Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Attempting Inerrancy's Salvation Message-ID: Date: 4 Jan 90 05:11:07 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 57 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Having followed the `inconsistency' thread, it seems clear that the battle lines are drawn along the Inerrantist/non-Inerrantist border. I've rarely heard it claimed that the Scriptures that have survived are inerrant, and usually claims to perfection are reserved to the original manuscripts. (I personally don't find inerrancy of the autographs to be worth any time whatsoever -- regardless of whether the idea is true, it does not help us any and seems quite useless.) But the `No Contradiction' group here seems to be insisting that the Bible as it is now is inerrant (else it wouldn't matter if there were some trouble spots). Disregarding the consistency problems of the Scriptures as we have them (which can be interpreted away, if the interpretations often involve astounding feats of mental gymnastics), the simple fact that there are lots of disagreeing manuscripts seems to doom inerrancy for the Scriptures-as- we-have-them. Most modern translations have numerous footnotes at the bottom which give alternate readings from the various manuscripts; so just *which* one of these is the Right One (tm)? And on the off chance that somebody chooses to exalt one of the extant English translations as perfect (a claim which _cannot_ have any support from Scripture because none of the English translations is mentioned in the Bible), we are still left with the things in Scripture that are just plain wrong. Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 both refer to the `hare' as a ruminant (ie, an animal that chews cud). Unfortunately, this is not true: the hare is not a ruminant. [ If your favorite translation says `rabbit' instead of `hare', this still applies. ] Now, it is true that the hare _looks_ sorta like it is chewing cud, but so what? Surely God can tell whether a hare is a ruminant or not -- why then does the Bible get it wrong? Note that I am not saying God was incapable of giving us flawless Scriptures; I am only pointing out that he apparently decided not to, for whatever reasons. Far be it from me to second-guess God's decisions on delivering us the Bible. (Note that, having read all the verses which are usually used to claim that Scripture says it is perfect, I find that interpretation often strained: I do not believe that the Bible claims to be perfect, and therefore I am not contradicting it.) Do any of the inerrantists wish to comment? (In the event you don't like my example, I can dig up more.) [ I suppose it is possible that somebody wants to claim that hares _were_ ruminants then, but aren't now. Well, it will fix inerrancy of the autographs but it will not do anything for the Scriptures as we have them now; if facts reported in the Scriptures can go out of date, then they can hardly be considered reliable. ] kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "In starting any thesis, it seems to me, one should put forward as one's point of departure something incontrovertible; the expression should be simple and dignified." -- Diogenes