> Last night there were a large number of posts and the largest
> proportion of them had nothing to do with biblical errancy. I would
> like to see things change.
MWF
Well, believe it or not, I'm actually trying to help.
Let me explain a bit of Dave's (and Walt's, when he [rarely]
joins) thinking, since I suspect I can articulate it a bit better than
Dave, or for that matter, Walt M.Th.(almost).
I'll start with an analogy. Consider an electrical or mechanical
device, a car, a computer, a radio, it doesn't matter.
Suppose it quits working.
Do you toss a fairly valuable/expensive object and just go get
another? Of course not, depending on your tools and skills versus money
and time, you either drag it out to your workbench (or whatever you've
got) or you take it to the appropriate repair shop.
Why?
Aside from the expense of a new one (which is irrelevant to the
illustration), what it happening is that you "presuppose" that the
device was following certain "rules" picked by a designer, and that if
it quit working there is a discoverable--and repairable--__reason_ it
quit working. Even though that reason may be difficult to find.
Dave, and others obviously, approach the bible with a similar
sort of mind set. They presuppose their Yahweh, and also presuppose that
the bible IS _his_ word to us. Since they are certain that Yahweh is
perfect, then obviously anything he makes is perfect. The bible being
something (they presuppose) is made by Yahweh, it is therefore perfect
and error free.
So, they assume, if you find what you _think_ is a problem, well
then it is a failure of understanding. Just as a backyard mechanic (or
electronics dabbler) may run into problems too complex for him to deal
with, they simply suppose that any problems with the bible are failures
of mere human understanding--or imperfect transmission after the ending
of Yahweh's direct intervention in human affairs.
Thus they will maintain that unless you find a FORMAL logical
contradiction, that you have failed to find any problem with Yahweh's
divine word. And a formal contradiction is defined as the opposite in
both quantity and quality of a proposition. I.e., the contradictory of
"All S is P" is, and is ONLY, "Some S is not-P".
Thus since conflicts in historical facts within the Bible or
between the Bible and other sources, or problems with ambiguity etc.
etc., aren't FORMAL contradictions, the slick presupper will maintain
that no one can ever show a biblical _contradiction_.
Thus by highlighting Dave's problems with equivocation, and
constantly snatching the epistemological rug out from under Walt Jr.
what I'm working on is clearing the metaphysical fog they try to throw
around their assertions.
It seems to be working as they are both getting rather testy of
late.
Ciao.
-- Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student* * * He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine