[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: inerrancy vs. infallibility (no otr)
So I dip my toes into a conversation between Peter and
J. Marie...
Peter says:
> Given the sheer number of manuscripts out there, I
> find the existence of
> the Bible less miraculous than the existence of, oh,
> the Annals of
> Tacitus. :)
and then concludes with:
> so, how? My point here is not to pick individual
> passages apart -- my
> point is simply to underscore the fact that the
> Bible is not inherently
> different from any other text when it comes to
> textual transmission.
I'm too many years removed from my undergrad Bible
courses, but isn't that "sheer number of manuscripts"
inherently different? I mean, in a relatively short
amount of time we see a proliferation of literature
about this messianic character from a roman backwater
province that's unparalleled, is it not?
Or do I need to go back to school?
Now, if this is the case I'm not trying to draw the
discussion back into that proliferation being
"miraculous." All I would try to do right now is
claim that it demonstrates remarkable perpetuation and
offers a much larger opportunity for induced changes /
errors (take your pick). But isn't that unique in
it's scale and timing?
Curiously,
Brian
=====
"What kind of man would live where there is no daring? I don't believe in taking foolish chances, but nothing can be accomplished without taking any chance at all."
~Charles A. Lindbergh, at a news conference after his trans-Atlantic flight
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: