RED DAVE

From Praxeus:
From RED DAVE:
From Praxeus:
Hopefully towards the truth.

From Praxeus:
Okay. But that logic has to revolve around evidence.

As an example: the two accounts of the death of Judas. There is a logical contradiction. But the entire basis of the discussion has to do with the reliability of the documents. We are not overly concerned with contradictions that we might find, say, in the Harry Potter novels because there is no question of historical truth.

From Praxeus:
Okay.

From Praxeus:
Okay.

From Praxeus:
Well, it's usually considered a concrete thing.

From Praxeus:
Okay.

From Praxeus:
No, the reason why there is a problem here is not an issue of formal logic but of historical accuracy.

From Praxeus:
I believe you are blowing smoke.

One more time:

(1) Issues of historical accuracy are settled based on our best available historical knowledge of the time.

As in your example about the Spartans and the Huns. It is firmly established that the Hunnish invasion of Europe occurred after Sparta ceased to exist as a military power.

(2) Issues of internal contradiction are settled based on logic and on our best available historical knowledge of the time.

As in my Harry Potter example. I have often felt that the fact that in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the return of Lord Voldemort is not treated as an established fact is not treated as true is a contradiction based on the evidence evince in the previous volume.

However, since we are dealing with a work of fiction, there is no real standard of proof. A writer has strained our credibility. That's all.

In any event to return to the main argument, that fact that the Gospels are riddled with historical innaccuracies, e.g. the geneology of Jesus, which could not be known by writers at the time due to the absence of historical documents, makes the logical contradiction rather trivial.

The burden of proof, historically and logically, rests with the defenders of the Gospels as inerrant of substantially inerrant.

RED DAVE

Sauron

It shouldn't be, praxeus.

If -- as you claim -- the internal contradictions are resolved by logic, then respect has nothing to do with it. In fact, respect can get in the way.

You should just follow your nose, wherever the conclusions lead. But that means subjecting the bible to the same level of scrutiny as any other ancient text. We all know that isn't going to work -- not and maintain the claim of textual infallibility or perfect internal consistency.

mountainman

According to Godel, Turing, Chaitan et al, it is a principle
of logic that there are necessarily "random truths" that
are independent of the logical system.

To get back on topic, I view the overall theory and the
integrity and/or "consistency" of the theory as separately
analysable entities. Every theory will have a certain
degree of consistency and inconsistency to the known
and available "source data", itself subject to "theory
process", etc.

To a certain extent, this "burden of proof" process
entails the delineation of all the salient consistencies
and separate inconsistencies (or apparent exceptions)
to arrange themselves like iron filings in accordance with
the "magnetic field" of the theory being examined.

Postulate however need to be examined first.

It is no use employing logic, in discussing history, if
the postulates of the "theory of history" being discussed
are not suitable or appropriate for the terms of a
scientific and archeologically supported "theory of
History". EG: Where there exists, at a postulate
level, an "unexamined axiom of an HJ".

mountainman

A Reference that might be interesting for Doug Shaver,
relating to logic.

Doug Shaver

Hmmm . . . “diverse” and “overlapping.” If two or more histories are on a common subject, they are necessarily overlapping, so that is an irrelevancy. We’re left with examining whether diversity implies a high probability of contradictions absent divine guidance.

I know nothing of your experience in reading history. Myself, I’ve been a fairly constant reader ever since I learned to read, and that was over half a century ago. That is a lot of reading. Much of it has concerned the history of Western and Middle Eastern civilization, and the authors I have encountered have been a very diverse lot indeed.

In my experience, authorial diversity is rarely manifest as inconsistency among various accounts of a particular event. It is manifest primarily as differences in writing style and secondarily as differences in emphasis. Actual contradictions, where statements by two authors cannot possibly both be true, are not rare, but neither are they as nearly ubiquitous as your claim implies they should be.

(I suppose I should note that I’m referring to statements of fact, not judgments or interpretations of facts.)

