whole, then
arguments ought to be demanded.  We are pretty much all aware that there are
problem spots, after all, and we are already aware that we disagree as to
their significance.

C. Wingate