The Burden of Proof

[McCulloch]

Certain atheists claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of myths and tales.

Certain Christians claim that there is no proof that the Bible is in error about anything that it contains.

The question for debate: Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible? Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

[McCulloch]

Can Biker refute my claim

Yep. The inerrancy of Scripture means Scripture in the original manuscripts (such as he NIV) does not affirm anything contrary to fact.

Then please quit saying it and supply us with these originals. In other words, put up or shut up. You keep saying this but then never tell us what or where they are. Surely your faith is great enough to allow your holy book to be put under some scrutiny.

Wyvern, can't you read? Biker is clearly indicating that the NIV is one of [t]he original manuscripts. Please ignore the fact that the publishers of the NIV, the heretics that they are, claim that it was first published in 1973 (New Testament; full Bible 1978). Also ignore the widely believed falsehood that the originals were written in Hebrew and Greek. Saint Paul wrote in twentieth century English! Can you prove otherwise?

[micatala]

MODERATOR FORMAL WARNING

Can Biker refute my claim

Yep. The inerrancy of Scripture means Scripture in the original manuscripts (such as he NIV) does not affirm anything contrary to fact.

Does Biker contend rabbits chew their cud.

Yep. The inerrant statement is factual.
Does JK say it is an error? Show it in detail.
Explain for me the Hebrew word gerah. Explain for me the Hebrew word alah.

Biker

joeyknuccione wrote:
edit out the rant because now there's a new thread specifically to address this goofy claim of "original manuscripts"...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=11614

I challenge Biker, or anyone to go to that thread and present evidence these "original manuscripts" exist.

I personally don't know if they do or not, but I do know Biker keeps hollering about how they do, and keeps REFUSING to offer them for evidence.

Naaa!
I'm staying right here in the burden thread.
Answer the questions big boy.

Biker

Biker is free to participate or not participate in particular threads as he wishes.

However, Biker has been warned that he is obliged to provide evidence for claims he has made.

WHile Biker is free to ask questions of others, neither the statement of those questions nor the refusal or neglect of others to answer those questions absolve BIker from his obligation to support his claims.

I will be recommending another probation vote to the moderating team based on Biker's continual refusal to address repeated requests to provide evidence for his claims, in particular, the claim that the Bible is inerrant.

[Goat]

Can Biker refute my claim

Yep. The inerrancy of Scripture means Scripture in the original manuscripts (such as he NIV) does not affirm anything contrary to fact.

How is yet another unsupported claim refuting Joey's claim?

Does Biker contend rabbits chew their cud.

Yep. The inerrant statement is factual.
Does JK say it is an error? Show it in detail.
Explain for me the Hebrew word gerah. Explain for me the Hebrew word alah.

Biker

and how are ancient hebrew words that have no relatitionship to 'hare' or 'cud' or 'chew' have any meaning what so ever to this discussion.

Diversionary tactics mean you don't have any argument

[Biker]

Can Biker refute my claim

Yep. The inerrancy of Scripture means Scripture in the original manuscripts (such as he NIV) does not affirm anything contrary to fact.

Does Biker contend rabbits chew their cud.

Yep. The inerrant statement is factual.
Does JK say it is an error? Show it in detail.
Explain for me the Hebrew word gerah. Explain for me the Hebrew word alah.

Biker

I'm waiting Joey.

Biker

[JoeyKnothead]

Can Biker refute my claim

Yep. The inerrancy of Scripture means Scripture in the original manuscripts (such as he NIV) does not affirm anything contrary to fact.

Does Biker contend rabbits chew their cud.

Yep. The inerrant statement is factual.
Does JK say it is an error? Show it in detail.
Explain for me the Hebrew word gerah. Explain for me the Hebrew word alah.

Biker

I'm waiting Joey.

Biker

All my evidence for my claims is in them "original manuscripts" you keep harping about, while refusing to offer for evidence.

I say again, since you seem to have reading comprehension issues...

Biker has refused to offer these "original manuscripts" for our examination.

Can Biker refute my ONE AND ONLY claim regarding "original manuscripts"?

[scourge99]

Can Biker refute my claim

Yep. The inerrancy of Scripture means Scripture in the original manuscripts (such as he NIV) does not affirm anything contrary to fact.

Biker

Biker,

I assert that the original manuscripts are contrary to fact.

Do not bother to mention the NIV as this is not the original manuscripts unless you can show the NIV is in fact part of the original manuscripts.

[Biker]

Can Biker refute my claim

Yep. The inerrancy of Scripture means Scripture in the original manuscripts (such as he NIV) does not affirm anything contrary to fact.

Biker

Biker,

I assert that the original manuscripts are contrary to fact.

Do not bother to mention the NIV as this is not the original manuscripts unless you can show the NIV is in fact part of the original manuscripts.

Isay they are.
Show me where they aren't

Biker

[Goat]

Can Biker refute my claim

Yep. The inerrancy of Scripture means Scripture in the original manuscripts (such as he NIV) does not affirm anything contrary to fact.

Biker

Biker,

I assert that the original manuscripts are contrary to fact.

Do not bother to mention the NIV as this is not the original manuscripts unless you can show the NIV is in fact part of the original manuscripts.

Isay they are.
Show me where they aren't

Biker

This is known as 'shifting the burden of proof'

However, we know when the NIV was translated, and from what copies it used to translate from. Those copies were not original, ero facto, you misrepreseted what the NIV is.. it isn't even in the original language

[kayky]

How can anyone SHOW that one thing is like another thing when one of those things does not exist????? PLEASE explain this to me.

[scourge99]

Can Biker refute my claim

Yep. The inerrancy of Scripture means Scripture in the original manuscripts (such as he NIV) does not affirm anything contrary to fact.

Biker

Biker,

I assert that the original manuscripts are contrary to fact.

Do not bother to mention the NIV as this is not the original manuscripts unless you can show the NIV is in fact part of the original manuscripts.

Isay they are.
Show me where they aren't

Biker

I say they aren't.
Show me where they are the same.

----

Shall we continue this inanity or will you acknowledge and follow the rules of debate and argumentation? Specifically, the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium.