(A4) Necessarily, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then there will be exactly one inerrant gospel record (if any).>>
Well, not exactly. Inerrantists assume that God is omnipotent and omniscient, so therefore everything he does must be perfect. Hence, any document that he *verbally* inspired would necessarily be inerrant. Further, they argue that inerrancy must extend not just to matters of faith but also to geography, history, science, chronology, etc. In other words, they argue that any document *verbally* inspired by such a deity could not contain errors of any kind. A statement by Jerry Falwell will illustrate the extent of this fundamentalist belief: ""The Bible is the inerrant... word of God.
It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." (*Finding Inner Peace and Strength,* Doubleday: 1982, p. 26).
What Till really attempts to do is to get inerrantists to recognize the implications of the "etcetera." If a document that was *verbally* inspired by such a deity contains any type of error, then the inerrantist line of reasoning fails. Thus, Till is saying that *verbal* inspiration by an omniscient, omnipotent deity would have to include "compositional" inerrancy as well as geographic, scientific, historical, and chronological inerrancy.
Therefore, a *verbally* inspired gospel account that was in any way inadequate enough to require the writing of a second *verbally* inspired gospel (not even to mention a third and a fourth) is completely inconsistent with the inerrantist line of reasoning.
In *Alleged Bible Contradictions Explained,* George DeHoff said of the verbal perfection of the Bible, "If God had wanted another 'i' dotted or another 't' crossed, He woud have had it done. The writers did not use one word unless God wanted that word used. They put in EVERY word which God wanted them to put into the Bible..." (p. 23, emphasis added). Now we are all willing to concede that Richard Davis has mastered the art of laying information out in terms of (A1), (A2), (A3), (A1a), (A2a), (A1ab), etc. (although I'm not so such that he is yet convinced that when this is overdone it results in a complexity so confusing that it is difficulty to follow his reasoning), so I will ask him to dispense with the demonstrations of his competence in this area and get down to the nitty gritty of dealing directly with the implications of what inerrantists are saying and forget about his compulsion to demonstrate the trappings of his philosophical studies.
Let's notice, for example, that DeHoff said that "writers [of the Bible] did not use one word unless God wanted that word used" and that "they [the writers] put in every word which God wanted them to put into the Bible." So let's look at the implications of this. It would mean that God inspired Mark to write the first gospel account and in so doing he had Mark put in every word that he [God] wanted in this gospel," but later he inspired Matthew to write a second gospel and had Matthew put in every word that he [God] wanted in this second gospel. The writing of the second gospel necessarily implies that the first one was in some way imperfect, for if the first one had really been perfect (through the process of an omniscient, omnipotent deity's directing Mark to put in the exact words that were needed), there would have been no need for a second gospel. For the sake of brevity, I won't carry the argument through to the fourth gospel, but I do hope that Mr. Davis will direct his attention to this inconsistency and explain to us how that it does not show fallacy in the inerrantist line of reasoning.
<<Now, in part I, I argued that Till fails entirely in his attempt to prove (A4). >>
Well, I just gave my reasons why one should believe that the inerrantist position is illogical, so now let's hope that Mr. Davis will address my argument. If he does, I hope he will also tell the list that in our private correspondence, he admitted that he did not know that the inerrantist position entailed what DeHoff said in the above quotation.
<< (A5b) The libertarian version of the inerrancy doctrine entails (i) that
the gospel writers were free in a libertarian sense with respect
to the composition of their records, and (ii) that (taken
together) the four gospels provide a complete and inerrant account of what God wants us to know w.r.t. a certain set of events.>>
So if Davis thinks this, he needs to explain how that a perfect document would require the writing of a second perfect document that would report biographical information about the same person whose biography was recorded in the first. Here is a simple question for him to answer: if someone writes a *perfect* biography of Margaret Thatcher, why would there be a need for the same person to write a second biography of Thatcher? I have already presented him with this question, but he sees fit to ignore it, possibly because he hasn't thought of a way to lay out his answer in terms of (A1), (A2), (A3), (A1a), (A1b), etc.
