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