Re: Glenn wrote: a clarification

Glenn R. Morton (
Thu, 04 Jun 1998 05:12:40 -0500

At 09:09 PM 6/3/98 PDT, jason huff wrote:
>you know, when i argue with people about christianity and the bible,
>there are two arguements that i use, even though they never seem to get
>It's been a long time since this has been written and it was written by
>humans, maybe the text is corrupted. humans allow for human error. or
>maybe they didn't know and made a lot of assumptions and repeated
>"popular knowledge"
>so, why is it that no one will even consider these arguments, even
>though i see someone on this list has mentioned them.
>>2. The text is corrupted
>>3. Luke just repeated "popular knowledge"

It is a viable option but if it is true, then IMO one must then ask the
question, how corrupted is the Bible and which events can and can't be
believed. That is a game that can only be played by subjectivism. We have
no records of what is and isn't corrupted. In that case, there wouldn't
seem to be much need to believe anything in the Scripture.

But there is one item against the 'corruption' view. That is that there
are many, many early fragments of the Bible from archeological sites and
they serve as a check against corruption. If you look in many translations
you will see notes that say 'this verse is not in the original mss'. Thus
we can know much of the corruption that exists. By the way as an aside,
Luke 3:36 is in the earliest fragments of the bible.


Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information