PEANUT GALLERY: Vinnie vs. RobertLW on Biblical inerrancy [Archive I]

luvluv

March 17, 2004, 02:21 PM

Excellent first post by Vinnie. Surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with much of what he says.

However, I wonder if he might be overstating his case a bit. The instance of Jesus, in one debate with the Pharisees, making ageneral statement about the spiritual importance of food laws does not, in my view, constitute any formal "repeal of the food laws."

Indeed, if it is true that Jesus was generally observant of food laws (as Vinnie claims) then we could say that Jesus was simply following Paul's later dictum: he was avoiding unnecessarily antagonizing his enemies by submitting to food laws, even though he thought they were non-binding. It is quite possible that Jesus made a statement like the statement mentioned in Mark, and yet never himself partook of any non-kosher foods. If so, it is completely reasonable to me that the apostles never really understood this statement as being a formal repeal of all food laws, but simply the prioritizing of them. It may have been their impression that Jesus was simply saying that food laws aren't as important as spiritual laws, not that all food laws had been officially repealled.

I'm not arguing for inerrancy here, I'm just saying that I don't see the problem with this partiuclar passage.

Doctor X

March 17, 2004, 04:06 PM

Well . . . as the king looks sadly on the young-eager squire trying to joust the Black Knight--knowing full well the difference between reality and fairy tale--I give credit to RobertLW for taking up the challenge.

Granted, I do not think he has a chance . . . but you have to admire courage!

--J.D.

graymouser

March 17, 2004, 04:14 PM

luvluv:

As part of the Mosaic ceremonial law, the food laws were concerned with ritual cleanliness. Jesus specifically states in the quoted passages that nothing from without could make one unclean, which is entirely contrary to large, large sections of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Vinnie's objections are quite thorough about this - if Jesus said what Mark has him say, then he has annihilated large sections of the Law...which contains quite a few jots and tittles.

-Wayne

luvluv

March 17, 2004, 04:25 PM

graymouser:

I'm just saying, it seems excessive to expect Jesus's disciples to interpret this statement as saying:

"All Food Laws Have Now Been Repealed!

- Jesus Christ, son of God, 1st class."

What he said was it is what comes out of the mouth that makes people unclean, not what goes into the mouth. I'm sure that statement, along with many other statements made by Jesus, did anger the Jewish establishment. But I don't think this one statement clearly abolishes all food laws.

Perhaps Vinnie will amplify this point in his subsequent responses, but as it stands it seems to be making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

funinspace

March 17, 2004, 04:50 PM

I find any spitting of hairs regarding the "food law" a minor point.

Matthew 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,"

Yes, I know the word ended in 70AD, and most of us just forgot to get off. Mt 5:17-19 has to be so contorted to make it not conflict with the rest of the NT, that I have to wonder if words have any meaning at that point. So Paul must be one of the least as well for he forsook the Law. Sounds like a duck, walks like a duck....

DK

Celsus

March 17, 2004, 09:33 PM

Vinnie's off to a good start, but it could be better. I know he's an NT guy, but I think the easiest and most irreconcilable problems are to be found in the Hebrew Bible because there we have tons (literally) of evidence to compare with many claims, whereas in the NT, you can only compare texts with each other, or come up with minor anachronisms (Acts 5:37 or the Lucan census, for example). The harmonisation defense is much easier for the opponent. If, for example, Vinnie were to compare the exodus myth with findings at Kadesh Barnea and elsewhere in the Sinai desert, or the conquest narratives with regional surveys of Israelite towns, he'd already have won the debate. No apologist can "harmonise" such things without stretching the realms of credulity (Glen Miller's attempts to harmonise the conquest are perhaps the most cringe-worthy I've seen). I think he should have limited it to external errors simply because then one need not argue over the Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic, nor does the debate reduce to semantics easily.

I'm not sure what parameters were finally agreed upon, but any mention of numbers in the Hebrew Bible is another sure winner--for example 600,000 men leaving Egypt, invading a Canaan with a population (from archaeological evidence) of 50,000 men, women, and children, then the opponent must immediately concede defeat (and after "defeating" our Canaanite friends, they left a population of about 150,000 at the height of the Israel's power, not really good statistics against the pesky Canaanites). Or the time periods in Judges against the 480 years from Egypt to Solomon's Temple as Kings proclaims. Or the various numbers which differ in Kings and Chronicles. Hopefully, Robert has inserted a "scribal/copyist errors" clause into the inerrancy notion, otherwise he's already lost.

Joel

Cross Examiner

March 19, 2004, 04:04 PM

A quick thought. It seems to me that Vinnie violates the law of excluded middle by presuming that errancy or inerrancy are the only two possible default stances. He does make the case that inerrancy should not be default but does not make the case that agnosticism should not be default and so his presumption of errancy as default is unfounded as far as I can tell.

Regards,
BGic

Steven Carr

March 19, 2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
He does make the case that inerrancy should not be default but does not make the case that agnosticism should not be default and so his presumption of errancy as default is unfounded as far as I can tell.

As virtually all books are errant, and Christians concede themselves that there are scribal errors, errancy must be the default position.

Clutch

March 19, 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
A quick thought. It seems to me that Vinnie violates the law of excluded middle by presuming that errancy or inerrancy are the only two possible default stances. First thing, I think you mean to raise the worry that Vinnie has inappropriately applied the LEM -- that is, committed the fallacy of false dichotomy or false dilemma or bifurcation. (So many names, it must be popular!)

Second thing, he hasn't. Maybe a transcendental or purely principled argument could impugn inerrancy without warranting errancy. But any argument against inerrancy based on counterexamples is ipso facto an argument for errancy. So if that's Vinnie's argument -- and it is -- there is no fallacy of false dichotomy.

Cross Examiner

March 19, 2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Steven Carr
As virtually all books are errant, and Christians concede themselves that there are scribal errors, errancy must be the default position.
And this, in my view, is enough cause to move us from a presumption of inerrancy to agnosticism with regards to the particulars of the case.

Originally posted by Clutch
First thing, I think you mean to raise the worry that Vinnie has inappropriately applied the LEM -- that is, committed the fallacy of false dichotomy or false dilemma or bifurcation. (So many names, it must be popular!)
You're right. I'm talking about misapplication, not violation. Thanks for the correction.

Originally posted by Clutch
Second thing, he hasn't. Maybe a transcendental or purely principled argument could impugn inerrancy without warranting errancy. But any argument against inerrancy based on counterexamples is ipso facto an argument for errancy. So if that's Vinnie's argument -- and it is -- there is no fallacy of false dichotomy.
His counterexamples are theoretical only since he calls them 'surface anomalies'.

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

March 19, 2004, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
You're right. I'm talking about misapplication, not violation. Thanks for the correction.You're totally welcome.
His counterexamples are theoretical only since he calls them 'surface anomalies'.Well, I don't quite know what you're saying here, but I do know that it doesn't bear on whether there's a false dichotomy. If Vinnie gives purported counterexamples that fail, for some reason to do with their being merely "theoretical", to count as successful counterexamples, then his argument will have false premises and be unsound. But it will still not be invalid, neither on false dilemma grounds or any other; viz., if his counterexamples work, his conclusion will follow -- the very definition of validity.

Cross Examiner

March 19, 2004, 05:23 PM

Clutch,
It seems to me that this statement:
"But any argument against inerrancy based on counterexamples is ipso facto an argument for errancy."
becomes this statement:
"But any argument against inerrancy based on [theoretical]counterexamples is ipso facto a [theoretical] argument for errancy."
in consideration of 'surface anomalies' as opposed to actual counterexamples of inerrancy.

Regards,
BGic

funinspace

March 19, 2004, 07:37 PM

It seems to me that this statement:
"But any argument against inerrancy based on counterexamples is ipso facto an argument for errancy."
becomes this statement:
"But any argument against inerrancy based on [theoretical]counterexamples is ipso facto a [theoretical] argument for errancy."
in consideration of 'surface anomalies' as opposed to actual counterexamples of inerrancy.

So why do you put the word "theoretical" only on the errancy side, if you want a neutral middle? Not that I really want to play this tit-for-tat word game that looks to be starting.

DK

Cross Examiner

March 19, 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by funinspace
So why do you put the word "theoretical" only on the errancy side, if you want a neutral middle? Not that I really want to play this tit-for-tat word game that looks to be starting.

DK
My point is that a 'surface anomaly' is not the same thing as an actual counterexample of inerrancy (i.e. example of error). Clutch uses the idea of counterexamples as an ipso facto argument for errancy being the default position. But if the alleged counterexamples are only possible (i.e. theoretical) errors as is intimated by 'surface anomaly' then these cannot constitute an argument for errancy being default. While it is generally true that works of human artifice are prone to error we should presuppose nothing with regards to some work in particular. For example, I do not presuppose that Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker is erroneous merely from the fact that a man wrote it and men make mistakes. Only after I have demonstrated that there is an error in actuality can I say that this work of man in particular is erroneous. Thus, I maintain that both sides (i.e. errancy, inerrancy camps) have a burden to move us from agnosticism with regards to the claims about the Bible's internal/external accuracy.

