blt to go

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:

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

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.
1. What information do I add?
2. Why would adding information violate (B)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

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.

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.

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

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."

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

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 However, this does not necessarily provide a standard. The standard proposed is: (Verity meaning the quality of being true.)

No, this little tidbit 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: 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 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?

That BOTH incited David. Or, if you prefer, "And Satan" to 2 Samuel AND "And God" to 1 Chronicles.

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.

and then the very next statement proceeds to introduce new facts. Where exactly is the word, "both?" This is a new fact.

Of course, I am not a fool. I, too, clearly saw 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.

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 -- and I’ll let be at that for now. Thanks for your insightful comments.

Regards,
BGic

RobertLW

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

:notworthy