Re: The Flood Hoax

From: John Burgeson (hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Sep 15 2002 - 19:35:01 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "RE: The Flood Hoax"

    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
    usefulness.

    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.

    Burgy

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    _________________________________________________________________
    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