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

March 19, 2004, 08:17 PM

BGiC,

Sorry, I don't see what you mean. Is it just this:

As long as it's uncertain whether Vinnie's premises offer genuine counterexamples, it will be uncertain whether his argument by counterexamples genuinely refutes inerrancy.

?

Because that is surely correct. I just don't see the point of saying it.

Cross Examiner

March 20, 2004, 11:10 AM

I might be confused and confusing. Let me show you my thought process from the top. I take Vinnie to be arguing firstly that:

A1.
P0. Generally, human works contain errors
L1. If some work in particular is a human work then it is likely errant (A1.P0)
P2. The Bible is a human work
C3. The Bible is likely errant (A1.L1, A1.P2)

and secondly to be arguing that:

A2.
P0. Either errancy or inerrancy is our default position with regard to the Bible in particular
P1. If a work in particular is a human work then it is likely errant (A1.L1) and if it also contains 'surface anomalies' then our default position is errancy.
P2. The Bible is a human work (A1.P2) that is likely errant (A1.C3) and is even more so if it also contains 'surface anomalies' (A2.P1)
P3. The Bible contains 'surface anomalies'
C4. Our default position is a presumption errancy (A2.P0, A2.P1, A2.P3)

and lastly to be arguing that:

A3.
P0. If our default position is a presumption of errancy then inerrantists have the burden to move us from said default position
P1. Our default position is a presumption of errancy (A2.C4)
P2. Inerrantists have the burden of proof (A3.P0, A3.P1)
C3. RobertLW is an inerrantist who has taken the position of inerrancy in this debate and so he has the burden of proof

Now, before I start analyzing, before I get ahead of myself, do you believe the above is what Vinnie is arguing? Do you want to add/modify/delete anything? Clutch, you in particular seem well versed in logical argumentation so feel free to correct any technical problems with my formulations. I certainly appreciate the help. Thanks.

Regards,
BGic

the fonz

March 20, 2004, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
A1.
P0. Generally, human works contain errors
L1. If some work in particular is a human work then it is likely errant (A1.P0)
P2. The Bible is a human work
C3. The Bible is likely errant (A1.L1, A1.P2)

This is correct.

A2.
P0. Either errancy or inerrancy is our default position with regard to the Bible in particular

No, this is not right. Another possible default position could be agnosticism, but it's one Vinnie has ruled out through argument, not from the start.

P1. If a work in particular is a human work then it is likely errant (A1.L1) and if it also contains 'surface anomalies' then our default position is errancy.

This isn't right either. Regardless of the surface anomalies, the default position is errancy. The surface anomalies-->the conclusion of errancy.

As far as A3, it is correct.

To answer an earlier objection...

While it is generally true that works of human artifice are prone to error we should presuppose nothing with regards to some work in particular. For example, I do not presuppose that Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker is erroneous merely from the fact that a man wrote it and men make mistakes.

But....

1. Yes, you can argue that some work in particular is likely to have human error unless evidence is given to presume otherwise. (It's called induction.)

2. With regards to Dawkins, he is a learned scientist speaking on something he has a lot of training in. Therefore, we shouldn't presume that work to be errant until proven otherwise because we have good independent reason to think it is reliable.

Point 2 doesn't apply to the Bible. Not only that, but given the vastly different time eras it was written in (keep in mind that the bible is a collection, not just one book), it is likely to contain errors.

VINNIE: A work of this magnitude by various humans, in various times and settings, speaking on so many issues is certain to contain errors.

That's about it. Good argument from Vinnie, btw.

Clutch

March 20, 2004, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
I might be confused and confusing. Let me show you my thought process from the top. I take Vinnie to be arguing firstly that:

A1.
P0. Generally, human works contain errors
L1. If some work in particular is a human work then it is likely errant (A1.P0)
P2. The Bible is a human work
C3. The Bible is likely errant (A1.L1, A1.P2)Ah, what's wrong with 1, 2, 3 for the lines in an argument?

Matter of taste, I guess. But A1 sounds right.
and secondly to be arguing that:

A2.
P0. Either errancy or inerrancy is our default position with regard to the Bible in particular
P1. If a work in particular is a human work then it is likely errant (A1.L1) and if it also contains 'surface anomalies' then our default position is errancy.
P2. The Bible is a human work (A1.P2) that is likely errant (A1.C3) and is even more so if it also contains 'surface anomalies' (A2.P1)
P3. The Bible contains 'surface anomalies'
C4. Our default position is a presumption errancy (A2.P0, A2.P1, A2.P3) The fonz is correct. The second conditional of A2.P1 is logically correct as stated, but has false implicatures: the default is errancy not because of "human work" plus "surface anomalies", but by the meaning of "likely" and the truth of the first conditional of A2.P1. (Even with all these premises you've got complex premises of conjoined conditionals in here.)

So the connection between "surface anomalies" and default errancy is a red herring, hence both A2.P2 (second half) and A2.P3 are red herrings.

and lastly to be arguing that:

A3.
P0. If our default position is a presumption of errancy then inerrantists have the burden to move us from said default position
P1. Our default position is a presumption of errancy (A2.C4)
P2. Inerrantists have the burden of proof (A3.P0, A3.P1)
C3. RobertLW is an inerrantist who has taken the position of inerrancy in this debate and so he has the burden of proofSure.

For what it's worth, I think this "surface anomaly" stuff is just a matter of prima facie errors. Divvy up the issues this way:

For some substantial historical document, A1 introduces grounds to expect errancy. These grounds are presumably defeasible, but would not count as defeated merely by a lack of prima facie errors. This is familiar; often I will proof my work and conclude that, while I didn't see any obvious problems, I have excellent inductive grounds to believe there are some problems there anyhow.

This is sufficient for default errancy.

Now, if we have default errancy and actual p.f. errors, then we have far more than grounds for default errancy. We have positive warrant specific to this document, licensing the (again, defeasible) conclusion that our general default position was correctly applied to this case. This detaches the "default" operator from our reasoning. A plausible reply that obviated the p.f. error would leave us still with default errancy. A plausible argument that exempted the document from that general inductive reasoning altogether would dispose of the default errancy. Those are the arguments that an inerrantist owes in the face of A1 and p.f. errors.

My take, anyhow.

NOGO

March 20, 2004, 09:39 PM

Vinnie
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."

In another thread Vinnie was arguing that the story of Jesus praying while his disciples slept just before his capture need not be fiction.

Maybe his disciples heard him pray before falling asleep etc..

I suggest that the bit about Jesus praying falls very well in what Vinnie is saying here.

Different truths for different occasions.

NOGO

March 20, 2004, 10:21 PM

Vinnie
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.

Excellent post.

I do have a problem with the statement above.

Basically you seem to be saying that since there is much controversy about the food laws then it is unlikely that Jesus made such a clear statement on the subject.

Jesus' statement on the food laws in Mark is not historical.

The problem is that there are other similar subjects where the Gospels are at odds with the Epistles.

We cannot simple take the individual statements and declare them unhistorical. You need to go a bit further.

If there is so much controversy in early Christianity on so many subjects then we must question the very existances of its founder.

Sven

March 30, 2004, 07:45 AM

RobertLWs first post is in parts simply ludicrous. He writes for example:

The default position is to consider any non-fiction work to be true and the author considered to be trustworthy until proven otherwise.

in a pathetic attempt to shift the burden of proof back on Vinnie. That this is a nice example of circular reasoning obviously hasn't occured to him. The debate is about showing that the bible is indeed a "non-fiction" book - but he simply starts with this conclusion and declares it inerrant because it is inerrant (that is, non-fiction in all parts).

Apart from this, this statement is ludicrous by itself. I never would regard a book as inerrant by default - everyone having opened any textbook can confirm that the standard position clearly is that the book contains some errors. This is even admitted by most authors of textbooks.

He continues with

The universal default position is "innocent until proven guilty".

and simply shows with this statement that he has no idea how historians work.

I can only conclude that RobertLW is desperate grasping for straws only that he doesn't have to show himself what he claims.

In answer to the "Tenth plague" arguments he comes up with the usual babble why God is right in killing babies. He completely ignores the bold faced part "but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart" in Vinnies argument. OK, Vinnie also didn't express himself very well in this section, but at least to me it was clear that the bold faced expression in no way can be compatible with a just and benevolent God. I never understood how anyone is able to "harmonize" this contradiction.

I stopped to read here because I didn't expect to find anything of value in the following. If someone finds anything, please point me to the relevant section.

Sven

April 16, 2004, 08:11 AM

Hmm. This "debate" does not seem to attract anyone who wants to discuss the postings. After RoberLW's second so-called reply, it's clear why this is the case.

{Edit}. This example of RobertLW's "reply" should be sufficient:

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.

:rolleyes: :banghead:

Fallon

April 16, 2004, 10:01 AM

A few comments on inerrancy and the burdon of proof.
Originally posted by RobertLW:
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.So quite naturally I checked the title of the debate.
Originally posted by Nightshade:
"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.My emphasis. So after reading this I'm wondering if I should be generous and grant that RobertLW only has to defend inerrancy, not prove it. Off to the original parameters we go.
Originally posted by RobertLW:
What I meant to say is simply that I would like to defend Bible inerrancy. Now this statement, to me at least, seems to indicate that RobertLW entered the debate assuming that he wouldn't have to do anything more than deflect a few blows against inerrancy without having to argue for inerrancy itself. I think that the point Vinnie made about Robert having to establish inerrancy himself is a very powerful one, but for the purpose of this debate the language concerning inerrancy is just too vague to drive it home. But then again, I am not an expert on formal debates, so I could be reading the words "oppose" and "defend" incorrectly. However it seems that RobertLW assumed a reading along the same lines.

