William Lane Craig Is Better Off Citing Matt 13:10-15

The positions that Genesis could be perceived not so literally pre-dates later Atheistic theories since around the 4th century.

Really? Dear Lysander, let me remind you that heresies were even during Paul’s time. In fact, that’s what many of his letters are all about.

And let me also remind you that atheism precedes 4th century by many centuries: Psalm 14:1.

Ironically, to my knowledge that’s the only verse in the entire Bible speaking about atheists (please correct me if I’m wrong). So from all the tens of thousands of the verses in the Bible, only one speaks about atheists. That’s how little God thinks about atheists…

So I can only imagine what God thinks about those following the atheists, by embracing their naturalistic paradigms…


Perhaps we can continue to defend the faith as brothers.

But that’s the very problem we’re talking about: what faith?

Faith in nature? Or faith in God?
 

Sorry, I missed it (your reply to me was amongst replies for several people).

Now let’s see if what you said stands:

No, But I do know that I have a higher morality than the writers of the scriptures condoning & sanctioning slavery & genocide etc. etc. These writers were obviously not divinely inspired by God or Revelation.

Well, if you refer to the Old Testament, then that one was written not only through inspiration from God but actually in front of God (Malachi 3:16).

Again, I already said this in another thread, I don’t know why exactly I have to repeat over and over again what I say.

And the New Testament tells us that the entire Scripture was inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16).

So yes, by saying what you said above, you do think that you have a higher morality than God, your Creator. And I find that very strange…


When everybody knows 2+2=4 and you're telling them 2+2=5, seekers & believer begin to leave citing irreconcilable differences with the faith.

Could you tell me what Creationist exactly says that “2+2=5”? I’m very interested in that, so, looking forward.


The Bible is a human document that was manipulated overtime by "the powers that be", but the naked truth of the Gospel still ring true despite mans attempt to adulterate it.

I think I already told you that I addressed this in several other threads. Now if you don’t want to read those, obviously I can’t force you to.

But at least stop making those false claims. Thank you.
 
Really? Dear Lysander, let me remind you that heresies were even during Paul’s time. In fact, that’s what many of his letters are all about.

And let me also remind you that atheism precedes 4th century by many centuries: Psalm 14:1.

Ironically, to my knowledge that’s the only verse in the entire Bible speaking about atheists (please correct me if I’m wrong). So from all the tens of thousands of the verses in the Bible, only one speaks about atheists. That’s how little God thinks about atheists…

So I can only imagine what God thinks about those following the atheists, by embracing their naturalistic paradigms…

no_one, I don't mean this to be rude, but please, let's not be cheeky. No need to call me "Dear Lysander." Unless I'm mistaken, you're being condescending, not endearing.

That said, indeed, Paganism, Atheism, etc. etc. were very much in the foreground of those days--between Pagan Rome prior to its adaption of Christianity and the Sadducees, it was common. However, we're addressing specific theories, not just the entities altogether.

But that’s the very problem we’re talking about: what faith?

Faith in nature? Or faith in God?

That's a good point, no_one.

Can one have faith in the scientific method and likewise have faith in God? You'd probably agree with me that the answer is yes, but like me, you'd also say it depends on what is being disputed. For instance, we would reject scientific claims of a Godless earth, but we'd agree on the changes that new seasons bring can be scientifically reviewed. But of course, just because they can be scientifically reviewed doesn't mean God has nothing to do with it. We would agree that God is the author of these motions.

Wonderfully asked.
 
I don't mean this to be rude, but please, let's not be cheeky. No need to call me "Dear Lysander." Unless I'm mistaken, you're being condescending, not endearing.

No, I wasn’t condescending at all. On the contrary. But if you found that offending, I’ll stop using such expressions. My apologies.


Can one have faith in the scientific method and likewise have faith in God? You'd probably agree with me that the answer is yes

Well, the scientific method is entirely naturalistic, so…

However, that doesn’t mean that I can’t prove the core of the Bible’s cosmogony scientifically. That is, using atheistic sources.

Now you tell me, isn’t that highly ironical? That one, if looks carefully into things, can find God even in and despite their disproval of God?
 
James 3:17
New International Version (NIV)
17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.

Proverbs 15:10
New International Version (NIV)
10 Stern discipline awaits anyone who leaves the path;
the one who hates correction will die.

Ok, Tonight "Bible Secret Revealed" is airing episode 2 on The History Channel and if you can watch Episode 1, "Lost in Translation" which is currently located in your on Demand menu. This is the same channel that brought us "The Bible Series" that we all watched.

Regardless of what you may think about my own Biblical beliefs, the fact of the matter is you need to find a better way to defend them in our current age of information. As I just demonstrated, The 3 meme's I used to illustrate my point are still speaking for themselves.

