POWELL:
We use our own methodology when we determine that something probably is the case.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
So you're saying that it's subjective?

POWELL:
Yes. On the other hand, it's objective to the extent that it agrees with the estimates of others. Objective and subjective are at opposite ends of a continuum.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
So the assertion that "Such and such is more probable" is effectively a meaningless statement, according to you.

POWELL:
No. It has great meaning to the individual since that's what they base their decisions upon, upon what they think probably is the case.

POWELL:
There is subjectivity involved since I might estimate X to be merely possible while you estimate it to be probable. What I'm arguing is that YOU need to argue that X is PROBABLE and provide evidence intended to support your position that X is PROBABLE. What I see too often is inerrantists merely claim X is possible and support the possibility claim and they figure that's sufficient, when it isn't.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
As you said, it's subjective. Personally, I would accuse skeptics of asserting often uninformed "possibilities" (i.e. "It's possible that such and such is a contradiction") and then stubbornly rejecting all attempts to reconcile the supposed error with additional information. In fact, I would say that any assertions of error based on a plain reading of the text are almost immediately suspect and the burden automatically falls on the skeptic to show that a plain reading is necessarily correct.

POWELL:
The word "necessarily" is ill advised. We're talking about probabilities here, not certainties.

The plain reading is probably correct because usually it is correct. For language to be effective, writers rely on readers assuming the plain reading unless the writer clarifies otherwise. If you think the plain reading is a mistaken interpretation in a particular case then you need to show support for that besides that it would make the author wrong. What you should look for is things like other comments by the writer that suggest he had a different meaning than the plain meaning.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
To put it another way, I doubt there are any skeptics who would accept a non-scientific "common sense" refutation of evolution or even take it seriously, yet they expect Christians to take with utmost seriousness similarly uninformed criticisms of the Bible. It's almost as if there's a double standard at play.

POWELL:
Both sides should avoid special pleading.

POWELL:
But, when a claim appears to be contradictory then one is justified in concluding contradiction. We don't have to prove that it's a contradiction, that there's no possible way they could be telling a consistent story.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
However, if it can be shown that "contradiction" is not the only possible explanation then one does themselves no disservice to reject that conclusion.

POWELL:
Not so. The mere possibility of agreement does not equate to the probability that they equate. See, you're doing what I've been criticizing, working from the view that mere possibility is a sufficient basis for rational belief.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Furthermore, if there is nothing beyond a plain reading of the text to suggest a contradiction and the contradiction can be reconciled with additional information then it is not unreasonable (one might be inclined to say that it is in fact necessary) to reject the charge of contradiction and accept the reconciliation as most likely true.

POWELL:
I concede there are cases where that works. What I'm pointing out is that the harmonizer needs to claim that PROBABLY there is no contradiction based on the additional information. To merely claim possibility isn't enough. To claim that it's not CERTAINLY a contradiction is similarly inappropriate.

POWELL:
Thank you for participating.

That's a respectable answer. What you have is an expert claiming something about which he is an expert, so provisionally you assume he's correct.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
You forgot the second half of the equation, so let me amend your summation: "What you have is an expert claiming something about which he is an expert and there exists no evidence to the contrary, so provisionally you assume he's correct."

The phrase in italics is rather critical to my position.

POWELL:
Well that's not clear since there's the matter of what you think "sacrifice" means. You can produce counter evidence on the spot if your meaning of "sacrifice" disagrees with that implied by Bellin.

POWELL:
Now, here's some more information offered by, let's say, "Chess John."

CHESS JOHN:
In chess there are pawn gambit openings, what people like Bellin would characterize as beginning moves in chess in which a pawn is sacrificed in order to obtain an advantage in another element of chess other than material, such as position. There are two continuations to those openings. There is "gambit accepted" and "gambit declined." You can look this up if you don't believe me. So, now my question is, how does a chess player decline a piece that his opponent sacrificed? Would that mean putting the sacrificed pawn back on the board? Putting a legally captured piece back on the board is contrary to the rules of chess. Probably, Bellin is wrong.

POWELL:
So, now what is your method to deal with this?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Assuming that "Chess John" is an expert of equal credibility and assuming I knew nothing about chess and wouldn't immediately recognize that "Chess John's" understanding of "gambit declined" is utter nonsense, I would have to do additional research to see which position the facts actually support (in this case, "gambit declined" simply means that the opposing player chooses not to capture the "offered" piece and makes a different move instead).

POWELL:
Let's assume Chess John has some understanding of chess and a lot of understanding of English, but is no chess master.

Excellent thinking. But how can you decline a sacrificed piece? If "gambit" really means "offer" rather than "sacrifice" then it would seem that Bellin's definition is wrong.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
More simply, nothing can be determined from a plain contradiction removed of all context (in a similar way that the two statements "a baby is born every 7 minutes" and "a pregnancy typically lasts for 9-months" might appear at first glance to be contradictory).

POWELL:
Conclusions can and are made on even less information.

POWELL:
To say "Bellin is an expert" could work when the information is sufficiently sketchy, but as enough evidence comes forward suggesting error, then "Bellin is an expert, so he's probably right" isn't enough.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Of course, my position was never "Bellin is an expert, so he's probably right." Rather, it was "Since Bellin is an expert and if there's no evidence to the contrary then he's probably right." Since "Chess John" provided what at first glance to the uninitiated might appear to be contradictory evidence, the assumption that Bellin is correct can no longer be granted and the evidence has to be dealt with one way or another.

POWELL:
Ooh --- ooh, I'm liking that. Keep that thought. Make sure it's really your position. Consider the implications if applied to the Bible.

John Powell

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
What do you think "sacrifice" means?

The original definitions would be something like a cultic act required for atonement or to otherwise satisfy the demands of a divine figure in which a tangible object is destroyed or a living creature is slain by the officiant.

Another definition, achieved by borrowing and semantic shift is that a sacrifice is any act in which one thing is given up to gain something else: i.e., a sacrifice fly in baseball.

POWELL:
Then what is the definition of "sacrifice" that is being borrowed by Bellin?

Either. The latter springs from the former.

POWELL:
Jack's estimate is based on his knowledge and where it lies on his data sheet. Where X lies on the data sheet of others is a separate matter.

Sure. That would be a more tidy distinction.

POWELL:
What's logically contradictory about determining rationality based on the abstract scenario provided?

It isn't necessarily logically contradictory; it's merely impossible to know with any high degree of probability. Not all logically sound concepts are probable.

POWELL:
It's possible to harmonize them both. Should we try to do that or should we proceed on the assumption that one or both is wrong, i.e. that they contradict and, if it matters to us, try to figure out what is most likely?

Barring an appeal to additional texts outside the sources you've cited, such a harmonization will not be convincing.

POWELL:
Ok. So who do you think is right, if either, (perhaps both) and why?

I'm not certain it matters, are you? I mean if you are arguing that the passages are not contradictory (perhaps as a qualification for inerrancy) all one needs to show is that they are irreconcilable, not which is correct, no?

Well, to be more analogous to the Biblical situation, so Chess John and Bellin could be analogs to two Gospel writers, I would need Chess John to have said something else, to not have directly challenged Bellin.

John Powell

If we were to negate appeals to other texts and authorities, it would be just as difficult to harmonize apparently conflicting texts.

fwiw
guaca.

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
The plain reading is probably correct because usually it is correct.

That's a rather large begged question, John.

For language to be effective, writers rely on readers assuming the plain reading unless the writer clarifies otherwise.

But "plain reading" according to whom? I really don't see how it's in any way proper to divorce something from its historical and social context and then claim error based on such a "plain reading", which is exactly what you're trying to do with the Bible.

Again, would you accept a similar "plain reading" refutation of evolution?

POWELL:
I concede there are cases where that works. What I'm pointing out is that the harmonizer needs to claim that PROBABLY there is no contradiction based on the additional information. To merely claim possibility isn't enough. To claim that it's not CERTAINLY a contradiction is similarly inappropriate.

What does it matter? You said yourself that it's all subjective, though I do find it a tad suspicious that you're attempting to characterize the contrary position as automatically "probable" while pushing as much of the burden of proof as you can onto the harmonizer.

How about this for a default position: It is probable that the Bible writers were truthful and accurate. Remember, according to the rules of legal evidence, the burden of proof falls on the objector.

POWELL:
Excellent thinking. But how can you decline a sacrificed piece? If "gambit" really means "offer" rather than "sacrifice" then it would seem that Bellin's definition is wrong.

