Is the Bible inerrant? -- Vinnie vs. RobertLW

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between Vinnie and RobertLW on the following resolution:

Resolved: the Bible is not inerrant and it contains clear examples of errors and contradictions.

Vinnie will go first, taking the affirmative and RobertLW will oppose. The debate will go for 5 rounds as agreed to from the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78953).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79513) is set up in the Biblical History & Criticism forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Good luck to both participants!

Jason

[Vinnie]

First I’d like to say thank you to my opponent RobertLw for participating in this debate with me and to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board for hosting it. My initial statement can be broken down as follows:

Section One

1. A Practical Approach to Bible Contradictions and Harmonization

A. Surface Anomalies In the Bible.
B. The Burden of Proof
C. Historians of the Biblical Era and Fallible Humans Prone to Errors.
D. Canonization.
E. Summary of the Main Points of Section One.


Section Two

1. Specific Errors

A. The Tenth Plague
B. The Food Laws.


Section 1. A Practical Approach to Bible Contradictions and Harmonization.

The whole inerrancy debate has become awfully trite. A skeptics poses potential errors and a believer attempts to reconcile them while the audience sleeps. For example, how did Judas die? We have one to two ways according to Matthew and Luke:

1. Did Judas die from hanging himself (Mt 27:5) ?
2. Or did Judas’ stomach bust open (Acts 1:18)?

At this point many apologists will assert a possible harmonization: Judas hung himself but the branch of the tree broke and he fell to the earth which resulted in his stomach bursting open.

Whether or not this harmonization should be accepted depends on a number of factors:

Are traditional authorships correct and therefore, Luke and Matthew are both preserving an accurate side of this historical coin? Or were Matthew and Luke written late and anonymously as the vast majority of critical scholars believe? Is Matthew’s depiction of Judas’ death drawn from the Old Testament? Certainly the account of Jesus prayer in Gethsemane (Or Mount of Olives) by several evangelists echoes the “Ascent of Olives� references in II Sam 15:30. Is Matthew intensifying the parallel by having Judas hang himself even as David’s trusted counselor Ahithophel who deserted him did?

For the purpose of this installment we will, in an effort to remain neutral, label potential errors like this one “surface anomalies�. One component of this first section stems around the premise (or guiding principle) that there are quite a bit of surface anomalies in the Bible. From the creation account to the global flood to the killing of women and children to the sin of the father being visited upon the son to all the surface anomalies in the Gospels.


Some examples of surface anomalies in the Gospels:

1. When did Jesus ministry begin? After John was put in prison (Mark 1:1-15) or did it overlap with John's ministry (John 3:22-24).

2. Did John the Baptist know Jesus was the Christ? Did he recognize Jesus as such before going to prison (John 1:29-34, 3:3:22-36) or did he have to inquire from Prison as to whether or not Jesus was the one they expected (Mt 11:2-3 and Luke 7:20 ).

3. Why was Jesus born in Bethlehem? Did Mary and Josephus live there (Mt) or did they go there because of a census (Lk)?

4. Did Jesus openly proclaim his identity? In the Gospel of John this is all Jesus talks about. It is filled with endless self-aggrandizing monologues. In the synoptic Gospels Jesus has to ask his disciples who they think he is and he even warns them not to to tell anyone about his identity during his ministry (Mk 8, Mt 16, Lk 9)!

The death of Judas (5) and the food laws (6) (the latter of which will be covered in depth below) are two more examples. The point of this is not for Robert to be inundated with a cumbersome list he must harmonize. I merely wish to establish that there are a significant number of “surface anomalies� throughout the Christian canon. There are moral difficulties, internal difficulties, external historical difficulties (e.g. Lucan census) and scientific difficulties (flood and creation accounts).

Whether or not all these difficulties can be explained or harmonized remains to be seen. We note one more guiding principle at this time: Posed harmonizations, even if logically possible, do not demonstrate that a surface anomaly in the Bible is not an error. So I expect Robert to actually provide positive evidence as to why the Bible is inerrant. Merely pointing out potential solutions to surface anomalies in the Bible simply will not cut it.



The Burden of Proof

In a well known apologetical handbook, Josh Mcdowell made an argument in favor of the Bible’s divine authorship on the basis of its “uniqueness�. Though my figures differ slightly from those found in New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, my argument is generally the same, except I argue the exact opposite.
The Bible is a collection of books written over a thousand year span.
Written by a variety of authors (50+) from all different walks of life.
It was written in different settings for each author (e.g. a time of war as opposed to a time of peace).
The authors were inspired by different things (their own moods and the needs of the community).
The books were written in different geographical locations.
Some of them were written in different languages.
There are a host of genres inside (poem, song, satire, law, prophecy etc.)
The Bible addresses lots of controversial subjects
Josh Mcdowell suggests that for such a work to be without errors proves God wrote it. We would agree. Such an anthology of human works of such length could never be inerrant unless some extraordinary conditions led to this state. But the problem is that this work is not inerrant in all details--at least it doesn‘t appear to be.

The Bible contains anywhere from several dozen to a hundred or more surface anomalies. Mark, as New Testament scholars note, has relatively poor Greek. A human element is stamped all over the Bible. An obvious example was recorded by Raymond Brown (Intro NT p. 39) and it concerns Luke:

“By way of example, one may note Luke does not report a scourging of Jesus by Roman soldiers as do Mark/Matt; accordingly, in Luke 23:26 the antecedent of the "they" who led Jesus away to be crucified is grammatically "the chief priests and the rulers and the people" of 23:13. Many commentators would read this passage as a deliberate Lucan attempt to make the Jews the agents of the crucifixion and to exculpate the Romans. Yet careless use of antecedents is not infrequent in writing. 34 Eventually Luke makes clear that there were (Roman) soldiers involved in the crucifixion (23:36), and elsewhere he indicates that the Gentiles killed Jesus (18:32-33; cf. Acts 4:25-27). From other NT evidence one may suspect that all or most Christians would have heard and known of the Roman role in crucifying Jesus, and so Luke's audience would have understood the "they" of Luke 23:26 in that sense (as have Christian audiences ever since). Most likely, then, the grammatical sense of what Luke wrote was not what he intended to convey.�

Traditional authorship asserts that an apostle named Matthew wrote Matthew and so on. The various books composing the Bible were written by humans just as are all (most?) books. When I go into a public library I do so with the assumption that these books were written by men (and women). Brian Greene wrote 'The Elegant Universe’. Tolkienn wrote ‘The Hobbit‘, Melville wrote ‘Moby Dick’, Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus wrote ’Jewish War’ and so on. The default position on books is that they were written by their human authors and are not inerrant revelations from God.

Consequently, it is not my job to show that the Bible is errant. The default position is for errancy. Why? A work of this magnitude by various humans, in various times and settings, speaking on so many issues is certain to contain errors. So I take it that many of these “surface anomalies� are in fact actual errors, whether potential harmonizations exist or not. It needs to be demonstrated, by Robert, why this is not the case.

The books of the Bible should not be treated any differently than any other books until demonstrated otherwise. This is just a simple request against special pleading. There must be literally millions and millions of books in circulation today. I do not assume any of them are inspired by God or inerrant. The default position is too view them as being human works--which is precisely what books written by humans are.

The question of divine inspiration rarely comes up in book discussions. When I read Strobel’s 'The Case for Christ' or Marcus Borg's 'Meeting God Again for the First Time'. I do not even entertain the notion that God may have written them and kept them free from error. I view them as being written by their human authors and as being prone to all the errors that all humans are capable of and commit over and over again. This is evidenced by the fact that it was Strobel sitting in front of the typewriter banging on the keys--in other words, empirical observations dictate this position. The default position on the nature of a text is "against inspiration" or “lacking belief in it� with the exception of "natural inspiration" but that doesn't protect a text from errors so we can leave that alone. The burden of proof is solely on the inerrancy advocate.


Historians of the Biblical Era

Also we note that historians from the same general time period as the New Testament works were composed in also made errors. Josephus is one example. As E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies point out (Studying the Synoptic Gospels p. 37):

"Josephus, for example who was a very self-conscious historian, and who was also fairly accurate, claimed, in retelling biblical history, that he added nothing and omitted nothing (Antiq. 1.17; cf. Antiq. 4.196; 20.260-261). In fact he omitted a great deal and added numerous items. He attributed to Moses, for example, the commandment to gather each week to study the law (Against Apion 2.175). This represents first-century practice but cannot be found in the Bible; and Josephus, if pressed, would have granted that to be true. He knew the Bible extremely well, and further he knew that many of his readers were equally well versed in it. Then why ascribe to Moses new commandments? We cannot precisely recapture his mental processes, but perhaps they went like this: It is an established tradition in our religion that we gather in synagogues on the Sabbath to study the Scripture; this has been true as far back as anyone can remember; Moses himself must have intended it; I shall use a shortcut and say that he commanded it.

Ancient historians regularly supplemented their narratives with freely created material of various kinds. They paid especial attention to the creation of suitable speeches for their heroes. Staying with Josephus, we may comment especially on the great speech which he attributes to the rebel leader Eleazar just before he and other defenders of Matsada committed suicide rather than be captured (War 7.323-336, 341-389). Eleazar's speech holds up the ideals of Josephus himself (though Josephus did not live up to them); and this, the concluding event of the last battle of the great revolt, is marked by suitable oration, though Josephus could not have known what Eleazar had actually said.

We should not exult too much over ancient historians. Below the very top level of academic biography modern authors frequently attribute statements to their subjects when, in the nature of the case, there could be no possible line of transmission. Most modern readers accept this, since the story is presented smoothly and authoritatively, without noting the absence of evidence. Ancient author's wrote in this way--only more so."

Note the text in bold above (emphasis mine). Josephus also records that John the Baptist baptized for the consecration of the body whereas Mark suggest he baptized for the remission of sin. One is wrong. In this case we favor Mark but that’s not the point. Even modern historians with archives, computers, atlases, databases and so on make errors. Why wouldn’t our technological impaired predecessors who penned the various Biblical books have been prone to the same things--but even more so?

Finally, to justify our “default position� of errancy we note that a prima facie reading of the Bible gives us no indication it should be seen as other than a human work. Many passages set off moral alarm bells and the large number of surface anomalies (internal and external) should point an exegete towards this human component as well. It looks like a human work and that is how it should be treated--unless Robert can demonstrate otherwise.

Collectively, we can take it as an absolute certainty that the Bible (or any human work of this magnitude) does in fact have errors. The only way to avoid this conclusion is for a theist to demonstrate the Bible is inerrant or special through means other than potential harmonizations of select passages.

Whether Robert attempts top use “gospel reliability� coupled with the trilemma (a common evangelical approach) or predictive prophecy or the Bible’s ability to mediate the sacred remains to be seen. I will offer responses to his arguments as they appear. In addition to demonstrating that the Bible is inerrant Robert also has to cover canonization.


Canonization

As Raymond Brown wisely admonished his readers (Intro NT), “There is unity to the collection; yet one should be cautious of statements claiming "The Bible says . . ." even as one would not state, "The Public Library says . . ." when one means to quote from Jane Austen or Shakespeare. The better phrasing names a specific book or author: "Isaiah says" or "Mark says," thereby recognizing that individuals from different periods of time with different ideas wrote the individual books of the Bible. Although the books take on added meaning because they are part of the whole Bible, their individuality cannot be overlooked.�

To back up a pinch, why should I believe “these books� over “those books“? The Bible consists of a number of individual works penned by various authors over many centuries. Treating the bible with a “canonical dimension� has to be justified before it can be done. Why did the tiny work Jude make it but not the Gospel of Thomas? Why not the Gospel to the Hebrews?

So in addition to providing evidence that the Bible is inerrant, I expect Robert to demonstrate why these books should be taken collectively since human authors decided to put them together. Did God guide this process as well? If so, what is the evidence for this statement? Now if Robert does demonstrate that this anthology is inerrant we will take it as evidence that canonization is a correct doctrine (At least partially) since we believe no work of this magnitude by so many humans over so many centuries discussing so many topics can in fact be inerrant in all details.

What I expect any inerrancy advocate engaged in harmonization to do is to justify treating the Bible with a canonical dimension. Explain why the “Bible� is the Bible and not simply Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and so on. Why shouldn’t each book be treated as an individual work, which is how they were originally composed. One principle of the conservative hermeneutic is that difficult passages are to be interpreted in light of easier ones. But this assumes the Bible is inerrant and can be merged in such ways. If Robert uses this hermeneutic I expect him to outline why before he does. So before he attempts to harmonize he needs to explain why this is a legitimate practice and why we shouldn’t simply accept the common-place decision that these texts do contradict one another.


To summarize before proceeding to section two:

1. There are a significant number of surface anomalies in the Bible (anywhere from several dozen to possibly a hundred or more such instances).
2. A potential harmonization does not resolve the surface anomaly. Thus, positive evidence for inerrancy is still required.
3. The rational default position on the Bible (like other books) is for errancy. The Burden of Proof is solely on the Inerrancy advocate to demonstrate why the Bible is special or different from other human works.
4. Canonization Must be Demonstrated before the Bible can be treated collectively under the conservative hermeneutic of force-fitting passages together.



Section Two: Specific Errors in the Bible

Error One: The Tenth Plague on Egypt. A Moral Difficulty.


The Exodus Narrative describes God as murdering helpless and innocent children on account of Pharaoh and their own Father's sins (The Tenth Plague - Exodus 11-12).

Even if God was justified in punishing the people of Egypt for their idolatry, why did he not spare the lives of the innocent children? Are we to believe that the all-loving, omni-benevolent God of Christendom violates his own decrees (Dt. 24:16), murders innocent children, and then declares: "This is a day you are to commemorate for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a Festival to the Lord--a lasting ordinance"?

To make matters even worse, in Exodus 11 God hardens the Pharaoh's heart so that he will not let the people go. Exodus 11:9-10 reads: The LORD had said to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you-so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt." Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.�

God also butchered all the first born livestock as well. As Abraham questioned in Genesis 18: "Shall not the Lord of all the Earth do what is right?" Why were God's actions here less reprehensible than Herod's slaughtering of the infants? I pose a simple question: Does this look like the infallible recorded history of an omni-benevolent deity or the fallible writings of a primitive tribal-nation?


Error Two: The Food Laws in Mark.

I am only including the tenth plague and this error in my first installment as I will delineate several different problems centering around the food laws in Mark. The 5,000 word limit prevents me from going further. In the second installment I hope to document some differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as another example of Biblical errancy.


Mark 7:5-19: So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. 'You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."


Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")�



Eight Difficulties With this Segment:


1. The Two Source Theory
The majority of critical scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written first and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for their Gospels. This is called Marcan priority and explains why of Mark’s 661 verses, Matthew's 1,068, and Luke’s 1,149, eighty percent of Mark's vv. are reproduced in Matthew and 65 percent in Luke.

But neither Matthew or Luke has the historical Jesus nullifying the food laws as does the Gospel of Mark.



2. Peter’s Vision in Acts.

Luke actually has Peter believing the opposite. In Acts 10 Peter has a vision. Acts 10:10-16:

"He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Peter, a very close personal disciple who followed Jesus for three years or so, who stayed with him day and night and learned under him has no idea that the food laws were nullified by Jesus. Did Jesus nullify the food laws as Mark suggests? Luke has Peter saying, “Surely not!�



3. The Dispute on Food in Galatians.

If Jesus had nullified the food laws since the beginning the debate on Kosher food in Galatians would never have begin. As Raymond Brown notes (Intro to the NT. p 137) "The hard-fought struggle over kosher food attested in Acts and Paul would be difficult to explain if Jesus had settled the issue from the beginning."

Likewise, Paula Fredriksen relays similar thoughts to Brown in 'Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews' (p.108), "[W]e must take into account the controversy in Antioch, years after this supposed encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees, when Peter, the men sent from James, and Paul disputed about mixed Gentile-Jewish meals taken in community (Gal 2:11-13). If Jesus during his mission had already nullified the laws of kashrut, this argument never could have happened." Why didn't Paul just quote Jesus and end the debate?




4. Food Commands in Romans

Romans 14:14-20 explains acceptable behaviors for eating. Paul is careful to note that no food is unclean of itself but if it means a brother will stumble one should avoid a certain food. As verse 14 says, “But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.� This hardly is consistent with Jesus’ explicit nullification of the food law in Mark.

As the New Jerusalem Biblical Commentary puts it (p.612), “If Jesus had been so explicit about the observance of Jewish food laws, why were there so many debates on this matter in the early church (see Gal 2:11-14; Rom 14:14-20; Col 2:20-23; Acts 10:14-15; etc.)?�



5. Silence in the Gospels.

If Jesus had declared the food laws as null during his earthy ministry we would have expected a different sort of Gospel material to develop. This type of action would have produced an especially heated response. We would expect more defending of this in the Gospels. But we find none. Where is the controversy over Jesus nullifying this clear mandate of the Torah in the Gospels?

Instead Mark has comparably minor controversies leading to plans for Jesus’ death (3.6). This entire situation is historically implausible.



6. The Commands of Men.

Jesus, just a few lines earlier in chapter 7 of Mark is critiquing the Pharisees as pushing aside the commands of God for the traditions of men. Mark 7:8-9 reads, “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!�

Now this is sheer audacity on the author of Mark’s part. He has Jesus accuse people of pushing aside what he ostensibly propounds as “the commands of God� only to push aside an extremely clear mandate of the Torah.



7. The Law Observant Jesus.

Underneath the Gospel of Mark’s food law nullifying Jesus is a law observant Jew. As we saw with Peter in Acts, he had no idea the food laws had been nullified by the earthly Jesus. In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus says (5:17-19):

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.�

Jesus said not the smallest letter will disappear from the Law or the Prophets. He also stated that anone who breaks even one of the least of these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But in Mark Jesus nullifies, rather than fulfills the laws. He also teaches others to do the same.



8. Mark’s treatment of Jesus Apostles.

In Mark 7:18-19 Jesus asks his followers, “Are you so dull?" He goes on to say, "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean")�

Mark programmatically denigrates the apostles throughout his Gospel. I have outlined all the instances I could find in an article on my website. Space restrictions prevent me from repeating that entire discussion here. I will point out this feature of Mark as best I can in the space allotted to me.

The important part in Mark 7 that I wish to highlight here is that Mark has Jesus ask if the apostles are so dull for not understanding his statement as nullifying the food laws. This occurs embedded next to a huge number of other denigrating statements towards Jesus disciples in Mark (see 4:13 - 4:40 - 6:37 - 6:52 - 7:18 - 8:4 - 8:14-21 - 8:31-33 - 9:9-10 - 9:32 - 10:13-15 - 10:33-37 - 11:21 - 14:32-41 and so on).

The disciples repeatedly fail in Mark and Jesus repeatedly calls them dull. The disciples never realize despite all the wonderful miracles they see and Jesus's constant predictions. Even the women fail in the end. They go to anoint Jesus’ body with spices but they are too late. If they had understood Jesus they would have known he would not be in the tomb.

Here in chapter 7 we see Mark has Jesus attacking the apostles for not agreeing with his own beliefs about the food laws that he projected back onto the lips of the historical Jesus. This shows that Mark is not writing strict history. He has an agenda and putting words in Jesus’ mouth is one way he will accomplish it.



Overview

Mark has Jesus declare the food laws void and then calls Jesus’ apostles idiots for not understanding this. Peter didn’t know anything about this according to Acts. He said “surely not� in regards to eating unclean food. The controversy in Galatians between Paul and James and company leans against Jesus definitively settling the issue from the beginning as Mark suggests he did. The silence in the Gospels if Jesus did something so controversial is inexplicable. Minor controversies lead to death plots (v. 3:6) but this one doesn’t? Embedded within the Gospels is a thoroughly Jewish and law observant image of Jesus who conducted a ministry to Jews (not Gentiles). This Jesus critiqued the Pharisees and leaders of the law harshly and severely for pushing aside the commands of God in order to follow the traditions of men. This same Torah defending Jesus is found in his next breath nullifying a clear mandate of the Torah.


Textual Considerations


Stylistically, Mark’s gloss (v. 19b) intrudes on this passage. As Fredriksen notes (Jesus of Nazareth p.108), “t is the equivalent of a film actor’s stepping out of character and narrative action and speaking directly into the camera, addressing the viewing audience (“Now watch this part closely!�).� At any rate, there are no serious textual reasons for disputing this passage. Its earliest attestation is from Origen (see number 98 (http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-47.htm)) who references it around 200-250 C.E. Most of the content "can be" traditionally Jewish if understood differently. It is Mark’s added interpretation that is problematic. The gloss makes Mark’s point, not his main character’s. It is also consistent with other portions of Mark, ergo, there are no valid theological (or textual) motivations for excising this passage from the original text of Mark.



Final Summary

[I]To Summarize: this First Installment we repeat the first section’s summary with two new ones from the second section:


There are a significant number of surface anomalies in the Bible (anywhere from several dozen to possibly a hundred or more such instances).
A potential harmonization does not resolve the surface anomaly. Thus, positive evidence for inerrancy is still required.
The rational default position on the Bible (like other books) is for errancy. The Burden of Proof is solely on the Inerrancy advocate to demonstrate why the Bible is special or different from other human works.
Canonization Must be Demonstrated before the Bible can be treated collectively under the conservative hermeneutic of force-fitting passages together.
The Tenth Plague on Egypt has God murdering innocent and helpless children. This hardly looks like the actions and recorded history of an all-loving, omni benevolent deity capable of altering nature with miracles.
There are demonstrable errors in the Bible. The Food Laws present us with a very clear example. Mark 7:18-19 raises eight major difficulties. Outlined above. This is a clear example of a Biblical error.


Vincent Sapone
After-Hourz.Net (http://www.after-hourz.net)
The Errancy Debate (http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/errancydebate.html)

[RobertLW]

Vinnie, You are welcome. Prior to beginning my rebuttal I would like to return the thank you to Vinnie for entering into this debate with me and also thank the Internet Infidels Discussion Board for hosting it.

There is an important point that I would like to make before beginning my rebuttal. I realize that even prior beginning this debate, most skeptics have already rejected my argument, irregardless of the evidence or reasoning that I provide. On the flip side of that coin, most non-skeptics will reject Vinnie's argument just the same. I believe that debate is important to invoke critical thought in order to validate or invalidate a held position. However, that held position is a personal choice. I have never been one that prescribes to the belief that because someone doesn't hold my opinion, they are any less intelligent than I am. (I have trouble spelling contradiction, what does that tell you) We all see the world and interpret information differently. I am under no illusions and have no expectations that I will change Vinnie's or anyone else's mind. Vinnie demonstrates this principle when he says "...my argument is generally the same, except I argue the exact opposite". This is a good example of two people looking at the same information and coming to different conclusions due to their presuppositions. In order for me to change Vinnie's mind, he would have to radically change his world view and completely change his way of thinking. I would have to do the same if he wanted to change mine. I intend to argue logically while presupposing the verity of the Biblical Authors.

