PEANUT GALLERY: Vinnie vs. RobertLW on Biblical inerrancy

[Cross Examiner]

Because whether a harmonization is eventually judged to be reasonable or not, the recognition that one is called for in the first instance is a recognition of having the burden of proof.
OK. I think I understand you here and that I agree with you. What I don't know is what this means with regards to anything else we've been discussing. Maybe you or another can connect the dots from here.

Regards,
BGic

[Vorkosigan]

Vorkosigan,
I can't make any sense out of your last post. Not a bit of it seems to me to be relevant to whether or not 1 Sam. and 2 Sam. contradict one another or are in contradiction with historical facts.

Regards,
BGic

Two accounts of Saul's death, each differ, not enough information inside or outside the text to choose between them. Of course there is a contradiction. As I said, they do not have to be in contradiction with "known facts" to be in contradiction with each other. There are no known facts (there is no independent account of Saul's death) so that is not relevant.

Note that the historian might well see a contradiction even if the text informed us that one account was wrong; for example, if it said "and there is a well-known lie told that Saul was killed by an Amalekite." The historian would probably argue that the narrator's account was tendentious, and that the text preserved two differing accounts of Saul's death, just as in the NT, Luke is often seen as preserving two accounts of Jesus' death, one at Pilate's hand, and one at Herod's (found also in the Gospel of Peter). That is why your point about the text's own claims of verity is wrong. it is not only illogical, but questionable historical method.

I'm off to Sri Lanka now. The taxi just beeped. So I won't be able to continue this argument. I'll leave it in the able hands of Clutch and Bit.

Vorkosigan

[Cross Examiner]

At what point in time, BGic does an "apparent" inconsistency become an "actual" inconsistency or vice versa?
At that point where A and/or B is true:
(A) If a biblical author asserts the verity of P and the same author or another biblical author asserts the verity of ~P then the Bible is errant. And/or (B) if a biblical author asserts the verity of P and P is false then the Bible is errant.
But go ahead and take a swing at it. I must be speaking Greek; all this really seemed obvious to me.

Regards,
BGic

[blt to go]

No, no, BGic. YOU are speaking English. I am hearing Greek.

The real question is whether you have now abandoned Neutrality for this standard for inerrancy. on that I am still hearing greek.

[Cross Examiner]

BGic - do I assume you have now abandoned your statement of
I am not here to argue for inerrancy and that I believe, frankly, that neither errancy nor inerrancy can be proven.
?
No. Why would I?
You have stated this argument twice, so I am on the assumption that the pages and pages of discussion on the position of "neutrality" are over. If so, I will gladly take a crack at it.
Actually, I would discuss neutrality further if I thought it possible to come to a mutual understanding on the issue. But be my guest in trying to show that the conjunction of 1 Sam. and 2 Sam. meet the aforementioned criterion for internal and/or external error.

Regards,
BGic

[GakuseiDon]

GakuseiDon - You may very well be right about the necessity of transferring the crown from Saul to David being the reasoning behind 2 Sam. I will defer to you on that.
No, it is sheer speculation on my part, which I'm not trying to present as evidence. But I do believe that we need to try to determine what the author is trying to convey before deciding on whether two passages contradict or harmonise.

Anyway, as I don't think it is provable either way, and I'm not an inerrantist anyway, I'll bow out now. Thanks, blt.

[Cross Examiner]

Two accounts of Saul's death, each differ, not enough information inside or outside the text to choose between them. Of course there is a contradiction.
I've never had any problem with this. A biblical author says P and a biblical author says that an Amalekite says ~P. How does this mean that the Bible contradicts itself here? Does this mean that the Bible contradicts historical fact? If not then how do we say that 1 Sam. and 2. Sam is an example of an actual inconsistency, as you originally intimated?

Regards,
BGic

[Clutch]

OK. I think I understand you here and that I agree with you. What I don't know is what this means with regards to anything else we've been discussing. Maybe you or another can connect the dots from here.

Regards,
BGic

I connected them for you just now, using your own words. Observe again:

BGic's Big Question: Does some proponent p for the inerrancy of some text t assume the burden of proving the inerrancy of t given the presence of 'surface anomalies' in t?

(More elegantly: Does the inerrantist have the burden of proof given prima facie errors?)

BGic's Answer: [T]he inerrantist assumes the burden of proof with regards to both actual and apparent inconsistencies

(More elegantly: Yes)

[Cross Examiner]

I connected them for you just now, using your own words. Observe again:

BGic's Big Question: Does some proponent p for the inerrancy of some text t assume the burden of proving the inerrancy of t given the presence of 'surface anomalies' in t?

(More elegantly: Does the inerrantist have the burden of proof given prima facie errors?)

BGic's Answer: [T]he inerrantist assumes the burden of proof with regards to both actual and apparent inconsistencies

(More elegantly: Yes)
Right. Now, my understanding is that:

1. X and Y agree to debate biblical inerrancy.
2. X argues against inerrancy and Y argues for inerrancy.
3. X begins by introducing surface anomalies.
4. The surface anomalies are, at least, apparent inconsistencies.
5. Y attempts to harmonize the apparent inconsistencies, lest onlookers view them as actual, and so Y assumes the burden of proof with regard to said inconsistencies.

Is this your understanding as well? Please add/modify/delete as need be.

Regards,
BGic

[blt to go]

Anyway, as I don't think it is provable either way, and I'm not an inerrantist anyway, I'll bow out now. Thanks, blt.

Laughed out loud when I read your post. That is because after my last post on this subject, I thought, "If GakuseiDon posts one more time, I will tell him that I concede that the point is unprovable, and quietly bow out."

Apparently we were both debating who has the best sandwiches, and found out that neither of us like sandwiches! :D

I just don't see this as an OBVIOUS contradiction.

I think we are left with a story that we cannot get corroborating facts, and the story itself does not provide the solution.

Both the "murder theory" and the "liar theory" (as I see it) have strong arguments for and against the respective theories.

I DO think that the "murder theory" has a slight (mayber 51%/49%) edge, but that does not make the minority position necessarily incorrect. Why, I know a country that made a man President on a minority vote!

To apply it to the Chicago Statement, I would state this is an apparent inconsistency that has a convincing solution to many.

[blt to go]

BGic. O.K. Knowing that you maintain the neutral stance, I am still looking for an answer to the questions posed here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1649086#post1649086)

First you state that inerrancy may or may not be proven. But you do believe that contradictions and corroboration can be proven. I assume (dangerously) that you mean on an individual basis, but not globally (??)
Question, if the Bible is 99.99% correct, is it not errant? In other words, it is like being pregnant (for the common analogy)--you either are or not, there is no "50% pregnant." So if one single contradiction can be proven, does this not destroy inerrancy?

If you are talking on a GLOBAL sense, that, as a whole, the Bible may or may not be proven inerrant, than is not the reverse also true, that the Bible may or may not be proven cohesive? (I am using cohesive globally, and corroboration on an individual item basis.)

And if the Bible may or may not be proven globally as inerrant, and may or may not be proven globally as cohesive, what value for instruction does it have? It simply sits there.

I understand (I think) that you are advocating a position that a neutral stance should be examined, but I would state that at some point in time, you have to get off the fence and land on one side or the other.

And, in keeping with my resolution, If you are reserving judgment as to inerrancy on the bible, are you not also (to be consistent) reserving Judgment on the Book of Mormon, the Science and Health, and the Qur'an? or is the Bible entitled to "special pleading."

[Cross Examiner]

First you state that inerrancy may or may not be proven. But you do believe that contradictions and corroboration can be proven. I assume (dangerously) that you mean on an individual basis, but not globally (??)
I'll disambiguate my position:

1. I believe that inerrancy, in aggregate, cannot be proven.
2. I believe that errancy, in principle, can be proven.
3. I believe that examples of individual corroboration are easily proven and have been proven many times.
4. I believe that an example of individual inconsistency is very difficult to prove and has yet to be done.

The difference in burden above is due to the differing criteria the errantist and inerrantist must each meet, respectively. The errantist need demonstrate only one absolutely conclusive error [either (A) internal or (B) external] while the inerrantist must demonstrate countless biblical propositions and implications. Observe:

(A) If a biblical author asserts the verity of [any proposition or implication] P and the same or another biblical author asserts the verity of ~P then (C) the Bible is errant (i.e. internally inconsistent). And/or (B) if a biblical author asserts the verity of [any proposition or implication] P and P is false then (C) the Bible is errant (i.e. externally inconsistent).

If either (A) or (B) is true then (C) is true and the errantist has won the day. Observe the criterion for the inerrantist:

If (A) is false and if (B) is false then (D), the Bible is inerrant, is true and the inerrantist takes home the Cup.

I'll bet there is a way to state the inerrantist's burden positively -- I'm just not seeing it. Anyway, all this could be put into a truth table for easy digestion (I did it on scratch and it looks good to me). But even without a visual aid you can probably begin to sense the difficulty in proving inerrancy since tests (A) and (B) have been and will be ongoing until the history of man is at a close. It seems that the complete and total vindication of the Bible, as Scripture itself seems to indicate, is a world away.
Question, if the Bible is 99.99% correct, is it not errant?
Yes. If you need to ask me this then I have not been communicating well at all.
In other words, it is like being pregnant (for the common analogy)--you either are or not, there is no "50% pregnant." So if one single contradiction can be proven, does this not destroy inerrancy?
Yes, a single contradiction, either internal or external, destroys inerrancy.
If you are talking on a GLOBAL sense, that, as a whole, the Bible may or may not be proven inerrant, than is not the reverse also true, that the Bible may or may not be proven cohesive? (I am using cohesive globally, and corroboration on an individual item basis.)
I don't see how.
And if the Bible may or may not be proven globally as inerrant, and may or may not be proven globally as cohesive, what value for instruction does it have? It simply sits there.
The criterion for proving inerrancy is, effectively, that every biblical proposition and implication be listed perfectly (which is probably impossible to create) and then compared against a hypothetically perfect external fact-list (which is certainly impossible to create) in order to determine that no biblical proposition/implication is in conflict with another and that no biblical proposition/implication is in conflict with external fact. My question to you is why should this criterion be met before we say that the Bible has instructive value? On an aside, it may look like we go easy on the errantist but that appearance is, appropriately enough, deceiving. Rather than make a list of problems before the errantist, which are many, I thought it best to bait someone into trying to take an example (e.g. Saul's death ) and show how difficult it is to prove biblical error (no theodicy needed, only defense). If not you, blt to go, is there another volunteer in the house?
I understand (I think) that you are advocating a position that a neutral stance should be examined, but I would state that at some point in time, you have to get off the fence and land on one side or the other.
Not quite. I am just trying to show how complicated the errancy/inerrancy debate is, in stark contrast to attitude of the glib and far-from-erudite skeptic's annotated Bible, for example. One can certainly try to show which of the two is more reasonable or plausible. I just think doing so is an exercise in futility for a variety of reasons.
And, in keeping with my resolution, If you are reserving judgment as to inerrancy on the bible, are you not also (to be consistent) reserving Judgment on the Book of Mormon, the Science and Health, and the Qur'an? or is the Bible entitled to "special pleading."
I am not reserving judgment on the Bible. I think it is inerrant. I just can't prove it. No man can. Likewise, no man has ever proven a biblical contradiction. Suffice it to say I have a very stringent understanding of 'proof'. But to answer your last question, if the Bible is inerrant and other holy books conflict with it then said holy books are necessarily errant. Well, I've gotta go. No time to edit/spell check; we're heading off to church.