I also need to know the extent of Davis's knowledge of the gospels. Is he aware of the fact that Matthew contains not just additional information that wasn't in Mark's account but that it also reports events and statements (reported earlier in Mark's version) that contradict the way that Mark presented this material. So would Davis explain to us how that an omniscient, omnipotent deity *verbally* inspired Mark to write his gospel (so that Mark didn't use a single word or leave out a single word that God wanted him to use) but later *verbally* inspired Matthew to write a second version of the gospel and had Matthew use words that were inconsistent with the way that Mark had told the same story? I'd be very interested in hearing Davis's explanation of that.
As for Davis's theory that "(taken together) the four gospels provide a complete and inerrant account of what God wants us to know w.r.t. a certain set of events," I hope he will try to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity would leave out of one *verbally inspired* gospel information that he "wants us to know* and later inspire the writing of a second gospel so that he could include the information *he wants us to know* but for some reason know only to this omniscient, omnipotent deity, he left out of the first gospel that had every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed that he wanted dotted and crossed and that had every word that he wanted that first gospel to have.
Maybe Davis will tell us if there isn't a bit of inconsistency in the following:
(A) Mark has within its text every word that God wanted in it.
(A2) Matthew also has within its text every word that God wanted in it.
(A3) Matthew has within its text words that were not in the book of Mark.
<<Now libertarianism is true only if it is logically impossible that there is an individual X, action A, and time t such that X is free w.r.t. A at t and X is causally determined to take (refrain from) A at t.>>
Now do the readers see what I mean when I say that Davis is more interested in displaying his "expertise" in philosophical jargon than in arriving at a decision about the soundness of the inerrantist position? I know what he is saying, but I suspect that there are some on the list who do not? I suspect that some were left scratching their heads and saying, "Huh?"
However, as for his "libertarian" view, which allows God to leave a writer (individual) free to write a document (action) and choose his own words when (time) he is writing the document, this view simply conflicts with the inerrantist position that God never left the writers free to practice libertarianism when (time) they (individuals) were writing (action), because God did not allow them to use just any words with reference to (w.r.t.) what they were writing, but he had them to use the very words he wanted used, and he did not leave a single "i" undotted that he wanted dotted or a single "t" uncrossed that he wanted crossed.
Now for those on the list who may be too stupid to understand what I mean with reference to (w.r.t.) the word *conflict,* I meant "to be at variance with," and since we are talking about linguistic matters, I assume that everyone will understand that I mean "at variance with" in a definitional sense.
<< But then it seems distinctly possible that
(A5d) For every possible person S and world W, if S were instantiated in
W and left free w.r.t. composing an inerrant gospel record, S
would not freely record _all_ of what God wants us to know w.r.t. a certain set of events.>>
I won't bother to interpret this paragraph as I did the one above, but I will say that if I wrote like this in *The Skeptical Review,* I would be lucky to have 17 subscribers instead of 1700. All I really need to say about the statement is that I don't address what might be conceivably true in every possible world, but I address what Bible fundamentalists are known to believe and teach, and I try to show how that their beliefs are inconsistent. I wish I could get this message through to Mr. Davis, but I'm beginning to wonder if I ever will.
<< What we have done, in other words, is to describe a possible state of affairs (namely, (A5c-e)) which clearly entails that there is more than one inerrant gospel record and yet is clearly compatible with God's being omnipotent and omniscient, thus showing that>>
No, what "we" have done is to disregard completely what inerrantists actually believe about biblical inerrancy and talk in philosophical circles about what might be true with "every possible person" in "every possible world," but "we" have not addressed the logical implications of the inerrancy doctrine as it is preached by Christian fundamentalists who presently live in *this* world. Now if Mr. Davis can demonstrate that he even understands what the Bible inerrancy doctrine is and is willing to lay aside his philosophical jargon and discuss the matter in language that will be understandable to most readers on the list, I will gladly continue the discussion with him.
F. Till