tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7976179757670744213..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Inerrancy and illocutionRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32914791610886388662014-05-01T14:23:59.911-04:002014-05-01T14:23:59.911-04:00Walton isn't saying God inspires "seeming...Walton isn't saying God inspires "seeming contradictions." stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68769626149237260772014-05-01T13:51:54.424-04:002014-05-01T13:51:54.424-04:00Ah...okay. I'll do a search for mythopoetic im...Ah...okay. I'll do a search for mythopoetic imagery in the archives. Thanks Steve.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53009245879310880342014-05-01T13:49:56.536-04:002014-05-01T13:49:56.536-04:00I forgot to add something in the post before the o...I forgot to add something in the post before the one before this one.<br /><br />If God can <b>***intentionally***</b> inspire Scripture to have or lead to factual or theological paradoxes and seeming contradictions *within* itself, why not between Scripture and the physical universe?ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83285798639464610312014-05-01T13:40:21.410-04:002014-05-01T13:40:21.410-04:00I suppose with this working definition and use of ...I suppose with this working definition and use of "truth", even if macro-evolution were true or if the Fall or the Exodus didn't occur in time and space, the Bible would still be true regardless. Admittedly, this approach would seem to mirror some of theories of Biblical truth propounded by unorthodox theologians in the early 20th century.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15293808491012761212014-05-01T13:38:53.986-04:002014-05-01T13:38:53.986-04:00That fails to make allowance for mythopoetic image...That fails to make allowance for mythopoetic imagery. I've been over that ground with Ed Babinski. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41944780067635514002014-05-01T13:27:34.900-04:002014-05-01T13:27:34.900-04:00Necessary truths can't contradict. But must co...Necessary truths can't contradict. But must contingent created truths correspond/line up/match each other in order for them to be true? Why can't God, the owner and standard of truth, who is Himself the God of Truth/Amen (Isa. 65:16), and being the providential author of history (or "His story") and Scripture, write seemingly discrepant revelations? Why must General and Special Revelation match in every detail regarding contingent truths? Why should it matter if one is propositional and the other is physical? They are both God's revelation. <br /><br />It's not uncommon for even human authors to write stories that don't completely match yet we don't deny that those works were really written by the same author. <a href="http://leeduigon.com/2012/02/19/did-c-s-lewis-make-a-major-error-in-the-narnia-books/" rel="nofollow">For example, the Chronicles of Narnia seem to have discrepancies between the various books</a>.<br /><br />Someone might retort that when that occurs in the oeuvre of human authors it's the result of error due to mental finitude. Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, that can't happen to God's creation and revelation.<br /><br />However, most Christians affirm the reality of Scriptural and theological paradoxes (c.f. James Anderson's Paradox in Christian Theology). <b>If we can accept Intra-Scriptural paradoxes, why can't we accept Inter-Revelational paradoxes (i.e. between General Revelation in the physical World and Special Revelation in the WORD)?</b>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63572304279328133562014-05-01T13:01:14.989-04:002014-05-01T13:01:14.989-04:00That's a good point about sheol having more th...That's a good point about sheol having more than one referent. However, that doesn't address the apparently common belief among Jews during Biblical times that the dead were conscious in sheol which was underground. Scripture seems to almost teach it. There are also the "Rephaim." As you (Steve) know, the word in the OT sometimes referred to the giants and other times to the spirits of the dead. In the latter sense, there are passages in that directly or indirectly imply they are conscious underground. Admittedly, some of these passages may be poetic.<br /><br />5 "The departed spirits tremble <b>Under the waters</b> and their inhabitants. 6 "Naked is Sheol before Him, And Abaddon has no covering.- Job 26:5-6 (NASB)<br /><br />9 "<b>Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead</b>, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones. 10 "They will all respond and say to you, 'Even you have been made weak as we, You have become like us. - Isa. 14:9-10 (NASB)<br /><br />14 The dead will not live, the <b>departed spirits</b> will not <b>rise</b>; Therefore You have punished and destroyed them, And You have wiped out all remembrance of them.