KnightWhoSaysNi

Vinnie beat me to the punch, but I just wanted to announce that the formal debate is officially over. Vinnie and RobertLW may post here if they wish to.

Jason

Vinnie

My apologies if I was supposed to wait for you to give the official word for us to post in here. I just thought since it was over thd initial restriction was over as well.

Vinnie

Vinnie

As promised, my original concluding statement not fit for the debate forum:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/errancydebate7.html

Fallon

I'm trying to get Robert to talk about justifying inerrancy through email, since I find this area fascinating. The whole subject appears to be an argument by assertion, nothing more and nothing less. I really wonder why more people don't draw attention to this. I mean I know that biblical errancy is a duck shoot, but why grant inerrantists more ground than they deserve?

Oh yeah, is anyone aware of an attempt to demonstrate inerrancy in a reasonable fashion?

By the way Vinnie, I can certainly see why They wouldn't let you post your response. You didn't exactly pull any punches.


Fallon

Vinnie

I can as well. I certainly think the mods were correct. I was just rather annoyed at the time at how much effort I put into my initial posts (all ten pages single spaced!) only to have it end up like this.

There is one attempt that I am aware of. Its used by apologists and systematic theology texts. It goes like this:

NT Gospels are shown to be historically reliable.
Jesus is shown to have made grandoise cliams about himself.
The Resurrection is historically demonstrated.
This authenticates Jesus and his message.

Jesus is then shown to be God incarnate.
God incarnate, in the Gospels, appeals to much of our modern OT as the commands of God.
This authenticartes the Old Testament,

Its claimed on historical grounds that the NT is authenticated in that Matt and John were written by authority figures set up by Jesus (two apostles), one text was written under the guidance of another (Peter).

Paul was inspired by God to preach to the Gentiles.

This is about as far as it goes. Even if granted Paul was inspired by God to perform a task this in no way means his written letters are inerrant. Traditional authorships of the Gospels are all false, save Luke. But even if they were correct this in no way confirms inerrancy.

There really is no way to confirm the New Testament texts.

All that can be said is that "wouldn't God want to leave us a written continuation of his actions considering how imortant Jesus' work on the cross was"?

But this all assumes 1) gospels historically reliable, 2) Jesus claimed to be God, 3) Jesus actually accepted OT inerrancy, 4) Jesus rose from the dead.

Neither one of these four points is correct. THe closest one as far as accuracy goes is possibly number 3 but that dependes on how one reconstructs Jesus.

This is what I term the evangelical route to inerrancy (ERI). It fails miserably and its the only attempt that even begins to use reason and evidence rather than making collective faith leaps. AFAIK anyways.

Vinni

Vinnie

""""""The whole subject appears to be an argument by assertion, nothing more and nothing less. I really wonder why more people don't draw attention to this. I mean I know that biblical errancy is a duck shoot, but why grant inerrantists more ground than they deserve?""""""""

I don't know. Even many skeptics seem to unknowingly talk about the Bible in a collective fashion. This should never be granted. Once it is the hermeneutic of uncritically interpreting one text in light of another begins to surface.

Two things tht should be done:

1) Point out that opponent must argue for a collective or canonical dimension (use my mall analogy in a modified fashion).

2) Point out that the surface anomalies and nature of the work naturally lead one to errancy unless one can show the text is special (meaning inspired by God).

You put the ball entirely in their court. Inerrancy advocates are only too happy to try and bat down or deflect posed errors with "logically possible harmonizations" (see my Judas death comic insert where I added in hypothetical texts). Don't grant them this luxury. It is far more than they deserve.

Wiploc

My technique is to offer them some contradictions, watch how they harmonize them, and then show them that
1. the same techniques could be used to "prove" inerrancy in any other book; and
2. these techniques rob the bible of all inherent meaning, since they allow the "harmonization" of opposites like visible and invisible. They allow the reader to project any meaning she desires into the text.

crc

RobertLW

I have to admit that I made a mistake in evaluating Vinnie's Burden of Proof argument. In addition to admitting my error, I think I should correct myself. It is the honest thing to do. When I was thinking about Vinnies argument originally I was not taking the default position into account. I have had some time to think about it and I have come to a different conclusion. I wrote in my last post;

"If Vinnie's burden of proof argument was contained in an essay, it would be a pretty good argument and I would not necessarily disagree with it."

I believe this to be a false conclusion. My new conclusion is that Vinnie's argument on the default position of burden of proof is completely false whether or not it is contained in an essay.

The default position for burden of proof is neutral. It is neutral because the burden of proof is an assumed burden.

Just wanted to make that correction. Thanks.

Cross Examiner

I've been aloof and elsewhere but I'd appreciate it if someone would reiterate why agnosticism is not a potential default position with regards to Biblical inerrancy. To suggest that there are only two possible default positions (i.e. errant, inerrant) smacks of undue bifurcation. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
BGic

Vinnie

The nature of the works themselves. Read my first post.

If the Bible was inerrant would it not be evidence it was special? That is what Mcowell argues. I use the inverse. Simply because we don't expoect 50 human authors over thousands of years in diverse settings to have completely harmonious thoughts and views on a host of issues.

It is quite simple really.

Vinnie