There is an important point floating about here. You must not give an inerrantist the high ground on inerrancy (nor any leeway on the issue of the burdon of proof). Given that the default position is -- contrary to what RobertLW appears to be saying -- that any book is errant, it is up to person X to demonstrate that book Y is inerrant. It is not up to you to show that book Y contains errors. Establishing inerrancy is quite a hard task (obviously) which is why inerrantists seems to be fond of defending it instead.

So though strictly speaking it may not be up to RobertLW to establish inerrancy, the burdon of proof is a death knell to his argument (and not the only one) and he would do well to address the issue substantially instead of brushing it off. Otherwise it may be a case of winning a (rather small technical) battle while losing the war.

No hints as to how he might do this without resorting to circularity, as I haven't a clue. I would be very interested to see a debate where the theist would be establishing inerrancy instead of defending it.

Fallon

Fallon

April 16, 2004, 10:31 AM

One more comment, if only because as a lurker I hate reading a long post and trying to remember who said this and who debunked what, so I find it easier to digest it in smaller pieces.
Originally posted by RobertLW:
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.This is quite clearly a fallacy of equivocation. Vinnie asks to demonstrate that the Bible is special [ie. excusable from the normal burdon of proof]. RobertLW replies that the bible is special, as it is popular and critiqued. His comment about critics of it failing for 2000 years seems naive at best, and does not excuse him from having to demonstrate that the bible should be treated differently from any other book.

RobertLW, please stop dancing and start fighting.

Fallon

the fonz

April 16, 2004, 04:30 PM

ROBERTLW: 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.

Yes, if you approach the Bible the same way you approach every other book, then no error would ever be found. Nothing special about that, however.

And in the end....talk about shifting the burden of proof. :banghead:

TySixtus

April 16, 2004, 05:39 PM

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.

Is he serious? How about someone rising from the dead? That isn't false? How about bugs having four legs?

I say again, is he serious? Really?
I don't envy his position...

Ty

lenrek

April 17, 2004, 01:24 AM

I saw this debate and thought it will be an interesting read... Guess I was disappointed.

Robert said:

...
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?â�? 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.

I think is bad simile. What Rebert said, the drivers are taking about two different gas stations. Whereas the bible is taking about a same person (Judas). If both driver are talking about the same station, then it is clearly a contradiction. Unless, there are two (or more?) Judas?

Robert further said:

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.

By looking at the passage, I can't really picture this god as a judge. I can only picture this god as a heartless dictator...

Honestly... Is this the kind of god that a christian really suppose to worship?

Anyway, Robert still have 3 more rounds of debates, hope he can show something more solid...

enemigo

April 17, 2004, 02:49 AM

I think is bad simile. What Rebert said, the drivers are taking about two different gas stations. Whereas the bible is taking about a same person (Judas). If both driver are talking about the same station, then it is clearly a contradiction. Unless, there are two (or more?) Judas?
You are extending the analogy too far. The analogy holds, regardless of whether it is two gas stations or one. Further, even if it was the same station, they could be talking about different grades of gas (regular vs. plus).

-

As for the debate, I completely agree with Fallon. Unfortunately, it seems to have been structured in a way to allow Robert to assume inerrancy without having to make a case for it (or at least, that is how Robert has interpretted the format). And that is a shame, because I would really like for Robert to actually lay out an argument establishing inerrancy, rather than simply posting a circular assertion of inerrancy, and then doing nothing but trying to bat down a few of Vinnie's examples of errors. If that is all that is going to happen for the remainder of the debate, I probably won't read past the next entries.

richard

KnightWhoSaysNi

April 20, 2004, 03:01 PM

(The quote below was copied from Sean McHugh's attempted post in FDD)

Sean, I'm not sure if you made a mistake and intended your post to come here or not, but only Vinnie and RobertLW can post in the FDD thread. :)

Did Judas die by hanging himself or die from a fatal fall? RobertLW submitted the following:

RobertLW:
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)

The rope being cut would not result in Judas falling headlong, unless he hanged himself by his feet.

KVJ, Acts 1:18:
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

So now the inerrantist needs to add more complexity and unlikelihood to the scenario. Anything but simply admit that the conflicting passages are probably what they appear to be, contradictory. And one hasn’t yet considered even all the problems in the Judas story. There is the matter of one report saying he purchased a field with the money while another says he tossed the money down when the priests refused to accept it for their treasury. After that, they used it for purchasing a field – not for Judas. The Judas story is just one of the convolutions in a stream of conflicting reports that follow the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

What the inerrantist doesn’t consider, or perhaps even realise, is that in terms of probability, unlikely terms don’t add together, they multiply. By comparison, the proposal/expectation, that there would be errors in a voluminous arbitrary collection of primitive religious writings, is very mundane.

What the inerrantist won’t see is that any book, given the latitude that the biblical inerrantist affords the Bible, can be found to be ‘inerrant’. In similitude, Latter Day Saints provide whatever accommodation is necessary to find the Book of Mormon to be the most accurate book in the world!

http://www.challengemin.org/contrad.html

RobertLW claimed that, “Using 2000 years of critical research and debate, sceptics still cannot provide even 1 demonstrable error.�? That is laughable. Modern science can’t get through the first few verses of this capacious document without finding glaring errors. It isn’t easy to think of a more discordant book that is claimed to be non-fiction. It would be difficult to find another supposedly non-fictional work that requires, and has received, more effort in trying to make it appear harmonious and correct.

I believe that RobertLW has fallen headlong in his comments as to why the Bible is special. He appealed strongly to its supposed inerrancy. The problem is that he has elsewhere maintained that one should assume, as the default, that any non-fictional book is inerrant until it is absolutely proved to be otherwise. How can ‘special’ represent the default? And if ‘special’ is the default, what’s so special about ‘special’?

Let’s get real here. Are we expected to believe that RobertLW really assumes beforehand, that all the religions of the world that he hasn’t examined, are inerrant? Does RobertLW provisionally believe that the plethora of ancient ‘mythological’ accounts that he can’t prove as false or hasn’t had the time to prove as false, are true? I suspect that the fundamentalist Christian would be very reluctant to make such an allowance. However, for RobertLW to be consistent, such an allowance is required. Perhaps he might argue that the accounts need to be in a documented form. Such a criterion/excuse would not wash and anyway, many of these religions have been documented as non-fiction.

Yours sincerely,

Sean McHugh

Sean McHugh

April 20, 2004, 04:38 PM

(The quote below was copied from Sean McHugh's attempted post in FDD)

Sean, I'm not sure if you made a mistake and intended your post to come here or not, but only Vinnie and RobertLW can post in the FDD thread. :)

Hi Nightshade,

Thanks. It was meant for here. That's the trouble with posting after midnight.

:banghead:

Apologies for the inconvenience.

Yours sincerely,

Sean McHugh

Fallon

April 24, 2004, 06:17 AM

Vinnie's latest post is quite nice -- short, to the point -- and I was especially happy to see him throw down the gauntlet (to borrow from Roy and HG) to RobertLW on demonstrating inerrancy. Sadly I can only see a few possible outcomes of this.

1. RobertLW will retreat to the position that he only has to defend inerrancy, not demonstrate it.
2. He will return to his attempts to shift the burdon of proof.
3. He will resort to a species of circular argument.
4. He will (attempt to) demonstrate inerrancy. (!)

Obviously 1 and 2 (with a sprinkling of 3) are the most likely. At this point I consider 4 unlikely, but RobertLW may as well stop dancing in quicksand and go down fighting. The way I see it, he's going to be sucked down anyway, so he may as well give it one last shot. He might even manage to save this debate from mediocrity (though Vinnie has done a nice job, considering).

Fallon

Silent Dave

May 1, 2004, 12:29 AM

RobertLW has posted his latest statement, and in doing so he has announced his intention to withdraw from the debate. Thus, Vinnie will be allowed to post a concluding statement, after which the debate thread will be closed.

Dave

Sven

May 3, 2004, 10:33 AM

Looks like Fallon forgot a fifth possibility :D

I think most here will agree that this is the best outcome the debate could have. An important lesson which can be drawn from it is that one should perhaps not debate someone whose style of argumention/arguments one is not familar with. A little bit more discussion for the start of the debate would have been helpful to get a much more interesting debate.

But perhaps this topic simply is not worth debating :D

Vinnie

May 3, 2004, 01:04 PM

Since I just hit "submit" on my latest response I guess I can post in here now. As long as its allowed through I guess the debate is over. My final installment was a little high on the "rhetorical jousting" at times but granted nothing of substance to respond to, what else could I do? ;)

I don't really see a need to add anything to this thread that hasn't been addressed by someone else already. If I missed something let me know. If someone new chimes in I'll be lurking.

I think this experience might discourage me from engaging in future formal debates with unknown people or people in general. This was pitiful.

