Sunday, August 06, 2006

Inerrancy & special-pleading

Unbelievers have a rather revealing habit. They begin by raising various objections to the faith.

Many of them seem to sincerely believe that their objections are original and unanswerable.

It then comes as a rude surprise to them to find that a Christian opponent can field their “unanswerable” objections quite easily. No only did their objections prove to be considerably less than unanswerable, but they’ve been answered many times before.

At this point, the unbeliever reverses course. Instead of claiming that Christianity is incredible because it has no answers, the unbeliever spins around and says that Christianity is incredible because it has an answer for everything. We have too many answers rather than too few.

If we have no answers, then we’re guilty of fideism—but if we do have answers, then we’re guilty of special-pleading.

Now, let’s examine the charge of special-pleading. Why does the same Bible look so different to the errantist and the inerrantist? There are several reasons:

1.An errantist assumes that if the Bible were the word of God, there would be no problems.

2. Likewise, he judges the Bible by his first impression of the Bible. He takes his own cultural understanding as the frame of reference.

But for the inerrantist, this is an irrational expectation. The Bible takes the form of historical revelation. It was revealed at a particular place and time. It assumes more than it says. It takes for granted the common background knowledge of the day.

We call this the organic theory of inspiration.

From our distance, there are naturally going to be a number of obscurities in the record. From our distance, we must naturally make allowance for the literary conventions of the day.

So the inerrantist comes to the Bible with a completely different expectation of what he’s going to find.

3. An errantist takes a quantitative approach to inerrancy. He runs through the Bible and compiles a laundry list of every problem passage he can find.

Using this linear, cumulative approach, he can pile one difficulty atop another until he has pages and pages of “errors.”

If you think one miracle is improbable, then a hundred miracles are a hundred times more improbable.

So even if the inerrantist can explain each problem, the sheer weight of the challenge reduces his exercise to special-pleading.

4. By contrast, the inerrantist takes a qualitative approach to inerrancy. He classifies various phenomena. They fall into certain categories, viz. miracles, chronological differences, numerical differences, omissions, free citations, &c.

For the inerrantist, it isn’t a question of supplying a separate explanation for every individual difficulty. Rather, it’s a question of applying the same type of explanation to the same type of problem or pseudoproblem.

You don’t need to justify every single miracle. You only need to justify the possibility of the miraculous, along with the direct or indirect evidence for this particular miracle.

You don’t need to come up with a creative solution to every numerical difficulty. You only need to apply a few basic principles, such as textual criticism, or the literary convention of rounding off uneven sums.

You don’t need to account for every factual omission. You simply point out that historical reportage is necessarily selective.

You don’t need to reconstruct every chronological difference. You merely point out that different authors may employ different calendrical systems, or arrange their material topically rather than sequentially.

You don’t need to defend every free citation with a special explanation. You merely point out that Bible writers will often paraphrase their material as well as employ the customary citational formula of the day.

Where the errantist sees a mountain of mistakes, the inerrantist sees certain instances of certain generic phenomena that are explicable by certain generic considerations.

5.Is this special pleading?

It would only be special pleading if we were making an arbitrary exception for Scripture. Are we?

6.Ironically, it’s the errantist who tells us that the Bible is a Bronze Age writing. Well, if it’s a Bronze Age writing, then we should judge it by Bronze Age literary conventions, cultural allusions, calendrical systems, and transcriptional errors.

Far from indulging in special-pleading, the inerrantist has taken a page from the errantist. He is using errantist criteria to defend the inerrancy of Scripture.

7. As far as miracles are concerned, do we count them as many or one? Well, if we’re counting miracles, then there are many miracles in Scripture.

But if we’re accounting for miracles, then we count them as one, since the case for or against the miraculous does not turn on the specific possibility or probability of this or that miracle, but on the general possibility or probability of any miracle whatsoever.

And, once again, this is how the unbeliever has chosen to frame the issue. This is how Hume chose to frame the issue.

So the inerrantist is merely borrowing another page from the errantist. Defending the inerrancy of Scripture by appeal to errantist criteria.

8. Moreover, even if we were making an exception for Scripture, there’s nothing inherently arbitrary about making exceptions. We do this all the time.

I may well believe or disbelieve the very same report depending entirely on who the reporter is.

Say the same report is related by a notorious liar, a perfect stranger, or my very best friend. How I probabilify the report depends on who I hear it from.

If I heard it from the liar, I won’t believe it. If I heard it from a stranger, I may or may not believe it. If I heard it from my best friend, I will believe it.

Or, take two different reports. I will find an otherwise implausible report believable if it comes from a reliable source, whereas I’ll find an otherwise plausible report less believable coming from an unreliable source.

9.Finally, unbelievers say that believers are guilty of special pleading because we only look at one side of the evidence—the evidence supporting our faith. We are not open to the opposing view. We’ve made up our mind, and that’s that.

But, ironically, this is yet another case in which the believer borrows one more page from the unbeliever.

If I’m an unbeliever, then I have no incentive to question the edifice of secular humanism. For example, I have no incentive to question naturalistic evolution. Indeed, I have a disincentive to question naturalistic evolution.

It may have square wheels and a flat tire or two, but it’s the only wheel in town.

By contrast, if I’m a Christian, then I am, indeed, motivated to find flaws in naturalistic evolution and other pillars of the secular edifice.

And the closer I look, the more cracks I find in the foundation. The believer begins to assemble a cumulative case against atheism. The defeaters and undercutters begin to pile up in a crushing heap of ascending improbabilities erected over a foundation of nothingness.

43 comments:

  1. I was in a Bible study today on 1 John . We encountered what seemed like a glaring contradiction, in 1 John 3:4-10, in particular v.9 where it says that not only does a Christian not sin but he can't sin! Meanwhile, earlier in the book (1:5-10), John talks about how we are deceiving ourselves if we say we are without sin and that when we do sin we need not worry because Jesus will be our advocate. Yet, John says later that Christians can't sin anymore, etc. How does one reconcile this seeming glaring contradiction? Thanks in advance!

    ReplyDelete
  2. “In this case, study of verbal aspect does help clear up the issue. In my opinion, the fact that John chose to use the present infinitive, hamartanein rather than the aorist hamartein, shows that he was thinking about ‘sinning” in v9 as a characteristic action. Hence, John does not teach ‘perfectionism—that Christians can experience sinlessness in this life. Rather, when he says ou dunatai hamartanein he teaches that the genuine Christian cannot be characterized by a life of unrepentant sin.

    In conclusion then, the phrase ou dunatai hamartanein in 1 Jn 3:9 expresses the fact that the Christian is prevented by the new birth and the abiding presence of God from falling into persistent sin. In the context, John uses the phrase ho poion ten hamartian and hamartian poiei with the same sense. The verb poieo communicates the notion of characteristic practice lexically. The present form of the infinitive in the phrase ou dunatai hamartanein is in essence a shorthand version of the poieo hamartian phrase, so that it is the equivalent of ou dunatai hamartian poien, and is thus more accurately render by the NIV’s ‘he cannot go on sinning,’ or, more idiomatically, ‘he cannot live in sin’,” S. M. Baugh, “Excursus: “The Present Infinitive & Perfectionism,” A First John Reader (P&R 1999), 50-52.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is no bible contradiction that we cannot "explain." Every contradiction in the bible can be explained away, just as every bad odor can be covered with a douse of Lysol. It's the easiest thing in the world and there's lots of precedent to take as a guide here. Be inventive, you'll find a way to gloss over the contradictions. Don't let them worry you. All you need to do is give some answer, any answer, and then you'll be able to claim that the unbelievers have been answered. It makes defending the faith very satisfying.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just keep blogging....if you give these "answers" over and over and over....maybe it will eventually gloss over the insecurity you feel inside.

    Just keep telling yourself:

    "I'm rational! I'm intelluctual! These truths cannot be refuted! There's no good reason not to believe!"

    You're a fascinating study in projection:

    "The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt."

    ReplyDelete
  5. So, now we're not even suppose to answer criticism, and if you do, you are insecure. We are just supposed to take the atheists word for it - "the Bible is full of contradictions. Believe me because I'm telling." Context doesn't matter, the culture in which the Bible was writen doesn't matter, exegesis, hermeneutics, purpose, etc. doesn't matter.

    Of course, these things have been addressed here time and time and again, and the atheist continues to ignore these things.

    Oh, the folly of the autonomous man.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What's this "we" Jeff, you got worms?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Go ahead, Jeff, answer away!

    And the Mormons will give their "true answers."

    And the JWs will give their "true answers."

    And the Muslims, and Hindus, and Pagans, and Buddhists, etc...

    All religions with their "special revelations" and "personal experiences."

    All with their stories of miracles.

    All with holy men/women, prophets, and teachers.

    And interestingly enough, most of them with their followers that happen to be the same exact faith that their parents/geography have dictated.

    Fascinating.

    Personally, it all boils down to that dreaded "F" word: Faith.

    Just admit it, you have faith, because you don't (and can't!) KNOW that your God is the right one.

    You also can't KNOW that you'll believe the same way you do now in 10 years. The promises you cling to, the theologies that are your foundational beliefs...they may seem ridiculous to you in the future. You can't KNOW otherwise.

    And neither can I. But I'm not afraid to admit it and go on with life.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nature Boy, you ar obviously a youngin, who has no clue or concern with truth. You last post (as did your first) reveals your ignorance of religion and philosophy.

    I'm assuming, to be consistant, that you can't know "otherwise" that you can't know (i.e. your skeptical of your knowledge of being able to know other wise)?

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's it, Jeff, you've got the hang of it. "Answer" by condescending and belittling. That's sure to shelter you in your beliefs. If someone doesn't agree or is not convinced of what you believe, well then, by all means, they must be completely clueless on all things philosophical. Classic move, works every time. The part about the unbeliever being too young and naive to understand the loftiness of your intellect is also an invincible defeater. I'm sure Nature Boy didn't see that one coming! You're a model apologist, Jeff! We need more like you on our team. So get out there and advertise your radio shows some more! They need more airplay.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jeff,

    you said:

    "Nature Boy, you ar obviously a youngin, who has no clue or concern with truth. You last post (as did your first) reveals your ignorance of religion and philosophy.:

    Wrong and wrong.

    I'm assuming, to be consistant, that you can't know "otherwise" that you can't know (i.e. your skeptical of your knowledge of being able to know other wise)?"

    I notice that rather than actually comment on my little message, you simply call me young and ignorant. Hardly compelling.

    Since you apparently can "KNOW" the things you claim, and can also show that EVERY OTHER BELIEF SYSTEM IS WRONG, it would be wonderful for you to share this info with the world, and end the silly fighting and conflict over religious beliefs.

    So Jeff, how do you "KNOW" what you'll believe in 10 years? I'd love to hear it. I'm sure all of the other "true believers" who eventually changed their mind would also love to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nature boy and organ donor are raising objections which have been repeatedly addressed on this blog.

    Notice that they don't attempt to expose any actual flaw in our explanations.

    Instead, they just make a series of groundless dismissals.

    Jeff Downs runs a countercult ministry. If you spend a little time over at his place, you'll discover that nature boy and organ donor are raising objections which Jeff has also addressed many times before.

    We're not the ones coming up empty-handed. It's the unbelievers.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nature Boy, you're treading on dangerous ground here! Don't you see that Jeff is older and wiser? What does that beard in his picture tell you? He has no obligation to answer you on your terms! You're an unbeliever for goodness sakes! How does Jeff know that all those other belief systems are wrong? Why, of course! Because he knows his system is right! If his is right, and the others are different, then it naturally follows that the others are wrong! Duh! It's basic philosophy, and Jeff's an expert, dincha know? And as for 10 years from now, well, the Lord will see to that! Since Jeff is one of the chosen, the future is a foregone conclusion. Besides, a day to God is not as a day to you and me, and Jeff's place in God's bosom is a promise he can bank on. How does he know? That's the wrong question! The question is: how do you NOT know?

    How was that, Jeff? Am I getting any better? See how I ducked his challenge and reversed the tables on him? That's how all the great apologists do it.

    This apologetics stuff is sure fun!

    ReplyDelete
  13. So Steve,

    Assuming the truth of your worldview, I can't have "saving belief" in your God, unless He grants it to me first.

    All of these arguments are just silliness to the unbeliever, unless God grants him belief.

    Correct?

    I spent most of my life as a Christian. I believed just as strongly as you apparently do. 10 years ago, if someone would have told me that one day I wouldn't believe, I would have thought them crazy.

    But now I don't.

    So, tell me, Steve, or Jeff, how do you KNOW what you will believe in 10 years. I don't think a person can "choose" to believe something, and really believe it. I can't "make" myself believe. And that fits in with your theology, right?

    So, how do you KNOW what you'll believe in 10 years?

    Remember, I claimed all of the same verses, theologies, ideas that current Christians claim.

    I haven't seen you address this topic on your blog, if you have, just send me a link.