Regards,
BGic

[Vinnie]

"""""""I think it is inerrant."""""""""""

That, of course, explains a LOT.

Vinnie

[Cross Examiner]

"""""""I think it is inerrant."""""""""""

That, of course, explains a LOT.

Vinnie
You've been lurking this whole time and finally came out of the shadows to say this? Yes, of course. Never mind his rational argument, he identifies with the _____ (s) , a group that Vinnie does not like. More genetic fallacy anyone? I'm not feelin' the love, Vinnie.

Regards,
BGic

[Vinnie]

You've been lurking this whole time and finally came out of the shadows to say this? Yes, of course. Never mind his rational argument, he identifies with the _____ (s) , a group that Vinnie does not like. More genetic fallacy anyone? I'm not feelin' the love, Vinnie.

Regards,
BGic

There was no love to feel. Resentment and disdain were the intention. My reasoning is iron clad. You want to have blind faith in inerrancy. You believe in it despite there being a total lack of evidence suggesting it. Blah blah, woof woof.

Vinnie

[Cross Examiner]

There was no love to feel. Resentment and disdain were the intention. My reasoning is iron clad. You want to have blind faith in inerrancy. You believe in it despite there being a total lack of evidence suggesting it. Blah blah, woof woof.

Vinnie
Ah, yes. There it is. There's that world-famous secularist tolerance we hear so much about. Here, finally, is an example of that award-winning IIDB hospitality! I take it then that you and the missus won't be over next Friday for gelato? Anyway, where do you get blind faith from? Is this yet another 'iron clad' inference? :eek:

Regards,
BGic

[blt to go]

Sorry, BGic, got caught up in real life. :)

O.K. The Standard you would like to work with is: (A) If a biblical author asserts the verity of P and the same author or another biblical author asserts the verity of ~P then the Bible is errant. And/or (B) if a biblical author asserts the verity of P and P is false then the Bible is errant.

While I do not agree with said standard, I will work within its parameters.

1 Chronicles 21:1 states that "Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel."

We know that Satan incites David, for the author asserts the verity of "Satan incites David" (P) and if (P) is false, then the Bible is errant. To maintain inerrancy, we have no choice but to state this as true.

2 Samuel 24:1 states: Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and count Israel and Judah."

Contradiction.

Chronicles author asserts the verity of "Satan incites David to take census" (P) and the Samuel auther asserts the verity of "NOT Satan incites David to take census" or ~P. (Not so hot with logic symbols, so I am simply copying your terminology.) :)

I see a number of possible harmonizations, all with possible problems. Therefore, in the interest of keeping strawmen to a minimum, I will leave it at that.

Harmonize away this contradiction.

[Cross Examiner]

While I do not agree with said standard, I will work within its parameters.
Why not? Does it just make too much darn sense?
Chronicles author asserts the verity of "Satan incites David to take census" (P) and the Samuel auther asserts the verity of "NOT Satan incites David to take census" or ~P. (Not so hot with logic symbols, so I am simply copying your terminology.) :)
Yes. That is a contradiction. I guess I'll be an atheist now. Seriously though, can two agents incite a third agent to action? If so, then can God and Satan both incite David? If so, then it is not necessarily true that if God incites David that Satan then does not incite David (i.e. ~P). And then there is the issue of primary and secondary causation, among other angles. But, following your gracious lead, I'll let be for now.

Regards,
BGic

[itsdatruth]

It is interesting that normally, only the Bible is even up for debate! Apparently, the other texts… The Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Koran, the Vedas, and so on have either been shown to be obviously false, or their meanings to have been diluted into philosophic ideas and morals. Only the Bible is rooted in history, geography, and literature enough to be the topic of a meaningful debate. To RobertLW: You walk in the footsteps of Athanasius, the footsteps of Christ. Whether you win or lose in the eyes of Vinnie, grace from God has won that war. Athanasius was at first rejected too, you know...

[Sven]

It is interesting that normally, only the Bible is even up for debate! Apparently, the other texts… The Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Koran, the Vedas, and so on have either been shown to be obviously false, or their meanings to have been diluted into philosophic ideas and morals. Only the Bible is rooted in history, geography, and literature enough to be the topic of a meaningful debate.
LOL! Thanks for a good laugh!
Hint: Many Muslims say exactly the same about the Koran. Many Mormons say exactly the same about The Book of Mormon. Many Indians (?) say exactly the same about the Vedas. Only that those people include the bible in their list of books which have "been shown to be obviously false, or their meanings to have been diluted into philosophic ideas and morals".
Why do you see mostly the bible discussed here? Look up this thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=87395

Edited to add: I think you still have to answer some posts in S&S and Ev/Cr - don't waste your time here ;)

[blt to go]

can God and Satan both incite David?
Nope, not with your (A) and (B) standard of determination of errancy.

First, I would think that at the least, you are compromising theology to obtain inerrancy, in stating that God and Satan both incite David to do the same thing. I imagined an angel and a demon meeting in a bar in purgatory:

“Hey, how’ve you been?
“Fine. Listen, we have GOT to keep that rascal God and Satan apart. When they start working together…
“Yeah, I know. They can certainly be a tear. Remember the time they both incited David to do a Census?
�Do I? That was Hi-larious. Poor David didn’t know what to do. Heck, even Joab knew it was wrong….
“Yeah, but when God AND Satan are out to motivate you---not a chance, eh?
“Yeah, yeah, and remember that God gave David three choices of punishment?
“Oh My GOD that cracked us up. And then poor David chose—
“—The Angel of Death!! Ha. Ha. Ha. Who killed---
“—70,000 guys! Ha. Ha. Ha…….. Oh. My.
“Good Times. Good Times. Yeah, those two can certainly be a riot when they work together.
“See ya later.

Are you willing to open up the theological (and moral) implications of both God and Satan inciting David to sin?

But really, more importantly, under your standard, inerrancy fails here. The standard is:

(A) If a biblical author asserts the verity of P and the same author or another biblical author asserts the verity of ~P then the Bible is errant. And/or (B) if a biblical author asserts the verity of P and P is false then the Bible is errant.

I would concede that under the premise that both God and Satan incited David, this would resolve (A) under this standard. However, you must violate (B) by adding in information not provided in order to substantiate (A). Hence, violating part II of the standard in order to support Part I.

As I said, not so hot with Logic, but I think I have this right:

P1: S (where “S� is Satan�
P2: S and G (where “G� is God)

P1 does not equal P2. I would further note, that it is my understanding of Logic that the word “and� has significance as a logical necessity in that you can never have A=A+B when A and B are not zero.

Therefore, if the Chronicles author asserts the verity of P1 inciting David, whereas it was P2 that incited David, the assertion of P1 is false, and errancy has occurred.

(And getting outside of Logic, is there a reasonable explanation why the (presumably) Jewish author of Chronicles would overlook the presence of God in the situation. In the same song (second verse) why would Samuel’s author overlook the presence of Satan in the situation?)

To review, previously I assumed that Satan incited David to maintain premise (B) of the Standard. However, Premise (A) is violated under that standard by another author stating not-Satan incited David.

To maintain Premise (A) you are forced to introduce facts not stated in the record (namely that BOTH incited David) which then in turn violates Premise (B).

It is for that reason I do not like your standard. No, it does not make sense. See, for every contradiction that is introduced, the apologist must align the two inconsistencies by introducing facts OUTSIDE the two statements. (Judas’ body fell off the tree, the Amalekite was lying, etc.)

The danger I see in this standard is that at initial blush, it must be assumed the facts, as stated, are correct. (To Assume, as you can plainly see, that the facts are NOT correct immediately violates Standard (B) and would therefore cease the debate.)

However, once an inconsistency is demonstrated, It would appear that two authors are NOT stating the same thing, and therefore, while Standard (B) is maintained, Standard (A) is violated. Therefore, facts, which are NOT included in the original record MUST be introduced to maintain Standard (A). But to introduce such facts means that the Author’s original statement was not true, and therefore violates Standard (B).

I would note that this standard is too rigid, and would need to be modified, otherwise, as applied, even those things errantists would state are not inconsistencies appear as inconsistencies. (How many women went to the tomb?)

As to primary and secondary causation (the common apologetic of “God [allowed Satan to] incite David….� where the bracketed terms are added to maintain conformity) the same exact problems arise.

No, BGic, I did not and do not intend to continue to “shout� examples of contradictions to you and have you attempt to harmonize. That would be a waste of time in which we both would be preaching to the choir.

I introduced this single contradiction for 4 reasons:

1. Because it is simple.
2. Because it demonstrates the inherent hole in this Standard (partly because of the simplicity)
3. To demonstrate many person’s (not necessarily your) willingness to abandon theology to maintain inerrancy. (And vice versa should the occasion call, I fear)
4. To demonstrate the “error� of burden of proof. (Not raised….yet)

If you are done, I understand. In fact, I would state you have done an admirable job, considering the “opponents� here, and the difficulty of the position of inerrancy.