Vinnie

Vinnie

May 3, 2004, 01:18 PM

Looks like Fallon forgot a fifth possibility :D

I only listed three myself at the end of the debate:

1. Robert is in fact that ignorant.
2. This whole debate was a parody.
3. Robert is intellectually dishonest.

I let the readers in the Peanut Gallery decide on this one.

I find it amazing how many points I made that he actually ignored. Almsot everything I wrote was skewed or ignored :banghead:

This sums it up for me:

""Boohoo, I can't refute it. Boohoo. You cheated. Sniffle. Wine. Sniffle."

Vinnie

Sven

May 3, 2004, 01:19 PM

1. Robert is in fact that ignorant.
2. This whole debate was a parody.
3. Robert is intellectually dishonest.
I let the readers in the Peanut Gallery decide on this one.

I vote for (2)! Anything else would be just too improbable. :D

Nice Job, Vinnie! You never had any tough points to answer, but presented your points quite coherent. At least for most people...

Vinnie

May 3, 2004, 01:23 PM

I vote for (2)! Anything else would be just too improbable. :D

Nice Job, Vinnie! You never had any tough points to answer, but presented your points quite coherent. At least for most people...

There are no tough points to answer when arguing against verbal plenary inspiration. I should have let that fact restrict me from ever entering this debate to begin with. I have only myself to blame.

At least I got my "surface anomaly" argument drafted up in a more lengthy and thorough manner. I had a similar argument online with this same issue but this one updates it extensively.

I also have some material up on Judas Death and the food laws and the lack of a canonical dimension which could all easily be adapted into four separate articles for my site. So all is not lost and I have a reformulation of the tenth plague which cuts past "you don't posess an objective standard."

Vinnie

wiploc

May 3, 2004, 01:53 PM

I think this experience might discourage me from engaging in future formal debates with unknown people or people in general. This was pitiful.

Vinnie

I've had bad luck doing that with my last couple of debates too.

crc

Vinnie

May 3, 2004, 03:17 PM

Apparently my concluding statement was too high on the polemic and rhetorical jousting to be posted :D :notworthy

I kind of thought it might be but I will not rewrite it. Ths debate was too much of a comic nightmare to waste any further time on cumbersome pleasantries.

I'll put my original submitted reply on the net tonight after work. If anyone wants to read my concluding piece they can do it then ;)

Vinnie

P.S. I feel your pain wiploc :(

KnightWhoSaysNi

May 3, 2004, 04:21 PM

Vinnie beat me to the punch, but I just wanted to announce that the formal debate is officially over. Vinnie and RobertLW may post here if they wish to.

Jason

Vinnie

May 3, 2004, 09:24 PM

Vinnie beat me to the punch, but I just wanted to announce that the formal debate is officially over. Vinnie and RobertLW may post here if they wish to.

Jason

My apologies if I was supposed to wait for you to give the official word for us to post in here. I just thought since it was over thd initial restriction was over as well.

Vinnie

Vinnie

May 4, 2004, 01:30 AM

As promised, my original concluding statement not fit for the debate forum:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/errancydebate7.html

Fallon

May 4, 2004, 08:22 AM

I'm trying to get Robert to talk about justifying inerrancy through email, since I find this area fascinating. The whole subject appears to be an argument by assertion, nothing more and nothing less. I really wonder why more people don't draw attention to this. I mean I know that biblical errancy is a duck shoot, but why grant inerrantists more ground than they deserve?

Oh yeah, is anyone aware of an attempt to demonstrate inerrancy in a reasonable fashion?

By the way Vinnie, I can certainly see why They wouldn't let you post your response. You didn't exactly pull any punches. :D

Fallon

Vinnie

May 4, 2004, 10:49 AM

By the way Vinnie, I can certainly see why They wouldn't let you post your response. You didn't exactly pull any punches.

I can as well. I certainly think the mods were correct. I was just rather annoyed at the time at how much effort I put into my initial posts (all ten pages single spaced!) only to have it end up like this.

Oh yeah, is anyone aware of an attempt to demonstrate inerrancy in a reasonable fashion?

There is one attempt that I am aware of. Its used by apologists and systematic theology texts. It goes like this:

NT Gospels are shown to be historically reliable.
Jesus is shown to have made grandoise cliams about himself.
The Resurrection is historically demonstrated.
This authenticates Jesus and his message.

Jesus is then shown to be God incarnate.
God incarnate, in the Gospels, appeals to much of our modern OT as the commands of God.
This authenticartes the Old Testament,

Its claimed on historical grounds that the NT is authenticated in that Matt and John were written by authority figures set up by Jesus (two apostles), one text was written under the guidance of another (Peter).

Paul was inspired by God to preach to the Gentiles.

This is about as far as it goes. Even if granted Paul was inspired by God to perform a task this in no way means his written letters are inerrant. Traditional authorships of the Gospels are all false, save Luke. But even if they were correct this in no way confirms inerrancy.

There really is no way to confirm the New Testament texts.

All that can be said is that "wouldn't God want to leave us a written continuation of his actions considering how imortant Jesus' work on the cross was"?

But this all assumes 1) gospels historically reliable, 2) Jesus claimed to be God, 3) Jesus actually accepted OT inerrancy, 4) Jesus rose from the dead.

Neither one of these four points is correct. THe closest one as far as accuracy goes is possibly number 3 but that dependes on how one reconstructs Jesus.

This is what I term the evangelical route to inerrancy (ERI). It fails miserably and its the only attempt that even begins to use reason and evidence rather than making collective faith leaps. AFAIK anyways.

Vinni

Vinnie

May 4, 2004, 10:56 AM

""""""The whole subject appears to be an argument by assertion, nothing more and nothing less. I really wonder why more people don't draw attention to this. I mean I know that biblical errancy is a duck shoot, but why grant inerrantists more ground than they deserve?""""""""

I don't know. Even many skeptics seem to unknowingly talk about the Bible in a collective fashion. This should never be granted. Once it is the hermeneutic of uncritically interpreting one text in light of another begins to surface.

Two things tht should be done:

1) Point out that opponent must argue for a collective or canonical dimension (use my mall analogy in a modified fashion).

2) Point out that the surface anomalies and nature of the work naturally lead one to errancy unless one can show the text is special (meaning inspired by God).

You put the ball entirely in their court. Inerrancy advocates are only too happy to try and bat down or deflect posed errors with "logically possible harmonizations" (see my Judas death comic insert where I added in hypothetical texts). Don't grant them this luxury. It is far more than they deserve.

wiploc

May 4, 2004, 01:48 PM

Inerrancy advocates are only too happy to try and bat down or deflect posed errors with "logically possible harmonizations"

My technique is to offer them some contradictions, watch how they harmonize them, and then show them that
1. the same techniques could be used to "prove" inerrancy in any other book; and
2. these techniques rob the bible of all inherent meaning, since they allow the "harmonization" of opposites like visible and invisible. They allow the reader to project any meaning she desires into the text.

crc

RobertLW

May 6, 2004, 07:10 PM

I have to admit that I made a mistake in evaluating Vinnie's Burden of Proof argument. In addition to admitting my error, I think I should correct myself. It is the honest thing to do. When I was thinking about Vinnies argument originally I was not taking the default position into account. I have had some time to think about it and I have come to a different conclusion. I wrote in my last post;

"If Vinnie's burden of proof argument was contained in an essay, it would be a pretty good argument and I would not necessarily disagree with it."

I believe this to be a false conclusion. My new conclusion is that Vinnie's argument on the default position of burden of proof is completely false whether or not it is contained in an essay.

The default position for burden of proof is neutral. It is neutral because the burden of proof is an assumed burden.

Just wanted to make that correction. Thanks.

Cross Examiner

May 6, 2004, 09:13 PM

Vinnie

May 7, 2004, 01:08 AM

Vinnie

May 7, 2004, 01:10 AM

wiploc

May 7, 2004, 11:06 AM

I've been aloof and elsewhere but I'd appreciate it if someone would reiterate why agnosticism is not a potential default position with regards to Biblical inerrancy. To suggest that there are only two possible default positions (i.e. errant, inerrant) smacks of undue bifurcation. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
BGic

Since the bible appears to be shot thru with errors, errancy would seem to be the natural default position. The default position: it looks wrong, and I believe it is wrong.Those readers who determine to actively interpret the scriptures until they (the readers) don't see any error, will succeed in doing so. Their position is this: It looks wrong, but under no circumstances will I admit that there is error.

You ask whether there is a middle ground. Might someone look at the bible, see that it appears to be overwhelmingly flawed, yet wonder whether the texts might be aggressively re-interpreted until it becomes unclear that it is flawed? Clearly this is possible, but it is hard to imagine the motivation. It doesn't seem like a default position.

Such a person would still have to twist meanings around until original intent was obliterated. What would be the point of projecting inerrant meanings into the text, and then failing to conclude that your own projected meanings are accurate? Or what would be the point of interpreting the text until it means things you don't know the truth of, and then concluding that you don't know whether the bible is true?

I just don't know that the bible can be said to have any inherent meaning once harmonization has been undertaken. If it doesn't have meaning, how could it be said that it is unclear whether the meaning is accurate?