Better question, is "sacrificed" a rigid term when applied in this manner? I note that according to Dictionary.com, one definition of "sacrifice" is "To make or offer a sacrifice" (emphasis mine). This would seem to imply that the offer of a sacrifice can be declined. Thus, according to the evidence, Bellin's definition is probably correct and "Chess John" can take a flying leap for all I care.

POWELL:
Conclusions can and are made on even less information.

Yes, but are they correct conclusions?

More to the point, if you have two apparently contradictory statements and no surrounding context, it's almost (and very well could be) impossible to reconcile them in any meaningful way. Fortunately, information usually doesn't exist in a vacuum.

POWELL:
Ooh --- ooh, I'm liking that. Keep that thought. Make sure it's really your position. Consider the implications if applied to the Bible.

You would do well to notice that I specifically said "the uninitiated". That may not be the strongest position to build your counterargument on.

Originally posted by John Powell

The plain reading is probably correct because usually it is correct. For language to be effective, writers rely on readers assuming the plain reading unless the writer clarifies otherwise.

This is not a safe assumption to make; c.f. Finnegan's Wake for a more fun example, or within religious disciplines; the genres of apocalypse and parable. Jesus directly indicates that there are times he speaks the way he does to conceal, rather than reveal, meaning.

In addition, it presumes that what is plainly meant by the speaker is still obvious to people separated by cultural boundaries. To bring it back to the most recent discussion; there is a high inductive probability that Jesus is intentionally using an example that is offensive to the Pharisees; the citation of a legal expert associated a famous example of justified law giving. I say the inductive probability is high because there are other examples of Jesus doing that in the Gospels when he interacts with the Pharisees and Saducees. Without additional information, it is impossible to grasp the nature of Jesus' interactions with these sects. The plain meaning is obscured by our lack of knowledge.

If you think the plain reading is a mistaken interpretation in a particular case then you need to show support for that besides that it would make the author wrong. What you should look for is things like other comments by the writer that suggest he had a different meaning than the plain meaning.

I find that unreasonably restrictive on the grounds that is not standard practice in any discipline. We use other writers and other texts to provide inteligibility all the time. It's virtually impossible not to do.

fwiw
guaca.

POWELL:
What do you think "sacrifice" means?

GUACAMOLE:
The original definitions would be something like a cultic act required for atonement or to otherwise satisfy the demands of a divine figure in which a tangible object is destroyed or a living creature is slain by the officiant.

POWELL:
Ok.

GUACAMOLE:
Another definition, achieved by borrowing and semantic shift is that a sacrifice is any act in which one thing is given up to gain something else: i.e., a sacrifice fly in baseball.

POWELL:
Fine.

Does Bellin's use of "sacrifice" work for "gambit"?

POWELL:
Then what is the definition of "sacrifice" that is being borrowed by Bellin?

GUACAMOLE:
Either. The latter springs from the former.

POWELL:
Ok, but then how does the opponent decline the sacrificed piece? By putting it back on the chess board?

POWELL:
Jack's estimate is based on his knowledge and where it lies on his data sheet. Where X lies on the data sheet of others is a separate matter.

GUACAMOLE:
Sure. That would be a more tidy distinction.

POWELL:
What's logically contradictory about determining rationality based on the abstract scenario provided?

GUACAMOLE:
It isn't necessarily logically contradictory; it's merely impossible to know with any high degree of probability. Not all logically sound concepts are probable.

POWELL:
How is it logically contradictory (i.e. logically impossible) to know such a thing with any degree of probability?

POWELL:
It's possible to harmonize them both. Should we try to do that or should we proceed on the assumption that one or both is wrong, i.e. that they contradict and, if it matters to us, try to figure out what is most likely?

GUACAMOLE:
Barring an appeal to additional texts outside the sources you've cited, such a harmonization will not be convincing.

POWELL:
Do inerrantists feel the need to refer to texts outside the Bible to establish an acceptable harmonization?

POWELL:
Ok. So who do you think is right, if either, (perhaps both) and why?

GUACAMOLE:
I'm not certain it matters, are you?

POWELL:
Well, if you're a stickler for details then it matters. Inerrantists care that the Bible makes no error.

GUACAMOLE:
I mean if you are arguing that the passages are not contradictory (perhaps as a qualification for inerrancy) all one needs to show is that they are irreconcilable, not which is correct, no?

POWELL:
I don't understand.

POWELL:
Well, to be more analogous to the Biblical situation, so Chess John and Bellin could be analogs to two Gospel writers, I would need Chess John to have said something else, to not have directly challenged Bellin.

GUACAMOLE:
If we were to negate appeals to other texts and authorities, it would be just as difficult to harmonize apparently conflicting texts.

fwiw
guaca.

POWELL:
Or one could say optimistically, just as easy.

POWELL (to Mountain Man):
The plain reading is probably correct because usually it is correct. For language to be effective, writers rely on readers assuming the plain reading unless the writer clarifies otherwise.

GUACAMOLE:
This is not a safe assumption to make; c.f. Finnegan's Wake for a more fun example, or within religious disciplines; the genres of apocalypse and parable. Jesus directly indicates that there are times he speaks the way he does to conceal, rather than reveal, meaning.

POWELL:
Was Mark 2 of the genre that tends to deviate from the plain meaning?

Of course, a writer is permitted to deviate from the plain meaning. Poets are given extra lee way. However, if the narrator of historical events does not intend his readers to assume the plain meaning of his words then he has an obligation to clarify things or risk being misunderstood.

GUACAMOLE:
In addition, it presumes that what is plainly meant by the speaker is still obvious to people separated by cultural boundaries. To bring it back to the most recent discussion; there is a high inductive probability that Jesus is intentionally using an example that is offensive to the Pharisees; the citation of a legal expert associated a famous example of justified law giving.

POWELL:
That it was the great David allowing his men to eat the forbidden bread to satisfy their desperate hunger adequately satisfied that need. There was no need to invoke some priestly expert of the law. Notice that Matthew and Luke made no mention of the priest.

GUACAMOLE:
I say the inductive probability is high because there are other examples of Jesus doing that in the Gospels when he interacts with the Pharisees and Saducees. Without additional information, it is impossible to grasp the nature of Jesus' interactions with these sects. The plain meaning is obscured by our lack of knowledge.

POWELL:
That kind of thing has potential to work to establish the motivation of Jesus in the case of mentioning Abiathar. Claiming it, however, isn't enough. It would need to be shown.

POWELL:
If you think the plain reading is a mistaken interpretation in a particular case then you need to show support for that besides that it would make the author wrong. What you should look for is things like other comments by the writer that suggest he had a different meaning than the plain meaning.

GUACAMOLE:
I find that unreasonably restrictive on the grounds that is not standard practice in any discipline. We use other writers and other texts to provide inteligibility all the time. It's virtually impossible not to do.

fwiw
guaca.

POWELL:
To consider the writings by others is fine within limits. However, the reader should allow a writer to tell his own story and to make his own mistakes, not alter the writer's meaning so that the story harmonizes with that of other writers.

If Matthew wants his readers to understand that the holy family lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and then moved to Nazareth, then let the man tell his story. If Luke wants his readers to understand that the holy family lived in Nazareth, temporarily visited Bethlehem due to a census, then returned to their home in Nazareth without going to far away places like Egypt, Babylon, or the Americas then let the man tell his story. Don't insist that Luke's holy family did what Matthew's holy family did. Maybe they weren't the same family, but were distinct creations by the two writers.

John Powell

POWELL:
The plain reading is probably correct because usually it is correct.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
That's a rather large begged question, John.

POWELL:
Then please claim and support the contrary: that it's NOT usually the case that the plain reading is the one the author intended so assuming as much is probably incorrect.

Perhaps the begged question you're thinking of is one that I'm not making, namely "The plain reading is CERTAINLY / NECESSARILY correct."

POWELL:
For language to be effective, writers rely on readers assuming the plain reading unless the writer clarifies otherwise.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
But "plain reading" according to whom?

POWELL:
To the readers.

MM, you've been writing stuff in this post. How are your readers supposed to understand it if not based on the plain reading? Should we, instead, assume you have some unusual meaning intended even when you give no indication you mean something unusual?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
I really don't see how it's in any way proper to divorce something from its historical and social context and then claim error based on such a "plain reading", which is exactly what you're trying to do with the Bible.

POWELL:
It is appropriate to consider the context, but one must be careful not to mis-emphasize such things (either over emphasize the cultural differences or under emphasize them).

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Again, would you accept a similar "plain reading" refutation of evolution?

POWELL:
I don't know. Since I'm invoking this chess gambit idea, you should be permitted to pursue your evolution example. Present your case and I'll tell you what I think.

POWELL:
I concede there are cases where that works. What I'm pointing out is that the harmonizer needs to claim that PROBABLY there is no contradiction based on the additional information. To merely claim possibility isn't enough. To claim that it's not CERTAINLY a contradiction is similarly inappropriate.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
What does it matter? You said yourself that it's all subjective, though I do find it a tad suspicious that you're attempting to characterize the contrary position as automatically "probable" while pushing as much of the burden of proof as you can onto the harmonizer.

POWELL:
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Perfection is not required to be useful. There is a level of subjectivity, but that does not prevent rational people from making reliable decisions.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
How about this for a default position: It is probable that the Bible writers were truthful and accurate. Remember, according to the rules of legal evidence, the burden of proof falls on the objector.

POWELL:
It is more probable they made some errors. Humans make errors. If someone is going to claim something extraordinary like infallibility, then the burden is on them.

For any particular ordinary claim in the Bible then it's ok to initially assume the writer is truthful and accurate. It's when other information suggests error that the situation changes. If Mark's Jesus had said "epi Ahimelech the priest" then I would not be promoting that part as an internal error since it seems to correspond with what the O.T. said. I might still challenge the historicity of David's exploits.

POWELL:
Excellent thinking. But how can you decline a sacrificed piece? If "gambit" really means "offer" rather than "sacrifice" then it would seem that Bellin's definition is wrong.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Better question, is "sacrificed" a rigid term when applied in this manner?

POWELL:
Ah, the inerrantist is coming out. Perhaps not. Perhaps in chess-talk "sacrifice" means something unique just like "knight" means something unique.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
I note that according to Dictionary.com, one definition of "sacrifice" is "To make or offer a sacrifice" (emphasis mine).

POWELL:
So, what are you suggesting, that a chess gambit is a verb rather than a noun?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
This would seem to imply that the offer of a sacrifice can be declined.

POWELL:
Yes, offers can be declined, but how does a chess player decline a sacrifice? Does he put the sacrificed piece back on the board?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Thus, according to the evidence, Bellin's definition is probably correct and "Chess John" can take a flying leap for all I care.

POWELL:
But, MM, you're speaking of an "offering" being declined, not a "sacrifice" being declined, so it appears that Bellin's definition is incorrect, yes?

POWELL:
Conclusions can and are made on even less information.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Yes, but are they correct conclusions?

POWELL:
Not necessarily.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
More to the point, if you have two apparently contradictory statements and no surrounding context, it's almost (and very well could be) impossible to reconcile them in any meaningful way. Fortunately, information usually doesn't exist in a vacuum.

POWELL:
Huh?

Give me two apparently contradictory statements without any context and watch me reconcile them.

POWELL:
Ooh --- ooh, I'm liking that. Keep that thought. Make sure it's really your position. Consider the implications if applied to the Bible.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
You would do well to notice that I specifically said "the uninitiated". That may not be the strongest position to build your counterargument on.

POWELL:
Well, "initiate" makes me think of "religious zealot."

Out of appreciation for you playing along with these thought games I come up with (you don't have to), please accept 5 pearls.

You too, Guacamole.

John Powell

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
Then please claim and support the contrary: that it's NOT usually the case that the plain reading is the one the author intended so assuming as much is probably incorrect.

There's no "usually" about it, John, that's the problem. You must always take context into account.

MM, you've been writing stuff in this post. How are your readers supposed to understand it if not based on the plain reading? Should we, instead, assume you have some unusual meaning intended even when you give no indication you mean something unusual?

Better question, how should somebody 2000 years from now who might be unfamiliar with our language, culture, and the understood meanings of certain concepts discern the meaning of what I've written?

POWELL:
It is appropriate to consider the context, but one must be careful not to mis-emphasize such things (either over emphasize the cultural differences or under emphasize them).

The ultimate goal is to understand ancient writings the way contemporary readers would have understood them.

POWELL:
It is more probable they made some errors. Humans make errors. If someone is going to claim something extraordinary like infallibility, then the burden is on them.

I'm not going to get drug into another "extraordinary claims" debate. I'll also note that I've not once appealed to the infallibility of scripture. I might assume it for my own purposes, but it's never a point I would use in debate.

It's when other information suggests error that the situation changes. If Mark's Jesus had said "epi Ahimelech the priest" then I would not be promoting that part as an internal error since it seems to correspond with what the O.T. said. I might still challenge the historicity of David's exploits.

And what if this appearance of error is based only on a present day reader's uninformed reading? Should it be assumed that a modern decontextualized plain reading is "probably correct", or is it more reasonable to to think that a contemporary reader may have understood the passage differently and to call it an error only if such a reader would have called it an error?

POWELL:
So, what are you suggesting, that a chess gambit is a verb rather than a noun?

In the stated definition of "gambit", "sacrifice" is clearly a verb, but if you want to insist on a noun then that doesn't change anything as Dictionary.com also lists one definition of sacrifice(n) as "the person, animal, or thing so offered."

POWELL:
Yes, offers can be declined, but how does a chess player decline a sacrifice? Does he put the sacrificed piece back on the board?

Rather, he declines the offer of sacrifice by not taking the piece.

POWELL:
But, MM, you're speaking of an "offering" being declined, not a "sacrifice" being declined, so it appears that Bellin's definition is incorrect, yes?

The concepts would appear to be interchangeable.

POWELL:
Give me two apparently contradictory statements without any context and watch me reconcile them.

I'm sure you could, in a manner of speaking. But note that I said they cannot be reconciled in any meaningful way. In other words, without appealing to context, you will have no way of knowing if the reconciliation is correct.

But if you want to tackle the problem, take the two statements I made earlier:

1) A baby is born every 7 minutes.
2) A typical pregnancy lasts 9 months.

Remember, you can't appeal to any context and as per your rules, you must establish that the reconciliation is probably correct.

POWELL:
Well, "initiate" makes me think of "religious zealot."

Actually, the word was "uninitiated" which means "An uninformed, unskilled, or inexperienced person or group of people."

POWELL:
Then please claim and support the contrary: that it's NOT usually the case that the plain reading is the one the author intended so assuming as much is probably incorrect.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
There's no "usually" about it, John, that's the problem. You must always take context into account.

POWELL:
The plain reading assumes the usual context.

POWELL:
MM, you've been writing stuff in this post. How are your readers supposed to understand it if not based on the plain reading? Should we, instead, assume you have some unusual meaning intended even when you give no indication you mean something unusual?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Better question, how should somebody 2000 years from now who might be unfamiliar with our language, culture, and the understood meanings of certain concepts discern the meaning of what I've written?

POWELL:
By doing things like assuming you mean the same kinds of things that other posters at TWEB usually mean.

POWELL:
It is appropriate to consider the context, but one must be careful not to mis-emphasize such things (either over emphasize the cultural differences or under emphasize them).

MOUNTAIN MAN:
The ultimate goal is to understand ancient writings the way contemporary readers would have understood them.

POWELL:
That's one good goal. Given that biologically we're so similar, it wouldn't seem to be an unreachable goal at least to a significant extent.

POWELL:
It is more probable they made some errors. Humans make errors. If someone is going to claim something extraordinary like infallibility, then the burden is on them.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
I'm not going to get drug into another "extraordinary claims" debate. I'll also note that I've not once appealed to the infallibility of scripture. I might assume it for my own purposes, but it's never a point I would use in debate.

POWELL:
Oh, then what did you mean by "It is probable that the Bible writers were truthful and accurate"? By that did you mean that MOST of the time what they said was true and accurate or ALL of the time or what?

If you mean MOST of the time rather than ALL of the time they told the truth then you are immediately conceding the likelihood of error in at least one case.

POWELL:
It's when other information suggests error that the situation changes. If Mark's Jesus had said "epi Ahimelech the priest" then I would not be promoting that part as an internal error since it seems to correspond with what the O.T. said. I might still challenge the historicity of David's exploits.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
And what if this appearance of error is based only on a present day reader's uninformed reading? Should it be assumed that a modern decontextualized plain reading is "probably correct", or is it more reasonable to to think that a contemporary reader may have understood the passage differently and to call it an error only if such a reader would have called it an error?

