RobertLW

I respectfully disagree in regards to this specific debate. Vinnie introduced the Chicago Statement asking if I would accept this statement. I accepted this statement which changed the question to, "Is the Bible true?"


Again, I respectfully disagree. I substantially answered this point previously. I clearly stated that I hold the Bible to the exact same standard (niether higher or lessor) by which I hold all other works and by doing so I do not offer the Bible "special pleading".

It is my contention that since I admit inspiration and Vinnie does not, this is where the argument should be. I have justified admitting inspiration. I do not believe that Vinnie has justified denying inspiration. I do not believe the issue is the amount of scrutiny one applies to the Bible. In my view, the relevant issue is by which standard does one scrutinize the Bible.


No. What I am saying is that one's presuppostions are going to dictate how the apparent errors are treated. In other words, given a specific "apparent error", someone who denies inspiration is more likely to see error where one who admits inspiration is more likely to not see error. In my view, it is this difference that is the relevent issue. Who can better justify either admitting or denying inspiration?

Thanks,

Robert

Vorkosigan

No, it does not. I think you've seriously misunderstood the question, BGIC. As I've explained to you, the default position of scholarship is one that regards all documents as human-produced. That default position does not say "It is impossible that these documents are divine." It is a nuetral position that says "Evidence is required for scholarship to treat these documents as other-than-human in origin." The argument is not over whether we have warrant to believe Gods were involved, because no one could start out there. The default position is that "Warrant must be supplied." Faith is nice, but evidence supported by sound methodology and backed by reliable and repeatable discovery is required for scholarly inquiry. All scholarship and science relies on that principle. The reason is that this stance has been found to be exceptionally fruitful in developing reliable and useful understandings of the world, whereas the stance you appear to have advocated (which you have not defined very well) does not produce useful and reliable knowledge about the world. That is why western Christians abandoned it more than two centuries ago.

Note that this is an investigative stance that all serious investigators must adopt. It is not a conclusion about the text but a way of examining the text. The text is treated as a human-produced document, until evidence is produced that another origin is involved. Another origin is not ruled out. It simply requires evidence.

In point of fact, all sides agree on the existence of contradictions regardless of philosophical contradictions. As the Chicago Statement makes clear. Not only does the statement admit to the existence of such contradictions, it also admits that some cannot be resolved, and the believer will simply have to continue believing regardless. Note the language posted earlier:

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.

See the Chicago Statement. And also, as everyone has pointed out to you, the existence of a harmonization industry concedes the existence of actual contradictions. No one would attempt to harmonize contradictions if they didn't exist.

What is the difference between the "appearance of contradictions" and the reality of contradictions? You know perfectly well that such language is the language of spin, and in any case, Chicago goes further to admit that some contradictions cannot be resolved.

Here are two differing accounts of Saul's death.

1 Samuel 31:4-6 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him. So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.

2 Samuel 1:8-10 And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. [Saul] said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me. So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

Is this contradiction "apparent" or "actual"? All the places I see regard this as a contradiction, and then attempt to resolve it (usually by introducing information not in the original text). For example, Tektonics claims the Amelekite in 2 Sam is lying, although the text nowhere says that. Gleason Archer also says the same thing, as does Calvary Chapel. Sound of Grace says"The first of these explanations is more probable, due to the account of 1 Chronicles 10:1-14. In passing, we should notice the words of verses 13 & 14. Regardless of the human agent, the Lord executed judgment on Saul for his unfaithfulness." They simply decide to live with the contradiction. This Bible study says "Note the contradiction between this account and the account of the Amalekite in (2 Sam. 1). It is apparent that the Amalekite lied hoping to win favor with David for killing his archenemy, but David did not view Saul's death through human eyes. See (2 Sam. 1:17-27)!" First it admits the contradiction, then it somehow determines (again) that the Amalekite is lying.

It is pretty clear that there is no real difference between an "apparent" and an "actual" contradiction. Both errantists and inerrantists see the same problematic situations: the Bible offers differing accounts of the same event. The fact that this is seen by everyone, irrespective of their position on Bible contradictions, makes it clear that there is no difference between an actual and an apparent contradiction.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Clutch, I am off to Sri Lanka on Saturday, for three weeks of curry-eating, elephant-watching, and fortress-climbing. So it's back to you, sir.

Vorkosigan

Clutch

I'm bright green with jealousy. Have a safe trip.