There are two important definitions that I need to make. These two definitions are required in light of some arguments made by Vinnie.

1) We need to define Inerrancy as used in this debate. For this definition, please refer to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. (Stipulated to prior to beginning the debate)

2) I also need to define "Christian". For lack of a better term, I am reformed in Theology. Therefore, I will not be arguing with the Unitarian god in mind. I will be arguing for the inerrant word of the Biblical God, the God of Abraham. This must be made very clear. I cannot argue the Bible unless I argue the Biblical God.

I will try to structure my rebuttal as close to Vinnie's opening argument as I can in order to provide a good flow to the debate. I normally use the NKJV or all biblical references, however, since Vinnie uses the NIV I will use the NIV in some places to provide for continuity.

SECTION ONE

A. Surface Anomalies in the Bible.

I would agree that the Inerrancy debate may have become a bit trite. However, I could flip Vinnie's sentence around and say "A Christian holds to inerrancy in the bible and a skeptic poses potential errors while the audience sleeps". Since Vinnie uses the death of Judas as an example to qualify his remark, I will use it to refute his conclusion. It may seem that it is a surface anomaly unless someone uses the proper literary form, keeps the passages within their proper context and reads Matthew 27 in it's entirety to further define it.

1) Matthew 27:5 makes a clear statement and describes what Judas did, "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself"

2) Acts 1:18 is a description what happened to Judas. "(Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity: and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out". (Vinnie compares two statements that are not within the same context. One describes what Judas did, the other describes what happened to him)

Anytime we compare two texts from any book, the context must be taken into account. In this case, these two texts have been written by two different authors at different times. Is comparing them in the same context proper? If Matthew 27:3-10 is read in its entirety we can conclude that Luke's reference to Judas in Acts does not contradict the story told in Matthew. With Acts 1:18, Luke is describing what happened to Judas with a vivid description of a horrible end. If a man committed suicide by cutting his wrists, my friend could tell the story in a few years and say, "Joe got in a bathtub and cut his wrists. His wife found out he got another woman pregnant and left him." 30 years later I could record the story and say, "Joe earned loneliness by spreading his seed, and laying down he drowned in his own blood." Did I just contradict my friend? I make this example to illustrate the importance of accounting for context and literary form when comparing two texts. This point also demonstrates that "surface anomalies" are exactly as implied, anomalies only on the surface.

The Bible is written in many literary forms and in many different contexts that must be taken into account when reading it. I have no need to try to "harmonize" many of the alleged anomalies by suggesting possible alternative theories; the Bible is clearly consistent in it's message and can be understood when read properly. Having said that, one point that needs to be made is that because an "anomaly" has the potential of harmonization, that potential rules it out as being by default a contradiction. It must be acknowledged by all Christians that the Bible presents us with certain difficulties. It is a huge leap to say that those difficulties are actually errors when there still remains some means of reconciliation.

The law of contradiction (or non-contradiction) defines precisely that which can rightly be called a contradiction. Simply stated, "a" cannot be "a" and not "a" at the same time and in the same sense. If we apply this common rule of logic to many of these "anomalies" they will be shown to be non-contradictory.

B. The Burden of Proof

The big debate over burden of proof is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless. It is a fantasy. Not one of us was there to read the original documents to see if they contained errors. Not one of us knows all that there is to know about the cultural practices and use of the contemporary vernacular language, and not one of us can make absolute statements on the verity of the Biblical writers or the inerrancy of their writings. Vinnie is asking for proof when there is no proof to offer. Why even debate the subject?

Many murderers today are convicted without a single shred of proof. They are convicted by the evidence. There is a vast difference between proof and evidence. Proof is absolutely irrefutable and evidence can only substantiate a claim. In the absence of proof, we must rely on the evidence to lead us to the right conclusion.

This still leaves us with the problem that evidence is not always conclusive and not always interpreted the same way. There have been innocent people convicted on evidence that was interpreted incorrectly. Why is it that 2 people can examine the same evidence and come to 2 different conclusions? I submit that it is because nobody is free from presumption. Everybody interprets evidence based on what they have already presumed, in reality there is no "free thinker" and no one is truly open minded. I will not even pretend to be neutral.

Vinnie has declared that the burden of proof is solely on me because he knows that there is no proof to offer. The burden of proof has traditionally been on those who accuse the authors of the bible of being in error and the defenders of the Bible have traditionally defended the truthfulness of the biblical authors. Vinnie has cleverly shifted the standard default position to one of his own making. The default position is to consider any non-fiction work to be true and the author considered to be trustworthy until proven otherwise. The universal default position is "innocent until proven guilty". Vinnie has tried to reverse this position to "guilty until proven innocent". To break from this clear standard of interpretation shows the weakness of his argument. He knows that he cannot prove the Bible as errant, so he has shifted the burden of proof to the accused. Vinnie might as well say, "prove yourself not to be a liar, and if you can't prove it then you are guilty" The accuser has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused and the accused has only the burden of defending his innocence.

For the sake of argument, I have already stipulated to scribal errors. (Reference the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy) Also for the sake of argument, I can make a general stipulation to Vinnie's argument that most books that are authored by human beings contain errors but that does not address the entire realm of possibilities. It is a general stipulation that bears further scrutiny, i.e. what kind of errors? (Spelling, grammatical, punctuation ..etc). I make the stipulation that any book authored by human beings contains spelling, grammar, copy and punctuation errors, therefore the default position of the errant nature on any book is whether or not it contains factual errors (Is it true?) If I pick up a Fiction book, my default position is that it is not true. If I pick up a Non-Fiction book my default position is that it is true. The default position is based on the authors claim of true or false. When you pick up a newspaper and read the front page article, you assume that the article is true because the author presents it as factual. In this debate we are talking about a collection of works that claims to be inspired by God and the infallible, inerrant word of God. As such, my stipulations (spelling, punctuation ...etc.) are only on the copies made by human beings.

Let's say, for example, that Joe witnesses a bank robbery and writes a statement to the Police that explains what he saw and he includes the statement "I was standing on the corner and saw him run out of the bank". We would assume that statement to be true unless proven otherwise. If we found out later that Joe was videotaped at a laundry-mat doing laundry during the time of the robbery, his statement is proven false, we have discredited the author. However, our default position was that it was true because Joe said he was there. Let's say that Joe's statement was never proven false, however during the trial he testifies that "My friend and I were standing on the street corner....". Does this statement contradict his original statement? Is his original statement in error? No, he has further clarified his story but both statements are true. Or Joe's friend Steve could say "Joe and I were standing on the corner...." Does this contradict Joe's original statement? Does it nullify it? No, Steve told the story from his point of view and both statements are true.

Incidentally, I object to the statement made by Vinnie "The default position on the nature of a text is 'against inspiration' or 'lacking belief in it' with the exception of 'natural inspiration' but that doesn't protect a text from errors so we can leave that alone". Why is "natural inspiration" the exception? How is a claim of being "naturally inspired" any more believable than a claim of being "divinely inspired" or just simply "inspired"? This is a statement that is predicated on an individuals presuppositions. Am I to reject any authors claim to have been inspired unless he puts the word "naturally" in front? He seems to be arguing that the burden of proof is solely on the inerrancy advocate unless the writing is "naturally inspired".

The title of our debate is "Resolved: the Bible is not inerrant and it contains clear examples of errors". Vinnie is to affirm, I am to oppose. Deflecting the burden of proof does nothing to affirm that the Bible is not inerrant.

I am arguing that the Bible is inerrant in it's truth and message and it does not contradict itself, this was stipulated to prior to the debate. The burden of proof is not on me to prove inerrancy because the default position is based in its authorship. Vinnie needs to show where the authors contradicted either themselves or each other or he needs to provide conclusive evidence that discredits the authors.

C. Historians of the Biblical Era

I think that this section of Vinnie’s argument is a red herring. In this section, Vinnie correctly pointed out that historians of the same time period have made errors of different sorts. I don’t really know how this demonstrates that the Bible is in error except to say that the Bible is just like all of the other ancient historical documents. And of course Vinnie is indeed seeking to place the Bible in the same category as that of any other historical document, but is this warranted? Do all of the other historical documents claim to be inspired by an almighty God? Did Josephus ever offer a “thus saith the Lord!�? The answer is no, which is why these debates do not take place about the those other historical works. The Bible is different in that it makes the claim that God has spoken through men and divinely inspired them to accurately record His word in written form. I am assuming that Vinnie will stipulate that the Bible at least claims to be inspired by God, even the very word of God. It makes this claim itself. If the Bible makes this claim for itself and the default position is “true until proven false�, we can conclude that the Bible is indeed the inerrant word of God until it is proven otherwise.

D. Canonization

Vinnie has asked me to "justify treating the Bible with a canonical dimension." Once again by issuing this challenge, Vinnie has not offered any evidence to an error in the Bible, which is what this debate is about. Vinnie want to rehash a debate that took place hundreds of years ago.

In Greek, "Canon" means "measuring rod" or "rule". Originally, the term spoke of the rules by which books were tested for their authenticity, i.e. prophetic or apostolic authority, reception by the Church, inerrancy, etc... This is precisely why the gospel of Thomas is not included in the Bible, it was deemed to be errant. (It contains errors that can be demonstrated.) It had tremendous contradictions to what God had previously revealed in scripture and therefore did not measure up to the "canon".

The term "Canon" has now come to be associated with the Bible (canon of scripture) however it still carries the same meaning. It is still the "rule" by which we test truth from God. "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20

God cannot err, therefore His revelation to us cannot err. God chose to reveal Himself by inspiring men with differing backgrounds and abilities to speak and write His word. I will demonstrate the principle of canonization by using common logic. If I were to pick up a newspaper and an article that records a speech by President Bush and a week later read another article in a different newspaper that records a more recent speech by President Bush, would you think it strange that I quote both of them to tell you what President Bush has communicated? Of course not. You might say that I had not accurately portrayed what it was that he had said if I did not quote from both. Taking this a step further, if President Bush called a reporter one day and said, "I'm going to attack Iraq again." then called another reporter and said, "I'm going to nuke Iraq." Would you think it strange if I read both of the reporter's articles and said "President Bush is going to launch a nuclear attack on Iraq"? When we quote one passage to support another we are merely quoting what God has said. The fact that He has said it through the use of more than one person does not detract from the fact that He said it.

A big part of the problem skeptics have with the Bible is that they do not believe God inspired it. If you admit inspiration, canonization is acceptable, logical and neccessary.


SECTION TWO

A. The Tenth Plague

Nowhere in Vinnie's argument about the Tenth Plague of Egypt does he establish a Biblical contradiction in any form. His argument does not contain any textual, factual or moral Biblical contradictions. I was under the clear impression that the debate was going to be on Biblical Inerrancy not moral difficulties. He even labels this "Error One: The Tenth Plague on Egypt. A Moral Difficulty". (Emphasis mine) Where is the error? Exodus 11-12 cannot be in error simply because Vinnie doesn't like the narrative. To declare the narrative in error simply because you don't like it would be, I believe, intellectual shortcutting. Vinnie also has not shown any basis for a moral difficulty based on the Biblical text. The OT is consistent in it's narrative and moral teachings. I don't want to stray too far from the subject of the debate but since Vinnie opened the door, I will walk through it.

First, Vinnie should demonstrate his basis for his moral difficulty. What is his standard for morality? My standard is clear. In the absence of a basis for morality, an argument of this type should be restricted to one that is logical in nature.

Second, the Bible is very clear and consistent in this message; there is no one born free from the stain of sin. In other words, there are no innocent children in the sight of God.

