Cross Examiner

1. Contrary to your assertion, the Chicago Statement does not admit to the existence of actual inconsistencies.
2. The Chicago Statement does admit to the existence of apparent inconsistencies.
3. Contrary to your assertion, the Chicago Statement does not admit that apparent inconsistencies cannot be resolved.
4. The Chicago Statement does imply that there are apparent inconsistencies for which no solution exists at the present.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

No one would attempt to defend themselves if there were really innocent? I don't know about you but if it even looked like I was guilty of a crime I would defend myself from accusations that I was, in fact, guilty.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

The same difference between the appearance of guilt and the reality of guilt.
Sure. Just like I know that the statement 'my client is innocent' is always the 'language of spin'. Anyway, what's with all this 'you really know you're wrong in your heart!' type of arguing?

Regards,
BGic

JLK

....after near two millenia, in the most well studied document in human history. Errantists employ this in making an inductive inference. Others employ their Spidey Sense.

Clutch

Already refuted obfuscation of an already refuted obfuscation.

In short, to defend one's innocence is to recognize the burden of proof imposed by prima facie evidence of guilt. (To head off yet another obfuscation: this has nothing to do with the principle of minimizing false positives that informs the legal doctrines about assumed innocence and the nature of reasonable doubt; the system may well have worked as it should in acquitting O.J., even though the evidence strongly suggests that he was guilty.)

That's Vorkosigan's point, and mine, and blt's, and Vinnie's... all explained many times over now. In light of which, your points 7, 8 and 9...


... are such obvious straw men that they cannot have been meant seriously.

"The fact that inerrantists attempt to harmonize apparent contradictions" (for instance) indicates simply that they recognize the burden of proof these impose upon them. Whether the errors are actual -- for the n+mth time -- is a judgement that can only be made on a case-by-case basis. But that is, again, orthogonal to the question of burden, which the Chicago statement and your own examples concede clearly and repeatedly.

Common sense is indeed rare in some quarters.

blt to go

[off-topic] You seem confused as to your position on the Chicago Statement. First you speculate as to what the Chicago Statement says, then, state that you are not in a position to state what the subleties of the Statement are. Then you state you are only acquainted with the Chicago Statement and should not be asked expertise questions.
Now you have become dogmatic as to what the Statement says.

Which is it, are you acquainted, familiar, or an expert? [off-topic]
Au contraire. The Chicago Statement does not use the word "actual" but the paragraph, continuely treats the inconsistencies as actual.

Again, let me ask, where does God state that "his word is true" and these "apparent" inconsistencies would be one day seen as illusions?

Let's try a different tact. Would you buy an item that has "apparent inconsistencies...where for the present no convincing solution is at hand [but] we shall...trust...despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they [apparent inconsitencies] will be seen to have been illusions?"

I doubt you could sell too many computer programs with this disclaimer on it.

I guess I am so familiar with "lawyer-speak" in which we twist and turn words around to say what we want them to say, that my "bullshit" meter goes off, when I see this obvious avoidance of the problem.

I do not look at what people "say," I observe what people "do." This is a MUCH better indicator of the actual belief. The Chicago statement, for all its rhetoric, treats the "apparent" inconsistencies as "real" consistencies. (c) Vorkosigan

Now, let's get back to YOUR belief. I will admit to being hopelessly confused.

First you state that inerrancy may or may not be proven. But you do believe that contradictions and corroboration can be proven. I assume (dangerously) that you mean on an individual basis, but not globally (??)

Question, if the Bible is 99.99% correct, is it not errant? In other words, it is like being pregnant (for the common analogy)--you either are or not, there is no "50% pregnant." So if one single contradiction can be proven, does this not destroy inerrancy?

If you are talking on a GLOBAL sense, that, as a whole, the Bible may or may not be proven inerrant, than is not the reverse also true, that the Bible may or may not be proven cohesive? (I am using cohesive globally, and corroboration on an individual item basis.)

And if the Bible may or may not be proven globally as inerrant, and may or may not be proven globally as cohesive, what value for instruction does it have? It simply sits there.

I understand (I think) that you are advocating a position that a neutral stance should be examined, but I would state that at some point in time, you have to get off the fence and land on one side or the other.

And, in keeping with my resolution, If you are reserving judgment as to inerrancy on the bible, are you not also (to be consistent) reserving Judgment on the Book of Mormon, the Science and Health, and the Qur'an? or is the Bible entitled to "special pleading." (c) Clutch.

*rather than keep quoting them, I am crediting them with the concept with a (c)

Edited to correct quote function

Cross Examiner

If the author(s) of first and second Samuel assert(s) that both mutually exclusive accounts of Saul's death are true then this would be an actual contradiction.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

Call me old-fashioned but I just wouldn't draw a cannot be resolved from an is not resolved

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

Beautiful!

Ted: "I went to Catholic school in my youth. I never went to Catholic school in my life."

Ned: "You just contradicted yourself!"

Ted: "Not at all! It's not like I said that both my assertions were true!"


Straight out of the "How to tell when a hopeless view has reached the end of its rope" files.

Cross Examiner

Nope. The Chicago Statement admits the existence of the appearance of inconsistencies, which is all that I recalled it doing. How does my recollection of such amount to speculation?
While I am comfortable recalling whether or not the Chicago Statement admits the existence of the appearance of inconsistencies I am uncomfortable interpreting what date 'one day' (and the like) corresponds to. And the rest of your post just goes on and on like this.

Regards,
BGic