blt to go

“Set of opinions,� BGic? Absolutely correct. I would state an informed, intelligent, and based upon rationality and experience set of opinions, but still opinions nonetheless.
I would be surprised, if not completely stunned if anyone reading this thread subscribed to the 26 points of btgism (and if you do and would like to become my disciple, I will gladly PM you my address where you can send your tithes and offerings! ) You will note that I disagree with some of the premises of Sven, Clutch and Vinnie. Simply my opinion on how I respond to contradictions.

And that is why I did not think it would be helpful to state my “position.� I did not come here to perform this debate:

Person A: This is my standard for inerrancy.
Person B: This is MY standard for inerrancy.
Person A: Well, YOUR standard is wrong because….
Person B: No, YOUR standard is wrong because…

I simply wanted to find out what each person’s standard was and apply it to the bible itself and see if it holds water. I have always assumed the burden of proof.

“Bit upset?� Perhaps, BGic. It has been particularly difficult to narrow down your standard. As I see it (and of course I have been wrong before), your standard is a “moving target� that as it is applied and (at least to me) demonstrated as unworkable, it morphs and changes to fit each situation.
It appears (to me) that in attempting to “correct� the apparent inconsistency, you have added words that are not there, diametrically changed the meaning of the same word (“incite�), ignored the reality that the authors missed the “elephant� in the room, and have introduced a concept that creates (for lack of a better word) an “interesting� theology.

It is also frustrating to attempt to respond to this introduction of facts, and morphing of standards, to be ignored and unread. Perhaps it is just I, and every other person reading this thread has found your responses obvious, rationale, and intelligent explanations of the contradiction.

And with that behind us, let me (probably a complete waste of time) forge ahead.

BGic, you indicated that in my New York Times analogy, I failed to address the REASONS behind David taking a census. You have previously indicated that David took the census for “prideful reasons.� The typical apologetic is that the Sin was pride, in David being proud of generating a huge army on his own, and not relying on God to provide the protection (or aggression) of the Israelites. Did I get that right?

This is a good example of (IMHO) introducing facts into the story to attempt to maintain inerrancy, which upon further inspection, actually creates MORE problems for your position. There is a whole slew of problems with this position.

1. Of course the most obvious—It is not stated anywhere in the text. It is introduced (through implication) by the apologist.

2. Although David had his problems, pride would not appear to be one of them. This was the guy who was rebuked by his wife for dancing naked in front of the entire city. This guy was rebuked by his Chief General for throwing dirt upon himself when his No. 1 enemy was killed. (Granted it was David’s son.) This guy acted like a madman to save himself before a king. He always humbled himself before Saul. He may have been unable to curb his reactions to events, but an overall review of his life would not reveal a guy who was proud. (True, this does not remotely eliminate this possibility)

3. Census of fighting men happened all the time. We are constantly shown instances where the number of horses, chariots, etc. were stated. Who counted the 70,000 that were killed by David’s census? (I understand it was probably a “round� figure!)

4. In fact, only six chapters after this dreaded affair, in 1 Chron. 27, WE SEE THEM COUNTING THE FIGHTING MEN?? I can only say, WTF? In fact, the most interesting line item in Chapter 27, is verse 24 which states:


Here we have a THIRD account of this Census. Apparently by a THIRD author. (If it was the SAME author, he sure forgot a lot in those six chapters!) Now we have Joab doing the counting (poor Joab, if you will recall, was the one person who spoke AGAINST the census, and here he is to blame for it!) We have the census started, but not finished. (again, completely contrary to the previous numbers of 1.1 Million and 1.4 Million) And we have that the number was not recorded. That is to say, it was NOT recorded as 1.1 Million. And NOT recorded as 1.4 Million.
Not to mention the problem of forgetting to mention David, God and Satan’s role in the whole thing!

How many different stories are you going to have to align?

5. God, himself had previously ordered a Census of the fighting men. Numbers 26:2

6. If David had “pride,� why didn’t God just punish David? The precipitating factor in this whole affair would seem to be that God was angry at Israel. Why go through this whole charade of causing David to sin, by allowing Satan to tempt him, just to kill 70,000 people? God seems to be pretty good with fire, brimstone, plague, famine, pestilence, disease, bad food, snakes, enemies attacking and a whole variety of ways to enact punishment, this seems a little complex.

