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