    And Steve, thanks for not calling me ignorant and young. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve, you are truly the most gifted apologist ever! God has surely given you the increase! "Their objections have been answered before." What a classic move! I have to remember that one. How can anyone answer it? It's invincible. A real stumper for those awful unbelievers, I'm sure!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Since you apparently can "KNOW" the things you claim, and can also show that EVERY OTHER BELIEF SYSTEM IS WRONG, it would be wonderful for you to share this info with the world, and end the silly fighting and conflict over religious beliefs.

    I count about 13 things you want me to address, that have already been addressed many time over, by many people - you just haven't done your homework (like a lot of internet atheists). Frankly, I have no interest and no time to address each one with you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve will likely stop believing when he grows up and moves out of mom and dad's house and faces the world. At 46, he's probably not far off from this.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And Steve, thanks for not calling me ignorant and young. ;)

    I was referencing your name, not just calling your ignorant and young out of the blue.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Man, Jeff, you are really a great apologist, you know that? I note the similarity in technique to Steve's "it's been answered before." But you bring it to a new level by expressing boredom with the dialogue, which of course is due to Nature Boy's obvious and persisting ignorance. And the part about not doing his homework - again, a classic move! After all, how on earth is Nature Boy going to overcome that one? You got him running scared now, I'm sure!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jeff,

    That's cute.

    I ask you questions, and you tell me to do my homework, and then run with your tail between your legs.

    Very compelling.

    You should stop doing any articles/radio shows, and just tell people to do their homework.

    "Internet Christians" are good at running.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jeff,

    Since you're so bored and busy, how about answering just ONE question:

    "So Jeff, how do you "KNOW" what you'll believe in 10 years? I'd love to hear it. I'm sure all of the other "true believers" who eventually changed their mind would also love to hear it."

    This answer may be the vehicle that God uses to save me, so make it good!

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh yeah, Nature Boy? Well, you just wait till Jeff and Steve are done with you! You'll be begging for them to stop! You'll be cursing the day you were born! You should thank them for being bored with the likes of you and your puny questions that have been answered many times already. In fact, there's no question that you can ask that hasn't already been answered. Did you know that? Of course that's true, but it would make for a very boring blog if Steve simply responded to every criticism he found as he strolled along the net by saying "That's been answered before." You see, he's got to keep his apologetic wits sharpened, that's why he goes after heavy-weight non-believers like John Loftus and Danny Morgan. Now, we can't say those guys do their homework either; after all, all unbelief is the result of ignorance, says Steve. But they're worthy of Steve's time for some reason. We don't have to know the reason why they're worthy of Steve's time to know that they are worthy of his time.

    See! It's just plain logical!!!! You can't beat the logic of the gospel!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Since you're so bored and busy

    I never said I was bored, actually never said I was busy, but that would be true.

    "So Jeff, how do you "KNOW" what you'll believe in 10 years?

    That is very general question, so I'll give you a general answer. I don't know and I never said I did. But, what does that have to do with the truth of something?

    Never said I was smarter than anyone, only stating that the things you've mentioned have been dealt with time and time again. I'm sorry I don't want to spend my time addressing all the issues your brought up. Point being, if you really want them answer because your really want answer, go about the business of doing what everyone else here has done - put the time into doing your homework. If you think that is running with me tail between my legs...so be it, my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I asked:

    "So Jeff, how do you "KNOW" what you'll believe in 10 years?"

    Jeff answered:

    "That is very general question, so I'll give you a general answer. I don't know and I never said I did."

    Thanks! That's an honest answer. Its refreshing to see a believer admit that they may not be one in the future.

    While this may not have anything to do with the 'truth value' of your various claims, it does show that this 'truth' is certainly not binding on man, and that you CANNOT know the things you're claiming to be true. If you KNEW them to be true, you would not change your mind.

    That's where faith comes in.

    And if 'faith' is required to 'believe' what you're saying, and if this 'faith/belief' can only be granted by God, then perhaps certain 'internet christians' should swallow their pride just a little bit.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just admit it, Nature Boy, you're an unbeliever because you rebel against God!! And don't give me this garbage that you don't believe God exists! After all, how could you rebel against something that you don't believe exists? See! The logic is invincible! It totally makes sense, and it's easy to defend, too!