I, too, walked away from this thread. I just got sucked back in and never figured how to get out again. :)

Edited because I can't figure out how to display a "does not equal" sign correctly

[Cross Examiner]

Are you willing to open up the theological (and moral) implications of both God and Satan inciting David to sin?
Why, yes, my sandwich-y friend, I am. Remember how I alluded to primary and secondary causation earlier? Consider a man who clenches a stone in his hand, extends his arm, turns his hand downward, and opens his fist. The rock falls to the ground. What and/or who caused the rock to fall? And then there is the issue of the aggregate good to discuss. But this is not the ethics forum so I'll let well enough alone, for now. The meaning of life is a complicated matter.
I would concede that under the premise that both God and Satan incited David, this would resolve (A) under this standard. However, you must violate (B) by adding in information not provided in order to substantiate (A). Hence, violating part II of the standard in order to support Part I.
1. What information do I add?
2. Why would adding information violate (B)?
As I said, not so hot with Logic, but I think I have this right:

P1: S (where “S� is Satan�
P2: S and G (where “G� is God)

P1 does not equal P2. I would further note, that it is my understanding of Logic that the word “and� has significance as a logical necessity in that you can never have A=A+B when A and B are not zero.
1. Why should P1 equal P2? I do not think you understand (B) at all.
2. Yes. The logical operator 'and' can have such significance.
Therefore, if the Chronicles author asserts the verity of P1 inciting David, whereas it was P2 that incited David, the assertion of P1 is false, and errancy has occurred.
No. The author of 1 Chronicles asserts that Satan incited David and the author of 2 Samuel asserts that God incited David. If both can incite David then there is no contradiction. Both can, obviously. To help you understand how to score a goal for your team, consider the counterfactual situation where the author of 1 Chronicles asserts that Satan alone incited David (i.e. was explicitly named the sole provocateur) and the author of 2 Samuel asserts that God incited David. This would be a demonstrable contradiction because God could not be a remote, contributory cause of David's malfeasance as is permitted by the language of the actual passages.
(And getting outside of Logic, is there a reasonable explanation why the (presumably) Jewish author of Chronicles would overlook the presence of God in the situation. In the same song (second verse) why would Samuel’s author overlook the presence of Satan in the situation?)
It could very well be the case that the different authors highlight a different cause because of the differing purpose of each narrative, respectively; among any number of possible reasons.
To review, previously I assumed that Satan incited David to maintain premise (B) of the Standard. However, Premise (A) is violated under that standard by another author stating not-Satan incited David.

To maintain Premise (A) you are forced to introduce facts not stated in the record (namely that BOTH incited David) which then in turn violates Premise (B).
I see the confusion. No, I do not introduce new facts. I introduce the possibility that both parties play a role in provoking David, which is logically permitted by the somewhat ambiguous nature of the language of the two passages. In order for there to be a demonstrated contradiction, it must be the true that it is impossible that both parties play a role in provoking David, which is the burden of proof one assumes (i.e. you) when one asserts the two passages contradict one another.
It is for that reason I do not like your standard. No, it does not make sense. See, for every contradiction that is introduced, the apologist must align the two inconsistencies by introducing facts OUTSIDE the two statements. (Judas’ body fell off the tree, the Amalekite was lying, etc.)
As we've seen, 'that reason' you cite is imaginary. Recall that I alluded to the terms defense and theodicy previously. The one asserting that two passages contradict one another must show that every logically possible resolution is, in fact, false. The errantist would look for exclusionary terms like 'alone', which rules out contributory causation, as mentioned above. It is difficult to demonstrate a contradiction according to a perfectly rational (one with the force of Aristotelian logic behind it) standard.
The danger I see in this standard is that at initial blush, it must be assumed the facts, as stated, are correct. (To Assume, as you can plainly see, that the facts are NOT correct immediately violates Standard (B) and would therefore cease the debate.)
No. The standard assumes that the propositions in question be demonstrated false by (A) internal or (B) external falsification before they are considered errant. The standard assumes truth-telling unless demonstrated otherwise, which is surely the reasonable stance. More to the point of this thread, do you (taking the errantist's position) believe that the existence of such an apparent inconsistency somehow requires that I (taking the inerrantist's position) demonstrate what each biblical author means in fact rather than what each could mean, as mandated by the standard?

Regards,
BGic

[Cross Examiner]

A conversation:

blt to go: The Bible says that Satan provoked David and that God provoked David. That is a contradiction.

BGic: It could very well be the case that God allowed Satan to provoke David and so it can be said that either God or Satan or even both provoked David.

blt to go: Prove it.

BGic: I don't have to. You asserted that there is a contradiction so you assume the burden of proving that my explanation is not possibly correct.

blt to go: I don't like this standard. It places too stringent a burden on the errantist.

BGic: You could water down the charge from 'That is a contradiction' to something less ambitious like 'That is probably a contradiction' and thereby be permitted to employ a less stringent standard. The ball is in your court.

Regards,
BGic

[JLK]

In order for there to be a demonstrated contradiction, it must be the true that it is impossible that both parties [God/Satan] play a role in provoking David, which is the burden of proof one assumes (i.e. you) when one asserts the two passages contradict one another. ... The one asserting that two passages contradict one another must show that every logically possible resolution is, in fact, false. The errantist would look for exclusionary terms like 'alone', which rules out contributory causation, as mentioned above.

This merely raises the inductive bar slightly higher. And one is not going to find all these precise qualifiers in the Bible because it's not written as a gigantic legal brief based on voluminous police reports. Most of the potentially errant texts are just rolling narrative. And we are never "alone" according to the text. Thus contradictions of any type are infact impossible, since God and Satan can always be involved in any circumstance.

It is difficult to demonstrate a contradiction according to a perfectly rational (one with the force of Aristotelian logic behind it) standard.

No. It is impossible to demonstrate a Aristotelian contradiction in any text of natural language of finite length. Period. FullStop. Texts are not math. That is why you will never become an errantist.

The standard assumes that the propositions in question be demonstrated false by (A) internal or (B) external falsification before they are considered errant.

Can't be done, as above per your criteria.

The standard assumes truth-telling unless demonstrated otherwise, which is surely the reasonable stance.

Now inerrancy is default? What happened to "neutrality"? Pile all the various outside factors beyond the text, which have been mentioned over and over in this thread, and the "reasonable stance" moves to "apparent errors show errancy until very robust-compared-to-the-alternatives, non-special-pleading solutions are found. See Chicago Statement for admission that after ~2000 years they have not been."

More to the point of this thread, do you (taking the errantist's position) believe that the existence of such an apparent inconsistency somehow requires that I (taking the inerrantist's position) demonstrate what each biblical author means in fact rather than what each could mean, as mandated by the standard?

The "standard" mandated is yours and is, in so many words, inerrancy. The authors "could mean" usually such a vast array of things because they did not delimit alternatives as though in some investigative report, inerrancy is perpetually safe.

There is only one way to convince an inerrantist with your standard to give it up. That would involve immersing yourself in ancient literature of all types, knowing history of Biblical eras from all perspectives (you most certainly know many), and then reading the text pretending you are an errantist and looking to see how plausible it accounts for inconsistency, how various stories such as both entire Judas death/"Field of Blood" accounts could have arisen in a culture with no reliable press to tamp down rumors, etc. Play "pretend errancy" with the proper background comprehensively from Gen. to Rev. and see what happens.

[RobertLW]

It is interesting that normally, only the Bible is even up for debate! Apparently, the other texts… The Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Koran, the Vedas, and so on have either been shown to be obviously false, or their meanings to have been diluted into philosophic ideas and morals. Only the Bible is rooted in history, geography, and literature enough to be the topic of a meaningful debate. To RobertLW: You walk in the footsteps of Athanasius, the footsteps of Christ. Whether you win or lose in the eyes of Vinnie, grace from God has won that war. Athanasius was at first rejected too, you know...

Thank you for your kind words. I took Vinnie's claim of victory as his arbitrary opinion and as such he is certianly entitled to that. My own personal view of the debate is that nobody really won or lost and it was turning out to be rather ridiculous, which is why I ended my participation early. At least I haven't been banished yet........

Robert

[Cross Examiner]

Interesting post, JLK. I agree with much of it. And, as you seem to concur, I make the point well enough that errancy is virtually impossible to prove and so statements like: 'the Bible is errant' lack epistemological warrant. Also, it is highly arguable that statements such as: 'the Bible is probably errant' are true. In light of this, Vinnie et al. would do well to qualify their former confident, dogmatic pronouncements that the Bible is errant. My point could be summed up in the following warning that it is irrational to draw deductive conclusions from inductive argumentation. If no one else has anything further then I suppose I'm done here. RobertLW, I concur with 'itsdatruth' that you argued admirably. I thank you all for your good-natured participation.

Regards,
BGic

[blt to go]

Billy Graham is cool, how we have progressed. Keeping track of the standards proposed, I believe I am accurate as follows:

Standard I: Neutrality. Inerrancy may or may not be proven.

Standard II: You are an inerrantist and I agree that the inerrantist assumes the burden of proof with regards to both actual and apparent inconsistencies, if that is what you mean by the above.
However, this does not necessarily provide a standard. The standard proposed is: (A) If a biblical author asserts the verity of P and the same author or another biblical author asserts the verity of ~P then the Bible is errant. And/or (B) if a biblical author asserts the verity of P and P is false then the Bible is errant. (Verity meaning the quality of being true.)

No, this little tidbit The standard assumes that the propositions in question be demonstrated false by (A) internal or (B) external falsification before they are considered errant. was NOT originally included. Sorry, "inerrancy" would be maintain regardless of before, during or after. I will note your dislike of my application of Premise (A) vs. Premise (B)

And now we come to Standard III: The one asserting that two passages contradict one another must show that every logically possible resolution is, in fact, false. And here you have broken me.

I will concede whole-heartedly under Standard III, we have inerrancy proven. But at a cost too high to make it worthwhile.

Let's touch upon "burden of proof." Under this standard, it matters little whether you, I or my cat has the "burden" of proof. Whoever is for errancy will fail.

Normally, in the argument for "burden of proof" each side is attempting to demonstrate the other has it, because the level of proof is "perponderance of the evidence" or "more likely than not." Typically described as a scale with whomever has 51% of the proof wins. If the proofs are equal (50/50) neither side wins, so having the burden of proof is significant.

However, Billy Graham is cool, you have introduced a level of proof, not who has the burden of proof. Your level is that as typically called an "iota" or proof or a "scintilla" of proof. As long as there is any possiblity whatsoever of proof, then the proposition stands.

As applied it would look like this: A flat-earth believer could show you a picture of the ocean. The horizon appears to be a line (not a curve.) This is enough proof to demonstrate the propostion the earth is flat. It is an iota. A scintilla.

