judge

Thanks again for your gracious reply.I'll let you know if I get any further at any stage

Kosh

How convenient.... you've got the original words of the very apostles themselves, and you just toss them in the fireplace with no reverence to their value as a holy document!

gagster

Well I think that Sean really hit it out of the park with his round two post. He makes the following points:[list=1][*]most (perhaps all?) of Jason's objections to Sean's position are fallacious
- the quibble about "while it was still dark" vs "morning"
- the quibble about "disciples" vs "apostles"
- the quibble about "started" vs "went out" or "went forth"
- the request to define "miracle"
- the qibble about which bibble version to use[*]Jason has failed to present his case - so far he's just sniping at Sean's[*]the fact that Jason will freely move the goalposts back or forth, whichever way suits his purposes at the moment[/list=1]

So, I'd say Sean has a big lead. Of course, this was just round two out of six. Jason still has plenty of time to present a case and post a rebuttal of Sean's that's not just a bunch of quibbles and reading comprehension problems. I don't expect that he will, but I'll wait and see.

I did want to comment on one point that I don't think Sean got quite right.


In effect, what Jason just said is that it's possible that he and Sean are both wrong. Admitting that you could be wrong is actually kind of commendable. I think - I could be wrong about this.

So when will Jason's next post be made? I'm setting the over/under at Feb 3rd.


Greg

Amaleq13

Even though it might constitute a tangent, I would be interested if Jason could defend the following statement:


I don't think there is any evidence for this at all.

the fonz

Maybe it's just me, but I'm confused about this statement:

Maybe someone could explain exactly what Sean is saying here.

Roland

Jason's argument that Mary M. took more than one trip to the tomb is belied by Mark 16:3.

According to Jason's scenario, the trip recorded in John 20:1 (the one John describes as happening "while it was yet dark") happened before the trip with the other women as recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Yet, Mark 16:3 has the women saying among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us"? If Mary had already been there earlier and found the tomb empty (as in John), why would she be participating in this particular discussion?

Also, Matthew has Mary being told by the angel that Jesus has risen and John has her being told by Jesus Himself.

acronos

I think Sean should have included the full quote.

If the demoniacs being referred to were the scriptures relating to demon possession (as the term is sometimes used), this would be using one scripture to substantiate another. If all scripture is suspect, then the argument is circular.

Another way it is circular is that it assumes what it is trying to prove. In order to prove that the bible is inerrant, Jason assumes it is inerrant and then tries to come up with stories to explain contradictions. An honest assessment of the inerrancy of the bible would require making no pre-assumptions, then reading the bible to see if it really has no contradictions. If you already assume the bible has no errors and then go through whatever contortions necessary to demonstrate no contradictions, then you haven't really proven anything or offered any evidence for God writing the bible. Why? Because you can go through contortions to justify almost anything. For example:
* God is evil.
* God is good.
= God is evil some of the time and good others.

* Fred walked into the room and stood on his head at 6:00PM on January 1st, 2003.
* Fred walked into the room and sat on the table at 6:00PM on January 1st, 2003.
= Fred walked into the room and sat on the table. After talking with Susan a few seconds, he stood on his head.

To someone who is just interested proving a pre-established premise that the sentences are inerrant, such an explanation would often be enough. However, someone who was more honestly seeking the truth would see that the first statement was disingenuous because it implies that Fred stood on his head immediately after he walked in the room. They would also wonder where in the world Susan came from.

Jason's statement here is a mild example of this type of pre-established premise. It is circular because it assumes what he is trying to prove - the inerrancy of the bible. A much more blatant example of it is to create the story that Mary made two or more trips to the tomb before talking to Peter.

the fonz

Thanks Acronos!

the fonz

Watch out for the fallacy of affirming the consequent!

So...

1. If inerrant, then discrepancies can be explained.
2. The discrepancies can be explained.
3. Therefore, inerrant.

The logic doesn't follow, and only would follow if statement one is an "if and only if" statement.

1'. The accounts are inerrant if and only if they can be explained.

Obviously, statement 1' is false. Even if there is an explanation, it doesn't mean it should be accepted. A possible explanation doesn't make the accounts inerrant.

Sorry Jason, try again.

acronos

So far Jason has avoided ALL of Sean’s arguments, not the other way around.

I am floored. Jason hasn’t said anything but personal attacks and deliberate misunderstandings and distortions of what Sean has said. He hasn’t harmonized any of the scriptures that Sean has brought up. Does he really live in this dream world or is he rather the one that is being disingenuous.

What! This is supposed to be Sean’s best argument? As far as I can tell, this is Sean trying to guess what Jason is thinking, because Jason won’t come out and say how he reconciles the problems between Mary’s actions in the different accounts. It seems to me Jason is accusing Sean of all the dishonesty he himself is committing. Can Jason really not see that in this hypothetical scenario, the women would not have passed Peter; rather they would have stopped when they encountered him on the road and told him directly, thus invalidating the story as told in scripture. Jason might argue that they took different paths, but he is the one saying that the tomb and Peter’s house are so close? He is also the one implying Mary took two trips. In a straight read of the bible without apologetic back flips, Mary only took one trip and the accounts of what happened on that trip contradict. Jason, true to form, has still not addressed this contradiction.

In the next section Jason just deletes Sean’s well thought out argument that the disciples being referred to were the apostles, then proceeds as if the argument was never made. What a surprise, his solution is to ignore it.

So far all of Jason’s harmonization boils down to, “there is no contradiction here,” similar to, “these are not the druids you’re looking for.” I suppose this might work on weak minds. As far as I am concerned, round three already goes to Sean. I guess it was too much to expect for an inerrantist to argue honestly.