Doug Shaver

An entirely accurate text is necessarily consistent. If there is a contradiction in the text, then the text contains at least one inaccuracy.

Steven Avery

For the umpteenth time, I never made "claims about the historical process".

This remains a legend in your own mind.

It has been gone over on multiple threads. Honestly, you simply have a real problem as you don't even have the basics right.

Post #49 on the Nativity thread gives the history of the first three times that Sauron made the false statement above.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...73#post4243373
(bottom half)

Your first three false claims were #28, #38, and #45 of that thread. Now you are probably up to a half dozen.

Even though this very thread was designed to do proper ravelling, to help make the proper distinctions between history analysis and logic.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sauron

Yes, you did. Once again, your words to Fortuna:

Your whole argument is based on a fallacy. The burden of proof is upon the claim of a contradiction. That you get the most basic part of the issue wrong is not a good sign, and the rest of your study, while quite interesting in its own right, has its conclusion based on having the basics backwards

In an already-existing discussion about how ancient texts are viewed and evaluated by historians, you made the above claim. Your bold text is a claim about the historical process. You might not have *meant* for it to be that, but that's precisely what it is.

And then Doug Shaver called you on it, as did I. The rest is the sad history of your handwaving and backpedaling.

Yes, you've evaded the point in multiple threads. Will you continue to do so?

Excuse me? Like Doug Shaver, I have made no claim. The only thing even close to a "claim" was where I restating your text (in bold) and then ask you to support it. But that's not a claim; it's an inconvenient question that you keep dodging.

Sauron

Bumping this for praxeus - you still haven't answered:

If there is an apparent contradiction, why does the person pointing out that contradiction bear the burden of proof? As opposed to the person who wants to claim the text is still trustworthy, in spite of the apparent contradiction?

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From Praxeus:
If you can't understand what I write .. hmmmm.

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

Thanks. Proving my point yet again. All this arose out of demonstrating that Richard Carrier was claiming "contradictions" in the Bible text without any attempt at proof and while totally hiding the responses, in a supposed "scholarly" paper. Even including the inane "Simeon and Anna" claim.

Carrier's deal is unique. Historians do not generally throw in gratuitious driveby accusations of contradiction in the Bible text in their articles about history. His error in doing that is unrelated to "historical debate processes" or whatever other expressions you want to falsely place in my mouth.

This is an issue of unbalanced accusation and lack of citation by Carrier combined with false accusation as well, using standard logic understanding.

To make it even worse, one of his accusations was so insipid that not even the skeptic rah-rah crowd came to his defense. All in a driveby. Even the protection gang scattered.

That type of writing is neither scholarship or history or science, it is propaganda fluff

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

For reasons that we saw in the Simeon and Anna case. Contradictions are easy to claim, if that is what one wants, sometimes though they are agenda-driven. Closer examination often uncovers more information. Better to be cautious in one's words.
"Apparent contradiction..
"Claimed contradiction, however the response is given at .... "

Then the reader will at least have real scholarship and the chance to see a couple of sides to the coin.

And you may to think of the Bible text as "untrustworthy". However that is vague and indistinct, so nobody is going to prove you right or wrong.

However "contradiction" is direct and logical, a different bird. Thus it has a real burden of proof.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sauron

Hardly. You made a claim about historical process, but couldn't back it up.

Nonsense. Richard did no such thing. I"m aware that you tossed a lot of dirt and straw into the air, but none of your accusations about his scholarship withstood inspection.

And none of this straw and dirt in the air this time helps either. You still need to support your claim about where the burden of proof lies in evaluating historical texts.

Apikorus

An example of a clear contradiction in the Bible is that between 2 Kgs 8:26 and 2 Chr 22:2:

Twenty two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel. (2 Kgs 8:26)

Forty two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. (2 Chr 22:2)

Sauron

But we saw no such issues in that case. Oh, you *claimed* a lot of issues, but your claims didn't stand.

Moreover, your viewpoint on this presupposes a desire to make the text be correct - to intentionally search for ways to keep it from being judged contradictory.That's the point of view of a religious investigator, not a proper historian. It would be preferable to simply view the text critically, and letting the data take you wherever it leads you.

So the question still remains - why does the person pointing out that contradiction bear the burden of proof? As opposed to the person who wants to claim the text is still trustworthy, in spite of the apparent contradiction?

Oh, and please note that the answer you give should be general in nature; by that I mean, it should be applicable in any situation, with any text or historical claim.