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.

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 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* 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. 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

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

I think this is a better link:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...61#post1658161
(post #277)

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

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