John Burgeson wrote:
> >>Sure _ & 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 think I implied I thought that was a good answer to the statement
> you made. It is surely "ad hoc." None the less my KJV only friends see
> explanations such as this as a "defense" of scriptural inerrancy. You should
> see how they reconcile the numeric discrepancies I cited a few weeks ago.
Burgy -
I didn't think that you were advocating this type of interpretation. (The
"you" in my 1st paragraph was meant generally. I guess it would be less liable
to confusion to use the more formal "one can ....")
Don't see how one can do this from a "KJV only" stance since the problems
are there in the KJV text.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 12:03:33 EDT