Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Attempting Inerrancy's Salvation Message-ID: Date: 7 Feb 90 08:32:44 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. Lines: 84 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) writes: > 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? I was not one of the ones who participated in the "contradictions thread" although time permitting, I would have liked to. Being one who identifies with the inerrantist's position, I feel I might be able to answer some of these questions. I believe that the "errors" in the copies we have today have to do with minor things such as an inverted word order. Although, such a thing can significantly change the meaning of a passage, when carefully compared with other non-controversial passages, and other copies of the text, we can usually conclude the correct word order. The "contradictions" which you brought up, probably crossed the minor error line and fell into the "major" flub up category. There is a big difference in some peoples minds between an inverted word order (attributed to a tired scribe's mistake) versus an entire story being "incorrect" (e.g. the alleged discrepancy concerning Judas' death). One apologetic put it this way: [Begin quote] "A.T. Robertson, the great Greek scholar, said: 'There are some 8000 manuscripts of the Latin and at least 1000 of the other early versions. Add over 4000 Greek manuscripts and we have 13,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament portions.' And all of them essentially agree...Textual scholars have found some human errata because a scribe copied a letter wrong, or inverted a word order. But this is the case in less than one word in a thousand. In fact, in the Old Testament, only one out of every 1580 words vary with another manuscript. Henry M. Morris said, "Although there are varying readings in the manuscripts, over 99% are nothing more than variations in spelling." [End quote] We can see that these admitted errors are of a different nature than those which allegedly display human ignorance concerning the account of someone's death. If all Scripture is truly God breathed, then the inerrantist can put up with minor copying mistakes, but not "bogus stories" which have their genesis in human ignorance. Such stories would no longer have their origin in "men moved by the Holy Spirit". (By the way, thank you for all that responded concerning the Chicago Confernce on Biblical Inerrancy. I have sent away for a copy of the entire paper which was the end product of this conference. I may share relevant portions of the paper if this subject is still lingering around by the time it arrives in the mail.) -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@BGSUOPIE University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403 [If you're interested in this sort of thing, you might find it useful to look through a few pages of a critical edition of the Greek NT. The vast majority of differences are in fact slight changes in word order, different pronouns, etc. It's pretty unusual to find textual issues that have any serious implications. However the Robinson question perhaps overstates things. 13,000 manuscripts are sort of irrelevant, since many of those are late manuscripts that have no real independent value. (In fact last time I heard there were now so many manuscripts that only computer scanning gave any hope of allowing even a cursory examination of all of them.) However I think Darren's point was one of principle. If you think it's good enough to have manuscripts that are substantially OK, but don't demand to know the precise Greek wording, complete with word order, why not accept a similar compromise on the level of higher criticism? How about someone who says that the Bible isn't inerrant in principle, but any errors or contradictions are on issues of no significance? --clh]