Clutch

Because whether a harmonization is eventually judged to be reasonable or not, the recognition that one is called for in the first instance is a recognition of having the burden of proof.



Now, will explaining that again accomplish anything? Let's look at a brief sample of previous instances of this very point, none of which having been given a response.

Clutch

To reiterate:

Vorkosigan

Frank references to it being an inconsistency are universal among readers with differing positions on errancy. The attempt at harmonization is an admission of contradiction.

See any good text on logic. To contain a contradiction, it is not necessary for either or both statements to be true. From Mathworld:A truth table is a two-dimensional array with columns. The first n columns correspond to the possible values of n inputs, and the last column to the operation being performed. The rows list all possible combinations of inputs together with the corresponding outputs. For example, the following truth table shows the result of the binary AND operator acting on two inputs A and B, each of which may be true or false.

As you can see, verity is not relevant.

No, the two examples have nothing to do with each other. It is not against the law to be an errant text from humans, and there is no punishment for being errant. The whole discussion about law is a red herring. Legal methodology and scholarly methodology are completely different. In scholarly methodology, the text is assumed to be from human hands unless and until evidence is submitted that proves otherwise. All texts, whether Grant's memoirs, the Bible, or shoe ads, are treated in this way. For some a priori, believers engage in special pleading, and demand that their text be exempt from normal scholarly procedures.

Harmonization is necessary because a contradiction has been detected and is acknowledge by readers on all sides, and the harmonizer possesses and a priori commitment to the inerrancy of a particular text (Quran, Bible are two such texts commonly harmonized). Harmonization is not a response to scholarly suspicion or "accusations." It has been taking place for far longer than modern scholarship has.

Of course, since verity is not an issue in a contradiction. Whether a Bible author may assert the verity of a passage or not is irrelevant; it is a contradiction even if both are false. Thus.....

a. John Lennon was killed by John Haldeman
b. John Lennon was killed by Jane Fonda.

....are contradictory even though both are false. Similarly the two accounts of Saul's death in 1 Sam and 2 Sam are contradictory even though I personally believe neither account is truthful. A "contradiction" is a relationship between two statements, not a relationship between a statement and a statement and reality.

Vorkosigan

Cross Examiner

I set up a straw man of the errantist's argument only if I present a weaker form of it and then proclaim the weaker form as the actual argument. Observe here, more closely this time, that I summarize the argument as I understand it, acknowledging the possibility that my summation is misinformed and in need of amendment. So it is false that I've set up a straw man here.
I agree that the inerrantist assumes the burden of proof with regards to both actual and apparent inconsistencies, if that is what you mean by the above. I do not agree, with good cause, that actual and apparent inconsistencies are ontologically identical, which is what I took you to mean.

Regards,
Bgic

blt to go

BGic - do I assume you have now abandoned your statement of ?

Have you now derived a standard for inerrency being:You have stated this argument twice, so I am on the assumption that the pages and pages of discussion on the position of "neutrality" are over. If so, I will gladly take a crack at it.

blt to go

Quite correct. In fact, the analogy of the "apparent" guilt and "actual" guilt was not very good. (to be kind) However, I am understanding of the point behind the analogy, rather than attacking the analogy. (having made a few bad analogies myself )

I also could not think of an analogy to replace it. Perhaps better, a question. At what point in time, BGic does an "apparent" inconsistency become an "actual" inconsistency or vice versa?

Clutch

Mirabile dictu...

I believe we have achieved communication. Hey, where'd you buy that ticker-tape? Is there room for me in the limo next to the inanimate carbon rod?

Cross Examiner

Vorkosigan,
I can't make any sense out of your last post. Not a bit of it seems to me to be relevant to whether or not 1 Sam. and 2 Sam. contradict one another or are in contradiction with historical facts.

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

It was fine. It just employed the ordinary notion of guilt -- who did it? -- as opposed to the legal notion -- who can be proved to have done it, within the epistemic tolerances of a particular judge and jury? -- a distinction which is pretty straightforward.

blt to go

Clutch, you may be correct about the legal analogy. But it is so immersed in my life, that I have LONG since lost sight of the "ordinary" notion of guilt.