Cross Examiner

The familiar experience of seeing 'spotted', 'wrinkled', and 'holey' apples correlates, indisputably, to an 'appearance of flaws'. The (relatively) newly introduced, abstract notion of 'surface anomalies' in a text (or group of texts) does not necessarily correlate to 'an appearance of flaws' since one need not equate 'anomalies' with 'flaws'.

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

Nor did I. The parallel, which you conflated right at the end, was with the appearance of flaws.

RobertLW

Question:

If you have read the book and determined there are surface anomolies, aren't you past the default position? The very word "default" implies inaction. Wouldn't your treatment of the surface anomolies depend on your presumptions? Would not the presumptions be the real issue?

Robert

Clutch

I quite agree, Robert, which is why I've tried to use the notion of prima facie evidence rather than a default position. The question is, what ought one to think upon first encountering apparent internal tensions and factual anomolies in a work? One should regard these as prima facie evidence of error, I believe, though of course this stance is prima facie -- it's defeasible, open to correction, willing to accept clarification. But those are what's required: the burden now falls on anyone wishing to claim that the p.f. appearances are misleading.

Wiploc

Well said.

crc

RobertLW

Clutch, Thanks for your answer but you did not address the issue of presumption. One's presumptions will dictate how the anomolies are treated. One would have to validate their presumptions in order to determine how the anomolies are treated.

Robert

blt to go

RobertLW, you have a point about presumptions, but I am afraid this post will not help you much. See, presumptions are merely a starting point, subject to change, and not necessarily consistent through application.

I am an initial inerrant that presumes any work does not have errors. That is my "default" position, if you will. Secondly, I believe the Bible is the Word of God, so I give it special dispensation.

BUT, in my professional life, I look at everything as "what would 12 members of a jury--everyday people believe?" Not what can I justify or compensate, but what is believable by the public at large. And at some point I have to ask myself, why do I give the Bible "special" credence, when I do not do that IRL, nor would I allow any other book of religion such latitude? Shouldn't one of our presumptions be that at the least the Bible should hold up to such scrutiny?

So I look at it under my "professional" light. Matthew records two women goind to the tomb, Mark records three. Is that an error? or surface anamoly? It is certainly feasible that two people recording the same event would forget one person being present. My wife and I, in discussing last week's party, may come up with different lists of people who were present, simply based upon poor memory, and who we talked to, and who we thought was important to remember. So in my "professional" light, this is certainly "sellable" to a jury.

Now look at Judas' death. Luke says his guts fell out, Matthew has him hanging himself. If two witnesses in the stand were reporting a death, and gave these divergent stories, realistically, I would tear them apart. I wouldn't believe it. The Jury wouldn't believe it. No one would. This is certainly NOT sellable to a jury. Now, what do I do with this?

Then you have the food laws problem addressed in your debate. And Ecetera, Ecetera, Ecetera.

So while I agree your presumptions are a starting point, the real question is how long do you hold onto these presumptions, and at what point does it become apparent that you are simply holding onto the presumption for the presumption's sake, and not for reality.

These errors or inconsistencies or surface anamolies are apparent. Even the statement of inerrancy you used in the debate are correct.

Clutch is right. (Don't gloat, Clutch ) This becomes a rebutable presumption. It doesn't mean it is correct, simply that it is presumed correct until proven different.

If this helps, this is the common example of prima facie : A vehicle that strikes a vehicle directly in front of it ( a rear-end collision) is prima facie negligent. This means the guy in the rear is presumed to be in the wrong. However, if it is shown that the car in front made a turn directly in front of the car in back, or drastically changed lanes directly in front of the rear vehicle, it can than be shown that the car in front was actually at fault.

Clutch is stating that by virtue of the apparent surface anamolies, it is prima facia in error, but not necessarily in error.

This does, however, clearly shift the burden of proof to the inerrist (the car in the back,if you will.)

Clutch

Mwah hah hah!

<hands on stomach, head thrown back, deep guffawing...>


Ah, me. Anyhow, I think you put it very nicely. There are presuppositions to everything; the trick is show how one's case implicates only shared ones -- in particular, minus special pleading which again would have to be defended by the inerrantist. The Judas story would never fly in court, a context that implicates nothing more than the considered reasonable judgement of ordinary folks.

dado

i don't see how this works. the original question was about "bad" apples, not about "bad looking" or "flawed appearing" apples. imo the correct answer to the original question is:

E. i can't answer meaningfully until you tell me the purpose of these apples

without knowing what constitutes an acceptable level of goodness, there is no way to determine badness. your choice D touches on this...

Vinnie

"""""This does, however, clearly shift the burden of proof to the inerrist (the car in the back,if you will.)"""""""""

And this is where Robert was supposed to then 1) justify the colelctive dimension of the bible he posited and 2) explain why we should view it as inerrant. Why should we believe God wrote it and deny the "default" or "prima facie position".

""""""""Clutch is stating that by virtue of the apparent surface anamolies, it is prima facia in error, but not necessarily in error.""""""""""

THis is true but I would add that the book is definately and MOST CERTAINLY IN ERROR unless good reason can be given otherwise as any such "comparable anthology of works" by humans will be very much in disgareement. I did leave Robert room to "overturn this though.

But there is no way to demonstrate inspiration and there is no way to demonstrate inerrancy. Its all blind faith.