Sauron

Then why did you try to place burden of proof, if you thought it didn't fit well?
Gotcha.

Okay, I'm going to do this slowly, because god knows you can't take the datastream very fast without a nervous breakdown.

1. The discussion re: Nativity was about the proper basis for evaluating claims in historical texts.

2. So the context of the discussion was also about evaluating claims in historical texts.

3. In a discussion about historical texts - remember, with context already established -- you said that the burden of proof lies with the person claiming the contradiction.

Indeed. It's amazing that you thought your little distraction would work for more than a post or two before the whole world figured out what you were up to.

In this case, not answered.

No, you asserted a claim, and whined some more about a particular example. But you did not prove your claim. Nor did you truly answer the question: why does the person noticing the contradiction have the burden of proof? Instead of the person insisting that the text is true, in spite of the contradiction.

Shall I tell you what your real reason for dodging this question is? The reason that you're hoping nobody else notices?

If we were to find an apparent contradiction in, say, Homer's Iliad, we would not expect the person finding the contradiction to mount a herculean effort to prove it was a contradiction. Quite the opposite; given the prima facie evidence of a contradiction, then the burden of proof would lie with anyone who insisted that the Iliad was correct, in spite of the contradiction. And then he/she would be obligated to explain away the contradiction in a professional and scholarly manner. There would be no preferential treatment given to the Iliad, merely because it was old, beloved or revered. It would be treated critically, and the conclusions would flow naturally from the investigation - let the chips fall where they may.

But you also know that the bible could not withstand that type of scrutiny. You realize that your position is not consistent; you would have no problem accepting a contradiction in the Iliad, but you'll spend countless hours and sleepless nights trying to explain away a contradiction in the bible. You treat the two documents differently, and yet you want us to believe that you are unbiased in your approach.

You cannot admit any of this, however, because you realize that if you did, you would be indicting not just yourself, but a whole school of apologetics - one which has tried repeatedly to assume that the texts should be accepted at face value, unless proven otherwise. The bible *needs* an a priori assumption of truthfulness, and so therefore burden of proof must be reversed onto those who notice the contradictions.

So because your religion has painted you into a corner, you are forced to try and peddle the bizarre position that:

(a) the person noticing the contradiction has some kind of burden of proof

instead of

(b) the person insisting that it is true, in spite of contradictions.

Sauron

1. I don't see any gap.

2. Even if there were a gap, asking me to plug it would not support your claims. Nor would I lift a finger to help you support your claims; that's your homework assignment, not mine.

Excuse me? I see no evidence that he forgot anything.

Again - the fact that you have failed to make your case, does not obligate me to make the opposite case. Saying "I'm not convinced by your diatribe" doesn't burden me with anything. You really do have a problem with proper placement of burden of proof, don't you?

Yes. Although it's obvious that -- as I said earlier -- that you did not read Carrier.

Steven Avery

The problem is that you didn't lift a finger to even examine anything. My sense is that you want to avoid examining the actual problems to try to not be accountable. So you will not discuss any specifics except to say ..

"No gap... I rah-rah Carrier"

A bit on the transparent side.

And this is why Carrier got away with the type of junque writing I reference above for FIVE YEARS. The skeptics who were his readers and reviewers, and run interference for him here, don't even pay attention to the most obvious and blatant blunders and omissions and false accusations and selective interpretations of convenience.

(Yes there were a couple of decent posts on the Nativity thread, AFTER I pointed out the blunders, so there are some late exceptions.)

I really didn't follow any of your Iliad stuff. If one person said that the Iliad had some contradictions, and another said, no .. wait a minute.. (they might say it was a false claim .. on the level of Carrier's Simeon and Anna and Herod blunderama) .. I would definitely read and check and come to my conclusion only after study. Even if my general respect for the text was low.

Even with the Iliad, I definitely would not take Sauron's accusation at face.

In fact, with Sauron as the accuser Alice-in-Wonderland gets every benefit of the doubt.

Shalom,
Steven

Sven

Given that contradictions are often pointed out between different books of the bible, written by different people, internal contradictions of course does not cover all cases. You've to include external contradictions, that is, contradictions between two different authors. This is encountered quite regularly in ancient texts - and certainly historians don't go searching for ways to harmonize the texts, they rather search for reasons why events got reported differently.

ETA: To clarify, just because the books of the bible were assembled at some time in history into a single book does not make these external contradictions internal ones somehow.

Steven Avery

Sven, I understand your point, however the very nature of the context of this discussion is whether or not the Bible really has one guiding author. Those of us who see the Bible as a unique document view it as one book. The "contradiction" people are anxious to say otherwise, leading to stuff like the Simeon and Anna and Herod claim between Luke and Matthew.

In that context, the Bible is one book of multiple authors. The question is whether the authors are inspired by the Creator. If not, surely there will be a bunch of contradictions. If yes, the contradictions will be only in the eyes of those who do not want to see the Author.

Shalom,
Steven

Chris Weimer

Yes it does. Caesar Augustus, son of Julius Caesar the God. You see, Caesar Augustus actually is immortal. He only made himself born into the body of Octavian in order to bring about the social change. He whispered what to write in each of the author's ears.

And it's just as plausible as your theory, since both lack any evidence at all.

There isn't any evidence at all that it's a "unique book". From the beginning it's been called a collection of books. Obviously, even the ancients didn't see it as "one". Only modern heretics who worship the bible hold this erroneous belief that it's divine.

What creator? I don't see any creator? Oh, you mean King James?

So, in other words, if you live in reality, it's chock full of contradictions. If you live in fantasy-land, it's perfect.

And Santa Claus comes to visit every chimney on Christmas Eve.

Steven Avery

Yes, that is the fundamental difference in our views.

Chris Weimer

Yes. I highly doubt it. There are substantial differences between your views and views held by Ben Smith, Andrew Criddle, Stephen Carlson, Pastor Dr. Jim West, and many other Christians. In fact, all four I just mentioned find your view of inerrancy, as far as I know, as deeply flawed.

It's much more than "atheist v. Christian" - it's "evidence v. irrational delusion".

Solo

Perhaps, it is not that simple, Chris.

There are those who believe in God like children, and those who believe in God as grown-ups. Those who believe in God as grown-ups simply intuit there is purpose to life and a harmony in the world's chaos and admit to themselves that they do not know, ...that they do not have a clue whence they came and where they are being taken. They refer to that riddle, to that which we all intuit but we cannot touch, or grasp intellectually, as God. We all wish upon God, for we must, but some some will deny it, because once you express the inexpressible, God is just another word.

Now you perhaps understand my saying that professing atheism appears to be essentially "wishing upon the Impotent"

Jiri

Sven

And if this guiding author actually cared for some contradictions here and there, as long the overall message is transmitted. This is a point often appreciated by so-called liberal Christians and frowned at by you and all other Christians who simply won't accept anything else than an 100% inerrant bible.

Assuming your conclusion, yes.

Umm, sorry, praxeus, there's one thing everyone agrees on: There were different authors. So why not start with this fact and see were does it take us? Why assume automatically that there was indeed one being behind all of them, guiding them? As I said: You assume your conclusion.

See above. Why not take this as the starting point? Actually test if the authors were inspired. Since this certainly isn't an ordinary claim, one needs to demonstrate conclusively that apparent contradictions are actually not contradictions - the burden is on you.

We have (according to Christians) no other inspired book. Thus an inspired book is an extraordinary claim. And claims have to be supported. Not be the one who doubts, but by the one who claims.

No amount of word play will get you out of these simple facts.