(The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

I wrote a longer article in response to this message by Matt, but I felt it
would be a good idea to boil it down to the essential, quality-not-quantity
and all that.  So if you're going to respond to anything in the two,
respond to the content of this one first.

On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 11:04:54AM -0000, Matthew Bell wrote:

> If the NT documents are trustworthy records then Mary, Joseph etc have

> historical verification.


I'm glad you agree with this statement.  Because, if you do, you implicitly
state that debating "Mary, Joseph etc" (a topic which would include the
virgin birth) can address biblical errancy.  Your statement is of the form
"if A then B", and thus the argument goes like this:
	1. If A then B
	2. Not B
	3. Therefore, Not A (1,2)
Now, if you (and everyone else who sets out to affirm B) fail to give a
convincing case for the truth of B, we ought to provisionally accept it as
false, and thus (provisionally) accept the conclusion.

So, you see, if the virgin birth goes unproven then we ought to deny both
it and the inerrancy of the bible.  So stop saying that this issue can't
disprove biblical inerrancy.

Jeff
-- 
\/ http://www.freshmeat.net/                     Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
It is your destiny.
- Darth Vader

• Previous message: (The long version) Re: Debate Format
• Next message: (The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]