Talk:Mark 8:12
Movement Of Con Argument To Talk Page:
"See Tekton. Note beforehand that a sign was already given. A sign "from heaven" was another way of saying "from God" (or "from the sky"); in other words, they are asking for something more. Thus Jesus' refusal is specifically to that request." JBarcher
JW: The above argument has been moved from Con to the Talk Page because it does not meet the minimum reasonableness standards of ErrancyWiki. See below for details. Congratulations to JBarcher for being the first to go from Con straight to the Talk Page. Perhaps I should next add a Gossip Page for such attempts.
I've noticed that many supposed Defenses here are primarily appeal to Tekton so I'll consider creating an Inventory of bad Tekton defenses.
--JoeWallack 09:03, 5 Jan 2007 (CST)
Movement Of Con Argument To Talk Page:
"=== Tempest in a Teapot Redux === Jbarcher's argument is neither incomplete nor vague ... but it's "common sense" apologetics, which some may see as lacking. As for the con argument ... well, again, it's a tempest in a teapot. Let us suppose for a moment that the events happened as GoMatthew depicted, and (against all contemporary scholarship ) that the author of Matthew was an eyewitness. Let us further suppose (again, against all contemporary scholarship and Christian tradition) that the author of Mark was also an eyewitness. Considering the general unrealiability of eyewitness accounts, it certainly should come as no surprise that the two accounts are different. As an example of errancy, however, this particular argument fails. It strikes me that the argument presented above is not an argument against the presumed inerrancy of the Bible, but against the doctrine of inerrancy as presented by some Christians. That's an important distinction, because a document could be considered "inerrant" even if it contained historical errors, so long as the document was an accurate and error-free presentation of the author's observations. In this case, it may very well be that the author of Matthew added to Mark's account ... but we will never know if that's because "Matthew" was engaging in creative editing, or if the author of Matthew had more information than the author of Mark had." Justin Eiler
JW: The also ran award here goes to Justin for explaining incompletely and vaguely why a complete and clear error is an incomplete and vague error.
--JoeWallack 09:03, 5 Jan 2007 (CST)
Jbarcher:
"Note beforehand that a sign was already given. A sign "from heaven" was another way of saying "from God" (or "from the sky"); in other words, they are asking for something more. Thus Jesus' refusal is specifically to that request."
JW:
And Joseph sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation of Apologists seek a response to a "solution" that is incomplete, vague and ignores that in both accounts a sign had already been given, a sign from "heaven" was requested and that presumably the context is the same in both as "Matthew" is Editing "Mark", leaving a "solution" that does not deserve a response or even attention? Truly, I say to you, no response shall be given to this generation of Apologists. And he left them, and again entering into shipment of 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible departed to the other side of Logic and Reason." (RIP)
Justin:
"Tempest in a Teapot Redux
Jbarcher's argument is neither incomplete nor vague ... but it's "common sense" apologetics, which some may see as lacking. As for the con argument ... well, again, it's a tempest in a teapot.
Let us suppose for a moment that the events happened as GoMatthew depicted, and (against all contemporary scholarship ) that the author of Matthew was an eyewitness. Let us further suppose (again, against all contemporary scholarship and Christian tradition) that the author of Mark was also an eyewitness. Considering the general unrealiability of eyewitness accounts, it certainly should come as no surprise that the two accounts are different.
As an example of errancy, however, this particular argument fails. It strikes me that the argument presented above is not an argument against the presumed inerrancy of the Bible, but against the doctrine of inerrancy as presented by some Christians. That's an important distinction, because a document could be considered "inerrant" even if it contained historical errors, so long as the document was an accurate and error-free presentation of the author's observations.
In this case, it may very well be that the author of Matthew added to Mark's account ... but we will never know if that's because "Matthew" was engaging in creative editing, or if the author of Matthew had more information than the author of Mark had."
JW:
Humor is something that can be turned on and off. The ability to understand and communicate detailed arguments is not. The hard work in this Forum is going to be Proving Errors. It's easier to make Reviews of claimed errors and even easier to write bad reviews. Your Review above in General doesn't make any sense. "Considering the general unreliability of eyewitness accounts", "a document could be considered "inerrant" even if it contained historical errors, so long as the document was an accurate and error-free presentation of the author's observations." - nonsense.
JP Holding is smart. If he doesn't present an intelligent summary of his argument it's because he knows that doing so would expose the problems in it. When he knows he is in serious trouble trying to explain he will use the Apologist technique of shifting the focus of the argument from whether there is Error in the text to whether you understand what his supposed defense is. This is exactly what he did at Tweb for this argument. He started out claiming that having the requested Sign from Heaven was the explanation for different responses. He didn't realize at the time that both accounts have a request for a Sign from Heaven. He then refused to provide a Summary of his argument instead relying on claiming that I didn't understand his argument.
The No/Yes Sign Error is a "Light"Must test I use on Believers to determine their level of Objectivity. Most will either concede it's an error, Ignore it or say they're not sure.
I think it's clear by now that Jbarcher is not a Spokesman for JP Holding but is another word for JP Holding which also starts with "S" so there's probably not much point in my asking him this. So I'll ask you. You wrote "Jbarcher's argument is neither incomplete nor vague":
"Note beforehand that a sign was already given. A sign "from heaven" was another way of saying "from God" (or "from the sky"); in other words, they are asking for something more. Thus Jesus' refusal is specifically to that request."
I would appreciate it if you would please explain exactly how this is a complete and clear explanation of why "Mark's" Jesus saying there would not be a Sign and "Matthew's" Jesus, in the same conversation, saying there would be a Sign, is not a Contradiction. Thank you.
Joseph
JW: The hard work in this Forum is going to be Proving Errors.
Not really--the "errors" are easy to prove, but the problem is that you seemingly have a vastly different definition of what constitutes errancy than I do.
- 1: I don't consider "language of appearance" to be an error, even though they're not accurate cosmological depictions. The authors of the OT thought the world was flat, with a solid firmament that arched over the earth--I don't consider that to be an "error," I consider that to be an example of the culture of the times.
- 2: I don't consider "cultural myths" to be an error. The authors included several non-historic myths--the Creation account, the Patriarchal tales, the Conquest accounts, and very possibly the Unified Kingdom. These things (with the possible exception of the Unified Kingdom--the jury's still out on that issue) never happened historically, but the historicity is completely unimportant. What's important is the meaning of these myths to the culture they originated from, and how these myths affected that culture.
- 3: I don't consider scientific inaccuracy to be an error--merely an example of the progress of science. I have no idea who the priest or scribe was who tried to make pi = 3 in 1 Kings 7:23, but the mathematical inaccuracy is not the point: the point is the sense of cultural unity such an image brought to the minds of the Jews.
In many respects, Joseph, your objections would be like someone who objects to the Arthurian tales of Chrétien de Troyes because they're not "historical." Of course his works aren't historical--they were never intended to be. Nor was the Bible.
It's as I said before: you're not objecting to the errancy in the Bible, you're objecting to the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. But that doctrine is post-Biblical, and it is illogical in the extreme to hold the various authors of the books of the Bible to a standard they never attempted to attain.
--JustinEiler 16:28, 22 Aug 2005 (CDT)
