Clutch

What did you think the problem was that an apparent contradiction poses for inerrancy? You seem to have lost track of the topic of the thread: the problem is that, if two statements are mutually contradictory, at least one proposition had to be false! A known falsehood that is not a contradiction is still a falsehood. It matters not a whit whether an apologist with sufficiently flexible intellectual principles can interpret the first and second creation stories in Genesis as consistent, given that both are known to be false (in the sense that germs are known to cause disease).


Why are you haring around like this? For a long time you claimed neutrality was the issue, and that nobody had addressed it, until this was so comprehensively refuted that you abandoned the claim. You have asserted more than once that question-begging is a major flaw of the errantist position; and you've been given many responses to this claim. Two of the most recent responses here and here were met with approval by most of your interlocutors. Yet, as I pointed out here, you simply changed the topic and refused to engage these vitiations of your complaints.

You have yet to give any argument defending an agnostic view, no epistemic standards by which such a view would be reasonable, no "criterion" for such a judgement -- despite demanding these things from your interlocutors.

The fact is, you have no coherent objection to the errancy argument -- the argument that, in the absence of a special justification for abandoning shared epistemic practices, it is special pleading for the inerrantist to abandon in the biblical case the evaluative approach taken by errantist and inerrantist alike towards all other texts.


Recall:

blt to go

After reviewing the two Samuels last night, I was initially inclined to concede that there is no contradiction here. 1 Samuel is merely reporting the mode of Saul’s Death. 2 Samuel is merely reporting what Joe the Amalekite says about Saul’s Death. It is simply the reporting of two facts, one actual, one narrative.

It would appear that this is one of those “apparent� inconsistencies of the Chicago Statement, that a convincing solution is available. The most common solution is that proposed by GakuseiDon-- Joe is Lying.

However, it would be erroneous to stop there. Can we make these two tales Corroborate? The problem I keep running into: How did Joe get Saul’s crown, and how did Joe know Saul’s last words?

Let’s take 1 Samuel at face value—Saul asks his armor-bearer to kill him. Armor-bearer says, “No.� Saul commits suicide. Armor-bearer commits suicide. Next day, the Philistines find Saul’s body while plundering, and parade his head.

Assumption 1: Joe the Amalekite comes across the body while plundering and steals the crown. The Problem with this assumption is that there is no way for Joe to know, by looking at these two bodies, what Saul’s last words were. According to 2 Samuel, Joe accurately recites the last words of Saul, (Just imposing himself in the Armor-bearer’s place.) So in some way, shape or form, Joe the Amalekite heard these last words.

Assumption 2: Joe was present (perhaps Armor-bearer first substitute) and heard the exchange with Saul and Armor-bearer No. 1. Then takes crown and so on. Problem with this assumption is that Joe is not recorded as present in 1 Samuel. In fact, a literal reading of 1 Samuel would put Saul and his armor-bearer as being lonely on the field. Also, if Joe was present, why didn’t Saul ask JOE to kill Saul? Or was Joe Hiding? Remember, this is a battlefield, not exactly a place one would be hanging out. When did he then take the crown? Why isn’t this recorded in 1 Samuel? Would Saul HAVE Amalekites on the battlefield?

Also note, if we are to take ½ of Joe’s story as credible (the last words) and add the bona fides of the crown (and armband) why not take the rest of the story as credible? I am not saying that simply because a person tells SOME truth, we can assume everything they say is true, I am stating that 2 Samuel fails to give any direction that Joe is only telling partial truth. Further, the only person we have on record as hearing Saul’s last words is Joe!

So we believe Joe as to the taking of the crown. (Fits 1 Samuel.) We believe Joe that Saul asked the armor-bearer to kill him. (Fits 1 Samuel). We believe Joe that Saul is dead. (1 Samuel) We simply stop believing him when his tale fails to conform to 1 Samuel (actual cause of death.) Curious, the same witness one would use to corroborate the last words of Saul, is the same witness one immediately calls a liar!

