Re: Jerry's False Analogy

Farrell Till (jftill@midwest.net)
Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:48:32 -0600 (CST)

>McDonald 4/1
>My point, Farrell, was to show that we use textual criticism to judge
>other works of antiquity, but when it comes to the Bible;
>"Well....we have to have the original autographs for it", but not for
>others to know that those other books are correct representations of
>the original autographs. I agree the Bible is unique (as you also
>will agree, or at least you did several years ago), but the way we
>see if what we have today is an accurate representation of the
>original is the same way we test the works of writers such as Plato
>(who lived before the printing press). If it is good enough for
>those works, why isn't it good enough for the Bible. Once again,
>thanks for the earlier statement. You know that I wouldn't harm any
>of you for anything. I am not a violent type person.

TILL
Why isn't it [textual criticism] good enough for the Bible? I think I
answered that in my original response. We use textual criticism to
determine what is probably an accurate representation of what Plato said in
*The Republic,* but, as I said, if incorrect conclusions are reached, this
is inconsequential. There are no worldwide institutions that are based on
this doctrine. There are no organized groups working to impose the
teachings of this book on societies. So the only consequence of
incorrection conclusions in the evaluation of such works as this would be
the conclusions themselves.

On the other hand, you argue that the Bible was inerrant only in the
original autographs, so you espouse a very fundamental belief that can never
be verified. If you should be wrong in this unfalsifiable position, the
consequences would go far beyond the fact that you have reached an incorrect
conclusion.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net