Cross Examiner

OK. I think I understand you here and that I agree with you. What I don't know is what this means with regards to anything else we've been discussing. Maybe you or another can connect the dots from here.

Regards,
BGic

Vorkosigan

Two accounts of Saul's death, each differ, not enough information inside or outside the text to choose between them. Of course there is a contradiction. As I said, they do not have to be in contradiction with "known facts" to be in contradiction with each other. There are no known facts (there is no independent account of Saul's death) so that is not relevant.

Note that the historian might well see a contradiction even if the text informed us that one account was wrong; for example, if it said "and there is a well-known lie told that Saul was killed by an Amalekite." The historian would probably argue that the narrator's account was tendentious, and that the text preserved two differing accounts of Saul's death, just as in the NT, Luke is often seen as preserving two accounts of Jesus' death, one at Pilate's hand, and one at Herod's (found also in the Gospel of Peter). That is why your point about the text's own claims of verity is wrong. it is not only illogical, but questionable historical method.

I'm off to Sri Lanka now. The taxi just beeped. So I won't be able to continue this argument. I'll leave it in the able hands of Clutch and Bit.

Vorkosigan

Cross Examiner

At that point where A and/or B is true:
But go ahead and take a swing at it. I must be speaking Greek; all this really seemed obvious to me.

Regards,
BGic

blt to go

No, no, BGic. YOU are speaking English. I am hearing Greek.

The real question is whether you have now abandoned Neutrality for this standard for inerrancy. on that I am still hearing greek.

Cross Examiner

No. Why would I?
Actually, I would discuss neutrality further if I thought it possible to come to a mutual understanding on the issue. But be my guest in trying to show that the conjunction of 1 Sam. and 2 Sam. meet the aforementioned criterion for internal and/or external error.

Regards,
BGic

GakuseiDon

No, it is sheer speculation on my part, which I'm not trying to present as evidence. But I do believe that we need to try to determine what the author is trying to convey before deciding on whether two passages contradict or harmonise.

Anyway, as I don't think it is provable either way, and I'm not an inerrantist anyway, I'll bow out now. Thanks, blt.

Cross Examiner

I've never had any problem with this. A biblical author says P and a biblical author says that an Amalekite says ~P. How does this mean that the Bible contradicts itself here? Does this mean that the Bible contradicts historical fact? If not then how do we say that 1 Sam. and 2. Sam is an example of an actual inconsistency, as you originally intimated?

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

I connected them for you just now, using your own words. Observe again:

BGic's Big Question: Does some proponent p for the inerrancy of some text t assume the burden of proving the inerrancy of t given the presence of 'surface anomalies' in t?

(More elegantly: Does the inerrantist have the burden of proof given prima facie errors?)

BGic's Answer: [T]he inerrantist assumes the burden of proof with regards to both actual and apparent inconsistencies

(More elegantly: Yes)

Cross Examiner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutch I connected them for you just now, using your own words. Observe again: BGic's Big Question: Does some proponent p for the inerrancy of some text t assume the burden of proving the inerrancy of t given the presence of 'surface anomalies' in t? (More elegantly: Does the inerrantist have the burden of proof given prima facie errors?) BGic's Answer: [T]he inerrantist assumes the burden of proof with regards to both actual and apparent inconsistencies (More elegantly: Yes)

Right. Now, my understanding is that:

1. X and Y agree to debate biblical inerrancy.
2. X argues against inerrancy and Y argues for inerrancy.
3. X begins by introducing surface anomalies.
4. The surface anomalies are, at least, apparent inconsistencies.
5. Y attempts to harmonize the apparent inconsistencies, lest onlookers view them as actual, and so Y assumes the burden of proof with regard to said inconsistencies.

Is this your understanding as well? Please add/modify/delete as need be.

Regards,
BGic

blt to go

Laughed out loud when I read your post. That is because after my last post on this subject, I thought, "If GakuseiDon posts one more time, I will tell him that I concede that the point is unprovable, and quietly bow out."

Apparently we were both debating who has the best sandwiches, and found out that neither of us like sandwiches!

I just don't see this as an OBVIOUS contradiction.

I think we are left with a story that we cannot get corroborating facts, and the story itself does not provide the solution.

Both the "murder theory" and the "liar theory" (as I see it) have strong arguments for and against the respective theories.

I DO think that the "murder theory" has a slight (mayber 51%/49%) edge, but that does not make the minority position necessarily incorrect. Why, I know a country that made a man President on a minority vote!

To apply it to the Chicago Statement, I would state this is an apparent inconsistency that has a convincing solution to many.