POWELL:
It's POSSIBLE they saw it differently, but you need to show that PROBABLY they saw it differently in such a way that they wouldn't see it as an error. To merely show that POSSIBLY they saw it in that particular way so that you can preserve inerrancy is misguided.

POWELL:
So, what are you suggesting, that a chess gambit is a verb rather than a noun?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
In the stated definition of "gambit", "sacrifice" is clearly a verb,

POWELL:
In Bellin's definition, it's a verb? How so? Here it is again:

BELLIN:
A sacrifice of material in the opening, usually a pawn, in order to obtain an advantage in another element, for example in time (manifested as a lead in development).

POWELL:
The word "sacrifice" there looks like a verb to you?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
. . . but if you want to insist on a noun then that doesn't change anything as Dictionary.com also lists one definition of sacrifice(n) as "the person, animal, or thing so offered."

POWELL:
Yes. It's a reasonable possibility for the god to decline the sacrifice, to refuse to take what has been sacrificed to him.

Let's suppose I'm an ancient Egyptian. I hook my prize ox to a cart and ride to the pharoah's palace. I unhook the ox and sacrifice it to my god. My god, Pharoah, looks at the sacrifice with disapproval and rejects it. Can I then hook the sacrificed ox back up to the cart and it will pull me home?

However, we're talking about chess. So, how does a chess player decline a sacrificed piece? By looking with disapproval at it and leaving it "dead" on the chess board?

POWELL:
Yes, offers can be declined, but how does a chess player decline a sacrifice? Does he put the sacrificed piece back on the board?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Rather, he declines the offer of sacrifice by not taking the piece.

POWELL:
Then he declines the offered piece. That's not the same as declining the sacrificed piece, or is it?

POWELL:
But, MM, you're speaking of an "offering" being declined, not a "sacrifice" being declined, so it appears that Bellin's definition is incorrect, yes?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
The concepts would appear to be interchangeable.

POWELL:
Oh really? Then is it correct to say "Abraham sacrificed Isaac."?

POWELL:
Give me two apparently contradictory statements without any context and watch me reconcile them.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
I'm sure you could, in a manner of speaking. But note that I said they cannot be reconciled in any meaningful way. In other words, without appealing to context, you will have no way of knowing if the reconciliation is correct.

POWELL:
Who cares if it's probably correct? (Answer: rational people should) But, the point is I'm claiming inerrantists tend to argue it's merely POSSIBLY correct.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
But if you want to tackle the problem, take the two statements I made earlier:

1) A baby is born every 7 minutes.
2) A typical pregnancy lasts 9 months.

Remember, you can't appeal to any context and as per your rules, you must establish that the reconciliation is probably correct.

POWELL:
That's the point of this thread what I underlined (with "should" replacing "must")! Perhaps you see it.

If I only have to show the reconciliation is POSSIBLY correct then it's a snap. I can pull out any what-might-have-been-scenario and I'm done. On the other hand, if I need to show that PROBABLY the reconciliation is correct then that's a lot harder, mere possibility won't suffice even if reasonably possible. I need to determine what PROBABLY is the case. But, that's precisely what I should do if I am to justify believing the harmonization is correct, rather than merely possibly correct.

POWELL:
Well, "initiate" makes me think of "religious zealot."

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Actually, the word was "uninitiated" which means "An uninformed, unskilled, or inexperienced person or group of people."

POWELL:
I understand. But what I think of in this context is a person who doesn't have the "spirit" or the "gift of God." That's why they don't see how all the apparent errors melt away by "succumbing the will to God" and "basking in the love of God".

John Powell

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
The plain reading assumes the usual context.

What is the "usual context"?

POWELL:
By doing things like assuming you mean the same kinds of things that other posters at TWEB usually mean.

If our hypothetical historian from 2000 years in the future is unfamiliar with our language and culture then what would be the best way for him to determine what anybody means? Saying that he should assume that we all mean the same thing doesn't really answer the question.

POWELL:
That's one good goal. Given that biologically we're so similar, it wouldn't seem to be an unreachable goal at least to a significant extent.

What relevance does biology have to this discussion?

POWELL:
Oh, then what did you mean by "It is probable that the Bible writers were truthful and accurate"? By that did you mean that MOST of the time what they said was true and accurate or ALL of the time or what?

If you mean MOST of the time rather than ALL of the time they told the truth then you are immediately conceding the likelihood of error in at least one case.

According to the rules of legal evidence, it is reasonable to accept their writings as truthful and accurate unless shown otherwise, the burden of proof falling on the objector.

POWELL:
It's POSSIBLE they saw it differently, but you need to show that PROBABLY they saw it differently in such a way that they wouldn't see it as an error. To merely show that POSSIBLY they saw it in that particular way so that you can preserve inerrancy is misguided.

Since we have no record of anybody trying to correct this supposed error (and wouldn't an early critic of Christianity have jumped at the chance to show that Jesus' knowledge of Jewish tradition was lacking?), it is reasonable to conclude that contemporary readers didn't perceive it as one. The burden falls on you to show otherwise since we have nothing beyond your "plain reading" suggesting so.

POWELL:
In Bellin's definition, it's a verb? How so? Here it is again:

A sacrifice of material in the opening, usually a pawn, in order to obtain an advantage in another element, for example in time (manifested as a lead in development).

POWELL:
The word "sacrifice" there looks like a verb to you?

Eh, O.K., so it's a noun (I was going by memory instead of rereading the definition from your opening post). But like I said, that really doesn't change anything.

POWELL:
Yes. It's a reasonable possibility for the god to decline the sacrifice, to refuse to take what has been sacrificed to him.

Let's suppose I'm an ancient Egyptian. I hook my prize ox to a cart and ride to the pharoah's palace. I unhook the ox and sacrifice it to my god. My god, Pharoah, looks at the sacrifice with disapproval and rejects it. Can I then hook the sacrificed ox back up to the cart and it will pull me home?

However, we're talking about chess. So, how does a chess player decline a sacrificed piece? By looking with disapproval at it and leaving it "dead" on the chess board?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Practically speaking, he would reject the sacrificed piece by choosing not to capture it and making a different move instead.

Now your ox example is not as far fetched as it might seem when applied to chess. Your hypothetical Egyptian gave up something but received no gain (i.e. the sacrifice was rejected). In chess, a player sacrifices perhaps a better move in favor of one that he hopes will ultimately leave him in a stronger position. However, if the opposing player rejects the sacrificed piece, it can leave his opponent in a weaker position (see Queen's Gambit Declined). So in a sense, the player's piece was still sacrificed even if he didn't get the expected return.

POWELL:
Then is it correct to say "Abraham sacrificed Isaac."?

Rather, we can say he was prepared to sacrifice Isaac, but no, he never actually did.

POWELL:
Who cares if it's probably correct? (Answer: rational people should) But, the point is I'm claiming inerrantists tend to argue it's merely POSSIBLY correct.

I know what you're arguing. It's just that you're probably wrong.

POWELL:
If I only have to show the reconciliation is POSSIBLY correct then it's a snap. I can pull out any what-might-have-been-scenario and I'm done. On the other hand, if I need to show that PROBABLY the reconciliation is correct then that's a lot harder, mere possibility won't suffice even if reasonably possible. I need to determine what PROBABLY is the case. But, that's precisely what I should do if I am to justify believing the harmonization is correct, rather than merely possibly correct.

If there is no way to provide surrounding context then you're absolutely correct. But like I said, information, including that found in the Bible, does not usually exist in a vacuum, so the argument doesn't hold.

POWELL:
I understand. But what I think of in this context is a person who doesn't have the "spirit" or the "gift of God." That's why they don't see how all the apparent errors melt away by "succumbing the will to God" and "basking in the love of God".

And this is what you think the inerrantist does, is it?

POWELL:
The plain reading assumes the usual context.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
What is the "usual context"?

POWELL:
The context that is usual, ordinary. The context that is not unusual, special, odd.

If you were to pull out a random page of text from Renaissance Europe with the word "king" then you should expect it's talking about some male royal person. That's based on the usual meaning of the word based on the usual context for that time period and location. If the word referred to the chess piece then the writer should have clarified that he was talking about something less common, namely chess.

POWELL:
By doing things like assuming you mean the same kinds of things that other posters at TWEB usually mean.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
If our hypothetical historian from 2000 years in the future is unfamiliar with our language and culture then what would be the best way for him to determine what anybody means?

