blt to go

BGic. O.K. Knowing that you maintain the neutral stance, I am still looking for an answer to the questions posed here

Cross Examiner

I'll disambiguate my position:

1. I believe that inerrancy, in aggregate, cannot be proven.
2. I believe that errancy, in principle, can be proven.
3. I believe that examples of individual corroboration are easily proven and have been proven many times.
4. I believe that an example of individual inconsistency is very difficult to prove and has yet to be done.

The difference in burden above is due to the differing criteria the errantist and inerrantist must each meet, respectively. The errantist need demonstrate only one absolutely conclusive error [either (A) internal or (B) external] while the inerrantist must demonstrate countless biblical propositions and implications. Observe:

(A) If a biblical author asserts the verity of [any proposition or implication] P and the same or another biblical author asserts the verity of ~P then (C) the Bible is errant (i.e. internally inconsistent). And/or (B) if a biblical author asserts the verity of [any proposition or implication] P and P is false then (C) the Bible is errant (i.e. externally inconsistent).

If either (A) or (B) is true then (C) is true and the errantist has won the day. Observe the criterion for the inerrantist:

If (A) is false and if (B) is false then (D), the Bible is inerrant, is true and the inerrantist takes home the Cup.

I'll bet there is a way to state the inerrantist's burden positively -- I'm just not seeing it. Anyway, all this could be put into a truth table for easy digestion (I did it on scratch and it looks good to me). But even without a visual aid you can probably begin to sense the difficulty in proving inerrancy since tests (A) and (B) have been and will be ongoing until the history of man is at a close. It seems that the complete and total vindication of the Bible, as Scripture itself seems to indicate, is a world away.
Yes. If you need to ask me this then I have not been communicating well at all.
Yes, a single contradiction, either internal or external, destroys inerrancy.
I don't see how.
The criterion for proving inerrancy is, effectively, that every biblical proposition and implication be listed perfectly (which is probably impossible to create) and then compared against a hypothetically perfect external fact-list (which is certainly impossible to create) in order to determine that no biblical proposition/implication is in conflict with another and that no biblical proposition/implication is in conflict with external fact. My question to you is why should this criterion be met before we say that the Bible has instructive value? On an aside, it may look like we go easy on the errantist but that appearance is, appropriately enough, deceiving. Rather than make a list of problems before the errantist, which are many, I thought it best to bait someone into trying to take an example (e.g. Saul's death ) and show how difficult it is to prove biblical error (no theodicy needed, only defense). If not you, blt to go, is there another volunteer in the house?
Not quite. I am just trying to show how complicated the errancy/inerrancy debate is, in stark contrast to attitude of the glib and far-from-erudite skeptic's annotated Bible, for example. One can certainly try to show which of the two is more reasonable or plausible. I just think doing so is an exercise in futility for a variety of reasons.
I am not reserving judgment on the Bible. I think it is inerrant. I just can't prove it. No man can. Likewise, no man has ever proven a biblical contradiction. Suffice it to say I have a very stringent understanding of 'proof'. But to answer your last question, if the Bible is inerrant and other holy books conflict with it then said holy books are necessarily errant. Well, I've gotta go. No time to edit/spell check; we're heading off to church.

Regards,
BGic

Vinnie

"""""""I think it is inerrant."""""""""""

That, of course, explains a LOT.

Vinnie

Cross Examiner

You've been lurking this whole time and finally came out of the shadows to say this? Yes, of course. Never mind his rational argument, he identifies with the _____ (s) , a group that Vinnie does not like. More genetic fallacy anyone? I'm not feelin' the love, Vinnie.

Regards,
BGic

Vinnie

There was no love to feel. Resentment and disdain were the intention. My reasoning is iron clad. You want to have blind faith in inerrancy. You believe in it despite there being a total lack of evidence suggesting it. Blah blah, woof woof.

Vinnie

Cross Examiner

Ah, yes. There it is. There's that world-famous secularist tolerance we hear so much about. Here, finally, is an example of that award-winning IIDB hospitality! I take it then that you and the missus won't be over next Friday for gelato? Anyway, where do you get blind faith from? Is this yet another 'iron clad' inference?

Regards,
BGic

blt to go

Sorry, BGic, got caught up in real life.

O.K. The Standard you would like to work with is: While I do not agree with said standard, I will work within its parameters.

1 Chronicles 21:1 states that "Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel."

We know that Satan incites David, for the author asserts the verity of "Satan incites David" (P) and if (P) is false, then the Bible is errant. To maintain inerrancy, we have no choice but to state this as true.

2 Samuel 24:1 states: Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and count Israel and Judah."

Contradiction.

Chronicles author asserts the verity of "Satan incites David to take census" (P) and the Samuel auther asserts the verity of "NOT Satan incites David to take census" or ~P. (Not so hot with logic symbols, so I am simply copying your terminology.)

I see a number of possible harmonizations, all with possible problems. Therefore, in the interest of keeping strawmen to a minimum, I will leave it at that.

Harmonize away this contradiction.

Cross Examiner

Why not? Does it just make too much darn sense?
Yes. That is a contradiction. I guess I'll be an atheist now. Seriously though, can two agents incite a third agent to action? If so, then can God and Satan both incite David? If so, then it is not necessarily true that if God incites David that Satan then does not incite David (i.e. ~P). And then there is the issue of primary and secondary causation, among other angles. But, following your gracious lead, I'll let be for now.

Regards,
BGic

itsdatruth

It is interesting that normally, only the Bible is even up for debate! Apparently, the other texts… The Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Koran, the Vedas, and so on have either been shown to be obviously false, or their meanings to have been diluted into philosophic ideas and morals. Only the Bible is rooted in history, geography, and literature enough to be the topic of a meaningful debate. To RobertLW: You walk in the footsteps of Athanasius, the footsteps of Christ. Whether you win or lose in the eyes of Vinnie, grace from God has won that war. Athanasius was at first rejected too, you know...

Sven

LOL! Thanks for a good laugh!
Hint: Many Muslims say exactly the same about the Koran. Many Mormons say exactly the same about The Book of Mormon. Many Indians (?) say exactly the same about the Vedas. Only that those people include the bible in their list of books which have "been shown to be obviously false, or their meanings to have been diluted into philosophic ideas and morals".
Why do you see mostly the bible discussed here? Look up this thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=87395

Edited to add: I think you still have to answer some posts in S&S and Ev/Cr - don't waste your time here