Furthermore, they are usually trivial, i.e. not of such a nature as to cause an impartial reader to doubt the overall competence of whichever writer might have made the mistake or of either writer if both were wrong. If your point is simply that we do expect human writers to make mistakes, then we really have nothing to debate.

But there are some mistakes we don’t expect competent writers to make. That is not to say we rule them out. We do not say, “X is a competent writer, therefore whatever he says must be true.” We say instead, “X is a competent writer, therefore it is surprising that he made this mistake.” And then, if we’re sufficiently interested, we might go on to try to explain how he made that mistake.

But mistakes like that are not usual. That is why we don’t expect them.

And so, let us suppose I have four accounts of some historical event, written by four people about whom I know nothing. You say I should expect to find them contradictory. I say I will not be surprised if they are contradictory, but neither will I be surprised if they are consistent. I will expect differences of many sorts, but I will not expect factual inconsistencies. There are some historical events about which I have read many more than four accounts, none of which contradicted any of the others.

So far, I have been talking in generalities, and I have acknowledged that there are exceptions. Sometimes I have read historical accounts that contradict each other. However, practically all my reading has been in secondary sources at best, and more often tertiary if not even further removed. When those authors have disagreed, it is invariably because the primary sources are contradictory and the authors have disagreed about which primary sources ought to be believed.

But, how do I know that, if I haven’t seen the primary sources myself? I know because the best writers don’t ignore the contradictions in the primary sources. They tell their readers that the primary sources disagree, and if they think one is more reliable than another, they explain why they think so.

So, there is kind of an irony here. Historical accounts are more likely to be contradictory, the closer they are to the event itself, and the sources most likely to contradict one another are the actual witnesses to the event. (That is assuming, for the sake of discussion, that we’re talking about an actual event.)

Again, we’re talking generalities. There aren’t many certainties in any of this. I spent a few years working as a newspaper reporter. Sometimes witnesses agree about what they saw and sometimes they don’t. When they disagree, sometimes it about important stuff and sometimes it’s not.

Anyway, that is my experience. And because of it, if I read several documents comprising a diverse overlapping history without any contradictions, I’m not going to think I’m looking at a miracle. All I’m going to think is that I’m reading the work of several competent historians.

Steven Avery

Where did I say that I wanted to "prove" anything. I simply stated a simple fact of common sense and logic, that the burden of proof is on those who claim a contradiction. And the answer was various diversions and misrepresentations.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

However this shows the shifting sands, the pitfalls of "historical knowledge" and when things are "settled" from a relativistic view.

Luke was actually accused of various seemingly definitive errors based
on the "best available historical knowledge" of the time.

Times change.

Luke was right, and is read today with heart and life and pizazz
... and the accusers are in the grave, little noted or remembered.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sven

You mean by calling it a fact, it somehow magically becomes a fact? No argument necessary?

OK, you win.

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From praxeus:
It shows no such thing. It shows that historical knowledge, like all forms of knowledg,e is incomplete and in the process of changing.

Relativism, has nothing to do with it. (I assume that you're trying to slip in that you have some source of "absolute" knowledge. If so, please show it to us, plus proof that it is in fact absolute.)

From praxeus:
Probably rightly so. And everyone, including the author of Luke, makes mistakes, among other sources of error.

From praxeus:
Indeed they do.

From praxeus:
Could you be a little more specific about the specific accusation? As to life and pizazz in Luke, I generally reserve these adjectives for something like a Beyonce video.

By the way, you have just ducked the point.

Given the fact that the Bible contains known violations of historical fact, e.g. the Noachian flood, and contains obvious logical contradictions, e.g. the two deaths of Judas, then in areas of controversy, the burden of proof is on defenders of the Bible, not its accusers.

We are dealing with a book that claims historical reality for miracles. This, in and of itself, puts the book and its defenders under a cloud. When we read about miracles in various ancient sources, we automatically dismiss them unless proven otherwise, which doesn't happen. The Bible is in the same situation.

RED DAVE