- Isa. 26:14 (NASB)<br /><br /><br />21 The strong among the mighty ones shall speak of him and his helpers <b>from the midst of Sheol, 'They have gone down</b>, they lie still, the uncircumcised, slain by the sword.' - Ezek. 32:21 (NASB)<br />[all bold by me]<br /><br />In the case of the conjuring up of Samuel from sheol, both the witch and Saul seem to believe that the dead are normally underground (1 Sam. 28:8, 11 [twice] ESV). Then the witch claims to see Samuel "<b>coming up</b> [from the ground]" (1 Sam. 28:14). Then "Samuel" asks (via the witch), "Why have you disturbed me by <b>bringing me up</b>?" (1 Sam. 28:15).<br /><br />Compare:<br /><br />10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth <b>and under the earth</b>,- Phil. 2:10 (ESV)<br /><br />3 And no one in heaven or on earth <b>or under the earth</b> was able to open the scroll or to look into it,- Rev. 5:3 (ESV)<br /><br />13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth <b>and under the earth and in the sea</b>, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!"- Rev. 5:13 (ESV)ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42503762496236990982014-05-01T11:04:30.506-04:002014-05-01T11:04:30.506-04:00This gets at what I was trying to point out to Mel...This gets at what I was trying to point out to MelancholyDane. The illocution distinction is a rubber ruler. <br /><br />I see no rational basis given as to why the Exodus event couldn't have never really happened and we just find some illocutionary significance to that historical fiction. Seems like Walton just asserts that the illocution is tied to the locution in this instance. But why not Genesis? Walton asserts the illocution of the Genesis texts in question is not to affirm "those beliefs as revealed truth" ... but of course Walton can only know that from his 21st century vantage point. If Walton were a 1st century Jew, he would think the illocution and locution are just as tied as in the Exodus event. Because science has proven this cosmology false, Walton knows the illocution must be something else. <br /><br />So if archaeology proves an Exodus never happened, Walton will know the illocution must have been something different. If history uncovers the tomb of Christ and, lo and behold, it is NOT empty, Walton will know the illocution must have been something different. It's obviously a salvaging tactic in the face of (conceded) extra-biblical evidence. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09814637968824994760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48416827305862589972014-05-01T10:40:40.474-04:002014-05-01T10:40:40.474-04:00I think a prima facie reading simply teaches that ...I think a prima facie reading simply teaches that they were buried alive. A crevasse suddenly opened up beneath them and swallowed them whole. Normally, people were buried after they died, not before. But this is miraculous divine judgment. This is how they die.<br /><br />"Sheol" is an ambiguous word with more than one meaning or referent.<br /><br />I've discussed the Ascension on several occasions. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69363287933686561212014-05-01T00:45:55.686-04:002014-05-01T00:45:55.686-04:00I meant to post Num. 16:30-33 (ESV) [bold added by...I meant to post Num. 16:30-33 (ESV) [bold added by me]:<br /><br />30 But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, <b>and they go down alive into Sheol</b>, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD."<br />31 And as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split apart.32 And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods.33 <b>So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them</b>, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23959795227732018162014-05-01T00:42:43.379-04:002014-05-01T00:42:43.379-04:00In light of the above discussion, how should we un...In light of the above discussion, how should we understand Num. 16:30-33? <br /><br />A prima facie reading of this passage would seem to teach that Sheol is literally and physically underground. Rather than a realm or dimension that's "below" and inferior to our reality in terms of existence. <br /><br />Another example. If one takes the conjuring up of Samuel's spirit in 1 Sam. 28 as being really Samuel rather than a demon, then it too implies that Sheol is underground.<br /><br />I suppose one way around this problem is to posit that some aspects of the spiritual world may be dimensionally superimposed or overlaps the physical world in some mysterious way. Think for example something like what's often depicted in science fiction books/movies/shows. For example, the Star Trek TNG episode <a href="http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Next_Phase_%28episode%29" rel="nofollow">The Next Phase</a> (which can be viewed from StarTrek.com <a href="http://www.startrek.com/watch_episode/2ItRiOR5MFYB" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>).<br /><br />The problem is that it's just that, a posited speculation. Atheists would argue a contrived ad hoc one.<br /><br />BTW, similar things could be said about Elijah's being taken up to heaven via a chariot of fire or of Jesus' Ascension into heaven. They were literally, physically and directionally, taken "up."ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com