POWELL:
By using a corollary to Occam's Razor. By initially assuming they mean what he would mean if he were in their shoes saying it and then proceed from there. To the extent that doesn't work then he should introduce contextual differences and allow for novel meanings.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Saying that he should assume that we all mean the same thing doesn't really answer the question.

POWELL:
You should try to explain new phenomena based on what you already understand, not introduce superfluous things. To the extent that works then continue. To the extent it doesn't work then consider adding a new thing.

POWELL:
That's one good goal. Given that biologically we're so similar, it wouldn't seem to be an unreachable goal at least to a significant extent.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
What relevance does biology have to this discussion?

POWELL:
It has relevance to understanding what ancient people likely meant when they communicated with each other. For example, we can be confident that they had concerns for their lives and for their families since we have those basic biological concerns. So when they used words like "my wife" we can expect they meant their social sex partner. On the other hand, we would not expect that they were concerned about nuclear weapons in Iraq.

In fact, that's how we would create a language dictionary of a new language, by trying to match the word to the thing, such as wife. If we find the relationship in that culture is sufficiently different from what we're familiar with then we might create a new word to capture the special meaning of their culture.

POWELL:
Oh, then what did you mean by "It is probable that the Bible writers were truthful and accurate"? By that did you mean that MOST of the time what they said was true and accurate or ALL of the time or what?

If you mean MOST of the time rather than ALL of the time they told the truth then you are immediately conceding the likelihood of error in at least one case.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
According to the rules of legal evidence, it is reasonable to accept their writings as truthful and accurate unless shown otherwise, the burden of proof falling on the objector.

POWELL:
According to standard legal practice, it is reasonable to assume that humans sometimes lie or are mistaken and so cross examination is a viable means to test their testimony. If the courts thought witnesses never lie or are mistaken then why cross examine?

Is it reasonable to assume that the Biblical writers sometimes lied or were mistaken? Well?

I agree that for any particular ordinary Biblical claim, the burden is on the critic to show that the particular passage is in error. However, the burden is on the inerrantist to show that the Bible should be considered inerrant.

POWELL:
It's POSSIBLE they saw it differently, but you need to show that PROBABLY they saw it differently in such a way that they wouldn't see it as an error. To merely show that POSSIBLY they saw it in that particular way so that you can preserve inerrancy is misguided.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Since we have no record of anybody trying to correct this supposed error (and wouldn't an early critic of Christianity have jumped at the chance to show that Jesus' knowledge of Jewish tradition was lacking?), it is reasonable to conclude that contemporary readers didn't perceive it as one.

POWELL:
On the contrary, we do have evidence in the Bible itself. We have Matthew and Luke omitting any mention of the priest.

Don't forget that when the Christians came into power they systematically destroyed anti-Christian literature. I believe the Talmud survived partly because the Jews were careful about what they retained.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
The burden falls on you to show otherwise since we have nothing beyond your "plain reading" suggesting so.

POWELL:
The burden falls on me to support the claim that a particular passage is probably in error. The burden falls on the inerrantist to support the claim that there aren't any errors in the Bible.

POWELL:
In Bellin's definition, it's a verb? How so? Here it is again:

A sacrifice of material in the opening, usually a pawn, in order to obtain an advantage in another element, for example in time (manifested as a lead in development).

POWELL:
The word "sacrifice" there looks like a verb to you?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Eh, O.K., so it's a noun (I was going by memory instead of rereading the definition from your opening post). But like I said, that really doesn't change anything.

POWELL:
Well, verbs and nouns are quite different, so what do you mean?

POWELL:
Yes. It's a reasonable possibility for the god to decline the sacrifice, to refuse to take what has been sacrificed to him.

Let's suppose I'm an ancient Egyptian. I hook my prize ox to a cart and ride to the pharoah's palace. I unhook the ox and sacrifice it to my god. My god, Pharoah, looks at the sacrifice with disapproval and rejects it. Can I then hook the sacrificed ox back up to the cart and it will pull me home?

However, we're talking about chess. So, how does a chess player decline a sacrificed piece? By looking with disapproval at it and leaving it "dead" on the chess board?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
In a manner of speaking, yes. Practically speaking, he would reject the sacrificed piece by choosing not to capture it and making a different move instead.

POWELL:
So, the piece wasn't sacrificed after all, but it was only offered to be sacrificed, yes?

The one playing the gambit gets to keep using the piece if the gambit wasn't accepted, yes?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Now your ox example is not as far fetched as it might seem when applied to chess. Your hypothetical Egyptian gave up something but received no gain (i.e. the sacrifice was rejected). In chess, a player sacrifices perhaps a better move in favor of one that he hopes will ultimately leave him in a stronger position.

POWELL:
You're not being as analogous as you should be. The Egyptian sacrificed his ox in HOPES of gaining something else in return, the favor of his god. That the Egyptian did not gain his hope does not imply he didn't sacrifice his ox. Similarly, the chess player played the gambit in HOPES of gaining something else in return. That the player did not lose the material nor gain in position or whatever does not imply he didn't play the gambit.

The player plays the gambit when he OFFERS the unprotected piece. He SACRIFICES the piece when the gambit is accepted. Or no?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
However, if the opposing player rejects the sacrificed piece, it can leave his opponent in a weaker position (see Queen's Gambit Declined). So in a sense, the player's piece was still sacrificed even if he didn't get the expected return.

POWELL:
Then he would be sacrificing the PREVIOUS POSITION, but he would not be sacrificing the MATERIAL which is the pawn. Or no?

Are you going to suggest that any chess move that weakens your position is a gambit because you sacrifice the superior position you held?

Look at Bellin's definition again.

BELLIN:
A sacrifice of material in the opening, usually a pawn, in order to obtain an advantage in another element, for example in time (manifested as a lead in development).

POWELL:
Well?

POWELL:
Then is it correct to say "Abraham sacrificed Isaac."?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Rather, we can say he was prepared to sacrifice Isaac, but no, he never actually did.

POWELL:
But didn't Abraham offer to do so, but God declined the offer? If Abraham had sacrificed Isaac and God had rejected the sacrifice then would Abraham still have use of Isaac as a living son?

POWELL:
Who cares if it's probably correct? (Answer: rational people should) But, the point is I'm claiming inerrantists tend to argue it's merely POSSIBLY correct.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
I know what you're arguing. It's just that you're probably wrong.

POWELL:
Excellent! That's the spirit. Of course, merely affirming it isn't enough on controversial matters we debate. You need to support your affirmation.

POWELL:
If I only have to show the reconciliation is POSSIBLY correct then it's a snap. I can pull out any what-might-have-been-scenario and I'm done. On the other hand, if I need to show that PROBABLY the reconciliation is correct then that's a lot harder, mere possibility won't suffice even if reasonably possible. I need to determine what PROBABLY is the case. But, that's precisely what I should do if I am to justify believing the harmonization is correct, rather than merely possibly correct.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
If there is no way to provide surrounding context then you're absolutely correct. But like I said, information, including that found in the Bible, does not usually exist in a vacuum, so the argument doesn't hold.

POWELL:
The argument holds fine. The determination of probability requires the assumption of context. If one isn't provided then the reader should supply what he considers to be the most likely one.

POWELL:
I understand. But what I think of in this context is a person who doesn't have the "spirit" or the "gift of God." That's why they don't see how all the apparent errors melt away by "succumbing the will to God" and "basking in the love of God".

MOUNTAIN MAN:
And this is what you think the inerrantist does, is it?

POWELL:
IMO, too many of them do something like that.

John Powell

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
The context that is usual, ordinary. The context that is not unusual, special, odd.

If you were to pull out a random page of text from Renaissance Europe with the word "king" then you should expect it's talking about some male royal person. That's based on the usual meaning of the word based on the usual context for that time period and location. If the word referred to the chess piece then the writer should have clarified that he was talking about something less common, namely chess.

Wouldn't the context be important in determining what he was talking about?

POWELL:
By using a corollary to Occam's Razor. By initially assuming they mean what he would mean if he were in their shoes saying it and then proceed from there.

When you say "in their shoes", do you mean that he should strive as much as possible to understand the historical and cultural mindset of the person who wrote the text? If so, I agree, but I have a feeling that's not what you mean. Let me give you an example. Suppose you were reading a book written by an Englishman in which the following phrases appeared:

"Get your skates on, mate! We're late as it is!"
"What a bloody mess this is."
"Oh, that's naff. That's completely naff!"