7. Christ himself stated it was wise for a king to know how many fighting men he had. (Luke 14:31) While I am aware of the “doing away with the law� of the new covenant, this is the first I am aware of what was a sin worthy of punishment in the 10’s of thousands becomes wise under the new covenant! (Yes, Yes, I know. It wasn’t the “counting� it was the pride. Then explain why EVERY SINGLE OTHER counting was considered at least O.K., if not wise, but this one was not. When the text is as silent as any of the others.)

Look, bottom line on this census thing. It looks like any other myth. David happened to be counting his army at a time when some disease wiped out a number of people. (doubtfully EXACLTY 70,000) As is common, the people said that the reason for this disease was that “The Gods must be Angry.� One author blames God. Another (not liking to blame God) blames Satan. It is simply two authors applying supernatural reasons to natural occurrences.

Johann Kasper—why do I keep pounding away at this? I don’t know. I guess I would like to see BGic question why did this god make it so difficult to believe in it?

BGic – I understand the concept of faith. The problem is, why did the God of the bible make it so difficult for you? Why can’t you have AT LEAST been given no internal errors, so these silly debates would have ended quickly? Instead you are left with doing grammatical and word gymnastics to maintain inerrancy.

Would it have been THAT difficult for God to whisper in Samuel’s author’s ear, “No, not God, that should read Satan.� Other authors had no problems listing David’s sins, why not eliminate God and Satan entirely and place the blame on David. If inspiration was all it was cracked up to be, it should have at least gotten this right!

RobertLW

While I would agree with this statement, I have never made this argument. This would be an unsupported assertion as we do not have the autographs to study to make this conclusion. What we are talking about is the study of hand made copies.





False, I have stated several times that I understand their position. For example, Vinnie asked why he should believe that "God wrote the Bible" I responded to him that I do not believe that God wrote the Bible, but human authors whom he inspired did. I clearly stated that if he does not presume the verity of the authors, then he should not believe that God inspired it. I obviously understand that because of their presumptions, it is not clear to them that the Bible is inerrant in it's truth and message. They will find contradictions. In what way do I seem confused?





How have I violated the Chicago Statement?

Thanks

Robert

Sven

I think we can all agree that the latter is more interesting. But you should have made this clear before starting the debate. I hope the next debate on this topic (if this will be ever debated again) would indeed focus on this kind of problems.

Sven

Unfortunately, you haven't done so far - until now, the new thread is nothing more than RobertLW-bashing. A bit boring, don't you think?
When will you step in?

Cross Examiner

blt to go: you apparently do not wish to talk about my issues of epistemological warrant and what makes for logical certainty. You do apparently wish to make an idiosyncratic inductive argument about something or other. I’ll take closer a look at your position points and will then comment.

6. You beg the question to presume that the preponderance of the evidence militates against biblical inerrancy.
7. To presume as fact that Christians would do what you think they would do in a counterfactual situation and thereby charge them as actually engaging in special pleading is patently irrational and prejudicial on your part.
8. This position point of yours is a tautological restatement of 7.
9. This position point of yours is a tautological restatement of 7 and 8.
10. Contrary to your assertion, a standard cannot violate special pleading. You are apparently confused about what special pleading is.
11. First, you engage in argumentum ad hominem and petitio principii by insinuating that the errantist does in fact bring the more rational case to bear, that the inerrantist knows this and still insists, irrationally, that his position is correct. Second, you assert, again, that the inerrantist and/or his argument can violate special pleading, which evinces a misunderstanding of what special pleading is on your part. Third, you beg the question to intimate that harmonization leads to undesirable or inconsistent theological consequences.
12. You beg the question to presume that apparent inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies. Your unsupported and continued insistence that the inerrantist irrationally maintains his position is also tautological repetition of 11.
13. You beg the question to presume that inerrancy is predicated upon blind faith (i.e. fideism) rather than upon reasonable faith.
14. I, for one, do not believe that Muslim faith is tantamount to idiocy or hypocrisy. While I believe it is mistaken on factual grounds, I do not call the character of the Muslim himself in to question as you presumptuously imply that Christians do.
18. You beg the question to presume that the purpose of biblical canonization was political expediency or that the canon serves as propaganda for a particular worldview.
26. I agree that if the Bible is the Word of God then it ought to have certain distinguishing characteristics. I disagree that these characteristics need be so forceful and apparent as to preclude all human debate over whether or not the Bible is the Word of God.

