From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:tektronix!zehntel!sytek!menlo70!hao!csu-cs!bentson
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: Re Biblical contradictions
Article-I.D.: csu-cs.2081
Posted: Fri Mar 11 07:52:18 1983
Received: Mon Mar 14 03:45:06 1983


I claim that if I wish to find contradictions in the Bible I should be
able to pick the version of my choice for such examination. Those that
wish to reply MUST respond using the version of my choice. If they fail
to do so, then they are either failing to respond directly to the
challange or, more importantly, admitting that SOME versions are
invalid. For that matter I should also have the option of pointing out
contradicitons between versions of the Bible.

All this is in response to those who have defended the absolute
accuracy of the Bible by naming the version that they use and naming
the Bible study books that explain what was really meant. The problem,
as I see it, is that Bible lacks precision with accuracy (accuracy with
precision?). In any event, the multitude of versions (even when we
restrict ourselves to one language and one short historical period)
should indicate that the contents of the Bible aren't very precisely
bounded. I don't see how anyone can claim that the Bible is literally
true since THAT CLAIM ITSELF implies that the meaning of all words are
clear and unambiguous. That there are books explaining what the Bible
really means in some phrase or other shows that the words are unclear.

Once we admit that some words and phrases don't convey the same meaning
to all, we're back on the slippery slope trying to determine what the
Bible DOES say. Fundamentalists know how to avoid a slippery slope:
THEY DON'T TAKE THE FIRST STEP.

Randy Bentson
Colo State U - Comp Sci
ucbvax!hplabs!csu-cs!bentson