Third, God was not punishing the people of Egypt insomuch as he was redeeming the Israelites. (A means to an end) This is another clear and consistent message found throughout the bible; any redemption of sin must be done by bloodshed (Death).

Fourth, God does not violate his own decrees in Deuteronomy 24:16. He is the lord of life and death before whom no one is innocent, therefore, he is perfectly just to dispense with life and death as He sees fit. He may demand a child's life because He is the creator of that life. The law in question is given to men, not to God, He may do as He pleases but He will not allow men to have the same prerogatives as Himself. For example, if I go out and commit murder and am found guilty, the state can carry out the death penalty if that is to be my punishment. The state does not contradict its own law by doing so. If I have been judged guilty, the state has the authority to carry out punishment. God is sovereign over his creation, therefore He can judge and punish his creation as He sees fit.

All of the plagues in Egypt led to one event, the redemption of the Israelites. The Bible is clear and consistent with this message.

To answer Vinnie's question, "Does this look like the infallible recorded history of an omni-benevolent deity or the fallible writings of a primitive tribal-nation?"; It is the infallible recorded history of the God of Abraham, our Creator and Judge who does not bow himself to human skepticism but shows forth his holy character and authority over his creation.

B. The Food Laws

As with the Tenth Plague argument, Vinnie has not demonstrated any errors with the food laws. Again, since he opened the door, I will walk through it. Vinnie has 8 difficulties in this segment. I will argue each of his points as he presented them. I will not include his text for space.

1. The Two Source Theory

Vinnie has assumed that a partial report is a false report. Because the other gospels do not contain something that this one does, is one of them wrong? (See my argument in the Burden of Proof section) The answer is no. It is not an acceptable argument to simply say, “one has it and the other one doesn’t therefore one of them is in error." We have 3 reports of the life of Jesus written by different authors and when one chooses to record something that the others didn't he is accused of error. (Or worse, fabrication.) That just doesn't make sense. Do we hold all authors to the same standard? Historians continually use other historians in their research, are they supposed to record the exact same events and words? Or, can they choose not to include certain items to concentrate on other matters.

2. Peter’s vision in Acts

First, please note that the phrase “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.�) is in parenthesis. That's because the Greek construction suggests that this is a side note. In some manuscripts this phrase actually sits out on the side as if Mark added an explanatory note. This is an interpolated statement of Mark's, his commentary on the words of Christ. Note that Mark wrote this Gospel after Peter's vision and after the Jerusalem council. He was presenting the common interpretation of those words as understood after the subsequent events of the Church in the book of Acts. He inserted his comment as a side note instead of inserting those words directly into the mouth of Jesus. (Note that this is evidence of the truthfulness of Mark and goes against Vinnie’s arguments on Mark's honesty.) Jesus never explicitly said that the food laws were abrogated, but he did nullify them using His typical parable style of teaching. He used that style of teaching for a purpose; “seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear�. He had a perfect time for His followers to come to the knowledge of the food laws being abrogated. This is a clear example of the “progressive revelation� that we confess. (Chicago Statement)

Second, a cursory reading of the Bible will show many times when Jesus taught something in such a way that it was only understood later. He said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up". It was not until later after His resurrection that this was understood to be speaking of Him.

3. The Dispute on Food in Galatians

See argument above.

4. Food Commands in Romans

Is this really a problem? Paul was clearly talking about offending new believers. After 30 years of being taught that eating pork is a grievous sin it is quit hard to suddenly throw off that rule and start eating bacon. Taking that difficulty into account, Paul was exhorting mature Christians to put off their own liberty for a time. The passages are very clear.

Another problem is with the word “explicit�. Jesus never explicitly said the food laws were abrogated, He only taught it by parable. He declared all foods as “clean� implicitly not explicitly.

5. Silence in the Gospels

See argument above.

6. The Commands of Men

Sheer audacity on Mark’s part? Have we forgotten who Mark was writing about? It is a stretch to accuse Mark of lying without having any evidence whatsoever to support the claim. Guesses do not constitute evidence.

It is the prerogative of the giver of the law to do whatever He wants with a non-moral law. (Before someone jumps all over this, I mean a law that does not connote morality i.e. ceremonial) In the mosaic law, God instituted many non-moral ceremonial laws that were meant to set His people apart from the other nations. But it was not always so. From the beginning, God has allowed the eating of all foods except for the blood. (Genesis 9:3-4) At this time God allows the eating of all foods except for the blood (1Timothy 4:3-5 and Acts 15) All Jesus did was make provisions for the Church to include gentiles who did not live under Mosaic law. He did this by fulfilling the law for us. (See Note below)

7. The Law Observant Jesus

It is basic Christian doctrine that the law is, and ever will be, in effect. Jesus fulfilled it for us. That is what the Gospels are all about and what Jesus meant when he said, “I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them� By Keeping them he has fulfilled them for us vicariously. He not only died for His people, he also lived a perfectly obedient life for His people. He tells us to come to Him and give Him our burdens, which are heavy (having to keep the law perfectly) and He will give us His burden, which is the light (Having kept the law perfectly)

8. Mark’s treatment of Jesus Apostles

Vinnie tells us that Jesus is calling His disciples dull “for not understanding his statement as nullifying the food laws�. However, Mark inserted his own comment and assigned only the meaning of his remark to Jesus, not the actual statement. Jesus was calling His disciples dull because they did not understand that the moral aspect of the law is what is important and without that, the ceremonial aspect is useless.

In arguing the food laws, Vinnie has not demonstrated any textual, factual or moral errors or contradictions. What did he accomplish with a lengthy discussion on how Jesus was mean and “denigrating� to the apostles? How do his arguments demonstrate an error? Vinnie’s argument that Mark had an “agenda� is an argument that is solely predicated on a presupposition. In making that argument, he turned a debate on inerrancy into accusations of intentional deceit. No longer are we arguing for errors but for purposeful deceit. (Which would be much harder to prove than an error)

C. Summary

1) The surface anomalies are reconcilable and therefore cannot be considered errors by default. By applying the law of contradiction, many are self-affirming. I would argue that application of this law is the most practical approach to Biblical contradictions.

2) Vinnie carries the burden of proof. The rational default position on any and all books is based in authorship.

3) Due to the claims contained in the Bible, it cannot be treated the same as all other historical documents.

4) Canonization has been demonstrated for centuries. Canonization is both appropriate and logical when placed in the proper context of the Biblical claims.

5) Vinnie has not demonstrated an error or contradiction in his argument on the Tenth Plague of Egypt. The argument, "I don't think it's moral" is unacceptable. If he wants to shift the debate to include moral difficulties, he should be prepared to show a moral standard that stands on its own and does not borrow from the Bible.

6) Vinnie has not demonstrated an error or contradiction in his argument on the Food Laws. Difficulties do not demonstrate errors. The passages support and augment each other. He included a section in this argument called "Textual Considerations" and if we read this section closely, we realize Vinnie refuted part of his own argument with the inclusion of this section.

If I can, I will focus on positive evidence (Other than the evidence already discussed) for inerrancy, although the nature of the debate does not require me to do so. This depends on Vinnie's next argument.

Thank you,

Robert

[Vinnie]

Greetings all. :)

I will be going in order and begin with Section-1A. I will make plain what portions of Robert’s comments I am responding to and it should prove easy to follow along for the reader and for Robert.



Section.1A: Surface Anomalies in the Bible.

Regarding my example of Judas’ death, Robert states that he will use my example to refute my conclusion and went on to write: “it may seem that it is a surface anomaly unless someone uses the proper . . .“. The “it may seem� suggest that Robert is dismissing it but he goes on to conclude: "surface anomalies" are exactly as implied, anomalies only on the surface.� Is Robert actually disagreeing with me or agreeing that the accounts of Judas‘ death present us with a surface anomaly? He appears, in a slightly confusing fashion, to do both as I don’t recall saying anything different in my arguments. I used the term surface anomalies for a reason. At this point Robert and I appear to agree. The account of Judas’ death in Matthew and Luke is a potential error and has a potential harmonization.

Robert noted that Matthew describes what Judas did, whereas Luke describes what happened to Judas (emphasis mine). As true as this may be, it doesn’t tell us anything or that the accounts are or are not erroneous. Here is the core of what I am saying: That there is a logically possible harmonization for a surface anomaly in the Bible does not mean the potential error is resolved. Whatever happened in spacetime 2,000 years ago was logically possible but not all that is logically possible happened.

Robert also attempts to use an analogy explaining the “surface anomaly.� I am not sure why he intended to do this. The point I made assumed an apologist has a “potential harmonization� for this account. In fact, I listed it myself. Judas hung himself, he fell and his stomach burst open. Such is the point Robert intended to convey by the analogy of the fictional Joe dieing by “slitting his wrists� and “drown in his own blood.�

But I already addressed this above and Robert has done what I said apologist do. He posed a potential solution. He has not provided any evidence that we should accept it, however. Instead he opted to note that we should treat the text as true until otherwise. Here then, is Robert’s insufficient hermeneutic for analyzing surface anomalies in a nutshell: believe they all aren’t errors if it is logically possible to harmonize them in some way. This is simply false and breaks down into a non-sequitur. This will become especially clear in section 3B.

My hermeneutic is the opposite: with so many “surface anomalies�, some of them are certain to be errors unless Robert can show God wrote this work or that it is unique or special in a relevant way.




Section-1B: First and Second Paragraphs

Robert calls the debate on the burden of proof “meaningless� and notes that “there is a vast difference between proof and evidence“. Here my arguments are being misunderstood. I did not say (or intend to imply in any way whatsoever) that Robert has to absolutely prove the Bible to be inerrant. I do not expect a scientific or mathematical proof. I expect him to provide evidence as to why it is more reasonable than not to view the Bible as being written (or inspired) by God and kept free from errors. Likewise, I expect to be held to the same standard.

Unfortunately, Robert does not agree and expects me to provide proof in showing two statements absolutely violate the law of non-contradiction. As Robert notes, “The law of contradiction (or non-contradiction) defines precisely that which can rightly be called a contradiction. Simply stated, "a" cannot be "a" and not "a" at the same time and in the same sense. If we apply this common rule of logic to many of these "anomalies" they will be shown to be non-contradictory.�

I already noted above that a logically possible harmonization does not axiomatically entail a dismissal or a surface anomaly and I will demonstrate the absurdity of this posed standard for determining if the Biblical texts have errors down below when I come full swing back into the question of Judas‘ death in section 3.



Section-1B Fourth Paragraph

Robert attempts to shift the burden of proof back on to me by mentioning “innocent until proven guilty�. Unfortunately Robert stated that I called the Bible guilty until proven innocent. This is false. What I actually stated is: Given things like the grammatical error in Luke, the poor Greek in Mark, the nature of the Biblical books (50 authors over a thousand year period…) and the fact that there are a lot of moral, scientific, historical, internal and external surface anomalies in the Bible should lead one to the conclusion that some of them are in fact genuine errors.

Robert actually agrees with this. He notes in his summary that “Due to the claims contained in the Bible, it cannot be treated the same as all other historical documents.� He also notes in Section C: “The Bible is different in that it makes the claim that God has spoken through men and divinely inspired them to accurately record His word in written form.�

My position is exactly what Robert explicitly agreed to: Other historical documents with such surface anomalies would be readily affirmed as containing genuine errors. What Robert has to do is show that the Bible is special. If he cannot then the default position is, as I have argued, for errancy, granted so many apparent dilemmas. Robert should agree with this but strangely, his response shows that he does and does not agree.