If you knew nothing about the dialect of the UK, would it be correct to assume that the phrase "get your skates on" and the word "bloody" meant the same thing to the writer as they would mean to you here in America and that the word "naff" was probably a typo since it's apparently nonsense? More to the point, does a "plain reading" lead you to the correct conclusions?

The answer is, of course, no. The phrase "get your skates on" means that one should hurry, "bloody" is simply an intensifier, and "naff" signifies disapproval.

Now if a "plain reading" of a modern language very similar to your own but from a different culture can be so inaccurate then what makes you think that a "plain reading" of texts written in a language and culture wholly removed from your own is proper?

POWELL:
It has relevance to understanding what ancient people likely meant when they communicated with each other. For example, we can be confident that they had concerns for their lives and for their families since we have those basic biological concerns. So when they used words like "my wife" we can expect they meant their social sex partner. On the other hand, we would not expect that they were concerned about nuclear weapons in Iraq.

In fact, that's how we would create a language dictionary of a new language, by trying to match the word to the thing, such as wife. If we find the relationship in that culture is sufficiently different from what we're familiar with then we might create a new word to capture the special meaning of their culture.

There are some concepts that might be directly cross cultural (such as marital unions), but others not so much (such as the British idioms I noted above).

POWELL:
According to standard legal practice, it is reasonable to assume that humans sometimes lie or are mistaken and so cross examination is a viable means to test their testimony. If the courts thought witnesses never lie or are mistaken then why cross examine?

Because the courts don't assume witnesses never lie or are mistaken. They simply assume that they are not lying or mistaken until it is shown otherwise.

Is it reasonable to assume that the Biblical writers sometimes lied or were mistaken? Well?

It's possible, but it is reasonable to assume they weren't until it is shown otherwise.

POWELL:
On the contrary, we do have evidence in the Bible itself. We have Matthew and Luke omitting any mention of the priest.

What evidence do you have this was intended as a correction?

Don't forget that when the Christians came into power they systematically destroyed anti-Christian literature. I believe the Talmud survived partly because the Jews were careful about what they retained.

What evidence do you have to support these assertions?

POWELL:
The burden falls on me to support the claim that a particular passage is probably in error. The burden falls on the inerrantist to support the claim that there aren't any errors in the Bible.

Ultimately, yes, but I'm content to show that the common arguments against the claim of inerrancy are wrong.

POWELL:
Well, verbs and nouns are quite different, so what do you mean?

POWELL:
So, the piece wasn't sacrificed after all, but it was only offered to be sacrificed, yes?

The one playing the gambit gets to keep using the piece if the gambit wasn't accepted, yes?

POWELL:
You're not being as analogous as you should be. The Egyptian sacrificed his ox in HOPES of gaining something else in return, the favor of his god. That the Egyptian did not gain his hope does not imply he didn't sacrifice his ox. Similarly, the chess player played the gambit in HOPES of gaining something else in return. That the player did not lose the material nor gain in position or whatever does not imply he didn't play the gambit.

The player plays the gambit when he OFFERS the unprotected piece. He SACRIFICES the piece when the gambit is accepted. Or no?

POWELL:
Then he would be sacrificing the PREVIOUS POSITION, but he would not be sacrificing the MATERIAL which is the pawn. Or no?

Are you going to suggest that any chess move that weakens your position is a gambit because you sacrifice the superior position you held?

Look at Bellin's definition again.

You've made your point. If we have two conflicting texts of equal authority and no surrounding context then it can't be automatically assumed that one or the other is correct.

POWELL:
But didn't Abraham offer to do so, but God declined the offer? If Abraham had sacrificed Isaac and God had rejected the sacrifice then would Abraham still have use of Isaac as a living son?

God's purpose was to test Abraham's faith, so whether Isaac was actually sacrificed or not was irrelevant. All God wanted to know was that Abraham was willing to give all to his Creator without question.

POWELL:
The argument holds fine. The determination of probability requires the assumption of context. If one isn't provided then the reader should supply what he considers to be the most likely one.

You mean if the author doesn't provide context? What nonsense! In my examples above, should the British author have included footnotes to alert readers that, for example, the phrase "get your skates on" is an idiom and shouldn't be taken literally? If his intended audience was in the UK then would such footnotes even be considered necessary? Of course not.

More simply, context exists whether it is explicitly "provided" or not. To deny that there is a specific cultural and historical context surrounding the Bible is absurd.

POWELL:
The context that is usual, ordinary. The context that is not unusual, special, odd.

If you were to pull out a random page of text from Renaissance Europe with the word "king" then you should expect it's talking about some male royal person. That's based on the usual meaning of the word based on the usual context for that time period and location. If the word referred to the chess piece then the writer should have clarified that he was talking about something less common, namely chess.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Wouldn't the context be important in determining what he was talking about?

POWELL:
Yes. So, you assume the usual context unless there's reason to apply some other context.

If the European Renaissance writer doesn't indicate he's talking about chess or something else implying a special context, then you should assume the "king" he's talking about is a male monarch. That's how language can be effective at communicating ideas. The writer can rely on the reader assuming the usual meaning of words. If the writer has a special meaning in mind then the writer should add language indicating the unusual context.

POWELL:
By using a corollary to Occam's Razor. By initially assuming they mean what he would mean if he were in their shoes saying it and then proceed from there.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
When you say "in their shoes", do you mean that he should strive as much as possible to understand the historical and cultural mindset of the person who wrote the text?

POWELL:
It's a stepwise process. You try a little bit and if that works then you stop. If it doesn't work then you try a little bit more. You don't add superfluous things. It's not required that you have total knowledge of the context before you are allowed to claim some understanding of what the ancient person was saying.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
If so, I agree, but I have a feeling that's not what you mean. Let me give you an example. Suppose you were reading a book written by an Englishman in which the following phrases appeared:

"Get your skates on, mate! We're late as it is!"
"What a bloody mess this is."
"Oh, that's naff. That's completely naff!"

If you knew nothing about the dialect of the UK, would it be correct to assume that the phrase "get your skates on" and the word "bloody" meant the same thing to the writer as they would mean to you here in America and that the word "naff" was probably a typo since it's apparently nonsense? More to the point, does a "plain reading" lead you to the correct conclusions?

POWELL:
Yes. That's precisely what the UK-ignorant American reader should initially assume. It's only after he learns that the UK speaker probably had a different meaning in mind that he should revise his interpretation. He could gain that understanding by reading more UK writings and come to realize that those words probably don't mean what a typical American writer would mean.

The American reader doesn't KNOW what is the correct conclusion so he should apply his understanding to the interpretive problem.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
The answer is, of course, no. The phrase "get your skates on" means that one should hurry, "bloody" is simply an intensifier, and "naff" signifies disapproval.

POWELL:
To err sometimes is allowed by the method. The goal is to usually be correct.

Why do you think that's what those phrases PROBABLY mean in that context? Isn't it because you've read enough UK-talk to understand enough of the context to make that conclusion?

Do you have to be born and raised UK before you can understand what a UK speaker probably means? Do we have to be born and raised ancient Jewish to understand what an ancient Jew probably meant?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Now if a "plain reading" of a modern language very similar to your own but from a different culture can be so inaccurate then what makes you think that a "plain reading" of texts written in a language and culture wholly removed from your own is proper?

POWELL:
Because it's consistent with the Corollary to Occam's Razor. The plain reading can be wrong even if spoken by one's twin, so the POSSIBILITY of error is no defeater. It's the PROBABILITY of error that would be a defeater.

POWELL:
It has relevance to understanding what ancient people likely meant when they communicated with each other. For example, we can be confident that they had concerns for their lives and for their families since we have those basic biological concerns. So when they used words like "my wife" we can expect they meant their social sex partner. On the other hand, we would not expect that they were concerned about nuclear weapons in Iraq.

In fact, that's how we would create a language dictionary of a new language, by trying to match the word to the thing, such as wife. If we find the relationship in that culture is sufficiently different from what we're familiar with then we might create a new word to capture the special meaning of their culture.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
There are some concepts that might be directly cross cultural (such as marital unions), but others not so much (such as the British idioms I noted above).

POWELL:
Fine. Then when we come across a new language then we should have especially high confidence that marital terms will fit our expectations. We should be more open to other words having culturally-specific meaning. It's fine to assume that probably some of the words will have culturally-specific meaning. However, we should not initially assume any particular word has a culturally-specific meaning, only that possibly it does. When that assumption fails based on how the word is used then we should introduce new things to explain the meaning. Occam's Razor Corollary, see?

