From: John Burgeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Sep 15 2002 - 19:35:01 EDT
I wrote: ">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.
Jim replied: "If the original manuscripts/tablets are inerrant, the Bible is
more reliable. ... ."
Yes, and if horses could fly ... .
My point is that (1) we don't know what the originals said
and (2) to therefore claim inerrancy for them is an empty claim, having no
My KJV-only friend claims inerrancy for a particular text -- the 1611 KJV.
At least this is a claim which can be investigated. It may be untrue (I
think it is) but it is not an empty claim.
I would not be one to ascribe 99% accuracy to what we have today. I have no
professional basis to come up with any particular percentage, and I am not
sure that if I did hold a 99% figure just what that would mean.
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 23:00:10 EDT