In our situation, all you need is to make some possible logical harmonization, adding words, thoughts, ideas and concepts as necessary and therefore there is no inconsistency, no contradiction.

If I have the burden of proof, I have to demonstrate no possible harmonization. None. All you have to do is demonstrate one possible harmonization, no matter how far-fetched, no matter how out of context, frankly anything that can be babbled out and then you win. If you have the burden, same song, just reversed.

But at what a terrible cost. This is truly a "double-edged" sword with a vicious second edge.

1. Loss of valid Theology to maintain inerrancy. Do you really want to say the following?

a)That God, as some sort of petulant chlid becomes anger at Israel. Rather than initial some of the "same old, same old," such as flood, fire, famine and pestilence, he comes up with a new plan.
b) God incites David to sin. What choice does David have? If the God of the OT is inciting you (and you are a "man after God's own heart") you are going to do it.
c) This is no simple plan of "Israel sins, punish Israel," this is a complicated plan of long action.
d) Satan thinks this is so fun, he joins in the action, OR
d(ii)) God sees what Satan is doing and he joins the action.
e) David sins. (overrulling that doomsday sayer-Joab)
f) Ta-Da. God appears saying, "David you sinned."
g) Now, we aren't going to punish the guy who sinned. Oh No. Let's give him three choices!! Two of the choices will only hurt the other guy.
h) David chooses door 3 and 70,000 people die.

This is one vicious God, that apparently likes how Satan works.

You are correct in stating that 2 Samuel does NOT state that God incited David alone Therefore, 2 Samuel could easily be leaving out those key words (in Brackets) "God [and Satan]"

Since the Bible (to maintain inerrancy) used these words here, why stop? For fun and profit, let's look at some other passages. Romans 5 would read:

We have peace with God [and Satan] through our Lord Jesus Christ [and Satan] through whom we have gained access by faith....And we rejoice in the hope of the Glory of God [and Satan.]....because God [and Satan] has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit [and Zeus], whom he has given us.
You see... Christ [and bill the cat] died for the ungodly...But God [and Pikachu] demonstrates his own love for us.....

This DOES make interesting reading of the Bible.

And before you indicate the the word "he" would mean singular, and not "both" I would recommend you re-read 2 Sam 24:1.

In fact, this standard allows twists in theology to go just about anywhere.

2. Special pleading.

This new standard all but defines special pleading. What other book does one say has no errors by any logical possible reconciliation? In fact, if this is the standard, we can all but do away with the word "inerrancy" as it would have no applicable meaning in today's society. Under this standard, The Koran (which is a word of God), the book of Mormon (which is a word of God) and Science and Health with Key to Scriptures (which is a word of God) are also inerrant. Hence, also inspired. Hence All believers are Muslim Mormon Christian Scientists.

This point has been beaten, ground and stamped to death. There is no need for repetition.

3. Intellectually insincere. It would appear that Vorkosigan was correct in stating It seems the real interpretive principle at work here is: "whatever gets me out of this contradiction" -- special pleading.

Billy Graham is cool: it would appear you are bending over backwards, in this standard to maintain inerrancy to the point that an onlooker would dismiss any statement made by you. It is analogous to the woman of the accused I used earlier, regardless what is said, with dogged tenacity she holds onto the premise that her son is innocent, to the point that any real benefit she may have is lost, as no one will hold her testimony as valuable.

Further, I would note that even the Chicago Statement recognizes the inconsitencies [and inability to deal with the same] and did not hold the premise that "there are no contradictions, as all can be dismissed with any logical possiblity proposed."

No, this standard, while proving inerrancy, moves us nowhere.

Few Points. (All following quotes are from Billy Graham is cool.

Analogy of the rock--the difference is that in our census we have two viable, moral (or immoral) creatures. If your rock rolled down a hill and killed 70,000 people, would the man be blamed or gravity?

1. What information do I add? That BOTH incited David. Or, if you prefer, "And Satan" to 2 Samuel AND "And God" to 1 Chronicles.

2. Why would adding information violate (B)? I thought I made this clear. Because without this information, what is stated bythe Authors is not true. Or, in other words, by failing to list the "important" mystery guest, God or Satan, the statement is false.

By the Way, 1 Samuel DOES assert that God did this ALONE

1) Look at the language: "Again, the anger of the Lord burned against Israel and HE incited David.... [emphasis added] NOT "they" Singular.
2) No other person is mentioned. Thus demonstrating "aloneness."
3) The other person not mentioned is a significant person We are not talking about failing to mention an armor-bearer. This is Enemy No. 1 He is conspicuous by his abscense.
4) The "other person" you would include is at cross-purposes with God. I do not recall any other time, in a relationship with a human, that both God and Satan acted in accordance. Even in Job, God was "hands-off."

You indicate that the reason one mentions Satan and one mentions God is motivation for differing reasons. THAT IS THE POINT. That is the demonstration that this is a human endeavor without inspiration. Neither author "observes" the inciting of David. This is what God told them to write happened. Once God "forgets" that Satan was involved? Once God forgets He was involved?

Tell me, did it Bother God that He was doing the same thing Satan Did, or that Satan was doing the same thing He did?

No, God was NOT a "remote contributory cause of David's malfeasance." Doesn't Fit 2 Sam. 24. God was MAD at Israel. GOD was going to make them pay (for whatever. again.) so he becomes a "remote contributory cause?" Nope, doesn't smell right.

I do not introduce new facts. and then the very next statement proceeds to introduce new facts.I introduce the possibility that both parties play a role in provoking David, Where exactly is the word, "both?" This is a new fact.

Of course, I am not a fool. I, too, clearly saw the somewhat ambiguous nature of the language of the two passages. I was concerned you would pick that up.

Clearly, in applying the SGT ("Sven's Girlfriend Test") the ambiguity of 2 Samuel in stating "The anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He incited David..." is obvious to the reader.

One is IMMEDIATELY left wondering, "Why does Satan want to rise up against Israel? What does Satan have against David?" You are correct, 2 Samuel leaves these questions VERY OPEN. So open, in fact, that it wisely choses to completely abandon their existence.

A conversation:
blt to go: The Bible says that Satan provoked David and that God provoked David. That is a contradiction.

BGic: It could very well be the case that God allowed Satan to provoke David and so it can be said that either God or Satan or even both provoked David.

blt to go: Prove it.

BGic: I don't have to. You asserted that there is a contradiction so you assume the burden of proving that my explanation is not possibly correct.

blt to go: I don't like this standard. It places too stringent a burden on the errantist.

With all due respect. Absolute bunk. The reader will note I have NEVER said Prove it, and in fact have always assumed the burden of proof. I am much more concerned with the level of proof. I do not think Standard II places any burden whatsoever on an errantist. I think it is internally conflicted between Premise (A) and Premise (B) It is NOT a stringent burden at all. Just an impossible standard for the inerrantist to conform

Edited to fix quote box.

[Cross Examiner]

1. David intends to count his people for prideful reasons. He is considering the act on his own. God allows Satan to further tempt him. Don’t you know the purpose of Satan? Yes, God knew what Satan would be and what he would do and created him anyway. These two passages just show God allowing Satan to do what he does best. Why did God allow Satan to tempt David? Was a greater good brought about? I have my answer but all this is really for the theologians, philosophers, another time and another place.

2. In trying to demonstrate that I am on a slippery slope with my resolution you ascribe to Satan (and other agents, like Pikachu … that’s cute, blt to go) the sort of powers, properties and motivations that they do not possess (e.g. existence, goodness etc.) if the Bible is true whereas, in my resolution, it is well established that Satan tempts and that God allows Satan to tempt.

3. I do not engage in special pleading since it is necessarily true that if the Bible is inerrant then that which contradicts (e.g. other holy books) it is false. We can try each book according to some inductive standard, avoiding any special pleading, but then we’ll not be entitled to any deductive conclusions thereby. One can reasonably maintain errancy or inerrancy on inductive grounds, just not deductive grounds. I think you misunderstand my purpose here, blt to go.

I fear we are lost between confusing the synthetic for the analytic the inductive for the deductive, and mistaking the purpose of (B) entirely. Maybe I’ll take a genuine stab at your post in the future. My point in this thread is made by succinctly by my previous post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1658126#post1658126) -- and I’ll let be at that for now. Thanks for your insightful comments.

Regards,
BGic

[RobertLW]

Interesting post, JLK. I agree with much of it. And, as you seem to concur, I make the point well enough that errancy is virtually impossible to prove and so statements like: 'the Bible is errant' lack epistemological warrant. Also, it is highly arguable that statements such as: 'the Bible is probably errant' are true. In light of this, Vinnie et al. would do well to qualify their former confident, dogmatic pronouncements that the Bible is errant. My point could be summed up in the following warning that it is irrational to draw deductive conclusions from inductive argumentation. If no one else has anything further then I suppose I'm done here. RobertLW, I concur with 'itsdatruth' that you argued admirably. I thank you all for your good-natured participation.

Regards,
BGic

Thank you for your kind words and for your participation as well. I have read your posts with interest and although I have not agreed with everything you have written, they have been interesting and have given me some things to consider. Feel free to e-mail me if you wish to have a good discussion on the topic.

Robert

[Sven]

in applying the SGT ("Sven's Girlfriend Test")

:D :notworthy :D

[Vinnie]

"""""grace from God has won that war.'""""

And the gold coin I got from the leprechaun got me a bag of unsalted peanuts. Blah blah, woof woof. Your post was one of the most ridiculous bits of wasted bandwidth I've ever had the unpleasure of reading.

It is interesting that normally, only the Bible is even up for debate! Apparently, the other texts… The Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Koran, the Vedas, and so on have either been shown to be obviously false, or their meanings to have been diluted into philosophic ideas and morals. Only the Bible is rooted in history, geography, and literature enough to be the topic of a meaningful debate. To RobertLW: You walk in the footsteps of Athanasius, the footsteps of Christ. Whether you win or lose in the eyes of Vinnie, grace from God has won that war. Athanasius was at first rejected too, you know...

[blt to go]

Well, now, Billy Graham is cool, I see as a “parting shot� you have introduced a FOURTH possibility to maintain inerrancy. If I have my numbers right, it would be:

1. God incited David. (2 Sam.)
2. Satan incited David (1 Chron.)
3. BOTH incited David (BGic) and now
4. David was considering the act on his own for prideful reasons. (BGic)

While this reason would certainly placate a Sunday School of Christians who would thump their chests and extol how wonderful this all fits together, unfortunately for inerrancy it does not. In fact, it does not come close.

