finally, an admission of fallibility. so if the bible is wrong here and there, does it mean yahweh was wrong here and there? like on alternate days or something? does that mean yahweh, is, gulp, not infallible? and that the bible is not *literally* correct?
does the possibility arise that the whole thing is wrong, then?
is being a little incorrect like being a little pregnant?
and why is this not mentioned at all in indian papers? that was a rhetorical question. we know why it is not.
does that mean then that yahweh is not quite the big boss? there have been claims that he is actually a second-class demi-god originally called ialdabaoth who forcibly claimed big-boss-hood. which is why he is a jealous god. but his mother tells him off (see below).
from the gnostic gospels unearthed at nag hammadi (the dead sea scrolls):
Ialdabaoth, becoming arrogant in spirit, boasted himself over all
those who were below him, and explained, "I am father, and God, and
above me there is no one." His mother, hearing him speak thus, cried
out against him, "Do not lie, Ialdabaoth ; for the father of all, the
primal anthropos, is above you."
sounds a bit like the purusha, the primal anthropos, doesn't it? the gnostics borrowed heavily from hindu and buddhist sources. and the christist gospels borrowed heavily from gnostic sources.