But I'm just cherry-picking at this point; a few posts back I ran out of the patience you've been demonstrating. At least since BGic's third explicit claim that neutrality hadn't been broached on the thread -- made after I'd drawn his attention to my posts to him on the topic -- the prima facie evidence of bad faith seems rather decisive.

funinspace

:notworthy :notworthy

Wow three months have gone by and not much has changed. Though I'm not too suprised. Hadn't come back here and looked in a while, being one of the spectators.

DK

Cross Examiner

You did not put me 'on the spot for defending the Chicago Statement.' As demonstrated here, you asserted, contrary to my own words, that I said that the Chicago Statement admitted no appearance of contradictions, when in fact I did no such thing.
One need not presume that the Chicago Statement employs hyperbole or 'spin'. One need not presume that the Chicago statement treats the appearance of inconsistencies as actual inconsistencies. These assertions are in need of substantiation.
1. How should I know?
2. What was what solution?
3. Why would you ask me for this?
4. How should I know?
5. I refer you to an author of or expert on the Chicago Statement.
6. I refer you to an author of or expert on the Chicago Statement.
7. I refer you to an author of or expert on the Chicago Statement.
8. I refer you to an author of or expert on the Chicago Statement.

Perhaps you could supply some justification for calling me to testify on behalf of the Chicago Statement. Particularly in light of the facts that, as stated previously, I am not here to argue for inerrancy and that I believe, frankly, that neither errancy nor inerrancy can be proven.
If there are even two possible reasons (i.e. sufficient causes) that apparent inconsistencies would provoke a response from inerrantists then one need not presume that the reason is that apparent inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies. If, for example, a theist introduces a harmonization because he believes that in so doing he will demonstrate that some allegedly actual inconsistency was not and never was, in fact, an actual inconsistency then one need not presume that the reason one offers a harmonization for an apparent inconsistency is that said inconsistency is actual.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

No. I am stating, among other things (none of which are identical to the above), that if the question is whether or not the Bible is both a divine and human effect then one cannot rationally preclude divine causation. When, for example, Vinnie or Vorkosigan or Mary Poppins presumes that the Bible is purely the product of human causation then they beg the question.

Regards,
BGic

JLK

Do you believe any proposition can be inductively "proven"?

Clutch

This is not merely false, but has -- it should go without saying, at this point -- been repeatedly debunked.


Oswyn Murray (Early Greece, Harvard University Press, p. 291) considers Herodotus' claim that 600 Persian ships had been destroyed before the battle of Salamis even occured. Murray calls this claim "unbelievable", since it is in apparent tension with both independently warranted propositions, and other aspects of Herodotus' narrative.

In so doing, it can hardly be denied that Murray is presuming -- yes, imagine it, presuming! -- that neither Zeus nor Asclepius nor Yahweh nor an Inanimate Carbon Rod was an infallible co-author of the text.

Is this a fallacy of question-begging? Transparently it is not. Murray is not committing some error by not bothering to consider the logically possible hyper-advanced aliens whose co-authorship of Herodotus would make all the apparent errors merely apparent. Just as the court did not err in failing to consider that Jeffrey Dahmer might have been framed by Satan, so that all the apparent evidence of his guilt was merely apparent.

So what, aside from special pleading, is the difference in the case of the bible?

In a couple of exceedingly clear posts, blt to go tidily drew this very point out of Robert. "The" question is actually why such a presumption is manifestly sound methodology in the case of Herodotus, Caesar, and the Book of Mormon, but not in the case of the bible. It was here that Robert's methodology went supercritical: The difference, it turns out, is that Robert antecedently believes the bible was co-authored by an infallible Yahweh!

Oh, well, in that case it's not special pleading at all...

In short, for the nth time, what justifies abandoning shared epistemic practices for the evaluation of texts -- including virtually all other religious texts -- when considering the bible? Answer, also for the nth time: special pleading.

blt to go

Few Points:

1)Semantics. At this point, BGic, I have attemped to show that the Chicago Statement recognizes actual inconsitencies. Vorkosigan did a better job of stating, with brevity that there is no practical, or factual difference between "apparent" inconsistencies and real inconsistencies. Clutch has been stating this (tacitly) for the last three pages in his statement of "harmonization=recognition of disparity."