The chronology would appear as follows:

1) David considering the act (no reference as not mentioned – henceforth “nr�)
2) God becomes angry at Israel (2 Sam 24:1)
3) God realizes (being all-knowing and all-powerful) that DESPITE David considering the act, David apparently will not do it without a “nudge.� (nr)
4) God decides the easiest way to display His anger is to get David to Sin by allowing Satan to tempt David. (nr)
5) God “incites� David to take a census. (2 Sam. 24:1)
6) This word, “incites� apparently means “to free Satan up to tempt David.� (BGic)
7) Apparently, Satan is not allowed to tempt men, unless God allows, or “incites� it. (nr)
8) Satan is “freed� up by God. (nr)
9) Satan “incites� David to take a census. (1 Chron. 21:1)
10) NOW “incites� means to tempt. Even though it is the same exact Hebrew word. (BGic)
11) David takes the Census. (2 Sam. 24:1-9; 1 Chron 21:1-5)
12) God is displeased. AGAIN. (1 Chron. 21:7) [which is curious given the (2) and (5) above!]
13) David admits his guilt, (2 Sam 24:10; 1 Chron 21:9)
14) God punishes David for his sin, by killing those 70,000 guys over there! (2 Sam. 24:15; 1 Chron. 21:14) [“Take THAT, David!]
15) The Angel stops at Ornan the Jebusite. (1 Chron. 21:15)
16) David pays Ornan 600 shekels of gold for the land. (1 Chron 21:25)
17) Angel moves again, apparently. (nr)
18) The Angel stops at Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sam. 24:16)
19) David pays Araunah fifty shekels of silver for his land and oxen (2 Sam 24:24)


I mean, do those that accept this apologetic actually READ the thing? If Ornan is Araunah, do 50 Shekels of Silver = 600 Shekels of Gold?

Nowhere does it state that David was “thinking� of doing this first, nor that the only way for Satan to tempt David was by God allowing it, and both statements create a fascinating theology.

These verses are NOT ambiguous, they simply fail to state what Christians want them to state.

Also, Billy Graham is cool, upon further reflection, I believe Standard III would need to be slightly modified in order for inerrancy to be maintained.

See, Standard III was “every logical possible resolution is proved false by the errantist.� [emphasis added] And within the contradiction of David’s census this Standard would “prove� (and I mean that in the loosest possible sense) inerrancy. However, I was self-limiting to this single contradiction. Now the standard is changed, I have reviewed OTHER possible contradictions, and the Standard must be further loosened to maintain inerrancy.

See, there is no logical possible resolution to the world-wide flood and Noah’s ark. Problems with getting all the animals, fitting all the animals, size of the boat, etc. The ONLY possible explanation is a miracle. A Miracle can (and often does) defy logic. It is OUTSIDE logic. Therefore we have a divine being that can act outside logic. So, that being the case, the inerrantist is ALSO not limited to “logic.�

So our Standard III is actually “every possible resolution, logically or not, must be proved false by the errantist.� And there, again, you have me. Therefore the Bible, like every single other book is inerrant. Heck, my Sunday Comics are inerrant! Garfield really CAN talk, and really DOES like lasagna!

No, Billy Graham is cool, I did not miss the point. The point is obvious.

[Cross Examiner]

1. I do not assert the actuality of 3 and 4, only the rational possibility of each.
2. You assert that miracles defy logic (i.e. not physics). What law of logic would a miracle violate?
3. What is standard III?

Regards,
BGic

[blt to go]

I see. Rather than address the fact that to maintain inerrancy, Standard III (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1657614#post1657614) creates a double-edged sword, or to address God acting alone, or to address the specific verses in any way, shape or form to address the fact that the word “incite� apparently can change its meaning, or to address 50 shekels of silver = 600 shekels of gold, (Oh, of COURSE. David gave him BOTH 50 shekels AND 600 shekels) or to address the variety of complications brought up in my previous two posts, Mr. Billy Graham is cool has chosen to ignore such, and raise three points.

Normally, I would ignore such obvious avoidance of the problems addressed as concession for inability to respond, and simply reiterate the points made above. However, I have seen this premise of “Miracles violate physics (or biology or astronomy or etc.) but NOT logic,� elsewhere, and so for other readers, THAT question (against every instinct I have) I will address.

Pure Boolean Logic states “If A, then B.� It does not matter what “A� is; it can be chocolate ice cream, Episode 12 of M*A*S*H or the number 2. [(c) Yahzi in another thread] For pure Logic to work: Every Single Time “A�, then Every Single Time “B.�

If ever an event occurs in which “A� happens, and “B� does not, then pure Logic has failed.

Further, Pure Logic would state that “A� can never equal “Not A.� Think I got that right.

So let’s look at the Bible. (Particularly Miracles) I am not going to bother giving Scripture references, because apparently they are not read anyway.

1. IF any human steps out of a boat in 50 feet of water (“A�) THEN the human will sink. (“B�) Every time. No exceptions. (Forget flotation devices, etc. Stay with me.)
2. Peter (a human) steps out of a boat in 50 feet of water. (“A�)
3. Peter does not sink. (not-“B�)
4. Hence the Logic of “if A then B� fails.
5. The explanation of this is a violation of Logic called a Miracle.

Of course, the Christian will be quick to point out that my example is disingenuous since I fail to indicate a “God-factor� which for these purposes, we shall call “[+G]� This would mean that saying just “A� is incomplete. Which, as applied above would appear as follows:

1. If A then B.
2. A [+G]
3. Not B
4. Since A and ONLY A did not occur, due to the introduction of [+G] (Appearing as “If A [+G] then C. C does not equal B.) then logic is complete and not violated.

I will call this “Godean Logic.� This would mean in EVERY SINGLE SITUATION, every time I Add [+G] to the equation, pure logic can be thrown out the window as a constant. Therefore:

1. If A then B.
2. But I want a “C� which does NOT equal B.
3. Therefore I introduce [+G] to A to get “If A [+G] then C and not B.�

Looking good so far. The Problem arises in that “G� is not a constant! Let’s try another miracle. Raising the dead.

1: If you die (A) THEN you stay Dead. (B)
2. Lazarus Died (A)
3. Add God [+G]
4. Lazarus came back to life, but then died again later. (C)
5. So: If A then B. But If A[+G] then C (Not-B)
6. Christ Died (A)
7. Add God [+G]
8. Christ came back to life and never died again. (D)
9: So: If A then B. But If A[+G] then D (Not-B)
10 If A+G = C and A+G = D then C = D
11. Therefore dying again later = never dying again.

I understand my description is simple, but the bottom line is that a Christian always, always, always, has that wonderful out of “+G� so that when it is convenient to use Boolean Logic, they do so. When it becomes difficult, they simply apply Godean Logic of “+G� and then, by golly, ANYTHING can happen.

Frankly, if you are using +G, and then attempting to use Boolean logic, I see this as a waste of time, and frankly, intellectually dishonest. Once you provide for the ability of “miracles� anything can happen.

(And PLEASE, don’t state that God is bound by Logic. That is nowhere to be found in Scripture. He is not bound by time or space. Why should he be bound by Logic?)

So that is why, in a huge nutshell, I state Standard III is “any possibility, logical or otherwise.� Why can’t you state God turned 600 shekels of Gold into 50 shekels of silver? Turned water into wine! Why NOT state that God accelerated decomposition of Judas and then reached down with a finger and broke the branch? DANGER. DANGER. DANGER. Stay away from “because it doesn’t say so.� That’s killing the argument of David’s Census being inerrant, since that argument by Mr. Billy Graham is cool introduces elements that the bible “doesn’t say.�

Further, even if you disagree with this logic a violation of physics (biology, astronomy, etc.) would ALSO allow any possible explanation. So it is really six of one, half-dozen of the other.

And THAT is why, Vinnie, you lost (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1658124#post1658124)* the debate. See, you thought you were debating an inerrantist that held to the Chicago Statement (that at least has the intellectually honest to recognize contradictions that must be accepted by blind faith as being non-contradictions), but apparently we have learned, the obligation is upon the errantist to point out possible contradictions, and then, all the inerrantist has to do is present any possible harmonization (including miracles, adding whatever words are necessary, changing the meanings of the exact same word, defying logic, defying common sense, etc.) and your contradiction is quashed—dismissed as mere frivolity.

Food laws? Pishaw! See, what you didn’t know is that Christ ALSO said that the food laws would not be repealed until a later date. Simply not recorded, but certainly a “possibility.� (As to why it was later, I will state that is a miracle, and you don’t have the right to know.)

Tenth Plague? Nonsense. At that moment in time God KNEW that each first-born was going to grow up to commit a capital offense, worthy of death, and so, he had every right to lead up to it by hardening Pharaoh’s heart and wiping them out.

(Of course, we are still left with that insistent nagging problem of special pleading, and the fact that this ALSO makes the Qu’ran, Book of Mormon and Science and Health as inspired books under this standard. Which to choose. Which to choose. But in all fairness this debate was about the Bible, not them, so we will conveniently ignore the problem.)

*see, in debates (and I am not familiar with Formal debates, just courtroom fights) when the other side withdraws, this would be counted as a “win� for the opponent. But when you add the [+G] factor, apparently this becomes, at WORST a draw, and possibly even a win. Hence RobertLW withdrawing [+G] = RobertLW winning.

[Cross Examiner]

1. I checked your link and found no explication of 'Standard III'.
2. I have no idea what the number of shekels has to do with epistemological warrant.
3. While you probably have good intent in trying to educate me, I knew about Boolean logic etc. beforehand and so your kind effort is superfluous.
4. Yes, A=A; this is the law of identity.
5. You are confusing empirical epistemology with logic. Presciently, I alluded to your forthcoming mistake here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1658247#post1658247). I'm not going to explain the difference between analytic a priori and synthetic a posteriori propositions to you. I suggest Google.
7. I didn't read beyond the 'Peter walking on water' part of your prior post.
8. If you have something to say that I should read then you can begin by telling me what you are arguing for and how it is relevant to what I am arguing for. And you can surely say all that concisely, as I do.

Regards,
BGic

[Cross Examiner]

Anthology A consists of writings from Narrator 1 and 2
Narrator 1: on Monday, John went to the store.
Narrator 2: on Monday, John went to the bank.

blt to go: Aha! Narrator 1 and 2 contradict one another. Anthology A is errant.
BGic: Isn't it possible that John went to the store and the bank on Monday?
blt to go: Sure. But then you're just introducing information to the text and now any two sentences can mean anything!
BGic: No comment.