Again, I would note that David, even if checking up on Joe’s story, comes to the conclusion that Joe killed Saul, and therefore David kills Joe. I would also note that this tale was written AFTER the fact, and nowhere does the (inspired) author record, “later, we learn that Joe was lying…..�

Another problem is contextual. If you read the chapter BEFORE Saul’s death in 1 Samuel, the Amalekites kidnapped David’s wives and family, and plundered his camp. David goes after the Amalekites and kills all of the plunderers. David is not exactly inclined towards Amalekites. Joe knows, this, referring to himself as an “alien.� Joe knows that just appearing in David’s camp is a death sentence. Joe knows David is familiar with the concept of “plunder.� So Joe goes to the camp and, knowing the only way he is going to get acceptance, is to claim to have killed David’s enemy, Saul. (Yes, yes, I know David was actually NOT Saul’s enemy, but the world, including Saul, certainly thought so.) Joe knows that just appearing with a story will not cut it. (Well, off with his head, maybe.) Joe knows appearing with just a crown won’t do it. So he appears with a story AND a crown. Problem—how did he HAPPEN to get the story right?
And, again, the inspired author of 2 Samuel must have gotten it wrong when he states that David killed Joe because David thought Joe killed Saul.

Further, how did this Amalekite know where David was? If Joe wanted to get into the king’s good graces, and he was close enough to Saul to hear his last words, why not tell the current king (Saul) where his enemy (David) was hiding?

The “harmonization� of 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel takes on a mythical quality. We have a king brashly committing suicide over his son’s death and a failure at battle. We have the subsequent king demonstrating his magnanimous nature by killing the first king’s killer. The first king’s killer happens to be one of those horrid little Amalekites (so no one feels bad for HIM). No one stops to actually think (in a myth) how the horrid little Amalekite was able to hear the last words, and get the crown. One just likes how noble David is at the death of Saul.

Further, I realize, in my attempts at harmonization, that this is making the point crystal clear. An attempt at harmonization is recognition of an inconsistency.

I now struggle with the word “convincing� in the Chicago Statement. That single word wraps up the “burden of proof� concern and the “philosophical� issue raised earlier.

With 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel I have two stories that simply do not align without adding outside facts. Facts I do not have, nor am I provided. Both stories are feasible. Neither preponderates. (is “more likely than not�) So we come (“full circle� is correct BGic) to “who has the burden of proof?�

See the errantist, in stating the opponent has the burden of proof, would claim the stories do not necessarily corroborate and therefore the opponent has failed in the proof.

The inerrantist, in stating the opponent has the burden of proof, would claim the stories do not necessarily contradict and therefore the opponent has failed in the proof.

Poppycock. This is alleged to be the Word of God. It is either 100% error free, or has errors. (even 1% would disqualify it from error-free) Is it really on such a razor’s edge that those who would hold it as authoritative would say, “Nope, we can’t prove it, you can’t prove it, so we call it a ‘tie.’�?

Again, I will state, an inerrantist should gladly assume the burden of proof, and gladly demonstrate that there is NO QUESTION this book is unique in that it demonstrates NO ERRORS. This quantifying and qualifying and avoidance of the burden of proof is baffling to me.

The second issue raised a long time ago, was philosophical. These differences on Saul’s death are a grand example. Who has to be “convinced� (according to the Statement) and how “convinced� do they have to be?

It would appear to have been alleged that the philosophical difference is that Evil Atheists have philosophical tendency to be skeptic, and therefore are more difficult to convince of the harmonization, whereas the Faith-Filled Christian is prone to give the benefit of the doubt to the harmonization, and therefore less difficult to convince of the harmonization.