And by the way King J ("And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18") I see you conveniently avoided defending this scripture. Well played and I'm glad to see I'm beginning to get my point across.

This post isn't Debate an Atheist. I'm not an Atheist and I think as highly of them as ya'll do. This post is about an argument against the use of Presuppositional Apologetics

Presuppositional Apologetics
Presuppositionalism might best be described as biting the apologetics bullet. In this form of apologetics, the defender attempts to ‘even the playing field’ by way of bypassing arguments stemming from literary/textual criticism, logical issues in theology, or questions of evidentiary or historical nature. This is accomplished in a two-fold manner. First, as the name entails, the apologist uses Scripture as the measure by which all evidences and arguments must be evaluated, even (and especially, it seems) at the cost of sound argumentation and cogent lines of reasoning. Frame, and by extension any presuppositionalist, claims that all philosophies presuppose the primacy of one element or another, be it reason or existential experience, etc. This is the second means by which presuppositional apologetics seeks to undercut common methods of rational discourse, i.e. by alleging that even a rationalist is presupposing some measure or another. This would not necessarily be problematic, except that it is assumed all presuppositions are inherently equal in their epistemological or evaluator weight:

Every philosophy must use its own standards in proving its conclusions; otherwise, it is simply inconsistent. Those who believe that human reason is the ultimate authority (rationalists) must presuppose the authority of reason in their arguments for rationalism. Those who believe in the ultimacy of sense experience must presuppose it in arguing for their philosophy (empiricism)…The point is that when one is arguing for an ultimate criterion, whether Scripture, the Koran, human reason, sensation, or whatever, one must use criteria compatible with that conclusion. If that is circularity, then everybody is guilty of circularity.

While presuppositional apologists are correct in pointing out that any philosophical system must necessarily utilize some methodology as a means of evaluation, they are grossly mistaken in believing that Scripture stands on equal footing with rationalism et al as a viable and valid methodology. For, upon even a cursory examination, it can be seen that Scripture is nothing more than an aggregation of premises that demand to precede logic, but then attempt to utilize its very laws after the fact. In this way, I agree that this argumentation is both narrowly and broadly circular, but I believe it is far more questionable as to whether such assertions hold up against more rigorous and basic philosophical methodologies


And as a result the seeker or wavering believer are lost to the confusion. While both sides may feel vindicated by their circular reasoning, the best approach I believe is to focus on the love of Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to do the rest. Defending scripture with Presuppositional Apologetics is a failed tactic. Thats what I would like to continue our discussion about.
 
Last edited:
No, I wasn’t condescending at all. On the contrary. But if you found that offending, I’ll stop using such expressions. My apologies.

No worries :)

Well, the scientific method is entirely naturalistic, so…

True, but the scientific theory is only a tool used by the mind, and the mind is a creation of God. It's true that many people use this tool to try and go against God, but it can also be used as a tool in support of God. You're a thinking man and a Christian, you understand.

However, that doesn’t mean that I can’t prove the core of the Bible’s cosmogony scientifically. That is, using atheistic sources.

Now you tell me, isn’t that highly ironical? That one, if looks carefully into things, can find God even in their disproval of God?

It could be seen as ironic, but then again, there have been many people who have found God this way and better understood Him.
 
When the presuppositionalist suggests that the very existence of evidence proves God, one cannot assume that evidence itself is evidence for anything, but for one specific thing. The existence of evidence is a happenstance, resultant from the cause-and-effect of this universe, and evidence is actually evidence that all events are causally related to their antecedent events. To put it simply: Stuff happens. Evidence of this stuff happening, proves it happened, because the stuff that happened caused the evidence. It’s all cause and effect.

Logic is an abstraction of this reality. It is created by humans to interpret reality and make decisions in the best possible way; however, it’s not the only way someone can make those decisions or abstract that reality. The “existence” of logic, though it does not exist without humans, does not prove a higher power any more than the existence of a muffin proves a specific personal deity from whom all muffins spring (and who would smite you for believing in the local baker, or in your own abilities in muffin-creation). I argue however that laws of physics may not actually be “invariant” as posited. We don’t know enough of this universe to know the things we believe to be constants, are actually constants. We have some evidence that they’re not constant, in fact. So one cannot assume, a priori, that anything is “hard-coded” into the universe, much less “fine-tuned”. The very word “absolute” is a definitional quagmire upon which every presuppositionalist hangs his entire argument, because they generally mean “uniform throughout the universe” and “invariant” and “imposed by an outside force”. It’s that last chunk of it that implies God — by saying ANYTHING is absolute, they hear as “imposed by something” and “therefore God”.