Regards,
BGic

[CX]

Anthology A consists of writings from Narrator 1 and 2
Narrator 1: on Monday, John went to the store.
Narrator 2: on Monday, John went to the bank.

blt to go: Aha! Narrator 1 and 2 contradict one another. Anthology A is errant.
BGic: Isn't it possible that John went to the store and the bank on Monday?
blt to go: Sure. But then you're just introducing information to the text and now any two sentences can mean anything!
BGic: No comment.

Regards,
BGic

A more apt analogy would be something like

Anthology A consists of writings from Narrator 1 and 2
Narrator 1: on Monday, John went to Munich.
Narrator 2: on Monday, John went to Tasmania.

[Cross Examiner]

Ah. So we differ on what is being said. Even so, it is possible that John went to Munich and Tasmania. How one group of men so happens to interpret, weigh and apply evidence in order to reach their inductive conclusions is uninteresting to me and irrelevant to the issues of epistemological warrant and logical certainty.

Regards,
BGic

[Sven]

1. I checked your link and found no explication of 'Standard III'.

I think this is a better link:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1658161#post1658161
(post #277)


7. I didn't read beyond the 'Peter walking on water' part of your prior post.

By ignoring arguments, they won't go away.


Edited to add a link which could be of interest and/or give the discussion a new spin; it seems to be at a dead end now.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=89109

[Cross Examiner]

I think this is a better link [1]:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1658161#post1658161
(post #277) [2]


By ignoring arguments, they won't go away. [3]


Edited to add a link which could be of interest and/or give the discussion a new spin; it seems to be at a dead end now. [4]
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=89109
1. That is a better link.
2. What blt to go calls 'Standard III' is simply my explication of that which is plainly implicit in (A) and (B). It's nothing new.
3. 'Standard III' is the burden one must meet in order to use the language of logical certainty (e.g. 'the Bible is errant' rather than 'I believe the Bible is errant'). As I forewarned, it is irrational to draw deductive conclusions from inductive argumentation.
3. While I appreciate his good-natured effort, blt to go needs to concisely state what he is arguing for and how it is relevant to epistemological warrant and logical certainty before I'll read and parse more meandering prose.
4. Yes, I see that you opened another thread, Sven. I'll gladly participate.

Regards,
BGic

[blt to go]

blt to go needs to concisely state what he is arguing for

Very Funny, Sir!

Of the last three posts I have made, you have failed to address the issues raised in posts 1 and 2 and have freely admitted that you refuse to read post 3.

Now I ask you, why should I bother to state what I am arguing for, as

1) I already have.
2) You will refuse to address it.
3) You will refuse to read it.

Twice I see that you have recounted "conversations" in which I find statements ascribed to me that do not follow AT ALL what I have stated, and are, in fact directly contrary to my position.

I would hope that it is simply for the reason that you do not desire to address the arguments presented rather than deliberate misdirection.

As a complete aside, when in a debate, one presents an analogy, one is better served by stating an analogy that fits the facts, otherwise it appears that one is AFRAID of the facts.

It looks like this. Observe the original analogy:
Anthology A consists of writings from Narrator 1 and 2
Narrator 1: on Monday, John went to the store.
Narrator 2: on Monday, John went to the bank.

Hmmmm. Not quite in line with our facts. In fact not close. Let's tighten up this little tale to fit more closely with our contradiction.

The New York Times reports two different articles:
Narrator 1: President Bush became angry at a group of people. So, on Monday, President Bush forces John to go to the Store and ignite a bomb which kills 70,000 people. John pleads guilty. John gets 600 years in prison for this heinous crime.
Narrator 2: Osama bin Laden (reasons unknown) forces John to go to the Store and ignite a bomb which kills 70,000 people. John pleads guilty. John gets 50 days community service for this heinous crime.

blt to go: This would appear to be a contradiction.
My Esteemed Opponent: No, No. See, this is the New York Times which I know NEVER makes mistakes, so this CANNOT be a contradiction. In fact, in knowing this, it becomes APPARENT as to what we must say actually happened.

John must have wanted to ignite that bomb. President Bush needed to have those 70,000 people killed, but knowing that John didn't have the guts to do it, "forces" John to do it. Now, when we say "force" we mean that President Bush, who has complete control over the actions of Osama bin Laden serious issues as to 9/11] allowed Osama bin Laden to act. Osama bin Laden then "forced" John to go to the store. NOW, when we say "forced" we mean, well, forced. As to the punishment, clearly John got 600 years in prison AND 50 days of community service.

See--no contradiction, just honest reporters skipping over a few, very minor and insignificant details. One shouldn't concern oneself with President Bush and Osama bin Laden working together. Or President Bush wanting 70,000 dead. Or President Bush having complete control over Osama bin Laden What is REALLY important is that there is CLEARLY no contradiction here.

Who is kidding whom?

[Cross Examiner]

blt to go:

1. If you have stated what you are arguing for then I have simply missed it.
2. I will gladly address what you are arguing for when I know what it is that you are arguing for.
3. I will not refuse to read your position provided that you can state what you are arguing for concisely. You should be able to do this in a paragraph at most. Here, as an example, are my positions on this thread as it now stands:

I. He who asserts the verity of the statement 'the Bible is errant', using the language of logical certainty, is unjustified in so doing unless he can also demonstrate the verity of his claim with logical certainty according to our aforementioned criterion, which is itself Aristotelian and so grants logical certainty.

II. How one group of men so happens to interpret, weigh and apply evidence in order to reach their inductive conclusions is uninteresting to me and irrelevant to the issues of epistemological warrant and logical certainty.

On an aside, I disagree with your opinion that your NY Times story is analogous to whether or not the Bible contradicts itself with regards to the reason(s) David numbered his people. Since you offer no justification for construing the two as analogous to one another, neither will I offer justification for my refusal of your opinion on the matter. I thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Regards,
BGic

[Cross Examiner]

It ocurred to me that my last post would not likely help bridge our differences. Since I don't want any hurt feelings over the weekend, I'll try and and talk about this the way it seems that you want me to talk about this. Now, as stated, if Satan tempted David and God allowed Satan to tempt David then that would explain why two Hebrew authors would highlight different causes of the census. And since the texts themselves do not come close to precluding this explanation you apparently resort to objecting on philosophical (ethical reductio ad absurdum?) rather than exegetical grounds. So you want to know why God would allow Satan to tempt David to evil that God might punish Israel (among other reasons)? Rather than go down the path of confusion again, I just ask you to now clarify the nature of this philosophical objection. What, exactly, do you find objectionable about God allowing Satan to provoke evil as a means to bringing about His ends? Or, if you prefer, what is it about the doctrine of concurrency that bugs you? I'm a man of the people.

Regards,
BGic

[RobertLW]

And THAT is why, Vinnie, you lost (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1658124#post1658124)* the debate. See, you thought you were debating an inerrantist that held to the Chicago Statement (that at least has the intellectually honest to recognize contradictions that must be accepted by blind faith as being non-contradictions), but apparently we have learned, the obligation is upon the errantist to point out possible contradictions, and then, all the inerrantist has to do is present any possible harmonization (including miracles, adding whatever words are necessary, changing the meanings of the exact same word, defying logic, defying common sense, etc.) and your contradiction is quashed—dismissed as mere frivolity.


Wow. I am not really sure what you are saying here. I do not understand how your references to me forwards your case. I certianly do not understand in which way they are warranted. I have previouly addressed these issues. I previously justified my faith and in doing so demonstrated that my faith is in fact not blind. No one refuted that argument. No where in any of my posts did I allude to the "errantist" as having any obligation whatsoever in pointing out possible contradictions. Furthermore, no where in any of my posts did I allude to the "errantist" carrying any burden of proof beyond that which he/she assumes. Point in fact, in my final rebuttal I clearly stated as one of my reasons for withdrawing that I was not satisfied simply batting down a few posed contradicitons. It is too easy and it is pointless. Prior to even posing a contradition, the "errantist" knows that I will harmonize it. So what is the point in going in circles? I would rather examine the reasons as to why we interpret the text differently. I certainly do not appreciate having my honesty questioned simply because I do not agree with Vinnie's arguments. I certainly have the right to disagree and I do believe that I will go ahead and maintain that right.



Food laws? Pishaw! See, what you didn’t know is that Christ ALSO said that the food laws would not be repealed until a later date. Simply not recorded, but certainly a “possibility.� (As to why it was later, I will state that is a miracle, and you don’t have the right to know.)


I am not seeing where anyone made this argument. Please specify. I believed Vinnie's objections to be theological in nature and not substantially based in the text. As such, I structured the bulk of my rebuttal to address his objections. I did, however, touch on his textual objections.



Tenth Plague? Nonsense. At that moment in time God KNEW that each first-born was going to grow up to commit a capital offense, worthy of death, and so, he had every right to lead up to it by hardening Pharaoh’s heart and wiping them out.

I am not seeing where anyone made this argument either. Please specify. In my rebuttal, I pointed out that the Tenth Plague is not an internal contradiction. To which, Vinnie responded that he has a moral compass and can make moral judgements. While this is true, it does not demonstrate an external contradiction. He admitted having no alternate moral authority by which to judge rendering his argument as his opinion. Do you really expect me to continue arguing Vinnie's opinion which is arbitrary in nature?



(Of course, we are still left with that insistent nagging problem of special pleading, and the fact that this ALSO makes the Qu’ran, Book of Mormon and Science and Health as inspired books under this standard. Which to choose. Which to choose. But in all fairness this debate was about the Bible, not them, so we will conveniently ignore the problem.)


I have previously addressed this issue to which you responded that I am very good and saying both yes and no. I clearly did not "conveniently ignore the problem". Please specify in which way I said both yes and no. I also clearly explained that I do not engage in special pleading of the Bible, an argument you did not address except to say that I apply special pleading to the Bible. While I understand that you believe that I apply special pleading to the Bible, I do not see where you refuted my argument beyond simply saying so.



*see, in debates (and I am not familiar with Formal debates, just courtroom fights) when the other side withdraws, this would be counted as a “win� for the opponent. But when you add the [+G] factor, apparently this becomes, at WORST a draw, and possibly even a win. Hence RobertLW withdrawing [+G] = RobertLW winning.