POWELL:
According to standard legal practice, it is reasonable to assume that humans sometimes lie or are mistaken and so cross examination is a viable means to test their testimony. If the courts thought witnesses never lie or are mistaken then why cross examine?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Because the courts don't assume witnesses never lie or are mistaken. They simply assume that they are not lying or mistaken until it is shown otherwise.

POWELL:
Yes, the burden is on the opposing lawyer to show that the witness PROBABLY is lying on a particular matter based on the appearance of inconsistency.

However, a point I'm making is that the courts assume that sometimes witnesses lie or are mistaken. That's a reason for cross-examinations. The opposing lawyer is NOT obligated to first establish that it sometimes happens. They are merely given the opportunity to cross examine.

Do Biblical inerrantists assume that sometimes Bible writers lied or were mistaken?

POWELL:
Is it reasonable to assume that the Biblical writers sometimes lied or were mistaken? Well?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
It's possible, but it is reasonable to assume they weren't until it is shown otherwise.

POWELL:
Ok, please distinguish the two statements.

1. Probably somewhere in the Bible there is an error. In other words, probably the Bible is NOT inerrant.

2. Probably passage X in the Bible is in error.

I'm saying you should affirm the first even if you don't affirm the second. Well?

POWELL:
On the contrary, we do have evidence in the Bible itself. We have Matthew and Luke omitting any mention of the priest.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
What evidence do you have this was intended as a correction?

POWELL:
It supports my hypothesis.

POWELL:
Don't forget that when the Christians came into power they systematically destroyed anti-Christian literature. I believe the Talmud survived partly because the Jews were careful about what they retained.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
What evidence do you have to support these assertions?

POWELL:
Do you deny that the powerful Christians systematically destroyed anti-Christian literature? I have no burden to persuade you to believe as you already do.

POWELL:
The burden falls on me to support the claim that a particular passage is probably in error. The burden falls on the inerrantist to support the claim that there aren't any errors in the Bible.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Ultimately, yes, but I'm content to show that the common arguments against the claim of inerrancy are wrong.

POWELL:
Then support the contrary. Support the claim that PROBABLY the Bible is inerrant.

To show that alleged lies/mistakes L1, L2, etc. of court witnesses W1, W2, etc. PROBABLY are NOT lies or mistakes does not persuade jurors to conclude that PROBABLY no court witness ever lies or is mistaken.

Similarly, to show that alleged Biblical errors BE1, BE2, etc., PROBABLY aren't errors doesn't persuade the skeptic that PROBABLY no Bible writer erred.

POWELL:
Well, verbs and nouns are quite different, so what do you mean?

. . .

So, the piece wasn't sacrificed after all, but it was only offered to be sacrificed, yes?

The one playing the gambit gets to keep using the piece if the gambit wasn't accepted, yes?

. . .

You're not being as analogous as you should be. The Egyptian sacrificed his ox in HOPES of gaining something else in return, the favor of his god. That the Egyptian did not gain his hope does not imply he didn't sacrifice his ox. Similarly, the chess player played the gambit in HOPES of gaining something else in return. That the player did not lose the material nor gain in position or whatever does not imply he didn't play the gambit.

The player plays the gambit when he OFFERS the unprotected piece. He SACRIFICES the piece when the gambit is accepted. Or no?

. . .

Then he would be sacrificing the PREVIOUS POSITION, but he would not be sacrificing the MATERIAL which is the pawn. Or no?

Are you going to suggest that any chess move that weakens your position is a gambit because you sacrifice the superior position you held?

Look at Bellin's definition again.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
You've made your point.

POWELL:
Pearl grabber. Here's 5. (Yes. that's a play on "pawn grabber").

MOUNTAIN MAN:
If we have two conflicting texts of equal authority and no surrounding context then it can't be automatically assumed that one or the other is correct.

POWELL:
Maybe I should just drop this, but I want to point out that we did NOT have two conflicting texts of EQUAL authority. We had an alleged IM making a claim about chess terminology which appeared to conflict with the claim of some wannabe chess master who happens to have more experience with definitions.

Apparently, we resolved the conflict by concluding the chess international master was probably wrong in the case of chess terminology by recourse to the USUAL definition of the word "sacrifice".

We could have played the Bellin inerrantist and argued that, in chess-talk, "sacrifice" has a special meaning equivalent to "offer", but we didn't. If Bellin meant to be using some special meaning of "sacrifice" then he needed to have clarified as much to his readers. His lack of clarification justified us assuming his word "sacrifice" has the usual meaning and, so, he was probably wrong.

Now, what about all the other chess writers and even on-line dictionaries that use Bellin's kind of definition for "gambit"? What are we to conclude about that? Should we assume that this mistake has been spread around the chess community and the dictionary writers are mistakenly letting them have a special meaning they shouldn't get or should we return to the possibility that in chess-talk "sacrifice" has a special meaning?

POWELL:
But didn't Abraham offer to do so, but God declined the offer? If Abraham had sacrificed Isaac and God had rejected the sacrifice then would Abraham still have use of Isaac as a living son?

MOUNTAIN MAN:
God's purpose was to test Abraham's faith, so whether Isaac was actually sacrificed or not was irrelevant. All God wanted to know was that Abraham was willing to give all to his Creator without question.

POWELL:
I'll take it your answers are "Yes." and "Not unless God resurrected Isaac."

POWELL:
The argument holds fine. The determination of probability requires the assumption of context. If one isn't provided then the reader should supply what he considers to be the most likely one.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
You mean if the author doesn't provide context? What nonsense!

POWELL:
It's not nonsense. It's what we do to understand each other.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
In my examples above, should the British author have included footnotes to alert readers that, for example, the phrase "get your skates on" is an idiom and shouldn't be taken literally?

POWELL:
It depends on who his intended audience is. If he doesn't care that anybody understand then he might as well use gibberish or not say anything.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
If his intended audience was in the UK then would such footnotes even be considered necessary? Of course not.

POWELL:
Fine.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
More simply, context exists whether it is explicitly "provided" or not. To deny that there is a specific cultural and historical context surrounding the Bible is absurd.

POWELL:
I'm not denying that. What I am arguing is that the reader should apply Occam's Razor Corollary.

We should try to understand new things based on what we already understand. The mere possibility that the thing could be significantly different isn't sufficient to justify assuming the thing is significantly different. When this assumption fails because of further data suggesting the thing is significantly different then one should consider adding a new thing.

Let me give an example from the history of science.

In trying to understand the sun, scientists assumed it was made of known chemical elements. Now, a maverick could claim "Well, maybe the sun is made of other stuff." Yes, that's possible, but the scientist shouldn't assume it is made of other stuff without sufficient reason. The mere possibility isn't sufficient reason. The maverick would need to provide empirical evidence suggesting the sun is made of other stuff or provide a testable theory invoking new stuff.

Now, when scientists acquired a detailed spectrum of the sun they found dark lines that could be matched to known chemical elements, things like hydrogen, iron, sodium, calcium, oxygen, etc. They could pat themselves on the back for that. However, being the careful students of nature that they were, they tried to match all the dark lines to known stuff. They failed. So, they concluded that there was some new stuff in the sun. They called it helium.

John Powell

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
Yes. That's precisely what the UK-ignorant American reader should initially assume. It's only after he learns that the UK speaker probably had a different meaning in mind that he should revise his interpretation. He could gain that understanding by reading more UK writings and come to realize that those words probably don't mean what a typical American writer would mean.

The American reader doesn't KNOW what is the correct conclusion so he should apply his understanding to the interpretive problem.

And here is where the rubber meets the road. To automatically assume that people from different cultures see the world exactly as you do is extremely arrogant and bigoted (even if you use wiggle words like "probably"). This is why I say that any criticism of the Bible based on a "plain reading" of the text is immediately suspect because it tells you right away that the person in question simply hasn't done their homework and their arguments are not to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
Fine.

Does Bellin's use of "sacrifice" work for "gambit"?

Sure. Why not.

POWELL:
Ok, but then how does the opponent decline the sacrificed piece? By putting it back on the chess board?

He chooses not to allow the trade; he does not capture the piece and makes an alternate move.

POWELL:
How is it logically contradictory (i.e. logically impossible) to know such a thing with any degree of probability?

I think I answered that question. It's not logically contradictory, it's merely impossible to know with certainty (which isn't the same as logically contradictory).