There is a real truth to the universe. There is a real way the universe came into being, there is a real way the universe has become populated with matter, and there is a real way that humans have come into being. It happened exactly one way, though that way may be different in different parts, in toto, it happened only one way. That there is this truth, does not mean that “truth itself” necessitates a “truth-giver” deity. That’s nonsensical, no matter how often Tenbruggencate suggests that the counterarguments are nonsense. When something is “wrong”, that means it does not conform to reality. That there is a reality, does not presuppose anything but that there is a reality.

Can we all agree to move away from refuting this claim and rather focus on the Jesus that speaks to the heart of humanity. There is so much in the Bible that supports Jesus as a loving God. If we just ignore this argument all together we might be able to stop hemorrhaging unbelievers and nones.
 
Last edited:
New International Version (NIV)
17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.

New International Version (NIV)
10 Stern discipline awaits anyone who leaves the path;
the one who hates correction will die.

Ok, Tonight "Bible Secret Revealed" is airing episode 2 on The History Channel and if you can watch Episode 1, "Lost in Translation" which is currently located in your on Demand menu. This is the same channel that brought us "The Bible Series" that we all watched.

Regardless of what you may think about my own Biblical beliefs, the fact of the matter is you need to find a better way to defend them in our current age of information. As I just demonstrated, The 3 meme's I used to illustrate my point are still speaking for themselves.

And by the way King J ("And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- ") I see you conveniently avoided defending this scripture. Well played and I'm glad to see I'm beginning to get my point across.

This post isn't Debate an Atheist. I'm not an Atheist and I think as highly of them as ya'll do. This post is about an argument against the use of Presuppositional Apologetics




And as a result the seeker or wavering believer are lost to the confusion. While both sides may feel vindicated by their circular reasoning, the best approach I believe is to focus on the love of Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to do the rest. Defending scripture with Presuppositional Apologetics is a failed tactic. Thats what I would like to continue our discussion about.
Are you a troll? You sound like one.

I have not ignored anything. I am busy preparing proper answers for you. I have already given you short answers to you earlier in this thread.

Instead of moving the goal posts and getting yourself further confused / worked up....why don't you for now deal with the fact that I knocked your interpretation of Exodus 21 out of the park / exposed it as utter and complete heresy! The very next verses said ''If a slave loses a tooth he is free'' How in the universe did you miss that??? Great job of defending your faith bud. Are you being genuinely honest with me????
 
Are you a troll? You sound like one.

I have not ignored anything. I am busy preparing proper answers for you. I have already given you short answers to you earlier in this thread.

Instead of moving the goal posts and getting yourself further confused / worked up....why don't you for now deal with the fact that I knocked your interpretation of Exodus 21 out of the park / exposed it as utter and complete heresy! The very next verses said ''If a slave loses a tooth he is free'' How in the universe did you miss that??? Great job of defending your faith bud. Are you being genuinely honest with me????

No I'm not a Troll. I'm a Christian concerned about the arguments we're presenting to inquiring seekers & believers and thought I could find some help here which I have.
 
Jeremiah,

You have to understand the psychology of the fundamentalist. They think in an absolutist, black/white manner and place a very high value on authoritarianism. Put those two things together and you end up with a Christian who does not tolerate anyone or any viewpoints that disagree with him, and elevates himself to the level of authority over who is and isn't a Christian (and does so in a very angry, aggressive manner).

Thus, whenever people like you or I come along, we're immediately beset with accusations that we're not really Christian, that we're trolls, and even that we don't believe in God.

There are some good resources out there that talk about the psychology of fundamentalists. I'd suggest you read some of them. It helps a lot when you encounter one.
 
You still have a lot to learn.
This is what I mean. THEY are they authority, not anyone else. The fundamentalist is always right and every other viewpoint is always wrong. There is no other way to the fundamentalist.

You don't realize that if you remain ignorant and not face reality of scripture / deal with the OT / acknowledge that God of the OT is the SAME as the God of the NT, you are setting yourself up for a fall. Jeremiah is in that predicament with his friend. You both (no offence) really do need to study harder. Not just accept the tripe the world dishes out with a ''science'' stamp on it :sick:. You say you have studied, then please prove it or accept that you only have an opinion / theory / assumptions based largely off carnal / God bashing propaganda.
There it is again. You're either 100% with the fundamentalist, or you're one of the "God bashers". And it is so because the fundamentalist has authoritatively declared it to be so.

I challenge you to show me where you see slavery of the 16-19th century African type in scripture. 2. I challenge you to show me where you think a sane judge would judge God of being guilty of evil in the OT or NT. 3. Sexual slavery? Please show me the scripture that supports your terrible assumption.
You've been shown all these, and in response you fall back on the fundamentalist black/white mode of thinking. There's a more nuanced way of interpreting those passages, but such a way of thinking is an anathema to fundamentalists like you. Those accounts are either 100% directly from God, or they are 100% false. There are no other possibilities to the fundamentalist.
 