So it seems to me that errancy is the default position; inerrancy is the position of motivated believers in inerrancy; and agnosticism can be natural only to those who have heard the inerrantists' claims without subsequently giving the matter much thought.

crc

blt to go

May 7, 2004, 01:38 PM

Genuinely need direction here. I feel like I am missing some important argument here, that I am not getting.

What is the difference for the default position, errancy or inerrancy?

Typically, I would state (in reviewing ANY document, regardless of time, number of authors, etc.) that it would be, at the least, internally inerrant. Thus, the "default" position would be inerrancy. However, once there is one single "error," no matter how slight, this would mean the document is not inerrant, and hence no longer the "default" position.

Let me try it this way. I assume my history textbook is inerrant. But if the table of contents states that chapter 4 starts on page 62, when it starts on page 64, this would mean it is errant. Granted, perhaps not deserving of being tossed out completely, but Not to the complete standards of inerrancy.
Now, if chapter 1 says Washington was the first president, and chapter 2 says Lincoln was the first president (of the U.S. for those of other countries) that would CERTAINLY be errancy. There may be an explanation, there may be rationalization, but within that book, internally, it is errant.

Now let me try it this way. Vinnie - if you agree that the default position is inerrancy, all you have to do is point out ONE internal inconsistency. Wrong number of horses. Who gave the command for the census. Judas' death. Christ picking the wrong high priest, etc. Now it is errant. May be explainable, may be rationalized, but still errant !

So why, Vinnie, would you care what the "default" position is, if it is so easily demonstrated as false.

RobertLW (for lack of a better person to address this to) Why, on God's green earth, would you WANT the default position to be inerrancy? For me to hold it to this high of a standard, when I KNOW it will be demonstrated as false quickly (see above comments to Vinnie) would seem to be dangerous.

Let me try this a final way. I imagine a witness on the stand stating, "This letter contains absolutely NO errors whatsoever. It is 100% inerrant."
Attorney: But isn't it true that paragraph one refers to invoice 1234?
Witness: Yes
Attorney: But paragraph four refers to invoice 1243, correct?
Witness: .....yes.
Attorney: Isn't that an error?
Witness: Well, yes, but I just transposed the last two numbers.
Attorney: But it IS an error?
Witness: Not much of one.
Attorney: Is your testimony still that it contains "NO errors whatsoever?"
Witness: Well, maybe just one.

Do You see my point? Hope so.
So why the fuss.
(Thanks in advance.)

Vinnie

May 7, 2004, 02:07 PM

ugggh! Sorry for the annoyment but I already addressed all this!

From my FIRST OPENING POST in the debate:

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."

Also

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.

Even internal consistency in individual works is not expected. Here is a further quote from historian E.P. Sanders:

First, ancient writers often contain glaring self-contradictions in their writings. It appears that the evangelists did not smooth over their works and make them all completely consistent with. As Sanders and Davies observe, "The assumption may surprise the reader, whose intuition may be that an author of strong views would recast all the material to agree with them. There are two points to be observed: (1) Imposing a completely consistent view on diverse sources is in fact quite hard. Modern academic work will provide a lot of examples. Those of us who read doctoral theses spend spend a fair part of our time checking for consistency from one part to another, but perfect consistency is nevertheless often not obtained. The problem of consistency of of course less acute in a short work than in a long one, and the gospels are short. Despite this, not one of them is perfectly consistent [John possibly the closest]. This leads us to our second point. (2) Ancient writers not infrequently incorporated their sources whole, or only slightly edited, with the result that the final work contains glaring inconsistencies and even contradictions. The ancients seem to have been less troubled by inconsistency that moderns are, and what strikes us as a blatant internal disagreement may have been viewed in some other light by the original author and readers."

FINALLY, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the Bible is NOT A SINGLE WORK.

Canonical dimension must be argued, not assumed.

Errancy is more than the default position. Inerrancy is all but IMPOSSIBLE given the nature of the works.

Vinnie

P.S. I highly doubt most hsitory texts--even modern ones-- are "inerrant". As Sander's wrote: "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."

blt to go

May 7, 2004, 02:28 PM

Thanks for the reply.

I Did understand the positions of each side and had read your post (as well as the debate) Reading it again always helps.

While I was trying to frame that I was looking more for the reasoning behind the argumentation, it clicked.

A default inerrent would state that the errant had the burden of proof which would result in a demonstration of error, resulting in an attempt for harmonization by the inerrant.

A default errant would state the inerrant would have the burden of proof which would result in an attempt for harminonization of errors by the inerrant.

Unfortunately for the errant, man can rationalize just about anything resulting in what would appear to be harmonization for the inerrant. (they are preaching to the choir.)

Unfortunately for the inerrant, they cannot explain why they accept harmonization when it comes to the Bible, but would NEVER accept such harmonization in real life.

I think.....

Toto

May 7, 2004, 02:40 PM

It is part of the tactics of Christian apologists to try to force the burden of proof on their opponents, and then raise the burden so high that it cannot be met. It's just a tactic.

Cross Examiner

May 7, 2004, 04:25 PM

The nature of the works themselves. Read my first post.
Yes, I see that you argue that the nature of the works themselves militates against classifying them as inerrant a posteriori but I do not see how given their nature classifying them as errant a posteriori is justified. I do not see that you address incertitude (e.g. agnosticism) as a potential starting point. I do not see that you support the implicature that the issue of default classification is strictly bivalent. Additionally, I read your first post but see no succinctly formulated criterion for the default classification of works. If you do not offer a criterion, please do so as soon as you are able. If you do offer a criterion, somewhere, then please reformulate and present it here. In the case that you do offer a criterion, is there a precedent for your particular formulation and, if so, can you cite (and link us to) that precedent? Thanks in advance.
If the Bible was inerrant would it not be evidence it was special? That is what Mcowell argues. I use the inverse. Simply because we don't expoect 50 human authors over thousands of years in diverse settings to have completely harmonious thoughts and views on a host of issues.
Do you presume at the outset that '50 human authors' are the all-sufficient cause (e.g. as opposed to being the instrumental cause) of these works? If so, then you beg the very question. I'll use a couple of categorical syllogisms (i.e. A1, A2) to make my point:

A1.
P1. A compendium of works caused by a multiplicity of human authors from diverse social, linguistic, economic, cultural, historical etc. contexts is likely fallible
P2. The Bible is a compendium of works caused by a multiplicity of human authors from diverse social, linguistic, economic, cultural, historical etc. contexts
C3. The Bible is likely fallible.

A2.
P1. If a compendium of works is likely fallible then it is reasonably classified as errant
P2. The Bible is a compendium of works that is likely fallible
C3. The Bible is reasonably classified as errant

Do you see the problem? One must presuppose in A1:P2 the errantist position that the Bible is purely the effect of human causation, which is precisely the issue of debate. Caveat lector ...
It is quite simple really.
Respectfully, I beg to differ.

Regards,
BGic

gurugeorge

May 7, 2004, 05:56 PM

Cross Examiner

May 7, 2004, 07:28 PM

Surely, even if the human beings were merely the "instrumental" cause of the actual text we have, that's enough to put a spanner in the works and make a nonsense of inerrancy in the actual text we have?
Really? How so? Can you make an argument to that effect?

But you bring up an interesting point. Let's modify the term 'caused' in the manner that you imply:

A1.
P1. A compendium of works partially caused by a multiplicity of human authors from diverse social, linguistic, economic, cultural, historical etc. contexts is likely fallible
P2. The Bible is a compendium of works partially caused by a multiplicity of human authors from diverse social, linguistic, economic, cultural, historical etc. contexts
C3. The Bible is likely fallible.

A2.
P1. If a compendium of works is likely fallible then it is reasonably classified as errant
P2. The Bible is a compendium of works that is likely fallible
C3. The Bible is reasonably classified as errant

I see three problems with the above. First, the original terms and relationships in A1:P1 and A1:P2 are explicit and unambiguous. When we change the seminal phrase "caused by a multiplicity of human authors" to "partially caused by a multiplicity of human authors", without elucidating the term 'partially', we introduce ambiguity into the phrase such that we significantly weaken the meaning of our foundational premise and thus we weaken both arguments. Second, it does not follow from the fact that there is a human factor to some work x that some work x is fallible, especially when there is also a divine factor to some work x, as would be the case in this particular instance. Third, we presume a greater degree of non-human causation (e.g. divine) such that we beg the question from the inerrantist angle this time around. Thus, we can take neither errantist nor inerrantist presumption and arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is reasonably classified as errant. I am surprised that agnosticism/incertitude/no default position has been apparently overlooked.

Anyway, if the inerrantist position is correct the Bible is still the effect of a Perfect Being communicating through a diverse assortment of imperfect beings to an even greater diversity of imperfect beings which accounts well enough for the 'surface anomalies' therein.

Regards,
BGic

RobertLW

May 7, 2004, 09:29 PM

You guys went from the default position on the burden of proof to the default position of inerrancy in nothing flat.

The default position on the burden of proof is neutral because it is an assumed burden. If I went to a book store and picked out any book, I have nothing to prove. I havn't even read it yet. If I read the book and formulate any opinion on it, I still have nothing to prove and nobody to prove it to. If a friend of mine reads the book as well and while discussing the book he said "that was a really good book" and I replied " I thought it was crappy" I still have nothing to prove, I was stating my opinion. However, if I said "The book was crappy and I will prove it to you" I have just assumed that burden. On the other hand, if my friend said "prove that the book was crappy" I still have the option of saying "I don't have to prove jack to you pal" and turn down that burden.

