FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-10-2004, 03:18 AM   #191
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go

I wonder if this point is clear.
Like crystal! :notworthy
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 07:36 AM   #192
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Clutch and blt :notworthy
Vinnie is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 10:18 AM   #193
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Post The errantist's position

The following is the errantist's position, as I understand it:

1. A surface anomaly is a proposition in the biblical text that appears, at the least, to be an actual error.
2. An error in the biblical text would mean that the Bible is not rightly called inerrant; it would, instead, be rightly called errant.
3. Since surface anomalies exist in the Bible it is likely that errors exist.
4. Most products of mankind, if not all, are errant.
5. Since the Bible is simply the product of mankind, it is likely that the Bible is errant.
6. Since it is more likely than not that the Bible is errant, the inerrantist assumes the burden of counterbalancing and or/overcoming this evidence and reason for biblical errancy.
7. One attempts to harmonize only that proposition which is actually erroneous.
8. Conversely, one never attempts to harmonize that proposition which is only seemingly erroneous.
9. The fact that inerrantists attempt to harmonize surface anomalies in the biblical text indisputably indicates that actual errors exist therein.

I wanted to get to 10 but I don't remember any more. Oh well. Is this the errantist position? Do you want to add/modify/delete?

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 10:21 AM   #194
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Post for JLK

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLK
Do you believe any proposition can be inductively "proven"?
Yes -- tentatively speaking.

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 10:41 AM   #195
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 513
Default not ready to move on

BGic, I am not interested in your "understanding" of the errantist position.
I am not interested in your "understanding" of the inerrantist position.

I am interested in your position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BGic
I am not here to argue for inerrancy and that I believe, frankly, that neither errancy nor inerrancy can be proven.
I am still curious as to your response, therefore, to the following proposition:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Do you also believe that corroboration ALSO cannot be proven?
Can you have it both ways? That corroboration CAN be proven, but contradictions cannot?
And If so (having it both ways) how do you tell the difference between a corroboration and contradiction?
And lest I forget:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutch
In short, for the nth time, what justifies abandoning shared epistemic practices for the evaluation of texts -- including virtually all other religious texts -- when considering the bible? Answer, also for the nth time: special pleading.
blt to go is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 10:50 AM   #196
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Question Why address the issue directly when you can make a clever bedtime story and smash it

Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
And to THIS, Billy Graham is cool would state, "we cannot prove or not prove that the watch needs repair, needs batteries, and needs cleaning."
Actually, I would ask why from these things we infer that the watch is not the 'Watch of God', as you say. Cute story though. I especially like the part about the bears and the porridge

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 11:12 AM   #197
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Post yet another invalid inference

Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
Sorry, BGic - can't have it both ways, if you ARE familiar, please explain this troubling paragraph of the Chicago Statement.
It does not follow from the fact that I say that I am 'familiar' with the Chicago Statement (which means that I am acquainted with it) that I ought to somehow know to what date on the calendar the phrase 'one day' corresponds to. Given that I am only familiar with the Chicago Statement, I ought not speculate on the answer to any of your questions dealing with the subtleties of the Chicago Statement.

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 11:18 AM   #198
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool
The following is the errantist's position, as I understand it:

1. A surface anomaly is a proposition in the biblical text that appears, at the least, to be an actual error.
2. An error in the biblical text would mean that the Bible is not rightly called inerrant; it would, instead, be rightly called errant.
3. Since surface anomalies exist in the Bible it is likely that errors exist.
4. Most products of mankind, if not all, are errant.
5. Since the Bible is simply the product of mankind, it is likely that the Bible is errant.
6. Since it is more likely than not that the Bible is errant, the inerrantist assumes the burden of counterbalancing and or/overcoming this evidence and reason for biblical errancy.
7. One attempts to harmonize only that proposition which is actually erroneous.
8. Conversely, one never attempts to harmonize that proposition which is only seemingly erroneous.
9. The fact that inerrantists attempt to harmonize surface anomalies in the biblical text indisputably indicates that actual errors exist therein.

I wanted to get to 10 but I don't remember any more. Oh well. Is this the errantist position? Do you want to add/modify/delete?

Regards,
BGic
I believe you about wanting to get to 10; but I'm surprised you couldn't reparse the statements to make almost any number you wanted. No doubt you'd have done better if they were questions...

Far and away the most significant aspect of this list is its status as an evasion. Why not answer the questions and engage the points now made yet again above? More than anything else, this sudden confused list of statements seems tailored to change the topic after some posts which -- it cannot have escaped you -- seem to have struck your interlocutors as quite sufficiently clear expressions of their views. Ignoring those expressions, while trying to redact the opposing view into a form more tractable to criticism, is essentially an admission of no good answer.
Clutch is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 11:20 AM   #199
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Post mystical intuition?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
Therefore, I felt your "familiarity" would provide insight to these questions. Interestingly enough, your familiarity does not rise to the level of expertise.
You felt? What is this doing here? Why is it 'interesting' that familiarity does not equate to expertise?

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 11:26 AM   #200
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Post Interesting questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
Do you also believe that corroboration ALSO cannot be proven? Can you have it both ways? That corroboration CAN be proven, but contradictions cannot? And If so (having it both ways) how do you tell the difference between a corroboration and contradiction?
1. I think that contradiction can be proven.
2. I think that corroboration can be proven.
3. I do not understand your last question. Please clarify.

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:54 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.