Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Attempting Inerrancy's Salvation Message-ID: Date: 5 Feb 90 09:04:54 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 40 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I received both followups and mail in response to my last article, and in the main they overlapped. The unanimous opinion of my respondents was that Inerrancy was claimed only for the autographs, with which I have no quarrel (though I don't find a flawed copy of an inerrant document significantly different than an inerrant copy of a flawed document). What I do not understand is the great amount of effort and typing that went into followup articles in the "contradictions" thread. If we have flawed copies, then it should hardly be astonishing that difficulties crop up in places -- what is so important about them? Can any of the people who tried to explain away contradictions say _why_ they were doing so? Does any important doctrine rest on the passages in question? If not, why spend so much time on it? Additionally, all but one of my respondents mentioned that rabbits exhibit coprophragy, with varying opinions of this explanation. However, in the absence of any solid references, I find the supposed analogue to rumination strained at best. And the rabbits serve as a nice example for my actual point: who cares? Is any important doctrine going to be overturned if rabbits _don't_ chew the cud, and this is a (translation|copying) error? The only reason I can see to bother about this is because one believes the current copies are inerrant -- but virtutally everyone has distanced themselves from that position. Does anybody reading this believe that the current editions are inerrant? If not, can anyone who argued against the presence of contradictions explain why it matters? (I can understand if you actually don't think there are contradictions, but I'm not sure I understand the convoluted explanations which appeared -- it seemed to be an effort to avoid contradictions, which I do not understand.) kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." -- Indian proverb