Cross Examiner

If your proposed criterion for successful harmonization is adopted and if some particular harmonization attempt does not meet the demands of such then said harmonization attempt is rightfully called a 'failure'. Though the precise meaning of the more ambiguous terms and phrases in the criterion above might prevent any certainty with regards to some particular harmonization's 'failure'. In point of fact, what agreement can there be between contenders from opposite sides of the epistemological spectrum offering inductive arguments?

Regards,
BGic

RobertLW

Sven, I explained my basis for admitting inspiration by clearly stating that I presume the verity of the Biblical authors. I explained my basis for presuming the verity of the Biblical authors here. I cannot see where the basis I offered has been refuted. With all respects to Vinnie, I do not believe that he asked me to either justify admitting inspiration or presuming the verity of the Biblical authors. Vinnie had asked me to demonstrate inspiration which I admitted I cannot do. He did not ask me to justify admitting inspiration. In response to my presumption of the verity of the Biblical authors Vinnie has said that I "cannot simply assume it". I have explained my basis for admitting inspiration but I do not believe Vinnie has explained his basis for denying inspiration.

Thanks.

Robert

RobertLW

Vinnie,

Please allow me to respond this way. If you do not presume the verity of the Biblical authors then the "surface anomalies" should not be harmonized. On the other hand, I do presume the verity of the Biblical authors therefore I should harmonize the "surface anomalies". Therein lies our differences. Should we not then examine our basis for presuming or not presuming the verity of the Biblical authors?

Thanks.

Robert

Cross Examiner

1. Can you please cite these confirmations from the most 'crusty, head-in-the-sand conservative[s]' that actual contradictions do, in fact, exist?
2. Couldn't the simple existence of the 'appearance of inconsistencies', as acknowledged by the Chicago Statement, be a sufficient cause of the existence of harmonization attempts? If so, then it is not the case that the existence of harmonizations somehow concedes the actual existence of contradictions.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

Wrong. That which does not exist does not cause anything and so, despite your insistence otherwise, it would follow from the given that Santa does not exist that he therefore is not a contributory cause of the Bible.
1. Upon what do you presume the Bible is 'propoganda [sic]'?
2. It would not follow from the given that the overwhelming human experience of religious works as errant that the Bible is also errant.
1. I do not argue for inerrancy, I observe invalid inferences and other irrationalities. I am not your opponent, per se.
2. Robert is your opponent.
3. Robert claims to have responded to you.
4. I see that Robert has, in fact, responded to you.

Regards,
BGic

blt to go

He certainly is. I apologize if I put you on the spot for defending the Chicago Statement. I understand that if one reviews the original interaction between Vinnie and RobertLW, Vinnie asked if RobertLW was planning to use the "Chicago Statement" and (it would appear) that RobertLW grabbed onto that statement with both hands and we have been stuck with it ever since.

I understand that you did not write the thing, nor that you necessarily hold to all of its tenets.

I respectfully disagree that the Statement does not claim actual inconsistencies. Once you strip out the hyperbole, or "spin" as it is politically called, the Statement recognizes inconsitencies that it would describe as "apparent" but treat as actual.

Note our quote, with my bolding:

Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

As this thread is becoming infamous for posts with unanswered questions, I would propose the following questions, if the Chicago Statement is stating these are only "apparent" inconsistencies.

1. Who has to be "convinced" of the solution?
2. What WAS the solution?
3. What is the list of "apparent" inconsistencies that there is "no convincing solution?"
4. Who was NOT convinced?
5. Where did God assure that His Word is true?
6. Where, specifically, did God assure that the inconsistencies with "no convincing solution" are true?
7. What is the "one day" when these will be seen as illusions? (I.e. pre-death or post-death?)
8. And if it is pre-death, it has been (at least) 1700 years. What more do we need to resolve this inconsistencies with "no convincing solution?"

See, acknowledging that inconsistencies (whether one chooses to place the adjective of "apparent" or not in front of it) REQUIRE a solution, and acknowledging that said solution is not convincing, no matter how much you want to soften the blow, is for all purposes acknowledging an actual inconsistency.

Clutch

More silly obfuscation. Recall the dialectic: You somehow became gripped by the idee fixe that sceptics "introduce" the appearance of contradictions.

Vork noted that your representation of apparent contradictions as coming from sceptics is entirely confabulated. True Believers themselves recognize apparent contradictions -- the Chicago Statement makes this clear. Why not say "apparent contradictions" the whole time? Because, as Vork has made incandescently obvious, his considered judgement is that the attempted harmonizations are largely embarrassing failures. But that is neither here nor there with respect to his demolition of your confused "introduction" business. That point required nothing more than apparent contradictions -- viz, tensions that strike even inerrantists as imposing a burden of explanation, since they wear their problematic nature on their faces.

The willingness of inerrantists to admit an inexplicable flaw is simply orthogonal to the question of burden. Vork correctly noted that even inerrantists recognize the burden.

blt to go

If I undersand the inerrancy debate, the bottom line is "Does the Bible contain errors?"

Vinnie (and many others) are stating that human books, on their face, have errors, some apparent, some actual.

BGic and RobertLW are stating that the Bible has not only a "human" factor, but also a "God-inspired" factor.

Shouldn't, therefore, the Bible be held to a HIGHER standard, not a "lesser" standard?

(I know, I know, special pleading has been beaten into the ground. I am now stomping on it.)

This line of argumentation makes no sense to me. BGic and RobertLW are stating that Vinnie (and others) are failing to take into consideration the "God-Factor" when considering this book. Shouldn't such consideration warrant that the book comes under (and survives) GREATER scrutiny?

Are you really saying that a Book written with God's help would have more appparent errors? and be forgiven for such errors?

Cross Examiner

Are you asserting here that no scholar treats the Bible as the product of both divine and human causation? If not, then there apparently is 'reason or evidence that would compel a scholar to treat the Bible as anything other than a human document.'
1. False. As a matter of fact, Vinnie does introduce surface anomalies in his argument with RobertLW. See here.
2. It would not follow from the given that surface anomalies exist in the text that they are not introduced by Vinnie (or by another arguing for the verity of errancy) to the reader. The word 'introduced' is not synonymous with 'created'. If it were, somehow, then you'd have a point in protesting that surface anomalies exist and are not introduced.
3. A reader might encounter two accounts of Saul's death.
4. A reader might believe that these two stories are actually contradictory.
5. A reader might believe that these two stories are seemingly contradictory.

I'll let the reader connect the dots this time.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

It does not follow from the fact that an assumption is default or old or fruitful that said assumption is not philosophical in nature.
What do you think predicates an 'investigate stance', Vorkosigan?
It would not follow from the given that 'harmonization strategies provide an important counter to this cognitive dissonance' that cognitive dissonance is a necessary cause of the existence of harmonizations or that harmonization strategies are created for the purpose of countering cognitive dissonance.
Are you asserting that there is no evidence for divine intervention in the production of the Bible or that you find the evidence that you have seen so far lacking?

Regards,
BGic