Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is God ... (correction)
Message-ID: <626@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 12:24:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.626
Posted: Tue Jul  2 12:24:26 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 18:54:57 EDT
References: <184@gymble.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 15

Tom Bennet rightly criticizes my use of Mark 7 to defend liberalism.   If
all you are interested in is simple contradiction, however, I would simply
note that (for instance) the lists of Jesus' ancestors given in the Gospels
do not agree.

My point about the Mark passage is that the whole notion of inerrancy is
suspect if Jesus himself is willing to revise scripture.  I should also
point out that the liberal position is that one cannot assume that a passage
contains no errors, or that (for instance) a passage should be taken as
historical.  The inerrancy position seems always to be saying that if there
is ANY error, that the whole thing is junk.  I don't think this is true, but
I'd rather not triple the length of this article by trying to defend that
belief.

Charley WIngate   umcp-cs!mangoe