Robert’s “arguments� for the Bible being special will be addressed below.

Here Robert also makes the assertion that the Bible is a work of non-fiction and should be accepted as true until shown otherwise. First, this assumes canonization (see below). Second, even with a cursory reading, it is plain to see that the Bible is nothing like a contemporary biography or history and it is not even remotely similar to a modern Physics or Geography text. Third, it comes from a “pre-enlightened� era. Fourth, the Bible has lots of elements that on the surface look entirely fictional including talking snakes, talking donkeys, floating axe heads and lots of other miracles. Declaring the “the Bible� to “non-fiction� is a conclusion, not an argument, and it’s a bad one at that.

One cannot declare, up front, this to be a non-fiction work and then say it should be taken at face value. In fact, the issue itself is whether the entire Bible is or is not nonfiction (is it erroneous or error free). Robert simply wants to assume what he has to prove. I, on the other hand, brought fourth evidence, which if applied to any other work, would clearly show it to be in error. Robert has to demonstrate why “the Bible� is special and why these common standards do not apply to it.




Section-1B Sixth Paragraph

Robert offers an analogy regarding Joe witnessing a bank robbery which argues that “failure to mention some details� is not necessarily an error. I agree with this standard but thus far it has no practical application in our debate--not even in the case of Judas’ death or the food laws (see below).




Section-1C Historians of the Biblical Era:

Robert agrees that the “surface anomalies� in other works are in fact errors in many places. This is important, as we are left wondering why the Bible, with so many surface anomalies of its own, should not be granted to contain the same?

In essence, Robert has functionally agreed that the default position on the Bible is for errancy (yet he disagreed with this above!). But Robert adds a stipulation as to why the Bible is special. This is what I am looking for and that is where the debate should now turn with the concession that my initial arguments should be viewed as being correct.

If Robert wants us to treat the Bible in a manner different from all other books then surely he has to explain why (burden of proof). By proof, I again, expect rational evidence of why its more probable than not to believe this.

Unless it can be shown the Bible is special we should naturally affirm the notion that some of these surface anomalies are genuine errors. We will address Robert’s claims for the Bible being special in a separate section.



Section-1D: Canonical Issues:

Robert has utterly failed to accomplish what he needs to. Instead he uncritically asserts canonization has been dealt with for hundreds of years now. By whose standards? Below in the section on the plague he (predictably) asked me for an objective standard for morality. What objective standard for evaluating canonization does he offer here? His own opinion?

Robert fails to appreciate the individuality of the Biblical books. Unless he opts for the approach that the Bible fell from heaven (which he clearly doesn‘t) he has to justify viewing it as a single work and explain why statements in distinct works should be read or interpreted in light of one another.

If we know Matthew and Luke are inerrant then we naturally should seek to harmonize their genealogies (another surface anomaly in the Canon). But if we do not assume inerrancy there is no reason to merge the passages together. They may very well be examples of what in any other work, would be called an error.

Robert cannot assume the conservative hermeneutic of merging passages together in unison with one another which is based upon the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy, to argue for inerrancy. This is plainly circular reasoning.

The canonical dimension of the Bible is crucial for Robert’s case and he has failed to substantially discuss the issue. The importance of this issue will become overtly transparent in the next section, if its not already.



Is Bible Special?

Robert mentions that the Bible is special in three places: 1)-Section-1B-5th Paragraph. 2)-Section-1C-1st Paragraph 3)-Section 2 Summary-3.

I specifically said Robert “mentions� as opposed to “argues� as he assumes more than he actually argues. He also seems to expect me to grant that the Bible (collectively) claims to be written by God. Robert responded to it, but he seems to have completely forgotten the entire section of my OP where I noted that he must demonstrate a canonical dimension of the Bible before using it as such. That should indicate my unwillingness to grant this position.

First, Robert has to demonstrate a canonical dimension. For an example of how crucially important this is read 2Tim3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2TIM+3:16&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on). Now it may be claimed on these grounds that the Bible claims to be inerrant but this passage largely refers to most of our now current Old Testament which was sacred scripture at the time. It does not apply to “the entire Bible�. For example, it does not cover the Gospel of Mark, or the Gospels or Matthew, Luke and John or Paul’s writings. None of these works claim to be part of a unique canon of material and if Robert wants to include Mark and company under that scriptural passage he MUST FIRST demonstrate a canonical dimension to the Bible. Otherwise, he is merely assuming what he needs to actually demonstrate. It also needs to be explained why 2Tim 3:16 can even speak collectively for the Old Testament scriptures as well as this assumes they (the OT and 2 Tim) are part of some official canon themselves.

To make things clearer, if I grant the canonical dimension of the Bible, it would be tantamount to granting inspiration (of some form) itself. But I am not willing to grant this. Robert has to demonstrate this.

Second, he doesn’t explain why the mere fact that a text claims to be written by God accords it special privileges. As I noted in my quote of Josephus, in retelling Biblical history, claims to have omitted nothing or added anything. Should we also accept his claim? Yet, as noted in my OP, we saw that Josephus ascribed a new commandment to Moses.

As Sander and Davies noted: “It is an established tradition in our religion that we gather in synagogues on the Sabbath to study the Scripture; this has been true as far back as anyone can remember; Moses himself must have intended it; I shall use a shortcut and say that he commanded it.�

Why aren’t the food laws in Mark considered the same? Josephus knew Moses never said that just as Mark knew Jesus never nullified the food laws (on the basis of the evidence I provided). But it was established in Mark’s day that the food laws were no longer followed by his Christian community and he simply used a shortcut: Jesus commanded it.

Finally, Robert needs to address the practical difficulties here on the burden of proof. My post is an essay of non-fiction. I claim the Bible is errant in it. Since my paper is “innocent until proven guilty�, have I therefore, logically shifted the burden of proof back to Robert via this claim?

Summary: Robert has to demonstrate 1) A canonical or collective dimension to the whole Bible and 2) Where the entire work is claimed to be written by God and 3) why this [i]claim accords it special privileges (meaning: why it should lead us into not accepting many of the surface anomalies as genuine errors).

If Robert cannot demonstrate that the Bible is extraordinary then he should grant the default position is errancy for the reasons I articulated: the bad Greek (Mark), grammatical issues (e.g. Luke) and most importantly, the surface anomalies (scientific, moral, historical, internal and external) themselves. They persuasively argue that the Bible does not appear special on a prima facie level and given their sheer volume, it is only natural to move to errancy. That is the obvious conclusion here.

If Robert wants to apply special standards to the Bible (which he must first demonstrate that it can be used collectively and these are, or course, interrelated) he has to demonstrate why.



Section-2a Tenth Plague:

Robert objects to my using moral difficulties. Predictably, Robert notes that I have not provided an objective standard for morality, and thus he argues, I have not proven this is an error. I agree. I never claimed to have proven an objective moral error. I simply posited a question asking what is more reasonable. Up above Robert wants to only have to show evidence and not proof, but he requires definitive proof from me here (double standard).

I have no absolute, objective standard to offer and speaking about moral issues does not necessarily require one. You do not need to know the Bergeron process to know that it is raining outside Ergo, using common sense, common universal moral traits, and the law of human behavior as articulated by so many Christian apologists, I simply ask what is more reasonable?

Given his response I suppose Robert rejects the arguments of apologists like C.S. Lewis who argue for commonly known “laws of human behavior.“ Generally, stealing and murder is and was shunned upon by most of the cultures in the world and its history (with some notable exceptions). How many of these people shared universal traits without an objective morality or Bible? Are illiterate people, deaf people, or those who never heard the Bible incapable of distinguishing, on a prima facie level, right from wrong? That is all I am doing.

My argument is simple: Most people (not an appeal to popularity fallacy as we are dealing in morality), as do I, think that killing children -- when there are other options available that do not require their death which would accomplish the same greater good -- is morally unethical. It is needless suffering and needless death. That is morally bad on a tautological level. Not to mention that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart at the end there again in order to murder the first born male children.

In another context this is immediately called an atrocity and horrible sin (e.g. when Herod slaughtered the infants pr the nightly news). Robert is the one that wants us to accord the Bible special privileges. Why? Why grant a work that slaughters innocent children (when other options were available) special privileges?

Robert also goes on to note more problems as he perceives them with my example. Does he think telling us that small children are not innocent, but born guilty and deserving of death is supposed to make his case stronger? Explaining a problematic passage with an equally (or even more) problematic passage is not a useful debate strategy (this applies to Robert‘s ‘blood being required’ statement as well).

So in Robert’s mind, children are evil and guilty and deserving of death. He thinks the Bible (collectively) teaches this (which is itself (original sin) very debatable as is the collective dimension itself which he must demonstrate). But in light of Robert‘s defense which suggests small children are guilty and deserving of death because of the mere fact that they were born, I simply reiterate my question: “Does this look like the infallible recorded history of an omni-benevolent deity or the fallible writings of a primitive tribal-nation?"



Section-2B-Food Law Responses:

1.The Two-Source Theory
Robert completely misunderstands and caricatures (unintentionally) my argument. I did not say a partial report is false or an error. A partial report is merely incomplete. That has nothing to do with my arguments here. I used silence as an argument. Arguments from silence work if constructed properly. Food law nullification=MAJOR issue in that culture and time. If Jesus openly declared it and Mark mentioned it in his narratives, we would expect Matthew and Luke (who had Mark in front of them under Markan priority) to reprint this information. We find nothing of the sort in Matthew and Luke. Instead, Luke has Peter receiving a vision in Acts and Peter’s dialogues show no indication of this prior knowledge. The point stands as originally formulated.


2.Peter’s vision in Acts
Here Robert claims progressive revelation. Jesus made the statement as found in Mark and Mark records the interpretation of it after the Jerusalem council. This means that neither Peter, nor Paul, nor James, nor any of the Twelve or those with Jesus understood Jesus’ statement initially. If you were to consult with the text of Mark 7, the saying comes publicly to an audience (verse.14). So then neither the audience or the scribes and Pharisees (present in Mark 7) understood Jesus’ explicit statement? This is uncritical harmonization. Jesus himself thought his saying was very clear as he scolds his disciples and asks them privately if they are dull for not understanding it (verse.18).

Jesus’ statement itself, as it stands in Mark is pretty obvious. It could be interpreted differently and salvaged as authentic if it were like Ex 16:2-8 and Mark 9:37, but that would require dismissing it as it stands in Mark. Accepting it as it stands, Robert has to contend with the facts that 1) its meaning is fairly obvious 2) believing everyone simply misunderstood Jesus (his audience and his followers) and 3) that Jesus only spoke on this important issue once publicly and never said more than that mere saying itself. I find this view strained and improbable in whole and in part.

Robert argues Jesus spoke confusingly to confuse the people (ala the parables in Mark 4:10-12) but Matthew (13:11-15) actually “corrects� Mark as Matthew seems to know the full text of Isaiah chapter 6 and the actual context of verses 9-10 unlike the author of Mark and RobertLw. Jesus spoke in parables to clarify (Matthew-&-Isaiah) not to obscure (Mark).

We remind those reading of what Josephus did above as well: both Mark and Josephus apparently, took similar shortcuts here.


3.The Dispute on Food in Galatians
This point I made still stands as Robert’s prior argumentation which he appealed to was shown to be false.


4.Food Commands in Romans
Yes it is really a problem. The sentiments behind Paul‘s “But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.� are not entirely consistent with Jesus (the Lord) having previously, and definitively declared these items clean. If the Lord settled this issue from the beginning we expect Paul to know and appeal to it.


5.Silence in the Gospels
See my response to point 3.


