David, you're lying

Helen Willis (hhiwater@mail.bright.net)
Sat, 03 May 1997 15:21:07 -0700

TILL
I'm going to try to be patient with you, Dave, but that's hard to do when by
reason of the time you have been on this list, you should have a better
understanding of the inerrancy doctrine than what you presently are
demonstrating. Errancy doesn't just involve contradiction.

(DAVE 5/2) Farrell: Patient with me? It is I who must be patient as you
continue to redefine the meanings of words - "error" means wrong Farrell.

Helen 5/3:
David, I have repeatedly posted the definition of error from my dictionary
for you. It includes flaws, mistakes, and imperfections. We, on this list
have, also, repeatedly pointed out that the claim of "inerrancy" for the
Bible is of fairly recent, North American origin and seems to have been more
for polemic value than for any thought out reason. Farrell has remained
constant in his definition of errant, it is you that keep changing yours.
Farrell has shown that the overwhelmingly logical interpetation of the
movements before and after Aaron's death would seem to preclude these two
places being the same place. Now, I suppose that using your kind of stubborn
deliberate blindness I would not be able to prove that I was not John Lennon
or even that John Lennon was dead, but only a fool or a fanatic would base
his life on the belief that I was the John Lennon, alive and kicking after
all these years. You apparently insist on being both.

David:
You have failed to show any error in these two accounts, yet now you decide
to angle off on the "unclear" theory - that is not error, Farrell, it just
means that something is unclear to you (a fact I have been aware of for some
time now). Please, I ask again, tell me which one of the two accounts is
wrong - that is all I ask - seems simple enough for someone who has already
stated that at least one is wrong - I'm just curious which one.

Helen:
David we don't have to show which on is wrong. They probably both are, since
there probably never was a guy named Moses with a brother named Aaron, at
least, not in anything close to the form described in the Bible. However,
quite clearly it is highly unlikely that both of these verses can be correct,
unless of course the writer and/or inspirer of these verses was something on
the order of an absolutely incompetent writer, who could not begin to have or
express a clear thought. This is not exactly a description of the God you
claim, or any rational person, would choose to believe in.

David:
By the way, you're right, I don't understand where you get your "errancy"
doctrine - I always thought that errancy meant there was error. Seems I
was mistaken, since you can't seem to show any error in these two accounts
we are discussing. Or can you?

Helen:
David, this is pathetic! There is either a major contradiction or it is some
of the worst, most ambigious writing ever penned or both. Ther is an obvious
error. And you be able to see it if it was in the Koran. Or the BOM. Or the
local hockey column.
Helen Willis
hhiwater@bright.net