POWELL:
Do inerrantists feel the need to refer to texts outside the Bible to establish an acceptable harmonization?

Probably.

POWELL:
Well, if you're a stickler for details then it matters. Inerrantists care that the Bible makes no error.

True. If you were to try and disprove the inerrantist position though, it doesn't matter which text is right, if the texts are contradictory, they cannot both be true.

POWELL:
Was Mark 2 of the genre that tends to deviate from the plain meaning?

There is no such genre distinction. All writers deviate from plain meaning when it suits their purposes.

Of course, a writer is permitted to deviate from the plain meaning. Poets are given extra lee way. However, if the narrator of historical events does not intend his readers to assume the plain meaning of his words then he has an obligation to clarify things or risk being misunderstood.

Agreed. Do you think Mark wrote with the casual 21st century reader in mind? Or did he write a text immediately relevant to the period and thus risk misunderstanding two millenia later?

POWELL:
That it was the great David allowing his men to eat the forbidden bread to satisfy their desperate hunger adequately satisfied that need. There was no need to invoke some priestly expert of the law. Notice that Matthew and Luke made no mention of the priest.

Agreed. The safest conclusion to draw on the lack is to assert that the texts are therefore not identical. The further you get from that conclusion, the more tenuous the results become. Some theorists (and not merely orthodox theorists, the Gospel of Mark was the gospel of choice of the Ebionites, a jewish Christian sect which denied Christ's deity) assert that Mark was writing to a primarily Jewish audience. If Luke and Matthew have no such intention, then it is probably that they would have omitted details that would have been irrelevant to their audience.

POWELL:
That kind of thing has potential to work to establish the motivation of Jesus in the case of mentioning Abiathar. Claiming it, however, isn't enough. It would need to be shown.

I suppose it would for anyone with your standard of evidence. For someone with the inerrantists standard of evidence, it would not need to be shown. Determining whose standard of evidence we should use is a another discussion.

POWELL:
To consider the writings by others is fine within limits. However, the reader should allow a writer to tell his own story and to make his own mistakes, not alter the writer's meaning so that the story harmonizes with that of other writers.

If the reader has no reason for attempting a harmonization, I agree. I think that if you make a prior commitment to the inerrancy of scripture, harmonization is not only logical, but also necessary.

If Matthew wants his readers to understand that the holy family lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and then moved to Nazareth, then let the man tell his story. If Luke wants his readers to understand that the holy family lived in Nazareth, temporarily visited Bethlehem due to a census, then returned to their home in Nazareth without going to far away places like Egypt, Babylon, or the Americas then let the man tell his story. Don't insist that Luke's holy family did what Matthew's holy family did. Maybe they weren't the same family, but were distinct creations by the two writers.

That is reasonable, but then you reject inerrancy. It is possible, though not necessary, to reject harmonization if you already reject inerrancy.

fwiw
guaca.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
And here is where the rubber meets the road. To automatically assume that people from different cultures see the world exactly as you do is extremely arrogant and bigoted (even if you use wiggle words like "probably").

POWELL:
It's fine to assume that probably there will be some significant differences in the full list. However, as you consider individual cases you should assume they aren't significantly different from your culture until you see evidence that they are. The mere possibility that X is significantly different does not justify believing X is significantly different.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
This is why I say that any criticism of the Bible based on a "plain reading" of the text is immediately suspect because it tells you right away that the person in question simply hasn't done their homework and their arguments are not to be taken seriously.

POWELL:
You should do that extra homework when you find that the plain reading doesn't work. "The author was wrong" can work just fine. It's when you see signs they were right despite the language when read plainly being wrong that you should look deeper. Don't invoke superfluous entities to explain things. Devotion to Biblical inerrancy is not a proper justification to seek-until-you-find an unlikely explanation that harmonizes things.

John Powell

POWELL:
Fine.

Does Bellin's use of "sacrifice" work for "gambit"?

GUACAMOLE:
Sure. Why not.

POWELL:
Because there's an established chess concept of "declinining a gambit" but there's a problem with "declining a sacrifice". Legally captured chess pieces are not to be returned to the chess board, except say to replace a promoted pawn.

POWELL:
Ok, but then how does the opponent decline the sacrificed piece? By putting it back on the chess board?

GUACAMOLE:
He chooses not to allow the trade; he does not capture the piece and makes an alternate move.

POWELL:
Then the (let's say white) piece wasn't sacrificed after all. The white player can continue to use it.

POWELL:
How is it logically contradictory (i.e. logically impossible) to know such a thing with any degree of probability?

GUACAMOLE:
I think I answered that question. It's not logically contradictory, it's merely impossible to know with certainty (which isn't the same as logically contradictory).

POWELL:
If it's not logically contradictory then it's logically possible.

POWELL:
Do inerrantists feel the need to refer to texts outside the Bible to establish an acceptable harmonization?

GUACAMOLE:
Probably.

POWELL:
In my experience most apologists compose their harmonizations without referring to texts outside the Bible.

POWELL:
Well, if you're a stickler for details then it matters. Inerrantists care that the Bible makes no error.

GUACAMOLE:
True. If you were to try and disprove the inerrantist position though, it doesn't matter which text is right, if the texts are contradictory, they cannot both be true.

POWELL:
Was Mark 2 of the genre that tends to deviate from the plain meaning?

GUACAMOLE:
There is no such genre distinction. All writers deviate from plain meaning when it suits their purposes.

POWELL:
What in Mark 2 suggests that Mark did not mean what the words plainly say? Otherwise he'd be wrong?

POWELL:
Of course, a writer is permitted to deviate from the plain meaning. Poets are given extra lee way. However, if the narrator of historical events does not intend his readers to assume the plain meaning of his words then he has an obligation to clarify things or risk being misunderstood.

GUACAMOLE:
Agreed. Do you think Mark wrote with the casual 21st century reader in mind? Or did he write a text immediately relevant to the period and thus risk misunderstanding two millenia later?

POWELL:
He wrote to his audience. Relevant to this matter, I don't see the differences between us and them to be sufficient to justify giving Mark's words some unlikely alternative meaning when Mark didn't indicate he intended anything other than the plain meaning. If Mark meant something odd then he should have made a greater effort to clarify that to his ancient readers.

POWELL:
That it was the great David allowing his men to eat the forbidden bread to satisfy their desperate hunger adequately satisfied that need. There was no need to invoke some priestly expert of the law. Notice that Matthew and Luke made no mention of the priest.

GUACAMOLE:
Agreed. The safest conclusion to draw on the lack is to assert that the texts are therefore not identical. The further you get from that conclusion, the more tenuous the results become. Some theorists (and not merely orthodox theorists, the Gospel of Mark was the gospel of choice of the Ebionites, a jewish Christian sect which denied Christ's deity) assert that Mark was writing to a primarily Jewish audience. If Luke and Matthew have no such intention, then it is probably that they would have omitted details that would have been irrelevant to their audience.

POWELL:
I understand that Matthew was supposed to have been written to a Jewish audience. So why did he omit mentioning the priest?

POWELL:
That kind of thing has potential to work to establish the motivation of Jesus in the case of mentioning Abiathar. Claiming it, however, isn't enough. It would need to be shown.

GUACAMOLE:
I suppose it would for anyone with your standard of evidence. For someone with the inerrantists standard of evidence, it would not need to be shown. Determining whose standard of evidence we should use is a another discussion.

POWELL:
To consider the writings by others is fine within limits. However, the reader should allow a writer to tell his own story and to make his own mistakes, not alter the writer's meaning so that the story harmonizes with that of other writers.

GUACAMOLE:
If the reader has no reason for attempting a harmonization, I agree. I think that if you make a prior commitment to the inerrancy of scripture, harmonization is not only logical, but also necessary.

POWELL:
A commitment to inerrancy is inconsistent with good scholarship. Human writers are fallible.

POWELL:
If Matthew wants his readers to understand that the holy family lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and then moved to Nazareth, then let the man tell his story. If Luke wants his readers to understand that the holy family lived in Nazareth, temporarily visited Bethlehem due to a census, then returned to their home in Nazareth without going to far away places like Egypt, Babylon, or the Americas then let the man tell his story. Don't insist that Luke's holy family did what Matthew's holy family did. Maybe they weren't the same family, but were distinct creations by the two writers.

GUACAMOLE:
That is reasonable, but then you reject inerrancy. It is possible, though not necessary, to reject harmonization if you already reject inerrancy.

fwiw

POWELL:
Cheers.

John Powell
guaca.