Again, poppycock. There is no philosophical difference as to whether there is a contradiction on the darkness that occurred at the crucifixion. ALL agree that (internally, at least) this is corroborative material. Again, this is the Word of God. Such “philosophical� differences should be smashed in the face of the over-whelming evidence. Why must this book always “squeak by the skin of its teeth?�

I cannot tell you how many times I have faced Juries with “philosophical differences� that would be contrary to my position. My JOB is to 1)demonstrate that these philosophical differences exist and 2) inform them that despite the jurors’ tendencies, the truth is so over-whelming that they will actually go AGAINST their tendencies and find in my favor.

This paragraph in the Chicago Statement is an Achilles’ heal. It opens the floodgates in allowing for “contradictions,� without providing a single bit of any real direction.

I wish, Vorkosigan, I could make every person who has visited this thread carefully read exactly what you have stated here. :notworthy :notworthy

blt to go

I am not sure that this statement and the comparison to Peter's denial actually help the proposition that Joe the Amalekite was lying.

See, in Peter's case he states he did not know Christ. Person Two, states, "Are you SURE you don't know Christ?" Again, he says no. Person three says, "I swear you have to be the guy that knows Christ," and again Peter says "No."

You are correct that the verses do not explicitly say, (imagining golf announcer voice), "we now join Peter as he is about to lie three times. Let's watch the action...."

But it would be clear from the context, the reaction of the people involved, the reaction of Peter, that Peter was lying in stating the words, "I do not know that man." The (inspired) authors make that point patently clear, and I would be surprised if any errantist would argue it.

But in our Saul situation, such clarification is NOT available. The only reference to Joe's nationality, is when, in telling the tale originally to David, Joe says, "Saul asked who I was, and I said, 'I am an Amalekite.'"

Now, later, David asks Joe, "Where did you say you were from?" NOT, "how did Saul die?" or "What were you doing there again?" or a variety of other fairly important questions in establishing a homicide. When Joe pipes up (idiot) "Oh, I am an Amalekite," in the words of the Queen of Hearts: "OFF WITH HIS HEAD."

THEN, to really put the nail in the coffin, David doesn't say he killed Joe because Joe lied, but because, "your own mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the Lord's Annointed.'" So which was it, for lying? (and if so, why not get more facts to VERIFY the lie, not simply, "Hey, Joe, where ya from?" or for Murder?

Unlike Peter, we are left hopelessly unclear.

Which takes me back to the original point. If the (inspired) authors can make it so clear in Peter's case, why must Saul's case be so UNclear?

Clutch

I don't think this is quite right. The errantist is free to agree that some particular defense of a prima facie error -- including, but of course not limited to, the "harmonization" of apparent contradictions -- is reasonable. It's not a matter of failing in the burden of proof; it's a matter of having the burden in the first place.

That is, and has been all along, the key issue here, since once it is taken on board, the game is over: the special pleading problem comes in at every turn, when the standards for defense of apparent biblical errors turn out to be wildly at odds with the standards for judging apparent errors in every other context.

The point that's been made a thousand times over in this thread is that the problem of special pleading also intrudes if one tries to head trouble off by simply denying that the inerrantist has the burden of proof. But even biblical inerrantists -- indeed, in some respects especially biblical inerrantists -- would never dream of applying such an evaluative method to Herodotus, or the Book of Mormon, or The Chronicles of Riddick. So what, besides special pleading, justifies abandoning general epistemic practices in the case of one cherished text?

This is the shape of the problem. The lack of an answer on this thread is, to invert a idiom, the elephant missing from the room.

GakuseiDon

I think the first question to ask is: what is the author trying to convey? Approaching it as a contradictionist or inerrantist immediately introduces bias. The key is usually the cultural context in which the story was written.

This isn't really related to the question of contradiction, but I think 2 Samuel is there to answer a particular question for the audience: how did David get Saul's crown? (Keep in mind this is my own personal view). David wasn't there when Saul fell, nor any Israelite. So the story of the Amalekite was created. The Amalekite tried to get away with Saul's crown, and so made up the story to cover himself and curry favor with David. But David saw through the story and killed him. And that is how David got Saul's crown. (As I said, this is just a personal view).