BGiC brings up some good points on the default position of inerrancy. However, on a very general level, I am inclined to agree with Vinnie on this point. I agree with Vinnie because man was also given reason and there are times when logic and reason disagree. While one thing may be logical, it may also be unreasonable. That is why we must use both to determine truth. It is wholly reasonable to conclude that a human being is not capable of producing a completely inerrant work (unless by accident).

However, there are many types of errors and if we narrow the errors down, we can be more specific and unambiguous with what we mean with the term "inerrant". For the purposes of our debate, we had used the Chicago Statement as the definition of the errors. By using this statement as the definition of the errors, I was arguing that God's message recorded in the Bible by human authors that he inspired is both true and consistent throughout the Bible and does not contradict itself.

I argued up front that I intended to argue presuming the verity of the Biblical authors. It is this presumption that is the real argument. One would have to get to the epistemological basis for knowledge in order to validate their presumptions.

My thoughts anyway.......

gurugeorge

May 8, 2004, 07:28 AM

Anyway, if the inerrantist position is correct the Bible is still the effect of a Perfect Being communicating through a diverse assortment of imperfect beings to an even greater diversity of imperfect beings which accounts well enough for the 'surface anomalies'

No, what you're left with there is just a claim of divine inspiration, which is not at all the same thing as inerrantism.

Whether God exists or not, common sense tells us that anything human beings have had a hand in is bound to have errors (inconsistencies, wrong facts, factoids, etc.); some degree of error is likely, we would expect errors. That's the default position for anything that has humans involved in it. Lo and behold, unsurprisingly, when you look at the Bible, at the actual text we have, it has lots of errors.

This is compatible with divine inspiration, with God's having a hand in the Bible's making. It just isn't compatible with the Bible being inerrant.

Sven

May 10, 2004, 05:35 AM

Typically, I would state (in reviewing ANY document, regardless of time, number of authors, etc.) that it would be, at the least, internally inerrant.

Why? :confused:
I've seen to many errors in books (typos, grammar or "real" errors) - fiction and non-fiction - that the default position clearly is "errant". Just look at the opening of any science book: The author(s) almost always clearly state(s) that errors have been corrected compared to the last edition, that loads of people pointed errors out to them, that all remaining errors are entirely his/her/their own fault etc.
I don't understand how one can think that any human work is by default inerrant.

Sven

May 10, 2004, 05:42 AM

I argued up front that I intended to argue presuming the verity of the Biblical authors. It is this presumption that is the real argument.

Unfortunately it isn't an argument. You neglect (as Vinnie pointed out), for instance, honest mistakes. And "poetic licence" - this is not the same as lying.

blt to go

May 10, 2004, 12:08 PM

It's just a tactic. Imagine me hitting myself in the head and saying, "D'oh."

I WAS reading too much into it. Thanks for the clarification, Toto.
You guys went from the default position on the burden of proof to the default position of inerrancy in nothing flat.
Correct, because that is the next logical conclusion. If one is going to "argue" against the default position of a proposition, then one is going to (oft-times) gain the burden of proof.

However, in this scenerio, I do not see the gain in either position.

Sven, I see you failed to quote my next two sentences, which further explained my position on "inerrancy." I would submit, however, that in practice, even you would initially default to internal inerrancy. For example, if you are looking for the start of a chapter, do you look at the table of contents, or do you assume it is wrong, and not bother. Do you question every single sentence and compare it to the rest? Typically No.

If, you are stating, that errancy is an eventuality, I would agree, but it is not how I, personally, typically approach any document, assuming that it will be internally correct--just not surprised when it is not.

No, BGiC, your default position of "may or may not contain errors" is unhelpful. And is a dangerous tactic.

First, it is unhelpful in that it does not further the cause of whether the document has errors. It is similar to arguing whether a document neither of us have read "may or may not" contain errors. Once read, we can no longer straddle the fence, but will fall on one side or the other.

Second, it is a dangerous tactic, because it gives the benefit of the doubt to the opposing side. If you say it "may or may not contain errors" and I say it contains errors, by failing to argue against the premise, the only position left is that it contains errors.

Here is an analogy. There is an automobile accident on the highway. You (observing the accident) state, "the car may or may not have been moving at the time." I (another observer) state, "the car was moving at the time." The trier of fact is left with no alternative but to conclude the car was moving at the time.

Therefore, to enter the debate and frame the argument, "may or may not contain errors," I would respond that you have conceded you do not know, and would state it does, moving forward. It would appear you have conceded a point.

The whole thing is a dangerous tactic. Odd that the christian apologist would argue the uniqueness of the Bible, stating it is inerrant (written by so many, over so many continents, over so long a period of time) and then state the default position of ANY document is inerrancy!

In other words, since the Bible is special, we would have to take the position that BY DEFAULT all other documents are assumed to be errant (UNspecial) until proven otherwise, but because we like the Bible, it gets special billing at inerrant, until proven otherwise.

Can't have it both ways. Can't have "special pleading" and then complain when others try to place the burden on us.

Cross Examiner

May 10, 2004, 01:03 PM

You guys went from the default position on the burden of proof to the default position of inerrancy in nothing flat.

The default position on the burden of proof is neutral because it is an assumed burden.
RobertLW, what do you mean by 'assumed burden'? Also, I read your analogy but I still do not understand why you believe that the default position with regards to the inerrancy issue ought to be neutrality. That is, while I agree that it should be neutrality, for reasons argued above (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1586262#post1586262), I do not know how you came to that same conclusion. Can you please clarify?
BGiC brings up some good points on the default position of inerrancy. However, on a very general level, I am inclined to agree with Vinnie on this point. I agree with Vinnie because man was also given reason and there are times when logic and reason disagree. While one thing may be logical, it may also be unreasonable. That is why we must use both to determine truth.
Are you arguing that one ought to reason deductively (i.e. 'logically') and inductively (i.e. 'reason') in order to arrive at truth? If so, I do not see how two camps with diametrically opposed epistemologies can substantially agree on what is inductively reasonable with regards to this issue.
It is wholly reasonable to conclude that a human being is not capable of producing a completely inerrant work (unless by accident).
I was looking at a jar of baby food the other day. When I thought about all the factors that went into producing the jar, I came away thinking that human causation was nearly total yet the product is perceptibly perfect. That is, I saw no flaw in it at all. But you seem to be saying that I am not justified in thinking this of the jar. Should I presume that the jar is flawed because human causation factors greatly into the jar's production? If so, why? Thanks.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

May 10, 2004, 01:34 PM

No, BGiC, your default position of "may or may not contain errors" is unhelpful. And is a dangerous tactic.
blt to go, my argument for neutrality is not a tactic. It is a reflection of the way I think. Now, the way I think about all this might be way off, but it is not merely positioning. I truly do not see how some degree of human causation as a factor of the production of x requires us by the demands of rationality to think x is flawed. And I have yet to see an argument that might convince me otherwise.
First, it is unhelpful in that it does not further the cause of whether the document has errors. It is similar to arguing whether a document neither of us have read "may or may not" contain errors. Once read, we can no longer straddle the fence, but will fall on one side or the other.
I don't understand why the default position need further the cause of whether x is flawed or not. If we both know a great deal about x but have not substantiated a criterion for determining whether x is flawed or not then how can anything but neutrality be our starting point? What level of knowledge of x must we meet in order to move from 'straddling the fence' to a positive or negative position on the fallibility of x?
Second, it is a dangerous tactic, because it gives the benefit of the doubt to the opposing side. If you say it "may or may not contain errors" and I say it contains errors, by failing to argue against the premise, the only position left is that it contains errors.
I am not an attorney so I will likely reveal a good deal of ignorance on these issues but if one person is neutral on x and another is negative on x how does that make the default stance (for all) negative?
Here is an analogy. There is an automobile accident on the highway. You (observing the accident) state, "the car may or may not have been moving at the time." I (another observer) state, "the car was moving at the time." The trier of fact is left with no alternative but to conclude the car was moving at the time.
But then we only need another witness to say the 'car was not moving at the time' and we are back to neutrality. If the analogy hinges on numbers who vote for/against x then it seems to be weak.
Therefore, to enter the debate and frame the argument, "may or may not contain errors," I would respond that you have conceded you do not know, and would state it does, moving forward. It would appear you have conceded a point.
And then another can state it does not have errors and we're back to neutrality. How is this not an argument from numbers?
The whole thing is a dangerous tactic. Odd that the christian apologist would argue the uniqueness of the Bible, stating it is inerrant (written by so many, over so many continents, over so long a period of time) and then state the default position of ANY document is inerrancy!
I argue that without a criterion for determining if a document is errant or not there can be no default position of errancy or inerrancy. I argue that if one must make a presumption of errancy or inerrancy in order to substantiate the claim that x should be considered errant or inerrant by default then one does so fallaciously (i.e. begs the question). I do not argue that any document is inerrant.
In other words, since the Bible is special, we would have to take the position that BY DEFAULT all other documents are assumed to be errant (UNspecial) until proven otherwise, but because we like the Bible, it gets special billing at inerrant, until proven otherwise.
Why can't we formulate a method for trying the Bible, try the Bible as if it weren't special and then decide whether it is or is not per the agreed-upon standard?