    Jeff, another classic move on your part! Bravo! Just keep telling Nature Boy that he should go out and do his homework. After all, why should he ask believers to explain themselves? It's not like believers want to help the unbeliever come into the knowledge of God. Ward him off like a bad odor. Get out the Lysol. He's a bug, and his questions are bugging you, a chosen man of God. You've got the beard to look the part, and you've got the answers to be the part. More radio, Jeff! More radio!!!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thanks! That's an honest answer. Its refreshing to see a believer admit that they may not be one in the future.

    That is not what I said, but, go a head, play your games.

    While this may not have anything to do with the 'truth value' of your various claims, it does show that this 'truth' is certainly not binding on man, and that you CANNOT know the things you're claiming to be true. If you KNEW them to be true, you would not change your mind.

    My friend, none of your conclusions follow. What do want me to say to you when your leaps in logic are so far apart?

    ReplyDelete
  26. No need to say anything Jeff. You seem to be good at simply making assertions, and being too busy to actually back up what you claim.

    Your own words have made it clear why one can dismiss you, and your theology.

    You told me you don't claim to know what you'll believe in the future. That was honest. But you don't like the consequences of what that means.

    don't worry...that's why believers of all flavors argue and argue and argue about these issues...deep down they don't "know" but they sure want to!

    good day, friend!

    ReplyDelete
  27. That's the ticket, Jeff! Don't let that nasty unbeliever get the last word!

    ReplyDelete
  28. You told me you don't claim to know what you'll believe in the future. That was honest. But you don't like the consequences of what that means.

    Just because I personally can not see into the future, doesn't mean that I can not be confident that I'll be a Christian 10 years from now. We know God exists, he is faithful, trustworthly, true, etc. This is, whether one believes it or likes it. God converted my heart from hating him, to loving him and therefore, I can be confident that my conversion was/is true and the He is able to keep me from stumbling.

    Therefore, I can know that I will continue to follow Christ. Practically, how this works out is different from stating the truth of the matter, but this is stuff you should have learned in Church.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jeff said:

    "Just because I personally can not see into the future, doesn't mean that I can not be confident that I'll be a Christian 10 years from now. We know God exists, he is faithful, trustworthly, true, etc. This is, whether one believes it or likes it. God converted my heart from hating him, to loving him and therefore, I can be confident that my conversion was/is true and the He is able to keep me from stumbling."

    Is there something special about you compared to all of the other believers whose hearts/lives were changed by God, and then who stopped believing later in life?

    Note, you also said you "can be confident." That is not knowing.

    "Therefore, I can know that I will continue to follow Christ."

    Thousands of former believers beg to differ.

    Ah, but maybe they weren't "True Christians." Or perhaps they had secret sin. Or perhaps they never really were saved! (things that all could apply to you!)

    "Practically, how this works out is different from stating the truth of the matter, but this is stuff you should have learned in Church."

    Which church? Perhaps I didn't go to the "true christian" church like you do?

    Basically, Jeff, you CAN'T know what the state of your heart will be in 10 years, in 5 years, or even tomorrow. I used to say/believe many of the same things you do, and claim the same verses/assurances. But that changed. It could for you too.

    You've already admited you can't know the future, and you have no way of knowing if that includes your current state of 'God belief.'

    Besides, perhaps you were simply a vessel created for destruction. No way to know, is there?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anyone else think that nature boy and organ donor are the same bored person?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I don't think so, calvindude.

    By the way, do you KNOW what the state of your "heart" will be in 10 years?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I am glad that there is still hope for you Nature Boy. You might come to faith in Christ after all!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jeff said:

    "I am glad that there is still hope for you Nature Boy. You might come to faith in Christ after all!!!"

    I'm open to that possibility. How could I not be? I can't tell the future. ;)

    So, we both agree...its possible that you will reject Christ, and its possible that I will accept Him.

    Nifty.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Calvinist Domination said:
    ---
    I don't think....
    ---

    (At least now the sentence is believeable.)

    The Oh-So-Bright-One Asks:
    ---
    By the way, do you KNOW what the state of your "heart" will be in 10 years?
    ---

    By the way, do you KNOW how stupid this question is?

    Do you KNOW that you won't be insane in 10 years, your mind vacationing in Tahiti while the rest of you bounces around the padded cell? Do you KNOW that your future insanity or lack thereof has absolutly no bearing whatsoever on your present idiocy? Do you KNOW that future error does not alter present truth? Do you KNOW that future correctness likewise does not alter present error?