If, at this point, you want to hold on to the premise that the Statement does not use the word "actual" as being significant when treating inconsitencies, then I can say no more.

I have cross-examined literally thousands of witnesses with similar attitudes. They feel that as long as they don't say the actual words it has some significance.

Last week, some young fellow did not want to state he was "at" a party. He freely admitted (under cross-examination) that he was present in the house. There was a party. He was there for a period of time. He had been to previous parties at this house (it was a close friend.) His girlfriend was there. He somehow does not remember where he was for at least two hours that night. But one thing he was certain--he was NOT "at" that party!

I didn't buy it, and neither did the jury.

If it walks like a duck, flys like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, but claims to be an "apparent" goose - what is it?

2) Semantics II. BGic you ask: in reference to my questions on the Chicago Statement. The direct answer is that this dialogue between you and I started with your statement: Therefore, I felt your "familiarity" would provide insight to these questions. Interestingly enough, your familiarity does not rise to the level of expertise.Again, this is something I see on a daily basis in witnesses. Enough "expertise" to get their point across, but not enough to justify MY point. It goes something like this:

A: Well, anyone in their right minds would know those two pipes were connected wrongly.
Q: Are you a plumber?
A: No
Q: Do you know the building code regarding the connection of pipes?
A: No.
Q: Are you familiar with the inspection requirements of your city?
A: No
Q: Are you aware as to what it takes to pass the inspection?
A: Look, I'm no expert, so I don't know any of those things. All I know is that those pipes were connected incorrectly.

Sorry, BGic - can't have it both ways, if you ARE familiar, please explain this troubling paragraph of the Chicago Statement. If you are Not, please don't say that the Chicago Statement says something it does not. In Your words, it is O.K. to answer, "I don't know."

3) Curious question, left outstanding. Do you also believe that corroboration ALSO cannot be proven?
Can you have it both ways? That corroboration CAN be proven, but contradictions cannot?
And If so (having it both ways) how do you tell the difference between a corroboration and contradiction?

4) Burden of Proof. (OR fleshing out my poor post regarding the lesser standard applied to the Bible) Vorkosigan stated some time ago (too lazy to go back far enough) that a document created by a human will ipso facto have errors, simply by virtue of human error probability.

I would think a person would believes in inerrancy would whole-heartedly agree to this premise, and then go on to demonstrate the unique nature of the Bible in that it is (apparently) authored by Humans, YET HAS NO MISTAKES.

I would think such a person would GLADLY grab the burden of proof to show that this book, inspired like no other book in the world, is from GOD himself! Hence the demonstration of the uniqueness through the fact of inerrancy.

Why, on God's green earth, would such a person shy away from this statement? Doesn't God Himself say:

(2 Tim 3:16) and (Heb 4:12)
This would be a book that one should gladly hold the burden of proof and scrutinize it. Not cower and say, "No, YOU have the burden of proof, not me..."

5)Thank you Clutch, for reminding me of this point, that I had failed to consistently follow up. I believe I will continue to cut and paste this quote until an answer is provided. If your answer is "already provided it," please provide a link, or at least the post number.

6) Finally - Analogy of the day. It is as if we were all watchmakers, making watches all day long.

Then one day, some person runs in stating, "hey, I just talked to God and he inspired me to create this watch, which is like no other watch in the world--it is the Watch of God "

We gather round, and yes, it looks different. Older. Hefty. Has many of the same principles of other watches, but somehow seems to come together like no watch before it.

A few watchmakers run off, and make similar watches, claiming they too, talked to God, and their watches, too are a Watch of God It does generate some concern that these new watches of God do not keep the same time as the original Watch of God, but times change, so perhaps God's watch does as well.

After we observe this watch, we start to notice that it, too, occasionally needs batteries, just like all the other watches we made. It too, occasionally needs cleaning, as dirt gets into the watch. And it, too, occasionally needs repairing, just like all the other watches we made.

And one day a rotten band of infidels says, "What exactly makes this watch any different from all the other watches we made? It keeps the same time, has the same concerns, and, in fact, would appear to be the same as any other watch."

And to THIS, Billy Graham is cool would state, "we cannot prove or not prove that the watch needs repair, needs batteries, and needs cleaning."

And to THIS RobertLW would state, "I hold as irrefutable fact that the watchmaker who made this watch is telling the truth, and he says it is the Watch of god

I wonder if this point is clear.