Regards,
BGic

Toto

May 10, 2004, 01:47 PM

. . .

I was looking at a jar of baby food the other day. When I thought about all the factors that went into producing the jar, I came away thinking that human causation was nearly total yet the product is perceptibly perfect. That is, I saw no flaw in it at all. But you seem to be saying that I am not justified in thinking this of the jar. Should I presume that the jar is flawed because human causation factors greatly into the jar's production? If so, why? Thanks.

Regards,
BGic

Interesting analogy. A jar of baby food is a recent innovation in human nutrition. Up until fairly recently, baby humans lived on breast milk for a much longer period in their lives. Infant formula, which was touted as "scientific" when it was first introduced, has never been able to match the virtual perfection of most breast milk, which has been honed through millions of years of natural selection (but can still be a problem in some cases, due to modern pollution levels and food allergies.)

Being much older than I think you are, I recall a period when baby food contained MSG - not for the babies, but to convince the parents who tasted the baby food that they wanted to feed it to their infants. I forget if it was public pressure or the FDA which forced the removal of this bad ingredient.

What you see as perfection in a jar of baby food depends on a number of factors: quality control on the part of the baby food manufacturer; government regulation; the possibilities of product liability lawsuits if there is any flaw in the baby food. None of these apply to the production of sacred texts.

A better analogy than baby food is writing computer code. There will always be bugs in sufficiently long computer code, as long as it is written by humans. There will always be typos in written texts.

Clutch

May 10, 2004, 02:17 PM

bgic, I don't know about crickets chirping. I thought I explained this on page one of this thread.

The argument against inerrancy is the argument for errancy. That's the order the reasoning goes in. This actually does not require a bivalence of default possibilities! All it requires is that "errant" entails "not inerrant", which is perfectly consistent with an agnostic third value. (It's the other direction, from "not inerrant" to "errant", that would fail if one gave up bivalence.)

The argument, as I understand it, is that the scriptures are prima facie errant, and that this engenders the default assumption that they are errant. (On the uncontroversial principle that it's rational to believe pro tem what the evidence suggests, though the evidence is in principle defeasible.)

So in the absence of a good argument showing that the p.f. evidence is somehow delusive, we remain with the default conclusion that the text is errant. And, again, even on a non-bivalent system, this warrants the (default) conclusion that the text is not inerrant.

Vinnie can correct me if this departs from his reasoning in some important way, but that's what I took away from it. (Really, it's not a novel or surprising argument; I'm sure Vinnie is always surprised to have to argue for such a point!)

Cross Examiner

May 10, 2004, 03:42 PM

The argument, as I understand it, is that the scriptures are prima facie errant, and that this engenders the default assumption that they are errant. (On the uncontroversial principle that it's rational to believe pro tem what the evidence suggests, though the evidence is in principle defeasible.)
What constitutes prima facie errancy and how do you know? Is it that the existence of 'surface anomalies' constitutes prima facie errancy? If so, why should this be the criterion? What makes for a default position on the errancy of some human work x? Why should it be that prima facie errancy, if given, translates to a default position of errancy? Does the existence of surface anomalies in x give us warrant to believe that x is flawed until demonstrated otherwise? If so, why do you believe this? I'm just curious where folks are getting their epistemological basis from.
So in the absence of a good argument showing that the p.f. evidence is somehow delusive, we remain with the default conclusion that the text is errant. And, again, even on a non-bivalent system, this warrants the (default) conclusion that the text is not inerrant.
With regards to the proposition 'the Bible is inerrant', how do we know when the prima facie evidence for errancy moves us from a default position of neutrality to negativity? Do the existence of surface anomalies justify this move? If so, why? Thanks.

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

May 10, 2004, 03:49 PM

What constitutes prima facie errancy and how do you know? Is it that the existence of 'surface anomalies' constitutes prima facie errancy? If so, why should this be the criterion? What makes for a default position on the errancy of some human work x? Why should it be that prima facie errancy, if given, translates to a default position of errancy? Does the existence of surface anomalies in x give us warrant to believe that x is flawed until demonstrated otherwise? If so, why do you believe this? I'm just curious where folks are getting their epistemological basis from.

With regards to the proposition 'the Bible is inerrant', how do we know when the prima facie evidence for errancy moves us from a default position of neutrality to negativity? Do the existence of surface anomalies justify this move? If so, why? Thanks.

I'm happy to answer the questions I haven't already answered. Would you mind rereading my post, and yours, and focussing more precisely on questions I didn't answer, and/or your disagreement with the answers I gave? Thanks.

Cross Examiner

May 10, 2004, 04:04 PM

I'm happy to answer the questions I haven't already answered. Would you mind rereading my post, and yours, and focussing more precisely on questions I didn't answer, and/or your disagreement with the answers I gave? Thanks.
Fair enough.
For some substantial historical document, A1 introduces grounds to expect errancy. These grounds are presumably defeasible, but would not count as defeated merely by a lack of prima facie errors. This is familiar; often I will proof my work and conclude that, while I didn't see any obvious problems, I have excellent inductive grounds to believe there are some problems there anyhow.

This is sufficient for default errancy.
So, you argue here that because some work is the product of men we can expect it to be errant and because we expect errancy, the default position with regards to any human work (e.g. the Bible) is errancy? Is this your argument? Please correct/modify as needed.

Regards,
BGic

blt to go

May 10, 2004, 04:19 PM

BGic, sorry about that. I will back off and take a chill pill, as my daughter would say. ;)

In response to your post, yes, if one person is "neutral" and another is "negative" this will default into a "negative" position.

While many use the phrase "burden of proof" herein, few use "standard of proof." It would appear to me that the "standard" is perponderance of the evidence, i.e. "more likely than not." Or, using percentages, that evidence that is 51% or greater to be asserted as true. Or, using scales, the side that "tips" the balance.

So, using my (weak) car analogy, if one person says, "may or may not be moving" this does not tip the scale at all. It does not further the percentage, it does not make it more likely than not. If person two says, "the car was moving" my scale now tips in the balance of a moving car. If our proofs end there, there is NO CHOICE but to say that the car is moving. i.e. 100% proof.

Using your example, if person three says, "no, the car was NOT moving" our scale moves back to a perfectly balanced position. 50% say moving. 50% say not. (The statement as to argument by numbers or majority is incorrect. Regardless of the numbers on the scale, in my little example you would have to take into account the person's ability to see, bias, position, etc., a whole number of factors I won't go into.)

But in this third scenario, the person who says it "may or may not" becomes irrelevant!! Why? because it is no more helpful to the situation than a person who states they never saw the accident at all. Hence, a position of "may or may not," as far as I see, is unhelpful in a debate.

As to your other points, perhaps I am too much of a literalist. Vinnie recommended RobertLW use the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy. Hence I thought the "standards" were set. (A mistake of RobertLW, perhaps, IMHO.)

The Statement CLEARLY says:

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

The statement itself admits there are inconsitencies "where for the present no convincing solution is at hand." (Bears repeating)

If This is the standard, is not errancy the "default" position?

Cross Examiner

May 10, 2004, 04:50 PM

The statement itself admits there inconsitencies "where for the present no convincing solution is at hand." (Bears repeating)

If This is the standard, is not errancy the "default" position?
You are right. The Chicago Statement is the agreed-upon standard. It also admits to what can be called 'surface anomalies'. If the presence of surface anomalies (and whatever other factors are on offer) sufficiently warrants a default position of errancy then we ought to take errancy as default. So, does the presence of surface anomalies warrant a default position of errancy?

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

May 10, 2004, 08:41 PM

Fair enough.

So, you argue here that because some work is the product of men we can expect it to be errant and because we expect errancy, the default position with regards to any human work (e.g. the Bible) is errancy? Is this your argument? Please correct/modify as needed.

Regards,
BGic

I apologize for my terseness and imprecision; I was referring to the post just beforehand. I think that at least some of those questions were given answers (how good I ain't saying!) in that post. But maybe in the one you just quoted from too, so maybe same diff.

Anyhow, right now I'm concentrating on your claim about Vinnie's argument allowing for no third value. This is a point about the structure of the argument, though. Maybe I'll get into the truth of the premises later, but for now the point is just this: You can allow a third, agnostic, value all day long, on Vinnie's argument as I understand it. Because his argument does not attempt to argue from "not inerrant" to "errant", the move that a third value would disallow. Rather it moves from "default errant" to "default not inerrant", and this move is valid.

In short, with a third value, p<-->~~p fails because the right-to-left direction fails. The left-to-right direction is fine.

It's a separate question, and I assure you one I'm not prejudging, whether the argument is sound. But, as I see him arguing, the availability of agnosticism is not an issue for the argument's validity. (Maybe you can make the issue pop up in questioning the truth of the premises; I haven't thought it through yet.)

But I will say -- again; hint, hint -- that I don't believe that the principle linking prima facie errancy and default conclusions is remotely controversial.

