Re: The Flood Hoax

From: george murphy (
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 15:30:30 EDT

  • Next message: Loren Haarsma: "Re: Critique of ID & No Free Lunch"

    Burgy -
             I have great respect for the KJV but consider the "KJV only" view,
    especially in the extreme form you sketch below, completely loony. But the
    point that I made in my earlier post was that a number of the
    "discrepancies" in
    the gospels that inerrantists think require "harmonizing" are found in all
    competent translations. To take the one I mentioned, & quoting from KJV:
             Mt.20:29-30: And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude
    followed him. And behold two blind men, sitting by the way side ...
             Mk.10:46: And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of
    Jericho with
    his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of
    Timaeus, say by the highway side begging."
             Lk.18:35: And it came to pass that as he came nigh unto Jericho, a
    certain blind man sat by the way side begging:

             Historical "harmonization" is child's play: Jesus restored
    the sight of
    one blind man as he entered Jericho and two as he left, only one of whom is
    mentioned by Mark. How plausible - or necessary - such a device is can be
    debated, but the problem has nothing to do with the distinctive qualities of



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    John Burgeson wrote:

    > On Jul 29 you commented:
    > >>& you can also argue that there were originally two blind men
    > >instead of one in Mk.10:46-52 so that it agrees with Mt.20:29-34. Anything
    > >can be harmonized with anything in this way, at the cost of rewriting the
    > >Bible. ...[I] don't see how one can do this from a "KJV only" stance since
    > >the problems are there in the KJV text.>>
    > George -- sorry -- this one got "lost" for awhile.
    > I finally was able to get a copy of Peter Ruckman's book THE "ERRORS" IN THE
    > KING JAMES BIBLE. In this book Peter claims to have solved every one of
    > these problems, showing that the 1611 text passes the test of complete
    > inerrancy and hence is divinely inspired. Inspired even over the very greek
    > texts from which it was translated.
    > I have a very good friend of 40+ years, one who came to Christ partially, at
    > least, through my testimonies to him when he was director of the University
    > of Akron's Data Processing Center and I was his IBM technical rep. Bob (who
    > lives near you in Cuyahoga Falls) embraced a very fundamentalist position,
    > and he and I have carried on a mail correspondence for years on biblical
    > inerrancy. He subscribes to Ruckman's position(s) pretty much down the line.
    > I have been dipping into Ruckman's book from time to time -- I THINK I can
    > find in it an answer to almost any KJV problem anyone can come up with. So
    > if you or anyone else is interested, toss me (on the ASA list) a purported
    > KJV problem and I'll see how Ruckman answers it. For this purpose, I'll
    > assume the role of an academic, defending the KJV inerrancy to the best of
    > my ability. I do not, of course, hold that position myself.
    > Note that this exercise is confined to the KJV. Problems in other
    > translations can always be "solved" by appealing to the original
    > manuscripts. Since those are not available, such a solution seems to me to
    > be without any usefulness.
    > Persons on this list (I think there are two) who subscribe to Ruckman's
    > approach can monitor me for fairness and correct me as appropriate.
    > BTW, a Google search on "Peter Ruckman" turns up some fascinating sites. He
    > is not quite a "David Koresh" or "Jim Jones" but he does have some of the
    > same apparent personality characteristics. For sure, he is not shy at
    > expressing his positions.
    > Burgy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 14 2002 - 08:57:50 EDT