I don't think we need to assume that Joe heard the last words. What he relates to David is quite different to Saul's actual last words, other than a general command to kill him.

These, and many of your other points, is where the contradictionist meets the inerrantist - where the inerrantist may provide any number of solutions to a problem, however unlikely, the contradictionist provides any number of problems, however unlikely. Conjecture built upon conjecture. It's the Bible, not War and Peace.

If I recognise that YOU find it an inconsistency, does that mean that I've found it an inconsistency? If you bring up what you think is an inconsistency, what is the apologist to do? Sounds like if they say anything, you will say "ah, you recognise it is an inconsistency". :banghead:

So what is the apologist supposed to do, IYO?

In a situation of claim and counter-claim, the burden of proof exists on both sides. Since both sides are making claims, both require proof for their claims. The ultimate burden of proof IMO rests on the inerrantist if their claim is that the Bible is error-free.

Yep. Nothing wrong with that. If you can't prove it is a contradiction, what are you going to do? Call it an "unproven contradiction"? What you are saying is the flip side of the Chicago statement: "I don't have enough information to prove that it is a contradiction, but I still believe that it is".

"No question" for whom? For everyone? That's just nonsense. It is a fundamentalist mindset as closed as any inerrantists'.

Who is talking about "evil atheists" and "faith-filled Christians"? Atheists and Christians alike suffer from cognitive dissonance. Bringing in strawman arguments don't help. Let's stick to the evidence at hand.

Could there be a contradiction between the verses in 1 Sam and 2 Sam? Definitely, yes. Is there enough evidence in this case to reasonably prove contradiction? The consensus seems to be "no".

If the verse don't fit, you must acquit!

Yep. It is a "get out of jail free" card, for sure. But not relevent in this situation.

GakuseiDon

Yes, it is the context that makes it clear.

But by that, David knew that the Amalekite was lying, as he hadn't expressed any fear in doing so (compare with the armorbearer in 1 Sam 31). Why does David make that very point, if he was going to kill the Amalekite for killing Saul anyway? The Amalekite had already admitted to killing Saul.

Like Peter, the context seems to indicate that the Amalekite was lying. The very fact that by not assuming this leads to an inconsistency is part of the reason why the case for the Amalekite lying is so strong.

Because the authors weren't inspired, and the book was written for an audience who would have understood the context.

blt to go

GakuseiDon - You may very well be right about the necessity of transferring the crown from Saul to David being the reasoning behind 2 Sam. I will defer to you on that.

While I agree that the words are not the same, the similar concept of having the armor-bearer killing Saul is consistent enough to be troubling.

If you came upon a scene, where Jonathan's face has Philistine arrow, Saul has his own sword in his gut, and Armor-bearer No. 1 has his own sword in his gut, would this lead to the natural idea that, "hmmm, Saul must have asked the Armor-bearer to kill him, and when the Armor-bearer refused, Saul did it himself?" The possiblity, maybe, but not the initial reaction.

It is that common thread of the request of the armor-bearer to do it as being similar enough to raise question.

Again, in using the Chicago Statement, it is assumed there are inconsistencies. It would have been helpful to have listed these, or even made a reference where we could find such a list, but no such thing was provided.

And yes, If I raise it, and an apologist argues harmonization with facts outside the text, I do believe it is being recognized as an inconsitency.

To go back to my tired example, if I raise the "darkness" at crucixifion as an example, the apologist can simple point out the citations inside the text that corroborate said darkness. If I continue to maintain some internal inconsitency, you may write me off as a fool, and I would agree, at that point, my arguments would be petty and useless.

I recognize that there are "apparent" inconsistencies that can be resolved, and that simply the explanation of the resolution does not justify the inconsitency.