    Somehow I doubt you KNOW much of anything. Personally, it all boils down to that dreaded "F" word: Faith.

    Just admit it, you have faith, because you don't (and can't!) KNOW that your methodology is true. The promises you cling to, the secularism that is your foundational belief...they may seem ridiculous to you in the future. You can't KNOW otherwise.

    But you can't KNOW that any of that makes any difference either. You can't KNOW that not KNOWING something invalidates the theory. You can't KNOW anything, including the fact that you can't KNOW anything.

    I'd say it was nice KNOWING you, but God commands us not to lie.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Calvindude....

    Dude...you ramble. Deep breath. Count to 10. Peace.....

    So neither of us know the future. Yep.

    I could be insane in 10 years, or I could be running my very own Calvinistic XM Radio show.

    You could be babbling on in your angry spaz tones...or you could be a peace loving tree-hugger worshipping the earth mother.

    And you don't know that you'll still be a believer tomorrow. And yet you babble on and on as if it matters.

    Splendid show! The Holy Spirit strikes again!

    ReplyDelete
  36. calvinist domination wrote:
    ---
    Dude...you ramble
    ---

    That's because I was quoting you.

    He continues:
    ---
    So neither of us know the future. Yep.
    ---

    You had to ask the question to figure THAT out?

    He wrote:
    ---
    And you don't know that you'll still be a believer tomorrow. And yet you babble on and on as if it matters.
    ---

    Tomorrow, you might have a brain tumor pop up and destroy your mental reasoning capabilities. (Granted, a brain tumor would probably actually help you become more reasonable.)

    And yet you babble on and on as if your opinion today matters.

    Let me give you a quick philosophy primer.

    1) Reality is not determined by our subjective opinions.

    2) Therefore, reality is as it is regardless of what you think, feel, dream, imagine, hallucinate, or smoke.

    3) Whether you believe something about reality is irrelevant, since your beliefs do not alter reality.

    4) Therefore, it doesn't matter if you might change your mind on an issue; reality doesn't change.

    5) Finally: It is therefore completely pointless to argue that someone might change his mind in the future as his mind does not determine what reality is in the first place.

    Now, how about you deal with reality for a change instead of asking pointless questions?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Calvindude bleated:

    Now, how about you deal with reality for a change instead of asking pointless questions?

    OK. Sounds good.

    Reality is, Calvinism rules!!!!

    And...reality is, calvindude may renounce Christ later today! He just doesn't know!

    ReplyDelete
  38. This has been a humorous exchange. I do have to point out something:
    You see, he's got to keep his apologetic wits sharpened, that's why he goes after heavy-weight non-believers like John Loftus and Danny Morgan.

    Discomfiter? Is that you?

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  39. I could be insane in 10 years, or I could be running my very own Calvinistic XM Radio show.

    Really, what would be the difference here?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Steve,

    LOL! Steve is that you posing as boneheaded atheist for effect... Nature Boy/Organ donor are the perfect poster child for who you are talking about! Though I doubt you could be as smarmy and condescending as him even if you tried.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "6.Ironically, it’s the errantist who tells us that the Bible is a Bronze Age writing. Well, if it’s a Bronze Age writing, then we should judge it by Bronze Age literary conventions, cultural allusions, calendrical systems, and transcriptional errors."

    Except...not. A great deal of the errantists who believe the narratives actually do have a basic, historical core that fits the Bronze Age, say we cannot actually know that historical core at all, we can only know how the reused and redefined narrative fits in its Iron Age context. Van Seters and Weir and Noth, to name a few.

    And, in fact, one of the big names for quite a while now, Thomas Thompson, has actually shown using the same criteria formerly used to explore historicity in the Bronze Age, that cultural and literary parallels exist--and may in fact exist better--in the Iron Age. He goes as far as to asign Torah to the Post-Exilic period.

    So you see, there is by no means a consensus by errantists placing the texts in the Bronze Age--not to mention the fact that the former Bronze Age consensus was fairly recent anyway. Wellhausen can be thanked for the dictum that stuck around quite awhile before that: the Law came after the Prophets.

    I'm not entirely sure I follow the errantists in this Iron Age-based, unknowable history conclusion...but it is, nonetheless, very real and something that inerrantists have been struggling with for many decades now.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  43. ps - I'm not aware of any inerrantists following the errantists in calling Gen 1-11 pure, ahistorical myth.

    ReplyDelete