6.The Commands of Men
Yes audacity. Jesus accuses others of pushing aside God’s commands only to himself do the same in the next breath. Jesus was not the author of the Mosaic law. It is an established fact that Jesus ben Joseph (of Nazareth) was born around ca. 6BCE, many years after the food laws were originally given. If Robert views Jesus as the law-giver he has to demonstrate how Jesus, who was born in 6 BCE, was the author of the Mosaic law given thousand(s) of years before.


7.The Law Observant Jesus
Robert writes that Christians think the law is always in effect but was fulfilled. Can Robert please explain, with analogies, what it means to fulfill the law? This is too vague and prone to equivocation to be used without formal, prior qualification and definition.

In Matthew 5 Jesus intensified the Law. This is very reasonable. In Mark 7, however, Jesus nullifies a clear mandate of it. I am uncertain how “nullifying its commands� translates into “fulfilling it�. Also, we see, for the most part, a law observant Jesus who, in Matthew even claims not one tiny bit of the law will be taken away and that anyone who violates EVEN THE SMALLEST (Ceremonial or otherwise?) aspect of it is in error. So how does Jesus nullifying parts of the law equal a fulfillment? How is it consistent with Matthew’s statement? Mark has Jesus doing something which Matthew has Jesus objecting to.


8.Mark’s treatment of Jesus Apostles
See section 2 of the food laws above. Jesus’ statement is explicit as formulated--so much so that he was surprised his followers did not understand it and asked if they were actually that dull, ignorant or stupid.

We have a genuine example of an error here. Mark took a shortcut, as did Josephus.



Section-C--Robert’s Summary:

I will not address each point as they summarize his points which I already addressed throughout this posting. I include one more section now on Judas’ death which I said I would:



Section-3A Judas’ Death

1. Did Judas die from hanging himself (Mt.27:5) ?
2. Or did Judas’ stomach bust open (Acts.1:18)?

Apologists suggests that a failure to supply all the details is not an error and that it is possible Judas hung himself and the rope broke and his stomach burst open. We agree that a failure to cite all the details is not an error and that the solution is logically possible.

I have a different take on Judas’ death, however.

Gethsemane Prayer in Mark and Matthew and Luke precedes Jesus arrest and it clearly echoes the Old Testament story of King David in 2Samuel.15-17. John Crossan highlights four explicit parallels (1-3, 7) and three more possible ones ( 4-6) I shall summarize (Who Killed Jesus--pp.76-78):

1.Both scenes have a hero and traitor (Jesus and Judas compared to David and Ahithopel. Details differ but in each case a trusted confidant turns traitor.

2.Both locales are the same. David crossed the Wadi Kidron (or Kedron Valley) and goes to the Mount of Olives as did Jesus (see the Gospels).

3.Both Jesus and David offered prayers as suppliants before God on the Mount of Olives, each distraught by what is happening to him.

4. Peter’s insistence he is ready to die with Jesus is similar to Ittai the Gittite’s statement to David (2-Sam15:21).

5.Both David and Jesus seem to have a thy will be done clause (2-Sam15:25).

6.Ahithophel requests soldiers to go and capture David (Sam-17:1-3). This may have been the model for Judas and the arresting band he led.

7.Both Ahithophel and Judas (only mentioned in Matthew) hang themselves, the only two Biblical characters to do so.

With that groundwork laid we move on. Mark was interested only in Judas‘ shameful act, but many of those that followed Mark were interested in his end as well. As Crossan wrote (ibid.p.73), “One who started with such a monstrous act, they reasoned, must surely have ended with an appropriately monstrous death.�

The evidence for this outlook is fairly easy to document. We have not two, but THREE separate accounts of Judas’ horrible fate. As Crossan wrote, “There are three independent versions of that appropriate fate, and they all presume a death that was immediate, terrible, according to the scriptures, linked to a specific location in Jerusalem, and reminiscent of the horrible deaths of other infamous characters.�

There is a popular imagination of condign endings for infamous lives in antiquity. Notice first the three (or four?) accounts of Judas death:

Matthew has self-hanging as did another infamous character, Ahithophel, possibly Matthew‘s source. Luke has Jesus swell up and burst asunder in Acts. Nadan appears to have had a similar fate (legend of Ahiqar which was very popular ). Preserved comments from Papias have him denigrate Judas harshly: “He was so swollen he could not pass where a wagon could.� He records that Judas was crushed by a wagon and his entrails poured out.� In the longer form Papias records that from Judas’ private parts pus and worms emanated from all parts of the inside of his body and “he died after many punishments and tortures.� So we may have four(?) different horrible endings ascribed to Judas.

Now compare those to the deaths of these infamous characters as recorded by Raymond Brown (Death_Messiah.v.2.p.1409.n.28),

“The long form of Papias is closer to the full account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in II Macc 9:5-10 (worms, vile stench) than is Acts 1:18. The death of Nadan in the Arabic form of the Ahiqar legend (8:38) has a much expanded description of the effect of swelling on the body. Herod Agrippa is struck down and eaten by worms in Acts 12:23. Josephus (Ant. 17.6.5) includes in the death of Herod the Great ulceration of the bowels, rotting of the private organ producing worms, and malodorous breath. Besides going mad, the brutal governor of Cyrene, Catallus, has his ulcerated bowels fall out (Josephus, War.7.11.4). According to Herodotus (Hist. 4.205) the cruel Cyrenaean Queen Pheretime has maggots or worms come out of her body. The same fate befalls Cassander who acts against the family of Alexander (Pausanius, Graeca Descriptio 9.7.3-4). The hostile emperor Galerius is punished with an abcess in his private organ, ulcerated bowels, a multitude of worms, and an intolerable stench (Eusebisu, EH 8.16.3-5)

On these grounds the unbiased historian will state the following: Christians did not know what happened to the disciple who betrayed Judas so they decided to affix horrible fates to this disciple that parallel the tortures and punishments of other infamous characters in antiquity. The historian would not harmonize them.

To repeat: There is a popular imagination of horrible endings for infamous lives in antiquity. Matthew and Luke are a part of this.



3B The Absurdity of Harmonization

Robert contends that in order to demonstrate errancy, I must prove how two statements absolutely violate the law of non-contradiction. This standard is nonsensical. Take the following example as proof of this:

We have three-to-four accounts of Judas death. Suppose we wanted to harmonize Luke-Matthew and both forms of Papias, we could do it easily. But now to make it more challenging, suppose we have we two more accounts of Judas death: hypothetical text Farfanoogan.12.4 says “an arrow pierced Judas and he died� and hypothetical text Ortwagg 6.8 says “Judas died by fire“. Surely these are all logically possible and reconcilable. We harmonize them as follows:

Judas had internal diseases and swelling (Luke) with worms and pus (Papias Long Form) and underwent many tortures and punishments (Papias.LF), so he decided to hang himself (Matthew), one of Jesus zealous followers, still angered by the betrayal shot Judas with an arrow as he hung from a tree (Farfanoogan), the arrow was a flaming one and this lit Judas on fire (Ortwagg) and caused the rope to break and he fell headlong (Lk-Mt-Far-Ort), a wagon rolled over him (Papias short) and he burst open and his entrails fell out (Luke and Papias).

Now this entire scenario is highly comical, but it is, we must admit, within the realm of logical possibility. Thus there is a logically possible harmonization and Robert could say that all these accounts can be reconciled and therefore, there is no demonstrable error.

On historical critical-grounds we showed this was in fact an error above but even on the grounds of harmonization alone, this then should demonstrate to the sober-minded, the absolute absurdity of Robert’s standard for evaluating the question of inerrancy. Requiring absolute proof of the violation of the law of non-contradiction is the safe sentiment of a pious, indoctrinated pastor, not the rational, critical criteria that diligent researchers should employ. Uncritical harmonization, of which Robert is guilty, is not eminent reasonableness, its blind fideism.



Summary:

Robert’s first response betrays internal confusion at least twice: does he or does he not agree with select points of mine? He implicitly agreed that the default position should be for errancy while explicitly disagreeing with me. He shows misunderstanding and thereby, unintentionally caricatures my arguments: for example, the first section of the food laws. He has used double standards at least twice: expecting himself to have to provide mere evidence while requiring definitive and absolute proof from me. His requirement of absolute proof is rationally absurd (see section 3 on Judas’ death). He has failed to demonstrate what he must: canonical dimension or why the Bible is special More shockingly, he claims that he does not even need to provide positive evidence given the nature of the debate: see his concluding paragraph. He has engaged in circular reasoning twice: performing harmonization before demonstrating the collective nature of the text and assuming Bible is non-fiction. He has offered us a non sequitur: by saying a potential harmonization should restrict us from viewing a text as erroneous when there is a logically possible reconciliation. He also has argued via assertion: by claiming the canon was settled hundreds of years ago. Finally, he has failed to adequately address both of my posed errors (1=moral difficulty) in the Bible.

Vinnie

After-Hourz.Net (http://www.after-hourz.net)
The Errancy Debate (http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/errancydebate.html)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi Vinnie,

According to my word count, your recent statement approaches 5100 words. We'll allow your statement to remain as it is, but please try to keep future statements closer to the 5000 word limit.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jason

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

RobertLW will be away for a period and has requested that his next statement be due within 15 days instead of 10. We have agreed to grant his request.

Jason

[RobertLW]

Thank you Vinnie

In this post, I will touch on Vinnie's arguments and clarify my position where I need to. I will do so in the same order as my original post. In light of Vinnie's arguments, I need to reiterate two definitions:

1) The definition of inerrancy as applicable to this debate is contained in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. Again, this was stipulated to prior to the debate.

2) In my opening post, I stated that I am reformed in Theology. This is a very important point. I will not argue any other god than the Biblical God of Abraham.


SECTION ONE


A. Surface Anomalies in the Bible.


In Vinnie's rebuttal, he correctly concludes that I agreed there are surface anomalies in the Bible. However, Vinnie is unsure if I agreed or disagreed with whether or not the example he used (Death of Judas) is a surface anomaly. I agreed; however, I disagreed that it demonstrated an error. Vinnie compared two passages written in two different contexts applying the same context to both. I made two main points with my argument:

1) Because an "anomaly" has the potential of harmonization, that potential rules it out as being by default a contradiction. (Or error) I would agree that a potential of harmonization does not axiomatically entail a dismissal of a surface anomaly. Both statements are true and place us in the realm of "maybe, maybe not"

2) It is improper to compare two different passages applying the same context to both when they were written in different contexts. Anybody could create a surface anomaly or contradiction using that method. (Which would be the point of my analogy. Did Joe die by slitting his wrists or did he die by drowning in his own blood?) In other words, one passage clearly describes what Judas did, the other (not so clearly) what happened to him. Vinnie would have us believe that they both clearly describe the means of his death, death by hanging and death by spontaneous evisceration, thereby creating a contradiction.

In my initial post, my posed solution to that specific anomaly was simply read the book properly. Vinnie goes to great lengths to show why Judas's death demonstrates the Bible has an error. This can be avoided by comparing the two passages using the correct context. I will also show his historical analysis to be faulty.

Vinnie stated "with so many 'surface anomalies,' some of them are certain to be errors". I agreed that there are many surface anomalies in the Bible. I also went on to say that all Christians must admit the Bible presents us with certain difficulties. Logically, this presents us with two choices. Either some or all could be errors and the Bible is not inerrant, or none could be errors and the Bible is inerrant. A maybe, maybe not argument is not conclusive for either inerrancy or errancy.