As for the principle you offer for my assessment: I would say it is an over-generalization. There are cases and there are cases, in "the works of men". But roughly and readily I'd say that human error is often disappointing but never entirely surprising. We know enough of the capacity of humans to err that the standard of evidence to the effect that an error has been made is never terribly high.

Sven

May 11, 2004, 07:28 AM

Sven, I see you failed to quote my next two sentences, which further explained my position on "inerrancy."

Sorry, this was not intentionally. If I ignored something, I apologize.

I would submit, however, that in practice, even you would initially default to internal inerrancy. For example, if you are looking for the start of a chapter, do you look at the table of contents, or do you assume it is wrong, and not bother. Do you question every single sentence and compare it to the rest? Typically No.

That's not the point. "Inerrant" means no errors. And I indeed would never open a book assuming that it contains no errors.
Perhaps this is a little bit different in science and history books - in the former, you anyway have to try to reconstruct the derivation of the formulas and in this way automatically find the errors. In history books, this is obviously not possible.

If, you are stating, that errancy is an eventuality, I would agree, but it is not how I, personally, typically approach any document, assuming that it will be internally correct--just not surprised when it is not.

"Internally correct" is of course not the same as "inerrant". Do you really approach any document with the assumption that it contains no typos, no faults of grammar, no small slips of logic? That you are not surprised when you find an error is a hint that you knew in advance that it is very likely that the book contains errors - thus not inerrant.

Of course I also assume that a book if correct overall - but this is also not the same as "inerrant".

Clutch

May 11, 2004, 08:21 AM

Of course I also assume that a book if correct overall - but this is also not the same as "inerrant".

Why do you assume this? It can't be a general principle -- at most it applies to books like introductory texts independently known to have been written by experts and to have passed peer/pedagogical review. For virtually any other kind of book, it seems more reasonable just to be prepared to consider and weigh whatever claims it makes. I've certainly read enough books that are overall incorrect.

In any case, shouldn't we be talking about the responses appropriate to the discover of prima facie errors, rather than the appropriate attitudes before opening the book?

Vinnie

May 11, 2004, 01:33 PM

Clutch, thanks for continuing the debate here. You are right in that there is NOTHING controversial or extraordinary about my arguments. My silence of late here stems from this:

"Really, it's not a novel or surprising argument; I'm sure Vinnie is always surprised to have to argue for such a point!"

My argument was not novel. It is little more than common sense and I am surprised to see dissenters still writing responses.

The argument, as I understand it, is that the scriptures are prima facie errant, and that this engenders the default assumption that they are errant.

I used this argument and one more that are kind of two sides of the same coin:

First we can raise Mark's poor greek, grammatical errors (and some others) and all the prima facie surface anomalies. These leave us in the category of human authorship as they look like other books written by error-prone humans. It lands us in the default position of errancy until good grounds are presented to not hold this position.

My argument was reinforced by a second prong. Put 50 authors from diverse walks of life, with different education, different exegetical skill, with possibly evovling worldviews, and have them write a set of books that touch upon hundreds and hundreds of controversial issues like those now canonized in the Bible and in no feasible way will their writings come up to be inerrant and in perfect agreement on all details. Unless it can be shown God inspired them.

So many diverse authors from so long on so many controversial religious issues CANNOT write inerrantly without divine aid. THis is exactly what Mcdowell argued. 1) The Bible has no errors and given then nature of the work it must have been inspired by God because otherwise its impossible. Of course Mcdowell just assumed inerrancy.

I also even showed a quote from reknown scholar E.P. Sanders which suggest ancient writers have a common practice of incorporating their sources whole and even contradict themselves.

One example stemming from Matthean redaction may be where he apologized
for the baptism: John speaks of a stronger one to come who he prepeares the way for and when Jesus comes to baptize "John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" (Mt 3:14)

Later on, John is in prison asking if Jesus is the Christ. What we may have here is two separate pieces of tradition. The evolution and apologetics of the baptismal narrative create a narrative incongruity with John's later question from jail.

Of course the apologist writes that "John wasn't sure, he had doubts, Jesus wasn't like he expected." But the rest of us know Jesus was initially a follower of John and John baptized him and from that context the question makes more sense. Reinforcing the incongruity is John's attitude in the Gospel of John that is ssomewhat simialar in attitude to where Matthew takes Mark. John pronounces Jesus as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Vinnie

worldling

May 11, 2004, 02:00 PM

I'd just like to say that I thought the Bible = baby food analogy was very apt. :)

Vinnie

May 11, 2004, 02:20 PM

I'd just like to say that I thought the Bible = baby food analogy was very apt. :)

The Bible as a mall of independent stores was better :p

Vinnie

blt to go

May 11, 2004, 02:54 PM

Sven - I think we are on the same page (pun intended), but perhaps take two different routes to reach the same conclusion.

No, I am not surprised if I find an error in a book. To some extent, I would state that the more length, and the more complex a subject, the much more likley probability there will be an error.

does the presence of surface anomalies warrant a default position of errancy?

I would have to say yes. Why WOULDN'T it?

Cross Examiner

May 11, 2004, 11:06 PM

I would have to say yes. Why WOULDN'T it?
The presence of surface anomalies in x would warrant a default position with regards to x if the existence of such meets the criterion for having a default position. Does the existence of surface anomalies meet the criterion for having a default position?

Regards,
BGic

Sven

May 12, 2004, 04:21 AM

Why do you assume this? It can't be a general principle -- at most it applies to books like introductory texts independently known to have been written by experts and to have passed peer/pedagogical review. For virtually any other kind of book, it seems more reasonable just to be prepared to consider and weigh whatever claims it makes. I've certainly read enough books that are overall incorrect.
The majority of books I read were overall correct. That's why I assume this.

In any case, shouldn't we be talking about the responses appropriate to the discover of prima facie errors, rather than the appropriate attitudes before opening the book?
I just answered to the post of blt to go, who claimed that inerrancy is the default position.

And I think the attitude before opening the book influences how you handle prima facie errors. If you assume inerrancy beforehand, you are of course more inclined to find an harmonization than if you assume errancy.

Sven

May 12, 2004, 04:25 AM

Sven - I think we are on the same page (pun intended), but perhaps take two different routes to reach the same conclusion.
No, I am not surprised if I find an error in a book. To some extent, I would state that the more length, and the more complex a subject, the much more likley probability there will be an error.

You indeed reach the same conclusion: By conceding that there is a probability for errors, you assume errancy.

Cross Examiner

May 13, 2004, 02:05 PM

It is good to see that we can all finally come to an agreement. My faith in communication and the goodwill of men is restored.

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

May 14, 2004, 07:46 AM

Does the existence of surface anomalies meet the criterion for having a default position?

To modify an analogy from Bertrand Russell:

You open a crate of apples. Several of those on top are spotted, wrinkled, or have holes in them. Someone asks you whether that crate contains no bad apples. You reply:

A. No bad apples here! Heck, the crate says "Perfect Apple Co." right on the side!

B. Sorry, nobody's told me under what conditions I can move from the surface appearance of bad apples to the defeasible assumption of bad apples. I'm strictly neutral on the question.

C. Maybe I'm wrong about this -- maybe someone's genetically engineered some new and very expensive apples that are supposed to look like this -- but what I see here makes it pretty reasonable to think that there are some bad apples in this bunch. I mean, unless someone can prove that some other, more exotic, explanation should be accepted.

D. Woo-hoo, mushy apples! Let's make cider!

Fallon

May 14, 2004, 08:43 AM

It is nice to see everyone happy, wish I'd been around to pitch in. Anyone else find it ironic that the peanut gallery thread became more interesting (to me, at least) than the debate itself?

Except, possibly, in the "morbid curiosity" sort of interesting that is common among people who look at car wrecks and videos of people being beheaded.

Fallon

Cross Examiner

May 20, 2004, 10:37 AM

You open a crate of apples. Several of those on top are spotted, wrinkled, or have holes in them.
Please justify equating 'surface anomalies' with apples that are 'spotted', 'wrinkled', 'or have holes in them'.

Regards,
BGic

Vinnie

May 20, 2004, 11:16 AM

Q: What is the difference between Jesus and this thread?
A: When this thread dies, it doesn't stay dead!

:boohoo:

Cross Examiner

May 20, 2004, 12:53 PM

Q: What is the difference between Jesus and this thread?
A: When this thread dies, it doesn't stay dead!

:boohoo:
A comic and a scholar? Will wonders never cease? :p

Clutch

May 20, 2004, 02:57 PM

Please justify equating 'surface anomalies' with apples that are 'spotted', 'wrinkled', 'or have holes in them'.

Regards,
BGic

Each is a matter of the defeasible appearance of flaws.

Cross Examiner

May 21, 2004, 11:07 AM

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

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

May 23, 2004, 10:37 AM

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

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

RobertLW

May 26, 2004, 02:45 AM

Question:

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

Robert

Clutch

May 26, 2004, 02:41 PM

Question:

If you have read the book and determined there are surface anomolies, aren't you past the default position?

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

wiploc

May 27, 2004, 02:07 AM

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

Well said.

crc

RobertLW

May 27, 2004, 07:11 PM

blt to go

May 27, 2004, 08:32 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This does, however, clearly shift the burden of proof to the inerrist (th