Apikorus

Yes, it's basically a matter of "my ludicrous exegetical gyrations are based in fact, because my holy text is divine, but yours are simply ludicrous, because your text is false."

TomboyMom

And since the point of the inerrancy is to determine whether the text is divine, the argument is circular as well.

ExChristian8

I am saying that most of the apologists' explanations are nothing more than hypothetical what-ifs without any evidence. An example is a snapping noose and low-lying branch that flipped Judas' dead body around. These elements are pure speculation to explain an apparent contradiction in events. Why are these explanations any more reasonable than the answer of Biblical misinformation? How does Occam's Razor apply in the face of choosing the creative explanations apologists use against a texual error?

Doug Shaver

Your presupposition that they are a unit begs the question. Your arguments intended to demonstrate consistency begin by assuming that the consistency must be there.

Steven Avery

Hi .. actually my major objection to the koran and morman viewpoints is not historical and logical and other problems, (although in the morman thing the archaeology is a real hum-dinger). It is the conceptual problem that they have to attack their own base as corrupt. There own deity failed to preserve his word.

The Eric Lyon article stood up well, despite the expected harumphing, rather picayune. However, as was explained privately and publicly, no dialog there.

Shabbat Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Tis true that there are two major paradigms of the text. One is a dissection paradigm that is combined with all sorts of criticisms that defacto presumes (and even creates) error.

Another is a wholeness paradigm that looks at the Bible as a unit. The consistency flows from that, however if it were not there, the paradigm would be non-functional.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Tis a fine question, however Okkies razor cannot be separated from the overall hermeneutic. For example, here an extremely trustworthy historian (my view, not necessarily yours) is reporting a speech from the apostle, Peter. Another excellent historian is giving the gospel account, largely for the local audience. If a "problem" was seen, they (or copyists) would have had lots of time to "harmonize", smooth, correct (as always conjectured by the textcrits). Yet, as in many supposed Tanach errors, the copyists were simply faithful to the text.

And as you are well aware, unusual things happen all the time. Even putting aside the supernatural aspect. There is always a major conceptual difficulty in post-facto probability analysis.

So again, it is the hermeneutic of respect at play. On a one-dimensional level, I can respect your Occam's razor approach on a question like this one, however it is a three dimensional plus text :-)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
You can see the conceptual problems. Let's say one saw Luke as an accurate historian but really felt the accounts contradict. Then the Okkie approach would probably be a Peter error or confusion or misinformation reported accurately by Luke. However if one considers Luke as written by a non-Luke much later distant from the real (or unreal to the mythicist) Peter, then this type of explanation would not be satisfactory. One cannot apply a razor separate from the hermeneutic.

ExChristian8

When you read the writings of other secular, respected historians, do you suppose perfection in their accuracy because of their respectability. The most esteemed historians do not have 100% accuracy. Even the best make errors. I am not begging the question that there was an error made, I am only pointing out that it is in the realm of possibilities even with the best historians, which I would differ on anyways.

Amaleq13

Your esteemed opponent has made it clear that he gives special consideration to texts which have particular religious significance to his beliefs. While this appears to be a text-book example of special pleading, his beliefs also require that the rules of logic be redefined. <cue Twilight Zone theme song>

Doug Shaver

You can apply all the sneering labels you want to the paradigm, but it's just basic science. All science includes among its bedrock assumptions the proposition that no human being is infallible with regard to anything, and it allows no exceptions for those human beings who happen to author religious texts, not even those who authored ancient Christian and Jewish texts. If you can show me how that proposition is in any way unwarranted, have at it.

Which assumes the conclusion of its consistency.