Badsidhe ~
B: "You are playing offense, by making a direct assertion"
No; the assertion that I make about the Bible being the inerrant and infallible Word of God is openly faith-based. The assertions of error that the SAB makes are not, as far as I can tell, presented as faith-based, but as scientifically supported statements.
B: "You propose, that a book written in plain ink on plain paper, is the inerrant word of a magical being that nobody looking upon this ink and paper has observed."
And you propose that frail, ignorant, craven creatures of earth, of the species that invented polka, have the capacity to criticize the inscrutable decrees of the Almighty. Oops, the sentence-loading must be contagious! Lemme try again....
What I'm claiming on faith is that the original text of the Bible contains no errors; what I'm claiming on a scientific platform is that the opposite claim (that the original text of the Bible does contain errors) cannot be scientifically demonstrated.
B: "You are introducing the claim of inerrancy into a human work [more loaded terms! Of course I don't grant that the Bible is altogether a human work - WR], and are thus playing offense. The SAB is playing defense against that claim."
Look, this is really not all that complicated: the SAB claims to detect an error in the text. I counter-claim that the SAB's claim is based on a misperception of the text's meaning. I'm /not/ claiming to scientifically prove that my interpretation is the correct one (at least, not in all cases); I'm showing that the SAB's claim is not a scientifically demonstrated case of an error in the original text of the Bible. That this amounts to a simple offense/defense scenario is, imho, obvious.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
B: "You are playing offense, by making a direct assertion"
No; the assertion that I make about the Bible being the inerrant and infallible Word of God is openly faith-based. The assertions of error that the SAB makes are not, as far as I can tell, presented as faith-based, but as scientifically supported statements.
B: "You propose, that a book written in plain ink on plain paper, is the inerrant word of a magical being that nobody looking upon this ink and paper has observed."
And you propose that frail, ignorant, craven creatures of earth, of the species that invented polka, have the capacity to criticize the inscrutable decrees of the Almighty. Oops, the sentence-loading must be contagious! Lemme try again....
What I'm claiming on faith is that the original text of the Bible contains no errors; what I'm claiming on a scientific platform is that the opposite claim (that the original text of the Bible does contain errors) cannot be scientifically demonstrated.
B: "You are introducing the claim of inerrancy into a human work [more loaded terms! Of course I don't grant that the Bible is altogether a human work - WR], and are thus playing offense. The SAB is playing defense against that claim."
Look, this is really not all that complicated: the SAB claims to detect an error in the text. I counter-claim that the SAB's claim is based on a misperception of the text's meaning. I'm /not/ claiming to scientifically prove that my interpretation is the correct one (at least, not in all cases); I'm showing that the SAB's claim is not a scientifically demonstrated case of an error in the original text of the Bible. That this amounts to a simple offense/defense scenario is, imho, obvious.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