Vinnie also stated, "Robert contends that in order to demonstrate errancy, I must prove how two statements absolutely violate the law of non-contradiction. This standard is nonsensical." Huh? I simply said by applying this standard many of the surface anomalies are proven to be non-contradictory (specifically his example of Judas). I also said that it can't be rightly called a contradiction unless it passes this test. Is Vinnie disputing this statement? Is there another kind of contradiction that I am unaware of? I never argued, that application of this law would cover all anomalies or difficulties, I didn't even imply it. When Vinnie made the statement "Luke has Jesus swell up and burst asunder in Acts."(Sec. 3a) he made an error, he did not contradict himself. I am sure that my posts have been full of errors like that as well because neither I nor Vinnie are inspired by God.

Vinnie has invented a pretty funny story to demonstrate what he calls the "Absurdity of Harmonization". Of course all of the laughs are appreciated but his story was for naught. Anyone could argue an ad absurdum using only one law of logic and interpretation, however we can't properly interpret anything with just one rule of interpretation. They all must be used to determine the most probable solution. Harmonization is used every day by all rational people and is a common way of reconciling that which we don't know everything about. For example: This morning two of my co-workers came in to work 5 minutes apart, the first said to me "wow, gas prices have gone up to a dollar sixty seven." The next came in and said, "Man! A buck seventy for gas!" Given his arguments, I suppose that Vinnie would stand up and proclaim, "One of you is obviously in error! Which is it, $1.67 or $1.70?� However, I simply said to myself, "they probably went to two different gas stations that were in competition with each other." Far from being absurd, harmonization is actually a necessary function of everyday life. When you have two reliable sources (my two coworkers or Mathew and Luke) giving two separate testimonies about the same fact which do not contradict (gas prices or the death of Judas) and you don't know everything there is to know about the given situation, then you must harmonize them.

We can apply this principle to the example of Judas. (Note that people don't normally trip, fall down and "burst open") When an animal dies out in the open in the direct sunlight it swells up. The animal will not "burst open" by itself, it needs some kind of trauma to make it burst. Matthew records Judas as hanging himself. The branch breaking is not the only way that a corpse can come out of a tree, and a breaking branch is not the most practical solution. The Jews were commanded to not let a man hang on a tree over night. (Deut. 21:23) and that they were not supposed to touch a dead body (Num.19:11) therefore it stands to reason that they would cut Judas out of the tree when they found him and being swollen he could "burst" when he hit the ground. This is the most reasonable (not absurd) way to interpret these two passages. (Note that I kept the two passages within their written context)

Vinnie goes on to expand his argument (3a, 3b) on the death of Judas. I could not really ascertain what Vinnie's main point with this expansion was. What I think Vinnie was trying to say is that because the Bible records (as well as other historical documents) other people who died in the same way and in similar circumstances as Judas, one is true and the others are making it up. Let's say that during WWI, a sergeant who betrayed his company by giving the position of his company to the Germans commits suicide by shooting himself because he finally understood the extent of his betrayal. Then let's say the during the Gulf War a sergeant betrayed his company by giving troop strength and location the Iraqi's and he committed suicide by shooting himself because he finally understood the extent of his betrayal. Would Vinnie summarily conclude that the latter is false because it's too similar to the former?

Vinnie stated "On these grounds the unbiased historian will state the following: Christians did not know what happened to the disciple who betrayed Judas so they decided to affix horrible fates to this disciple that parallel the tortures and punishments of other infamous characters in antiquity. The historian would not harmonize them." First, Christians do know what happened to Judas, he hung himself. We know this from the accounts from a person who was there and who knew Judas personally. Second, there are no "unbiased historians", either you presume the verity of the Biblical writers or you do not.

In his post, Vinnie accused me of being not sober-minded, pious, indoctrinated, irrational, not diligent, uncritical, unreasonable and guilty of blind fideism. All of his accusations were based on something I did not argue or imply. Two points that need to be made. First, I never required absolute proof of the violation of the law of non-contradiction, I simply said by applying it many contradictions are proven non-contradictory. I never stated or implied that they covered all anomalies. Second, his accusations are nothing more than pandering to a specific audience. Vinnie does not know me personally, therefore he cannot make such judgments. Vinnie can either argue my points or he can take the easy way and argue against strawmen, the choice is his.

I am hoping that Vinnie will be kind enough to answer a question that I have concerning his argument:

1) How is it acceptable to compare two different passages applying the same context to both when they were written in different contexts?

I am actually quite perplexed as to why Vinnie used Papias in the example of Judas because Papias was not an historian, nor was he a scholar. Moreover, he never claimed to be a disciple of the elders, he sought interviews with those who were and reported on them. His testimony is, at best, two steps removed from the apostolic generation and even more from Jesus (approx. 150 years). Both Mathew and Luke were contemporary eye witnesses of the events that they recorded. Both of them personally knew Judas so their accounts of his death should be considered accurate unless they contradict each other or they are shown to be untrustworthy. Papias' five-volume work, Oracles; or, Explanations of the Sayings of the Lord, survives only in fragments quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Irenaeus. His writings are important as to the history of the church and have no value in evaluating the Gospels. Papias put a great deal more value in oral opinion than he did book learning, by his own admission. He wrote:

"But I won't hesitate to put down for your benefit too all that I carefully learned and carefully recalled from the elders, guaranteeing its truth... And if anyone happened to come who had actually been a follower of the elders, I would inquire about the sayings of the elders. What did Andrew or Peter say? What about Philip or Thomas or James? What about John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord? And the things that Aristion and John the elder say, who were also disciples of the Lord? For I thought that things from books did not benefit me as much as the sayings of a living & abiding voice" (Hist. Eccles. 3.39.3-4).

Is Vinnie really trying to convince me that an "unbiased" historian would actually use Papias to refute Mark? I am not buying it. In using Papias, Vinnie added another element to my analogy; "Joe's cousin, twice removed, knows Betty who has a daughter and Betty's daughter told her boyfriend Jack who told me that Joe had an orgy and his wife stabbed him and he fell in the bathtub and drowned to death, as recorded in this writing. I carefully learned and recalled it and will guarantee its truth"


B. The Burden of Proof


Vinnie "noted above that a logically possible harmonization does not axiomatically entail a dismissal of a surface anomaly". True, and I noted because an "anomaly" has the potential of harmonization, that potential rules it out as being by default a contradiction (or error). Both statements are true. Here we are stuck with "maybe, maybe-not"

I did not shift the burden of proof back on to Vinnie as he claims. It was always on him. Please refer to the title of our debate.

Vinnie wrote "Given things like the grammatical error in Luke, the poor Greek in Mark, the nature of the Biblical books (50 authors over a thousand year period?)". These are all items that are specified in the Chicago Statement, there is no need to cover them. The debate is about truth as previously stipulated to via the Chicago Statement. If Vinnie wants to argue he considers all non-fiction books to be false until he verifies all facts, that's up to him. However, his argument has no practical application and is not based in reality. Vinnie also wrote "If he cannot then the default position is, as I have argued, for errancy, granted so many apparent dilemmas." So what is his argument? Vinnie seems to apply a different standard to the Bible than he does all other books because he is granting so many apparent dilemmas. Does he grant all books this same standard? Are all books authored by human beings considered errant or is it only applicable if they are "granted so many apparent dilemmas"?

Vinnie accused me of circular reasoning in concluding that the Bible is a work of non-fiction. My reasoning is not at all circular, I felt that I was pretty clear. First, I presume the verity of the Biblical writers. Second, the writers claim that they were inspired by God and they are recording the truth. Conclusion, the Bible is a work of non-fiction. The Bible contains a wide range of literary forms, but in the context of truth, I maintain it is a work of non-fiction.

Vinnie wants me to demonstrate how the Bible is special. We are debating about a book, the bulk of which, (OT) was written and canonized over 2000 years ago. It is the best selling, most widely read, most debated and most controversial book for over 2000 years. The IIDB web site is extensively committed to debating and refuting this book and the religions spawned by it. Vinnie himself has a website committed to it. There are many more on the web, both for and against, solely committed to this book. Is there another book which has this kind of commitment, either for or against? For over 2000 years, critics have been trying to prove the Bible as a myth, a work of fiction, the figment of somebody's over active imagination. For over 2000 years the critics have failed. I would say that is pretty strong evidence of its being special, and true. Using 2000 years of critical research and debate, skeptics still cannot provide even 1 demonstrable error. I would argue that this is positive evidence for inerrancy. If there were even 1, Vinnie would have used it in his opening statement and the burden of proof argument would not be relevant. In fact, this debate would be over.

Vinnie agrees with the standard I set with my bank robbery analogy yet fails to see the relevance. It's relevance lies directly within his argument. Later he argues that he wasn't actually arguing that a partial report is not an error or is false but goes on to say he was arguing silence. Clear as mud, right? This adds another element to my analogy; Joe knew that the bank customers were upset because their money was stolen. Having their money stolen is a MAJOR issue. If Joe does not mention the bank customers were upset in his testimony during the trial, are we to accuse Joe of lying? The fact that the customers were upset have no bearing on Joe’s testimony or statement. In other words, the authors of the gospels may have deemed emotional outrage to be an unimportant aspect of their testimony.

C. Historians of the Biblical Era

I did not functionally agree to Vinnie's conclusion on the default position of errancy on the bible. I functionally agreed that most books (I say most because some could be free from all errors, in theory anyway) contain errors but that agreement was based on no further definition of the errors. In the scope of this debate, we defined errors which changed the question from one of all kinds and any kind of error to one of truth. I will not concede to Vinnie's initial argument on the default position of the truth of the Bible unless Vinnie can make a compelling argument why I should presume the Biblical writers were lying.

I believe that most “critical thinkers� would agree that the Bible does have historical value. Vinnie's stated position is that the Bible is simply another collection of books authored by human beings, just like any other. If the Bible is just another book by humans and it has historical value, why not include it in the curriculum of public schools? If Vinnie remains consistent, he should have no problem with this. We could use it in history class, poetry class, ethics class, to name a few. I know the answer to that question and the answer is precisely why Vinnie's argument does not hold water. This is the hypocrisy of the skeptics, they want me to treat it as "just any other book", but they refuse to do the same.

D. Canonization

Vinnie writes "What objective standard for evaluating canonization does he offer here?" If he means an “objective standard“ that is free from presumption, there are none. Perhaps Vinnie can provide an “objective standard� for refuting Canonization.

I did not feel that I needed to get too much into depth on canonization in my opening statement because Vinnie and I agreed to the Chicago Statement which gives a good overview of the reason for canonization. (Refer to the Chicago Statement)

I do not believe that I could explain canonization to Vinnie's, or any skeptics, satisfaction. In order for Canonization to be acceptable, you must admit inspiration, this is key. Since Vinnie clearly does not, he will not accept any argument explaining canonization. If inspiration is admitted, canonization is acceptable, necessary and required. That was the point of my first argument, and it still is my point. This is why I said it has been debated for centuries and why beat a dead horse? Vinnie is obviously well read in the matter and knows the reasons as well as I do. I think Vinnie really wants me to try to demonstrate inspiration, which he knows is not possible.

I do not fail to appreciate the individuality of the different books of the Bible. If Vinnie has read the Chicago statement he knows that I perfectly acknowledge the individuality if the biblical authors. I justify canonization by admitting inspiration. The statements in distinct works should be read or interpreted in light of one another because they were all inspired by God. Please note that this debate is taking place precisely because Vinnie fails to appreciate the incredible unity of the Bible as a whole.

