dannyh44

I'm in a debate with a preacher and he keeps using this:

>This in itself is one more reason I believe
> the Bible is inspired and inerrant...it doesn't read
> like a lie. If the Bible wasn't inspired it would
> make more sense to remove passages like this which
> seem to run contrary to our limited human logic.

What he's doing is using the Bible "apparent flaws" in morality and consistency as an appeal to authenticity.

Anyone got a really good rebuttal for this?

Thanks,

Diogenes the Cynic

Argument from assertion. Completely meaningless. "It doesn't read like a lie?" What does that mean? What does "read like a lie," and how can stuff that does read like a lie be methodologically differentiated from the Bible?

IOW, what necessary condition for "reading like a lie" can be proven to bo found in other literature but the not the Bible.
It would make more sense for WHO to remove those passages?

The Bible is not a single homogenous book written by a single author, it's a library of books written by scores of different authors, many of whom had no awareness of the other authors. Matthew and Luke, for instance, were unaware of each other's Nativities and so invented different details. The books were copied independently and each found its own individual audience and provenance. Who was supposed to reconcile the contradictions?

Godless Wonder

He is leading up to, or implying that his God is "above reason", and that reason doesn't apply here.

In essence he's taking the ball and going home, refusing to play.

His god is "above reason," and all you have is reason. Therefore, in his mind, any argument you have is already defeated, since it will be based in human reason.

Tell him he's closed minded, in that when the Bible is consistent, he takes that as evidence that it is true, and when it is inconsistent, he takes that as evidence that it is true, and he doesn't take anything to be evidence that it isn't true. He's a brainwashed cultmember robot at this point.

badger3k

I agree. It's a BS answer, because, as already said, it would only read completely without inconcistency if it were either divinely written by an inerrant being or written by one individual or a small group working in close concert. Given the dubiousness of the first, and the impossibility of the second (although the order can be reversed if you wish ), the fact that there are numerous contradictions shows the multiple originition of the work. It was a collection written over many years, and rewritten many times.

I've got to admit, this is a rather different argument than I usually hear. At least he admits that there are inconcistencies, a small step.

PoodleLovinPessimist

If X is evidence for Y, then, by definition ~X must be evidence for ~Y. If both X and ~X are "evidence" for Y, then neither are actually evidence: X and ~X is not evidentiary: It does not distinguish between Y and ~Y.

dannyh44

I do not doubt the veracity of your claims, Poodle, but you lost me on the variable stuff. ~!&*^!!!!

Sensei Meela

The "~" symbol means "not"; in other words, if X=consistent and Y=true, then if a passage is consistent, it is true, if a passage is not consistent it is true, and thus there is nothing to distinguish between "true" or "not true" based on consistency.

dannyh44

Thanks, Sensei. I got it now. :wave: :wave:

Sven

Already answered well, but how about a different approach?

Ask him which kind of evidence he would consider to show that the bible is not authentic.

Or show him which conclusion one reaches when applying his "methology" to the Koran (etc.).

LeeBuhrul

Secret Origins of the Bible