Would it really make you feel better if I said Vinnie won? Where did I apply any [+G] factor to the outcome of the debate? Where did I state that the debate was in fact a draw? Where did I state that I even possibly won the debate? Where did I state that my withdrawing equals my winning? I simply stated my personal opinion in writing "My own personal view of the debate is that nobody really won or lost and it was turning out to be rather ridiculous, which is why I ended my participation early." The fact that it is my personal opinion was made clear by the statement, "My own personal view". Is stating my personal opinion really that objectionable?

Here, Vinnie won the debate. Feel better now?

I am more than happy to discuss my arguments in a productive manner. As I have stated many times, anyone is invited to send me an e-mail to discuss the topic.

Thanks,

Robert

[blt to go]

“My position?� I am baffled as to why “my position� has any relevant bearing on the issue. I was unaware that the centuries debate on inerrancy would come down to btg’s position on inerrancy.

(And NO, I will not limit it to one paragraph. I try everything to get around the Laws of the United States of America. Why you think I would abide by your demands is mystifying. Don’t like it, than don’t read it. Won’t be the first.) My position is as follows:

1. That the initial burden is with the errantist, as all documents should be taken, at face value as inerrant. (Sorry, Sven and Vinnie, but that is my position.)
2. That the bible has demonstrated contradictions on their face.
3. That any person of who even remotely touches this subject must recognize such claimed contradictions.
4. That upon recognized such claimed contradictions, the inerrantist assumes the burden of proof (so we might as well ignore points 1, 2, and 3. Happier, Clutch and Vinnie?)
5. That the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, i.e. more likely than not, or 51% versus 49%
6. That the reality is; it matters not who has the burden of proof, as the inerrantist will never reach 51%
7. That if the same claimed contradictions were placed in any other book, the same would be rejected as contradictions by the Christian and non-christian alike. (special pleading)
8. That if the same claimed contradictions were placed in any other holy book (such as the Qu’ran, Book of Morman, Science and Health, et.) but given different names to protect the innocent, the Christian would reject the same and snicker [quietly and respectively] up their sleeve at any such religion that would hold to the same. (special pleading)
9. That if the same claimed contradictions were placed in any book that Christianity views as opposing their religion (i.e. evolution) that such claimed contradictions would be held up high as demonstrating the idiocy and inanity of said book. (special pleading)
10. That upon requiring the inerrantist to demonstrate their standard for inerrancy, eventually it will be demonstrated that said standard violates special pleading, and in fact, eventually, their theology. (i.e. to maintain inerrancy, the person must abandon theology)
11. That upon debating with the inerrantist, it will be demonstrated that any rational argument for inerrancy will violate special pleading and/or theology.
12. That the inerrantist will hold onto their view regardless of the obvious fallacies therein, i.e. it will become a waste of time. (Vinnie saw this long ago. I am slow.)
13. That eventually, the only possible way to accept inerrancy is to recognize that it is based upon pure blind faith alone (such as the Chicago Statement) and that it cannot be rationally proven.
14. That such rationalization does not account for the same faith-driven basis for acceptance in a variety of religions, which are rejected as idiocy and hypocrisy. (If the bible is inerrant on faith, why not the Qu’ran, etc.?)
15. That I will always assume the burden of proof, and require the inerrantist to establish the standard of proof to demonstrate the eventual abandonment of rationality, theology and that such is special pleading.
16. That if I was to pick any 7 jurors out of the world, and use the bible as a source, (again, if my jurors were Christians, I would simply change the names) it will always, always, always come back as having contradictions. (SGT)
17. That upon reviewing the history of the establishment of the bible, the question arises: Is this the word of God, or the lumping together of a number of short stories of a number of different authors regarding their view of a certain religion?
18. That upon reviewing the history, based upon the rationality of the situation, it is a number of short stories of different authors regarding their view of a certain religion.
19. That I will not believe in a God that plays Hind-and-Seek. (spelling correct as I am apparently butt-fucked if I get his guessing game wrong.)
20. That any God that is powerful, intelligent, and all-knowing enough to “inspire� a book, is the same God that is powerful, intelligent and all-knowing to PRESERVE such a book.
21. That the variety of ancient manuscripts of the bible that disagree demonstrate the reality that I do not hold the original document as those authored by the person who wrote the original books are in my bible today.
22. That such disparagement results in the inability to determine the original statements.
23. That to argue what the original statements said, or meant, is therefore superfluous.
24. That it is scary to me that any rational human being would go to such lengths to “harmonize� (i.e. rationalize) any book, yet decry any other person who does the same in any other manuscript.
25. That, worse, any such “harmonization� appears rational, coherent and intelligent to all others of the same belief, simply because they believe the same, not because it is.

Try it, Sir, I entice you. Tomorrow at church. You have displayed intelligence enough. Use any of the contradictions we have raised. Change the names/circumstances just enough that any average, every-day Christian would not recognize it as coming out of the bible. Say you read it in the Qu’ran, Book of Mormon, etc. Say, “Isn’t it ridiculous that such persons would believe such obvious contradictions in their own scriptures?� WATCH EVERY SINGLE PERSON AGREE THAT SUCH BELIEF IN SUCH CONTRADICTIONS IS RIDICULOUS!!!

No, I see “my position� as no help at all.

[blt to go]

Whoops. Forgot one.

26. That the bible is held out to be solely unique in being the only Word of God on earth, and therefore it should easily be held to a higher standard, not a lesser standard (of "forgive all errors") and the proponents of inerrancy should gladly assume the burden and easily defeat the simple minds of men. The fact that this debate rages on brings into question the validity of "God's word" being greater than man's.

[blt to go]

RobertLW, you are correct, you did not utilize your colleague's arguments in the debate or this thread, and any such implication must be ignored.

I was simply applying that argument to the debate. We are all very well aware that your basis, in its simplest form is:

"The authors of the Bible wrote with 100% accuracy. Nothing they wrote was wrong."

Which then threw you into a confusion as to why poor Vinnie (and Clutch, Sven, wiploc, blt to go, Vorkosigan, etc.) could possibly say that is not true, and since we do, we must have some philisophical problem. As it is clear they are true and 100% accurate.

I was not satisfied simply batting down a few posed contradicitons. It is too easy and it is pointless. Prior to even posing a contradition, the "errantist" knows that I will harmonize it. You do understand, of course, that this completely violates the Chicago Statement and reveals you were never following the statement at all.

[Cross Examiner]

That's an interesting set of opinions, blt to go ... particularly the counterfactual conditionals. You seem a bit upset so I'll withhold a critique at the present. More importantly, what you've been arguing for is now demonstrably irrelevant to what I've been arguing for (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1664238#post1664238) and vice versa. We've apparently been talking past each other for some time now.

Regards,
BGic

[Johann_Kaspar]

Reading that thread and the debate I was thinking I am in the humour folder. :D

IMHO, it is quite useless to discuss inerrancy. That is an act of faith and is irrational. Any discussion on that subject with a xian is a complete lost of time. What did you expect?

When someone will meet a speaking snake, drop a line, please.

[Johann_Kaspar]

Forgot to add: inerrancy? :D :D :D What about translations? How many people do read the bible in Hebrew which is the only that makes sense (well, historically speaking I mean).

[blt to go]

“Set of opinions,� BGic? Absolutely correct. I would state an informed, intelligent, and based upon rationality and experience set of opinions, :) but still opinions nonetheless.
I would be surprised, if not completely stunned if anyone reading this thread subscribed to the 26 points of btgism (and if you do and would like to become my disciple, I will gladly PM you my address where you can send your tithes and offerings! :D ) You will note that I disagree with some of the premises of Sven, Clutch and Vinnie. Simply my opinion on how I respond to contradictions.

And that is why I did not think it would be helpful to state my “position.� I did not come here to perform this debate:

Person A: This is my standard for inerrancy.
Person B: This is MY standard for inerrancy.
Person A: Well, YOUR standard is wrong because….
Person B: No, YOUR standard is wrong because…

I simply wanted to find out what each person’s standard was and apply it to the bible itself and see if it holds water. I have always assumed the burden of proof.

“Bit upset?� Perhaps, BGic. It has been particularly difficult to narrow down your standard. As I see it (and of course I have been wrong before), your standard is a “moving target� that as it is applied and (at least to me) demonstrated as unworkable, it morphs and changes to fit each situation.
It appears (to me) that in attempting to “correct� the apparent inconsistency, you have added words that are not there, diametrically changed the meaning of the same word (“incite�), ignored the reality that the authors missed the “elephant� in the room, and have introduced a concept that creates (for lack of a better word) an “interesting� theology.

It is also frustrating to attempt to respond to this introduction of facts, and morphing of standards, to be ignored and unread. Perhaps it is just I, and every other person reading this thread has found your responses obvious, rationale, and intelligent explanations of the contradiction.

And with that behind us, let me (probably a complete waste of time) forge ahead.

BGic, you indicated that in my New York Times analogy, I failed to address the REASONS behind David taking a census. You have previously indicated that David took the census for “prideful reasons.� The typical apologetic is that the Sin was pride, in David being proud of generating a huge army on his own, and not relying on God to provide the protection (or aggression) of the Israelites. Did I get that right?

This is a good example of (IMHO) introducing facts into the story to attempt to maintain inerrancy, which upon further inspection, actually creates MORE problems for your position. There is a whole slew of problems with this position.

1. Of course the most obvious—It is not stated anywhere in the text. It is introduced (through implication) by the apologist.

2. Although David had his problems, pride would not appear to be one of them. This was the guy who was rebuked by his wife for dancing naked in front of the entire city. This guy was rebuked by his Chief General for throwing dirt upon himself when his No. 1 enemy was killed. (Granted it was David’s son.) This guy acted like a madman to save himself before a king. He always humbled himself before Saul. He may have been unable to curb his reactions to events, but an overall review of his life would not reveal a guy who was proud. (True, this does not remotely eliminate this possibility)

3. Census of fighting men happened all the time. We are constantly shown instances where the number of horses, chariots, etc. were stated. Who counted the 70,000 that were killed by David’s census? (I understand it was probably a “round� figure!)

4. In fact, only six chapters after this dreaded affair, in 1 Chron. 27, WE SEE THEM COUNTING THE FIGHTING MEN?? I can only say, WTF? In fact, the most interesting line item in Chapter 27, is verse 24 which states:

Joab son of Zeruiah began to count the men but did not finish. Wrath came on Israel on account of this numbering, and the number was not entered in the book of the annals of King David.

