tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post111119721742557042..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Defending "No other Versions" Argument against KirbyJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1112055965412982622005-03-28T16:26:00.000-08:002005-03-28T16:26:00.000-08:00BK:"I think this is an interesting argument, but I...<B>BK:</B>"I think this is an interesting argument, but I want to ask a couple of questions to clarify some of its contours (and you'll have to excuse me if these are answered in the above because it was entirely too long for my MTV-influenced attention span)."<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Meta:</B>OK shoot <BR/><BR/><B>BK:</B>"1. If I understand you correctly, the core of the story must remain the same even though there exist differences in the details. But can't we then use this same argument to say that the tale of Little Red Riding Hood is true because even though some of details differ (the woodsman cutting up the wolf or not, for example) the basic story is the same in all versions?"<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Meta:</B> Fist I would challenge the notion that there is or always has been only one version of the story. I'm srue, I don't know that I've heard others. But I'm willing to bet there have been other versions if you look hard enough.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, this is an inductive argument. I never said it's just taken for granted that one version = true story! I said that it's a probablistic indication that the facts were well know enough that they couldn't be changed.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, some story like Little read ridding hood is a fable, doesn't have the necessary grounding to be thoguht of as historical anyway; no names, no dates, no palces. The gosples as these basically, its' rooted in concrete history to begin with. Even though it doesnt' have a date per se, it has statments that do date and may be entended to date it, such as the statment about the census in Luke.<BR/><BR/>Little Red Ridding Hood begins in the enchanted world, it is not rooted in naturalism or history; the wolve talks, wears clothing, can disguise itself as a human, knows where grandmother lives.<BR/><BR/>In some versions the randmother is alive and pops out of the wolf's stomoch when the woodsman slpits the wolf open. In some she's just hiding. There may be other versions, I haven't researched it. But the story itself is not rooted in the naturalistic world.<BR/><BR/>Now I'm sure this will confuse a lot of skeptics because they will be hung up on the miracles. But even though micels happen in the Gosples, they live in a naturlistic universe in which there can be some intrustion of the supernatural under the right circumstances. But in LRRH the universe is an enchanted one form the outset.<BR/><BR/>So there are other things necessary for the argument to work. I never said it's sure proof, but a probablistic indication.<BR/><BR/><B>BK:</B>2. "If the argument says that it shouldn't apply to any apparently false stories such as fairy tales, why is that the case?"<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Meta:</B> As I just intimated, it's a probablistic argument, that means it weighs the probablity of occureences which means it has to function in what we observe as the world around us. So we can't use it to justify some enchanted world view. It's not an absolute proof or deductive proof, which means it has to work in conjunction with a historical framework that is already there. so there have to be other arguments about the Historicity of Jesus to back it up.<BR/><BR/><B>BK:</B>3. "What about the story of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree which is known to be false, but which is substantially the same in every account and believed to be true by some?"<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Meta:</B> well it's known to be false. I think they know it because trace who made it up. But it's an embellishment upon a historical figure. We know GW was not made up. So its'just an embellishment, it's not a whole story.<BR/><BR/>Now if there were storeis of George washington that said he was born on th pacos and rode buffalo as a child and died at the Alamo then we would know those were made up too.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1111876969567426852005-03-26T14:42:00.000-08:002005-03-26T14:42:00.000-08:00Meta,I think this is an interesting argument, but ...Meta,<BR/><BR/>I think this is an interesting argument, but I want to ask a couple of questions to clarify some of its contours (and you'll have to excuse me if these are answered in the above because it was entirely too long for my MTV-influenced attention span). <BR/><BR/>1. If I understand you correctly, the core of the story must remain the same even though there exist differences in the details. But can't we then use this same argument to say that the tale of Little Red Riding Hood is true because even though some of details differ (the woodsman cutting up the wolf or not, for example) the basic story is the same in all versions? <BR/><BR/>2. If the argument says that it shouldn't apply to any apparently false stories such as fairy tales, why is that the case?<BR/><BR/>3. What about the story of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree which is known to be false, but which is substantially the same in every account and believed to be true by some?<BR/><BR/>I think the argument has promise, but I am not sure of its contours. I look forward to your elaboration.BKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.com