What becomes troubling is when words that are NOT in the text are necessary to be inputted in order for the text to align with something else, ESPECIALLY as pointed out by others, literally countless times, when we do machinations, dances and bending because it is the "word of God," when we would NEVER do such dancing on any other work.

But is there enough evidence in this case to reasonably prove corroboration? I would (respectfully) say no. I understand that this debate is not centered around me, and what I expect or accept, but I do, certainly, see a case for this instance being a no-win for either position.

O.K., let's look at the words used:

Then David said to the young man who told him, "Where are you from?" And he answered, "I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite." So David said to him, "How was it you were not afraid to put forth your hand to destroy the Lord's anointed?" Then David called one of the young men and said, "Go near, and execute him!" And he struck him so that he died. So David said to him, "Your blood is on your own head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the Lord's anointed.' " 2 Sam. 1:13-16

There is no direct reference that David says he is lying. Why would an Amalekite be afraid to kill Saul? Saul was a sworn enemy of the Amalekites! Joe the Amalekite could easily be thinking, "David hates Saul. I hate Saul. The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

David assumes that Joe killed Saul. What information (other than his "lack of fear") does David have that Joe didn't kill Saul. The Crown is pretty convincing proof.

I would certainly agree that the last statement could go either way. Either David is killing Joe for false testimony (a capital offense) or for murder (a capital offense) and either position is defensible.

As to the Amalekite "already admitted" to killing Saul being justification for David's killing him, I could equally state, the Amalekite "already lied" so David was equally justified for killing him.

I do not see a clear win for either position. (By the way, speaking of personal beliefs. My view is that it was to be perfectly clear that David confirmed it was an Amalekite that killed Saul, justifying David killing the Amalekite who did in Saul, appearing very noble indeed.)
I would agree, if 1 Sam is to be taken literally. However, I would suggest you (and I know it is a poor experiment, but such as it is) show JUST 2 Sam. to the man-on-the-street, and I would believe that 9 out of 10 would state that David killed the Amalekite for killing Saul.

(And you may be right, that the audience to whom 2 Samuel is written is not currently on the street, so the better experiment would be to take it to David's contemporaries and see what THEY say. But I called, and they were all dead.)

Edited to correct transposed letters and add a thought.

Cross Examiner

Sure there is. The same important difference that exists between "apparent" guilt and "actual" guilt.
Apparent guilt, actual guilt ... it is guilt, period.
1. It is patently false that '[a]ll readers recognize it as an inconsistency'.
2. I, for example, am not committed a priori to a doctrinal position yet I harmonize.
3. It is an invalid inference from the fact that a biblical author presents two mutually exclusive accounts of an event that a bilblical author asserts the verity of both accounts.
4. Harmonization is necessary whether an inconsistency is actual or apparent in the same way that a defense before a judge and jury is necessary whether one's guilt is actual or only apparent.
Ah, confusion over terminology. I'll put us both on the same page. (A) If a biblical author asserts the verity of P and the same author or another biblical author asserts the verity of ~P then the Bible is errant. Also, as I noted earlier and as you now observe in the above, (B) if a biblical author asserts the verity of P and P is false then the the Bible is errant. Now, does your chosen example (i.e. 1 Sam., 2 Sam) meet these logical criteria (i.e. A, B) for biblical error or not? If so, why? It's just that simple.

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

Already debunked obfuscation. Vorkosigan is talking about there being no difference from the point of view of burden of proof -- which is what is discussed by "the three of us" he mentions -- part of the quote you lop off -- and what he indicates with "or harmonization would be unnecessary" -- another part of the quote you lop off, and a point you have ignored with grim determination for pages now.

This was explained very clearly to you; of course you ignored the explanation and continue to post the debunked confusion. But, just to remind you:

Cross Examiner

If Vorkogisan really meant that there is no difference between an actual and apparent inconsistency with regards to burden of proof , which I've been tacitly agreeing to, then why not say so explicitly, as in the above?
Do you want to take a crack at this?

Regards,
BGic