> (DAVE 5/2) Farrell: NO I am not - please show me where I said
> this. I have suggested it as a possiblity. I have made no
> assertion whatsoever - in fact, as you no doubt know, I have said
> that we CANNOT know if these staements are contradictory or not as
> we don't know where these places are. YOU are making the assertion
> of error. The burden of proof is on YOU. Don't ask me to defend
> something that isn't there in the first place.
>
> TILL
> Okay, if you are not arguing that Moseroth and Mt. Hor were the same
> places, then you have lost the discussion of this point, because if
Savoia
I have to comment on this classic example of the refuge of the
inerrantist. The illogical progression of this line of thought
should be the most obvious thing in the world, and I think it is to
most thinking people. Notice that Dave starts with the premise that
the Bible is inerrant. An apparent discrepancy is found. In fact
it is irreconcilable, unless some explanation is given. At a loss to
given an explanation the inerrantist (in this case, Dave), having no
other recourse, points out, yes CORRECTLY, that it cannot be
absolutle proven to be a contradiction, and so we "just don't know".
To the contrary, however, his position implies that "we must know",
absolutely, that the contradiction does not exist. Dave, sir,
whatever you may say on this point, you are INDEED arguing that
Moseroth and Mt. Hor are the same place. If not, there is a Bible
contradiction and you must become an errantist. Your position does
not allow you the luxury of saying, "Well, we know nothing about the
2 places, so nothing can be said one way or another". You MUST face
this fact as an inerrantist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Savoia
msavoia@iac.co.jp