Here we have a THIRD account of this Census. Apparently by a THIRD author. (If it was the SAME author, he sure forgot a lot in those six chapters!) Now we have Joab doing the counting (poor Joab, if you will recall, was the one person who spoke AGAINST the census, and here he is to blame for it!) We have the census started, but not finished. (again, completely contrary to the previous numbers of 1.1 Million and 1.4 Million) And we have that the number was not recorded. That is to say, it was NOT recorded as 1.1 Million. And NOT recorded as 1.4 Million.
Not to mention the problem of forgetting to mention David, God and Satan’s role in the whole thing!

How many different stories are you going to have to align?

5. God, himself had previously ordered a Census of the fighting men. Numbers 26:2

6. If David had “pride,� why didn’t God just punish David? The precipitating factor in this whole affair would seem to be that God was angry at Israel. Why go through this whole charade of causing David to sin, by allowing Satan to tempt him, just to kill 70,000 people? God seems to be pretty good with fire, brimstone, plague, famine, pestilence, disease, bad food, snakes, enemies attacking and a whole variety of ways to enact punishment, this seems a little complex.

7. Christ himself stated it was wise for a king to know how many fighting men he had. (Luke 14:31) While I am aware of the “doing away with the law� of the new covenant, this is the first I am aware of what was a sin worthy of punishment in the 10’s of thousands becomes wise under the new covenant! (Yes, Yes, I know. It wasn’t the “counting� it was the pride. Then explain why EVERY SINGLE OTHER counting was considered at least O.K., if not wise, but this one was not. When the text is as silent as any of the others.)

Look, bottom line on this census thing. It looks like any other myth. David happened to be counting his army at a time when some disease wiped out a number of people. (doubtfully EXACLTY 70,000) As is common, the people said that the reason for this disease was that “The Gods must be Angry.� One author blames God. Another (not liking to blame God) blames Satan. It is simply two authors applying supernatural reasons to natural occurrences.

Johann Kasper—why do I keep pounding away at this? I don’t know. I guess I would like to see BGic question why did this god make it so difficult to believe in it?

BGic – I understand the concept of faith. The problem is, why did the God of the bible make it so difficult for you? Why can’t you have AT LEAST been given no internal errors, so these silly debates would have ended quickly? Instead you are left with doing grammatical and word gymnastics to maintain inerrancy.

Would it have been THAT difficult for God to whisper in Samuel’s author’s ear, “No, not God, that should read Satan.� Other authors had no problems listing David’s sins, why not eliminate God and Satan entirely and place the blame on David. If inspiration was all it was cracked up to be, it should have at least gotten this right!

[RobertLW]

RobertLW, you are correct, you did not utilize your colleague's arguments in the debate or this thread, and any such implication must be ignored.

I was simply applying that argument to the debate. We are all very well aware that your basis, in its simplest form is:

"The authors of the Bible wrote with 100% accuracy. Nothing they wrote was wrong."


While I would agree with this statement, I have never made this argument. This would be an unsupported assertion as we do not have the autographs to study to make this conclusion. What we are talking about is the study of hand made copies.




Which then threw you into a confusion as to why poor Vinnie (and Clutch, Sven, wiploc, blt to go, Vorkosigan, etc.) could possibly say that is not true, and since we do, we must have some philisophical problem. As it is clear they are true and 100% accurate.


False, I have stated several times that I understand their position. For example, Vinnie asked why he should believe that "God wrote the Bible" I responded to him that I do not believe that God wrote the Bible, but human authors whom he inspired did. I clearly stated that if he does not presume the verity of the authors, then he should not believe that God inspired it. I obviously understand that because of their presumptions, it is not clear to them that the Bible is inerrant in it's truth and message. They will find contradictions. In what way do I seem confused?




You do understand, of course, that this completely violates the Chicago Statement and reveals you were never following the statement at all.


How have I violated the Chicago Statement?

Thanks

Robert

[Sven]

Prior to even posing a contradition, the "errantist" knows that I will harmonize it. So what is the point in going in circles? I would rather examine the reasons as to why we interpret the text differently.

I think we can all agree that the latter is more interesting. But you should have made this clear before starting the debate. I hope the next debate on this topic (if this will be ever debated again) would indeed focus on this kind of problems.

[Sven]

4. Yes, I see that you opened another thread, Sven. I'll gladly participate.

Unfortunately, you haven't done so far - until now, the new thread is nothing more than RobertLW-bashing. A bit boring, don't you think?
When will you step in?

[Cross Examiner]

blt to go: you apparently do not wish to talk about my issues of epistemological warrant and what makes for logical certainty. You do apparently wish to make an idiosyncratic inductive argument about something or other. I’ll take closer a look at your position points and will then comment.

6. You beg the question to presume that the preponderance of the evidence militates against biblical inerrancy.
7. To presume as fact that Christians would do what you think they would do in a counterfactual situation and thereby charge them as actually engaging in special pleading is patently irrational and prejudicial on your part.
8. This position point of yours is a tautological restatement of 7.
9. This position point of yours is a tautological restatement of 7 and 8.
10. Contrary to your assertion, a standard cannot violate special pleading. You are apparently confused about what special pleading is.
11. First, you engage in argumentum ad hominem and petitio principii by insinuating that the errantist does in fact bring the more rational case to bear, that the inerrantist knows this and still insists, irrationally, that his position is correct. Second, you assert, again, that the inerrantist and/or his argument can violate special pleading, which evinces a misunderstanding of what special pleading is on your part. Third, you beg the question to intimate that harmonization leads to undesirable or inconsistent theological consequences.
12. You beg the question to presume that apparent inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies. Your unsupported and continued insistence that the inerrantist irrationally maintains his position is also tautological repetition of 11.
13. You beg the question to presume that inerrancy is predicated upon blind faith (i.e. fideism) rather than upon reasonable faith.
14. I, for one, do not believe that Muslim faith is tantamount to idiocy or hypocrisy. While I believe it is mistaken on factual grounds, I do not call the character of the Muslim himself in to question as you presumptuously imply that Christians do.
18. You beg the question to presume that the purpose of biblical canonization was political expediency or that the canon serves as propaganda for a particular worldview.
26. I agree that if the Bible is the Word of God then it ought to have certain distinguishing characteristics. I disagree that these characteristics need be so forceful and apparent as to preclude all human debate over whether or not the Bible is the Word of God.

To your subsequent comments:
I simply wanted to find out what each person’s standard was and apply it to the bible itself and see if it holds water. I have always assumed the burden of proof.
Practically speaking, I do not use the Aristotelian criterion for determining my belief with regards to Biblical inerrancy. I do not believe that anyone would since the question of inerrancy is a practical, informal one. Nonetheless, this criterion must be met by the errantist in order to legitimize his use of the language of logical certainty when he formally asserts that ‘the Bible is errant’, for example. This criterion is never met yet such formal pronouncements are uttered frequently here at IIDB (this thread included), which is and was my main criticism.
It has been particularly difficult to narrow down your standard.
That’s probably because I’ve not articulated the standard I use for determining my own belief on this issue. What I’ve articulated is the criterion that validates or invalidates formal propositions. But I would apply the latter criterion in a formal setting to any proposition and so I do not engage in special pleading.
It appears (to me) that in attempting to “correct� the apparent inconsistency, you have added words that are not there, diametrically changed the meaning of the same word (“incite�), ignored the reality that the authors missed the “elephant� in the room, and have introduced a concept that creates (for lack of a better word) an “interesting� theology.
1. I do not attempt to 'correct' the apparent inconsistency.
2. You are mistaken to imply that when I suggest a rational explanation to the text I 'add words'.
3. I do not change the meaning of the word 'incite' by merely pointing out that the verb applies to one party as easily as it does to two.
BGic, you indicated that in my New York Times analogy, I failed to address the REASONS behind David taking a census.
No. I indicated that you did not justify construing the NY Times story as analogous to the story of David’s census and so, likewise, I did not offer justification in simply denying your construal as yet another inconsequential opinion.
You have previously indicated that David took the census for “prideful reasons.� The typical apologetic is that the Sin was pride, in David being proud of generating a huge army on his own, and not relying on God to provide the protection (or aggression) of the Israelites. Did I get that right?
Not quite. I do not mean to indicate that my resolution is in fact what happened since, according to the demands of Aristotelian logic, only a reasonable resolution that is not precluded by the text is all that is needed to defeat a formal claim of contradiction.
This is a good example of (IMHO) introducing facts into the story to attempt to maintain inerrancy, which upon further inspection, actually creates MORE problems for your position. There is a whole slew of problems with this position.
Incorrect. One does not introduce facts when one explains facts. I would address what you wrote after your mistaken statement above but it builds upon said mistaken statement and so is certainly likewise mistaken.
I guess I would like to see BGic question why did this god make it so difficult to believe in it?
The Bible (and the human experience of the world as well) is such that one can be relatively rational and good and be either an unbeliever or a believer. I understand this to be so because God does not merely want those that are sensible and self-righteous to enter into an eternal love relationship with Him (the point of this existence). He wants those that want such an existence more than anything else and so are willing to humble themselves and search tirelessly in order to find it. That said, I do not find the Bible difficult to believe in, it is exactly what I would expect given what I know about God.
Why can’t you have AT LEAST been given no internal errors, so these silly debates would have ended quickly?
While I agree that these debates are silly I disagree that there are internal errors.

Regards,
BGic

[Cross Examiner]

Anthology A consists of the writings of Narrators 1 and 2.
Narrotor 1: Bob provoked John
Narrator 2: Bill provoked John

blt to go: Isn't this an error?
BGic: According to the Aristotelian criterion, it is if either Narrator 1 or 2 assert that Bob or Bill exclusively provoked John or if either Bob or Bill did in fact exclusively provoke John.
blt to go: But neither the text itself nor outside sources shed any light on the issue.
BGic: Then we do not have warrant to conclude that the above is in fact an error in Anthology A.
blt to go: But you wouldn't apply this criterion to any other works other than Anthology A. That is special pleading.
BGic: Wrong. l would and do apply this criterion to any formal proposition. For example, if, for other reasons, I am confident in the inerrancy of Anthology A then I am likewise entitled to the same confidence in the errancy of those works which contradict Anthology A.
blt to go: But what are these reasons for your confidence in the inerrancy of Anthology A?
BGic: And now we leave the relatively simple realm of deduction and enter the complicated and highly disputed world of inductive argumentation ...

Regards,
BGic