To your subsequent comments:

Quote:

I simply wanted to find out what each person’s standard was and apply it to the bible itself and see if it holds water. I have always assumed the burden of proof.

Practically speaking, I do not use the Aristotelian criterion for determining my belief with regards to Biblical inerrancy. I do not believe that anyone would since the question of inerrancy is a practical, informal one. Nonetheless, this criterion must be met by the errantist in order to legitimize his use of the language of logical certainty when he formally asserts that ‘the Bible is errant’, for example. This criterion is never met yet such formal pronouncements are uttered frequently here at IIDB (this thread included), which is and was my main criticism.

Quote:

It has been particularly difficult to narrow down your standard.

That’s probably because I’ve not articulated the standard I use for determining my own belief on this issue. What I’ve articulated is the criterion that validates or invalidates formal propositions. But I would apply the latter criterion in a formal setting to any proposition and so I do not engage in special pleading.

Quote:

It appears (to me) that in attempting to “correct� the apparent inconsistency, you have added words that are not there, diametrically changed the meaning of the same word (“incite�), ignored the reality that the authors missed the “elephant� in the room, and have introduced a concept that creates (for lack of a better word) an “interesting� theology.

1. I do not attempt to 'correct' the apparent inconsistency.
2. You are mistaken to imply that when I suggest a rational explanation to the text I 'add words'.
3. I do not change the meaning of the word 'incite' by merely pointing out that the verb applies to one party as easily as it does to two.

Quote:

BGic, you indicated that in my New York Times analogy, I failed to address the REASONS behind David taking a census.

No. I indicated that you did not justify construing the NY Times story as analogous to the story of David’s census and so, likewise, I did not offer justification in simply denying your construal as yet another inconsequential opinion.

Quote:

You have previously indicated that David took the census for “prideful reasons.� The typical apologetic is that the Sin was pride, in David being proud of generating a huge army on his own, and not relying on God to provide the protection (or aggression) of the Israelites. Did I get that right?

Not quite. I do not mean to indicate that my resolution is in fact what happened since, according to the demands of Aristotelian logic, only a reasonable resolution that is not precluded by the text is all that is needed to defeat a formal claim of contradiction.

Quote:

This is a good example of (IMHO) introducing facts into the story to attempt to maintain inerrancy, which upon further inspection, actually creates MORE problems for your position. There is a whole slew of problems with this position.

Incorrect. One does not introduce facts when one explains facts. I would address what you wrote after your mistaken statement above but it builds upon said mistaken statement and so is certainly likewise mistaken.

Quote:

I guess I would like to see BGic question why did this god make it so difficult to believe in it?

The Bible (and the human experience of the world as well) is such that one can be relatively rational and good and be either an unbeliever or a believer. I understand this to be so because God does not merely want those that are sensible and self-righteous to enter into an eternal love relationship with Him (the point of this existence). He wants those that want such an existence more than anything else and so are willing to humble themselves and search tirelessly in order to find it. That said, I do not find the Bible difficult to believe in, it is exactly what I would expect given what I know about God.

Quote:

Why can’t you have AT LEAST been given no internal errors, so these silly debates would have ended quickly?

While I agree that these debates are silly I disagree that there are internal errors.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

Anthology A consists of the writings of Narrators 1 and 2.
Narrotor 1: Bob provoked John
Narrator 2: Bill provoked John

blt to go: Isn't this an error?
BGic: According to the Aristotelian criterion, it is if either Narrator 1 or 2 assert that Bob or Bill exclusively provoked John or if either Bob or Bill did in fact exclusively provoke John.
blt to go: But neither the text itself nor outside sources shed any light on the issue.
BGic: Then we do not have warrant to conclude that the above is in fact an error in Anthology A.
blt to go: But you wouldn't apply this criterion to any other works other than Anthology A. That is special pleading.
BGic: Wrong. l would and do apply this criterion to any formal proposition. For example, if, for other reasons, I am confident in the inerrancy of Anthology A then I am likewise entitled to the same confidence in the errancy of those works which contradict Anthology A.
blt to go: But what are these reasons for your confidence in the inerrancy of Anthology A?
BGic: And now we leave the relatively simple realm of deduction and enter the complicated and highly disputed world of inductive argumentation ...

Regards,
BGic