If it got most facts right, it is more credible that if it got most facts wrong. If it gets the occasional fact right, it is a crap shoot. If it gets 99% of the facts right, I would think it is more credible than if it got the occasional fact right.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I tend to think of it like in a court situation. If the witness is called up and can't remember this or that or changes his story, his credibility is shot. OTOH, if he sticks to the story and it is backed up by facts, it makes his testimony certainly worth another look.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I understand that, in fact fundamentalists make exactly that argument. There is a fundamentalist apologetics book called 'God in the Dock' which follows that line of reasoning. I disagree because no amount of credibility concerning observable and verifiable events gives credibility about the invisible world.
Take the very best historian you can imagine who gives a totally credible account of a battle during the US Civil War, then then concludes by saying that God has spoken to him and told him that he was on the side of the South in the battle. Does his historical veracity add any credibility at all to his theological claim about what God was going. I say absolutely not.

This is the kind of situation that Sharlet is describing in his book. This group of fundamentalists think that God is on the side of capitalists and not on the side of labor. Epistemologically it is nonsense. Sociologically it is very important and has significant consequences.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

If they ever decide to have regular meetings for their religion of atheism
they'll probably sound like this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4Gj7JsET4&feature=related

uh, you're the one that brought up the roman church and its "latin only" edict. ok? not me. so that's what i was referring to to. not being a biblical scholar, i had no idea what the "original" -and i use that term loosely - writings were written in - and considering the chain of possession, who really knows? again, i was referring to your thoughts on the roman church. (actually, originally, weren't the locals speaking aramaic? as in the mel gibson movie? or was that not a written language? )

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Chain of possession is not that big a deal in NT studies. There are lots of individual instances of variant readings between different parts of the text in older versions of the NT documents. You can find these instances with a good annotated Bible. Whatever problems exist in the credibility of the NT documents, they aren't focused on the issue that the English text we read today is substantially different from the ancient Greek texts used in the first few centuries. So the 'telephone' game problem doesn't apply to the text.

The relationship between the written text and the original Christian movement is quite another thing. A fairly substantial component of early pre-NT Christianity was that Christ was going to return in the very near future so writing things down for posterity was not a concern. Paul's letters are the oldest part of the NT and he isn't concerned with documenting the historical record of Jesus for posterity but mostly in solving problems in churches he founded. The gospels come later.

In my view, the problem is not with the NT per se, it's with the fundamentalist view that it is a magical book that is inerrant. It has all the features of any other humanly constructed book and shows all the differences of opinion and theology that one would expect to find when compiling various things written by different authors with different theological viewpoints into one book. I think one can learn a lot about what late 1st century Christian writers thought about the world from the NT and where they agreed and disagreed. Treating the text that way is virtually impossible if a person holds the magical view of the book because the magic says the different messages can be harmonized whereas in reality just like in our world, there were substantial irreconcilable differences of opinion between NT authors.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Kerry is correct concerning the actual NT text. I have studied the variations,( it has been decades, but I did do it) and to say that for the most part the variants are insignificant is to understate the issue. One could say that NONE of the variants has any bearing on any theological issue.

As for the ability to harmonize various writings, opinions vary.
Many would agree with Kerry's characterization.
Some obviously do not.
It is not only the fundamentalists who subscribe to a view of inerrancy. There are branches of Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans and others who would hold to "inerrancy in the original autographs". Most of these people would not describe themselves as "fundamentalists".

There seems to be a feeling running through here that anyone who is a believer must be an ignorant boob. Let me assure you that there are people of great intellect who are believers. Honest, intelligent people can have honest intelligent differences.
Some of you seem to think that all who came before you were stupid, and you, almost alone, are blessed with the ability to see and discern the truth. I pity you that.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Please avoid using the word "blessed" if you are referring to me, I'm not superstitious.

There is a difference between "stupid" and ignorant, and many very intelligent people have been wrong in the past. People can believe whatever makes them feel better; the capacity to be rational about things that make them uncomfortable has nothing to do with their intelligence. Personally I think these beliefs are a little silly, but that does not make the people that hold them stupid. Some very intelligent five year olds believe in santa because they were told that he existed by people that they trusted, eventually they understand that it was just a metaphor for more abstract concepts. Societies take a little longer to mature.

I'd say that's a rather bizzarre statement considering the bible is supposed to be the revealed word of god. Frankly that sounds a bit like changing the rules after the games been lost.

They might not so self describe but can the label be applied to them despite their own thoughts on the subject? How can you claim to order your life around "inerrancy" and not be fundamentalist by definition?

Thay may be, but they deserve no respect for their beliefs. The best they can expect is to be left alone to believe whatever they wish as long as no innocent third party is adveresely affected by their beliefs. That of course assumes they don't attempt to proslyetize.

I'll bluntly state that much of religion is stupid, and that applies to ALL religion, not just stuff that originated in the middle east. Don't bother pitying me. I'm perfectly happy to accept what science reveales to me and well aware that this means there's a huge amount of stuff I don't know. However I don't feel any need to pretend I do know what I don't actually know, if you take my meaning.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

What do you think of the ancient Chinese who banged metal things together to frighten off the dragon who was eating the moon during an eclipse? Worked everytime.

Doesn't make them right, does it?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

One could also say that the witness against you in court is a drunken druggie who has been judged mentally unstable is very reliable and his word should be believed. Would you be ok with that?

Of course it does have bearing. The more mistakes you make in your testimony, the less consideration we should give to the evidence you give.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

"Blessed" has no reference to superstition.

It does derive from "happy".

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

From my dictionary:

adjective
1 made holy; consecrated.
• a title preceding the name of a dead person considered to have led a holy life, esp. a person formally beatified by the Roman Catholic Church : the Convent of the Blessed Agnes.
• used respectfully in reference to a dead person : a gracious lady of blessed memory.
• endowed with divine favor and protection : blessed are the meek.
• bringing pleasure or relief as a welcome contrast to what one has previously experienced : he half stumbled out of the room up to his bed and blessed, blessed sleep.
• ( blessed with) endowed with (a particular quality or attribute) : a beautiful city, steeped in history and blessed with huge sandy beaches.
2 informal used in mild expressions of annoyance or exasperation : there wasn't a blessed thing anybody could have done

That's about as superstitions as it gets.

Not at all. You ignorance of the subject is showing. That's OK, its not a subject I would expect you to fully understand.

The variants came from scribal errors. Many times the texts were copied by a roomful of scribes copying as one read the text. If someone mis-heard what was said, and copied the wrong form of a word, it does not change that the originals were without error. I know of no one who holds to inerrance in all the copies. The copies are close; very close, and by studying the various readings, it is possible for scholars to determine which woird was in the original. The scribes did their job with great care.
I will repeat that none of the variants ( as opposed to errors) has any impact on our English translations.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I would disagree with your dictionary.

The basic meaning for "holy" is "set apart". In the context it means set apart for God's service, but in your case you could consider yourself "set apart" for whatever purpose you design.

It was not meant to offend.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags