RobertLW

Vinnie,

Please allow me to answer your question. If you do not admit inspiration, then you should not believe that "God wrote it". (I do not believe that God wrote it, but that human beings whom He inspired wrote it) On the other hand, I admit inspiration. Therein lies our differences. Should we not examine our basis for either admitting or rejecting inspiration?

Thanks,

Robert

Vorkosigan

No, it is to treat it as a human document, as we treat all other documents. That is the default position of scholarship.

Perhaps we are arguing about two different meanings of successful. In my case an idea must survive testing by scholarly methodologies, criticism, and analysis, gain acceptance among scholars, and in turn generate fruitful and useful results which later research can build on for even more enhanced understanding. Markan priority is a good example of such a "successful" idea. By those criteria -- scholarly criteria -- inerrancy fails. It is epistemologically erroneous, methodologically ad hoc, and bereft of fruitful paths for further exploration. That across-the-board failure is a sign of a bad idea.

The confirmation of contradictions comes from all quarters, from mainstream to the most crusty, head-in-the-sand conservative. The existence of "harmonization" concedes the existence of contradictions. Were there no contradictions, "harmonization" would be unnecessary.

The use of harmonizations concedes the existence of contradictions. Were there no contradictions, "harmonization" would be unnecessary.

There is no reason or evidence that would compel a scholar to treat the Bible as anything other than a human document. If there is, please produce it. The scholarly world would be delighted to consider it.

They are not "introduced." They exist in the text. For example, there are two stories of the death of Saul in the OT. Did I introduce those stories, or would any reader encounter this and think: Hmmm.....I have two contradictory stories??

No, it is the default assumption of all scholarship supported by several hundred years of fruitful scholarly results. It is an investigative stance, not a philosophical stance. Suppose I was here arguing that my receipt from the grocery store was god-inspired (4 pages, no errors). Would anyone take me seriously? I'd have to introduce some powerful argument. The burden of proof of divine intervention is on your shoulders, the same as it would be if you were arguing for the inerrancy of the Rig Veda or the Quran. The default position, human production, is entirely nuetral because it is not a closed position. It is just a default position. If you wish to move scholars away from that default position, used in all scholarship, then you are obligated to supply powerful evidence. The same obligation would exist if you wanted to claim that the Bible was written by Gorths from the Planet Zot, or by time-traveling humans from the 28th century, or by a 2,000 year old man named Mel.

Because unbelievers and scholars do not feel any need to "harmonize." All indications, including the existence of harmonizations themselves, the insistence that the Bible contains no errors, the many texts providing re-assurance to believers, personal testimony from believers and former believers, and so on, are all evidence indicating that many people experience cognitive dissonance upon encountering the many contradictions in the Bible, and that harmonization strategies provide an important counter to this cognitive dissonance.

The utter lack of evidence for any divine intervention in the production of the Bible! If any such evidence existed, would we be having this argument? You'd simply produce it, and shut everyone up!

Vorkosigan

Sven

Until Vinnie responds: I got the clear impression that Vinnie asked you countless times to do just this: Explain your basis for admitting inspiration.

Vinnie

Bingo!

blt to go

Absolutely, unequivocally, irrevocably, incorrect statement. The Chicago Statement says (at Section III. C.)

I would note that dictionary.com defines "inconsistency" as:

But what I find particularily disconcerting is that I pointed that out to you, BGic in post #72 of this thread, here and

you acknowledged this statement in post #73 of this thread, here
(I Put the post numbers in case I screwed up the hyperlinks)
How can you possible say that you are familiar with the Chicago Statement, and then make the claim it does not admit the appearance of contradictions?

Cross Examiner

Non sequitur. It does not follow from the simple fact that a book is 'written' by a human author that it is also 'not inerrant revelations from God'. Is there anything in the word 'written' that necessarily precludes divine inspiration as a contributory cause?
Irrationally, you poison the well here with an insinuation that your opponents themselves, rather than your opponent's arguments, are lacking.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

1. You obfuscate my proposition. Since what I propose above is that I do not recall an admission of the actual existence of contradictions in the Chicago Statement, and I do not, in fact, recall such an admission, my proposition therefore is not an 'incorrect statement' about the Chicago Statement; it is instead a statement of fact about my belief about what the Chicago Statement says. God is in the details, blt to go.
1. I do not claim that the Chicago Statement does not admit to the 'appearance of contradictions'. I imply above that it does not admit the actual existence of contradictions.

2. Observe that Section III. C of the Chicago Statement does not admit the actual existence of contradictions, it admits only the existence of '[a]pparent inconsistencies'.

3. The reader will note the important ontological distinction between actual existence and apparent existence of inconsistencies.

Regards,
BGic

Vinnie

Misrepresentation, straw man and caricature. I NEVER made it a formal proof and your treating it as such only goes to show that I need not poison the well.

It also does not follow that Santa does not exist and he didn't magically lend a hand in making sure it was a jolly old good work. Its not my job to show he didn't. We debated the alleged inerrancy of a written anthology, not its inspiration or its (ultimate) authorship.

The default position based upon human experience is that the ideas expressed in a certain book are those of its author. The overwhelming human experience is that such religious propoganda works are not kept free from human errancy and are not dictated//kept free from error by some God. The large number and nature of these mutually exclusive texts from diverse mythmaking cultures throughout the world demonstrates this well enough.

I asked Robert to show why this one is special. I aksed why the countless "surface anomalies" should be harmonized and why many should not just be admitted to be errors as they are in many other works.

Why can't I get a response to this? Because both my opponents and their arguments are lacking.

Vinnie

Cross Examiner

The fact that one does not propose one's ideas formally does not somehow preclude another from observing the first's invalid inference that if something is written by human authors that such is 'not inerrant revelations from God.'

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

If the question under our mutual examination is whether or not we have warrant to believe in the existence of a contributory divine cause with regards to the production of the Bible then any default position that precludes such fallaciously begs the very question.

Regards,
BGic