Vinnie writes, "He also seems to expect me to grant that the Bible (collectively) claims to be written by God" If Vinnie really wants, I will quote many, many verses where the different authors claim to be inspired by God. If a book claims to be inspired by God and it passes the canon, it is included in the Bible. Let’s say that McGraw-Hill wants to publish a Science text book and they hired 10 professors to write different chapters within their specialties. Wouldn’t it be silly to require that each of the professors refer to all of the other professors chapters in order for each to be included in the text book? In reality, each of the professors would write their respective chapters as requested. The publisher would then put them together to be included in the textbook provided they met the standards that were established.

Vinnie writes, "As I noted in my quote of Josephus, in retelling Biblical history, claims to have omitted nothing or added anything. Should we also accept his claim?� Yes we should accept his claim, until proven in error. This is precisely why we do not consider Josephus to be inerrant nor inspired. He did not claim God inspired him and he clearly contradicted the OT.

Vinnie wrote "Finally, Robert needs to address the practical difficulties here on the burden of proof. My post is an essay of non-fiction. I claim the Bible is errant in it. Since my paper is "innocent until proven guilty", have I therefore, logically shifted the burden of proof back to Robert via this claim?" Yes, logically it would, but it would also shift the topic of debate to "Resolved: Vinnie’s post is not inerrant".


SECTION TWO


A. The Tenth Plague


Vinnie's response is somewhat confusing. This debate is on the inerrancy of the Bible. He says that he agrees he did not prove the Tenth Plague as an error and he goes on to say the did not claim to prove a moral error. So why make it a part of his argument? Vinnie admits that he has no absolute, objective standard and he goes on to say he doesn't require one. That begs the question; where does Vinnie get his moral compass from?

Vinnie writes "Given his response I suppose Robert rejects the arguments of apologists like C.S. Lewis who argue for commonly known 'laws of human behavior.'" Vinnie obviously does not understand my argument if he thinks that I would disagree with C.S. Lewis. I do agree with C.S. Lewis and I do believe that there are "Laws of human behavior", but I can only account for those laws because I have God's word as my absolute objective standard by which to judge. Vinnie has admitted that he has "no absolute, objective standard to offer" therefore he can only argue arbitrarily. Skeptics would very much like to use this sense of morality that God has given to them to prove God's word has a "moral difficulty". However, if the skeptic wants to remain consistent he would reject that line of reasoning because he has no "absolute, objective standard" by which to judge. I believe that skeptics have a sense of right and wrong just like C.S. Lewis said, but then they use that sense that God gave them to deny the only objective standard that can possibly account for it, God's own word.

Vinnie has tried find a loophole by saying "I have no absolute, objective standard to offer and speaking about moral issues does not necessarily require one." (Emphasis mine.) Of course Vinnie is correct but we are not just speaking about moral issues, we are supposed to be engaged in a rational debate. If we can argue arbitrarily with no standards then why are we debating? We can tell each other how we feel and then we can be done. As long as Vinnie maintains his right to argue arbitrarily, I don't see much point in going on.

Vinnie is also confusing because he maintains that the Bible is a work of fiction yet speaks of the Tenth Plague as if it really happened. If the Bible is a work of fiction, why the moral outrage? I am sure that many critics have enjoyed many a movie with lots and lots of violence. Are they morally outraged with all fictional works? Are they morally outraged when they read "Carrie" and Stephen King has Carrie murder a whole gymnasium full of children? Or, when they watched "Children of the Corn" and children are needlessly slaughtered?

The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart. This seems to be a major sticking point to Vinnie. There are many instances where the Lord hardened someone's heart or allowed Satan to enter someone or inflict them with hardship. Vinnie mistakenly attributes human characteristics to God. God is the Creator and Judge and he can do and judge as he sees fit. If he chooses to harden the Pharaoh's heart, allows Satan to give Job boils or allows Satan to enter Judas, he is exercising his sovereign right and is justified in doing so.

Vinnie wrote, "Does he think telling us that small children are not innocent, but born guilty and deserving of death is supposed to make his case stronger?" and "So in Robert's mind, children are evil and guilty and deserving of death." Where did I indicate I felt that way? My exact words were "Second, the Bible is very clear and consistent in this message; there is no one born free from the stain of sin. In other words, there are no innocent children in the “sight of God". I did not say, "in the sight of Robert". I never implied how I personally felt. If the Bible read, "and God committed mass abortion after obtaining the permission of the women", would the skeptic find it morally acceptable?

Vinnie poses his same question, my answer is the same. "I don't like the answer" is not a reasoned argument.

In the absence of an internal Biblical contradiction or an external moral standard, Vinnie has simply lodged a complaint. Complaint duly noted.

B. The Food Laws

Vinnie offers the same argument. My response would be exactly the same. The Triune God is basic theology. Vinnie argues that Jesus is not the author of the Mosaic Law. Jesus is a part of the Triune God, therefore the author.

Vinnie says that Matthew "corrects" Mark's (and my own) understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah 6:9-10. He then declares that "Jesus spoke in parables to clarify (Matthew & Isaiah) not to obscure (Mark)" Here, Vinnie challenges the universally held understanding of these passages. (Mark 4:10 and Matthew 13:11-15) If Vinnie is going to claim that Matthew "corrects" Mark, he should include a good comparative analysis. When the two referenced passages are compared, they clearly have the same meaning. Unless Vinnie can demonstrate his assertion, I will hold to the conclusion that Matthew and Mark (as well as Luke) are in agreement in saying that the prophecy of Isaiah 6:9-10 means that most people will not understand the teaching of the Messiah. Matthew and Mark (as well as Luke) are also in agreement in testifying that Jesus said he would fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 6:9-10 by speaking in parables. The meaning of the referenced passages are clear, Jesus spoke in parables to obscure, not clarify.

Vinnie asked me to provide an analogy of an example of fulfilling the law. Let's say there is a family of four, Joe is the dad, Betty is the mother, Julie is the 14 year old daughter and Billy is the 2 year old son. Let's say that Joe instituted a rule in the house that laundry must be folded and put away when it is done. Billy cannot comply with this rule completely, he lacks the dexterity and attention span to do it so Julie does it for him. Julie has fulfilled the rule for Billy. Let's say that Joe hires a maid and her job is to do, fold and put the laundry away and Joe says that nobody has to fold their own laundry anymore. The rule is still in effect, but his family does not have to comply with it because the maid fulfills it. In essence, Joe can proclaim all laundry folded and put away. Let’s say that Betty is upset and feels that she should do her own laundry so she keeps doing it. Is Julie incorrect in telling her mother, “don’t think any less of me because I take advantage of the maid doing my laundry�? Jesus fulfilled the law for us and declared all foods clean (by parable) in much the same way. In Galatians, Paul was telling the Jews that still followed the Mosaic law not to judge the people who did not.

Vinnie writes, "Why aren't the food laws in Mark considered the same? Josephus knew Moses never said that just as Mark knew Jesus never nullified the food laws (on the basis of the evidence I provided). But it was established in Mark's day that the food laws were no longer followed by his Christian community and he simply used a shortcut: Jesus commanded it." To reiterate and clarify, Jesus did not nullify the food laws, he fulfilled them and declared them clean for the purpose of allowing gentiles that did not live by mosaic law into the church. He did not nullify the mosaic law.

Jesus taught it by parable, he did not say "Pay attention people, the food laws are now nullified". Jesus called his disciples dull because they did not understand the moral aspect of the law is what is important, not the ceremonial aspect. Mark did not assign his remark, "(In saying this, Jesus nullified the food laws)" to Jesus, it was an interpolated comment by Mark, this conclusion is based on the Greek construction. Which is, again, positive evidence of Marks honesty. This is the basis of Vinnie's argument, however, Vinnie himself is assigning this remark to Jesus, not Mark.

Vinnie says "We have a genuine example of an error here". This is only a "genuine example of an error" for people with little or no theological understanding, it is no problem for those who do.


Summary


1) With his example of Judas, Vinnie uses unacceptable textual comparison practices, faulty historical analysis and unreliable sources to evaluate the Gospels and in doing so, fails to show an error.

2) Vinnie still carries the burden of proof, reference the title of this debate.

3) Twice, once with the "law of contradiction" and once with the Tenth Plague argument, Vinnie built a strawman argument in order to dispute it. In doing so, he has shown that he is competent in debating points that I have not made.

4) The key to Canonization is inspiration. I believe that even a skeptic can admit that the authors claimed to be inspired by God. Canonization lies within that claim. I have asked Vinnie to provide an "objective standard" for refuting Canonization.

5) Vinnie simply lodged a complaint with his Tenth Plague argument. I have noted his complaint. Since Vinnie admitted that he could not prove a moral error, we should move on to the third example of Biblical error that he promised at the beginning of the debate.

6) Vinnie has failed to show an error with his food law argument. His argument is based on incorrect analysis of the text.

Thank you very much.

Robert

[Vinnie]

The Breakdown

1.There are surface anomalies in the Bible.
2.There are many surface anomalies in the Bible.
3.In other works, we often regard such surface anomalies as errors.
4.Humans are prone to error making and do it frequently enough.

If you were to search Robert’s previous installments you would find an explicit agreement with and admittance of all four of those above statements. This is important. For example, in his latest installment he writes, “I agreed that there are many surface anomalies in the Bible� (establishes 1 and 2). He even believes that both his and my posts probably contain several errors as the very words themselves were certainly not inspired by God in either case (establishes 4 explicitly; 3 implicitly though three is explicit in Robert‘s posts as well).

I used the nature of the Bible (a collection of human authored works by authors from various walks of life over a thousand year period) to argue that there is no way possible that such a work could be regarded as inerrant. The point remains. Unless it is demonstrated that the Bible was inspired by God we are to view it as erroneous.

The large number of surface anomalies and nature of the collective work dictate that it has errors. The default position (as argued by me!) is that the various books of the Bible do contain errors. Robert says skeptics have not even provided evidence of one error. Here I present evidence of lot of errors.

I have not attempted merely to shift the burden of proof. It is my job to demonstrate why it is much more plausible to believe the Bible has errors than not. This argument effectively does that.

So unless Robert shows that the 66 various human works put together as an “official canon� by the fourth century are somehow divinely special then he has lost the debate. He cannot merely attempt to bat down contradictions through solutions that are “logically possible“. He has to show a canonical dimension to the Bible || that it is inspired and gives us grounds for affirming inerrancy.

Why does a statement like “the Bible says� have any real meaning? To assume the Bible can speak collectively on matters is to assume it was inspired by God. Robert has to demonstrate that the very books and words of “the Bible� were inspired by God, not assume it.

With this being said, what does Robert say? In section 1D under canonization Robert writes, “I think Vinnie really wants me to try to demonstrate inspiration, which he knows is not possible.� There you have it. The white towel has been thrown into the ring. Robert waves a white flag and admits defeat. He has conceded to being incapable of showing that this human authored work containing many surface anomalies is special (inspired). Couple this with the four points he explicitly agreed to in his posts and this spells utter disaster for the doctrine of inerrancy.

Why does he regard the surface anomalies in other works as errors but not this one if he cannot demonstrate inspiration? If Robert believes in inerrancy on non-rational grounds, that is his prerogative, but why does he come here and waste my time and the time of all of those following this debate as if he was going to intellectually vie for the doctrine of inerrancy?

This debate is effectively over and won by me.


Robert’s Main Points


[1] Re: the food laws. Robert response consists of 1) assuming the trinity and Jesus’ authorship of the Torah. This argument is so bad it does not require a rebuttal. If Robert wants us to believe a man named Jesus born in 6b.c.e. wrote a book that existed a thousand or so years before this time period, he must demonstrate why this is the case. Standard authorship attribution methodology and cause and effect dictate that the onus of proof is on