From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 12:39:56 EST
Peter wrote: "A more natural explanation just occurred to me. In the bible,
intervals of times in days routinely include the starting day and the ending
day, such as Jesus' resurrection after "three days". So we could expect
intervals of generations to include the starting and ending names to be
counted. ... In this way, David... is counted twice, accounting for the 41
rather than 42 names... ."
The "David is counted twice" explanation is another of the many ad hocs put
forth by people more intent in "defending their view of scripture" than
using their heads. Sorry to be blunt -- that's how I see it. This ad hoc has
the writer of Matthew doing the starting day -- ending day" form of counting
once out of three instances; if he had done it thrice I suppose the argument
might have some strength.
Here at Iliff we have a 300,000 book library on religion. I've looked fairly
hard for someone with a reasonable explanation of this error -- I've not
looked in every book though. So far -- one ad hoc after another -- the
"best" being something like Harold Lindsell's arguments for biblical
inerrancy which concludes that Peter must have denied the Lord six, not just
three, times.
Make no mistake -- if the Bible really IS inerrant, then some ad hoc must,
in the last analysis, be true. But at that point one might as well just
assume that he is really a "brain in a vat" and that all the material world
impressions coming in through his five senses are simply electronic
stimulations performed by a successful midieval alchemist. It could be, you
know. Like Gosse's OMPHALOS thesis, that claim is quite protected from ever
being disproven.
Best
www.burgy.50megs.com
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 12:40:13 EST