Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mcnc.mcnc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!bch From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Scriptural Authority. (Previously: ... Literalism) Message-ID: <731@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 20:35:54 EDT Article-I.D.: mcnc.731 Posted: Mon Aug 19 20:35:54 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 19:39:16 EDT References: <2194@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1050@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2222@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <498@utastro.UUCP> <275@ihlpl.UUCP> <2256@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service Lines: 34 Summary: In article <2256@sdcrdcf.UUCP> glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Glenn C. Scott) writes: > > You have much more than just a book that asserts it was not written by men. >You have a book that is unique in its continuity, consistency, circulation, >translation, survival, teaching and its influence on surrounding literature >and culture. Most of these things are not done well by men (persons). > > It was written over a time span of about 1,500 years and by all sorts of >authors. These authors rarely collaborated and often they were separated by >time and distance -- yet the contents are consistent. There is more >manuscript evidence for the Bible than for any other documents of antiquity. >The Bible has had more effect on literature, culture and individual lives >than any other written document. (Running close behind are the UNIX >Programmers Manuals) All of this must mean something. I suspect that it's >more than any of us can really fathom. Imprecise. While parts of the Bible were written over a 1,500 year span (there is some evidence that this was actually a 700-800 year span) these parts were *brought* together along with lots and lots of other parts that were *not* included in the result. In other words they were selected on the basis of consistancy, not consistant before selection. There's no need to trot out Josh MacDowell, either. We *know* that the books of the bible existed, the question is in what form and in what relationship to one another. There are differences between the various manuscripts of the same text, among which are the critical passages in Mark dealing with the resurrection -- omitted in some versions, present in others. Frequency of copy does not attest to validity, only to reliability. We can assume with some reliability that my copy of the Bible says roughly the same as yours. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch