home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27 / NN_1992_27.iso / spool / sci / skeptic / 19701 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-17  |  1.1 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!hal.com!olivea!spool.mu.edu!agate!netsys!news!lsi!mhost!dcst16!gascan
  2. From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
  3. Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
  4. Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
  5. Message-ID: <1992Nov16.173844.1246@lsil.com>
  6. Date: 16 Nov 92 17:38:44 GMT
  7. References: <BxsHEB.5AL@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>
  8. Sender: news@lsil.com (news caster)
  9. Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
  10. Organization: LSI Logic Corporation
  11. Lines: 18
  12. Nntp-Posting-Host: dcst16
  13.  
  14. In article 5AL@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz, cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:
  15. > G T Clark (gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
  16. > > 
  17. > >     The bible is patently not inerrant.Read Leviticus,chapter 18(or
  18. > > thereabouts) where it fairly clearly states that insects walk "upon all
  19. > > fours... fourfootedly upon the ground".That's quite clearly a mistake,
  20. > > no matter what stage it crept in at.
  21. > 
  22. > This isn't a mistake, its an idiom.
  23. > 
  24.  
  25. How do you feel about people who refer to software bugs as "undocumented features?"
  26. Or various flavors of Penagonese re-labelings?
  27.  
  28. Why isn't this an example of the same kind of word game?
  29.  
  30. ---
  31. 1. Bill Gascoyne
  32.