2 Chron and Ezra
Lee Markland markland@rockisland.com
Thu, 31 Dec 1998 02:56:39 -0800 (00915123399, 3.0.5.32.19981231025639.00a605e0@rockisland.com)
At 01:48 PM 12/31/98 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 98-12-31 04:28:54 EST, you write:
>
><< Subj: Re: 2 Chron and Ezra
> Date: 98-12-31 04:28:54 EST
> From: markland@rockisland.com (Lee Markland)
> Sender: owner-errancy@infidels.org
> To: errancy@infidels.org
>
> At 09:40 PM 12/30/98 EST, you wrote:
> >Lee Markland:
> >
> > Has anyone noticed that the inerrant hand of god that guided the
writers of
> > his tome, didn't do a good job of proofreading and wasn't able to keep the
> > story straight.
> > The last two verses of 2d Chronicles (22:23) are identical to the lst
Three
> > verses of the next book (Ezra 1:3)
> >======================
> >Joe Alward:
> >
> >I don't understand what is not being kept "straight", nor do I understand
>why
> >an example of repetition is evidence of error, if that's what is being
> >suggested.
>
>
> Simple it is further evidence that the Babble is not inerrant, for such a
> perfect inerrant work would not have such sloppy workmanship, or did YVHV
> stutter?
>
> It's obvious that those whose hand was "miraculously guided" by their YVHV,
> couldn't remember what they were doing, or did a lousy job of proofreading.
>
> Lee
>
>====================
>Joe Alward:
>
>You're new to the list, I think, so you probably don't know that I have
>errancy standards which are different from those of most of the errantists on
>this list. It's not enough that I be convinced that I've found evidence that
>the bible authors were sloppy, or in error. I've seen a mountain of such
>evidence. Over the past year, however, I've noticed that some errantists are
>just as zealous as inerrantists in promoting their belief. Errantists
>sometimes assert that a particular verse is an "obvious" error, as you have
>done above, and then invest an awful lot of emotional energy and weeks of
time
>in defending such belief, when, in fact, the evidence for the "error" was
>ambiguous, at best. Such "errors" should be ignored, in my view, in order to
>give the errantist time to spend on more the more obvious contradictions.
>
>The passages in 2 Chron and Ezra seem, as you suggest, seem to be redundant;
>but, to the inerrantist, that is a certain indication that God told the same
>story in the same words to two different authors. Thus, the alleged
>"sloppiness" is too easily harmonized by the inerrantist, so we should not
>spend time on it; there are more important things to discuss.
Point well taken, and well made. However why should one author be given the
end of the story and another the end as a beginning - seems to me that it
indicates a lapse.
But I'll let the issue go, for as you say "there are more important things
to discuss".
I will take umbrage with one statement of yours though, and that is as
regards "belief".
I am not an errantist, meaning adhering to an ideology in exclusion to all
others.
I find errancy interesting and additive to my quest for knowledge.
I have no belief to propagate, I'm a non believer, who suffers the whips
and abuses
of those who profess beliefs.
Refusing to believe, is not (I am sure you will agree) tantamount as some
Xtian's say, an acknowledgement of belief.
It is possible to exist in the world without beliefs. For instance to
arrive at opinions rather than acquire them. In doing so an opinion held is
conditional on the validity of the information from which that opinion is
derived.
One can change an opinion, much more easily than one can change a belief.
A change in belief does violence to ones identity, ego, and cosmology
(recall of reality).
Stripped of a belief, a person stands naked before the world and lacks an
external authority by which to propagate policies and actions that will
assuage their fears and fulfill their needs.
I too have fears and needs, but stand ready to discuss, argue, barter or
negotiate them on my own terms, without a recourse to an external
authority, biblical, economic, or ideological.
Lee