This post is about an argument against the use of Presuppositional Apologetics

And as a result the seeker or wavering believer are lost to the confusion. While both sides may feel vindicated by their circular reasoning, the best approach I believe is to focus on the love of Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to do the rest. Defending scripture with Presuppositional Apologetics is a failed tactic. Thats what I would like to continue our discussion about.

We are in agreement in red font.

It was my first time to hear the phrase "Presuppositional Apologetics"
I read a bit about it, as i understand it is more of a philosophical approach.


Since it was mentioned, that this post is argument against the use of Presuppositional Apologetics, i have this question, clarification if you may:

Can the Presuppositional Apologetics also can "focus on the love of Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to do the rest"?
 
This is what I mean. THEY are they authority, not anyone else. The fundamentalist is always right and every other viewpoint is always wrong. There is no other way to the fundamentalist.


There it is again. You're either 100% with the fundamentalist, or you're one of the "God bashers". And it is so because the fundamentalist has authoritatively declared it to be so.


You've been shown all these, and in response you fall back on the fundamentalist black/white mode of thinking. There's a more nuanced way of interpreting those passages, but such a way of thinking is an anathema to fundamentalists like you. Those accounts are either 100% directly from God, or they are 100% false. There are no other possibilities to the fundamentalist.

I'm very appreciative of your presence & assistance here. I think it's important for both believers & unbelievers alike to see you don't have to hold extremist beliefs to be a true believer.

Since it was mentioned, that this post is argument against the use of Presuppositional Apologetics, i have this question, clarification if you may:

Can the Presuppositional Apologetics also can "focus on the love of Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to do the rest"?

I think Presuppositional Apologetics is convoluted & ineffective. I'm not an authority on Apologetics thats why I'm here asking for help. Thanks again to RiverJordan for the support. Here are some links that vindicate me from being an atheist or a troll. You can be Christian and believe the Bible's errant. This will deflate the atheists argument against Christ & we can move on to letting the world see the Christ in us through our daily works. That's the best apologetics, something we all can agree on.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/10/my-take-jesus-would-believe-in-evolution-and-so-should-you/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/...nt-Bible-Good-for-Christians-Bad-for-Wingnuts

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithf...n-without-having-to-believe-the-unbelievable/

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/o..._christians_have_to_believe_in_the_bible.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-idom/the-bible-vital-tool-or-m_b_814058.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-thielen/whats-the-least-you-can-b_b_811353.html
 
This is what I mean. THEY are they authority, not anyone else. The fundamentalist is always right and every other viewpoint is always wrong. There is no other way to the fundamentalist.

There it is again. You're either 100% with the fundamentalist, or you're one of the "God bashers". And it is so because the fundamentalist has authoritatively declared it to be so.

You've been shown all these, and in response you fall back on the fundamentalist black/white mode of thinking. There's a more nuanced way of interpreting those passages, but such a way of thinking is an anathema to fundamentalists like you. Those accounts are either 100% directly from God, or they are 100% false. There are no other possibilities to the fundamentalist.
River, I would rather be labelled a fundamentalist holding onto scripture that God gave us and living by it, then a compromising new age Christian. You reject the OT and Paul's teaching, tell me what part do you read when you read? Why when you post are there no scriptures? Is your opinion your source of truth?

If God is evil according to the bible I will not serve Him. So any accusations that He is evil / advice to reject parts of scripture has to be scrutinized. God has to be judged properly and according to all scripture 2 Tim 3:16. So far the arguments are weak and clear lies straight from the devils mouth that you and Jeremiah give in to with little resistance... not even coming close to grasping that you are taking naive leaps in his direction by rejecting parts of scripture. Completely blind to the devils deceit :(.
 
Last edited:
Put those two things together and you end up with a Christian who does not tolerate anyone or any viewpoints that disagree with him, and elevates himself to the level of authority over who is and isn't a Christian (and does so in a very angry, aggressive manner).
You are guilty here of deceitful speech. I do not state my opinion, I state scripture. Want to prove me wrong? Disagree with me? convince me from scripture.

Tell me, if you do not follow scripture religiously, where do you draw the line on compromising and living by your own opinion? Your hearts intention being good, is good...but if that is all you live by, the devil can decieve you easily. What in your view is the full armour of God?
 
Last edited:
I'm going to do KingJ a favor & provide William Lane Craig's argument for Biblical Inerrancy. He is the leading figure in Christian Apologetics. I and many others believe his apologetic stance only serves to deter & confuse not convince & convert.

Your question is one that every Bible-believing Christian familiar with modern biblical criticism has had to wrestle with. There’s much to be said here, so let me hit a few main points.

To begin with, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, as I learned it and, I think, as most of its adherents today would defend it, is not arrived at inductively, but deductively. Inerrantists freely admit that no one reading through the Bible and keeping list of difficulties encountered along the way, whether inconsistencies or mistakes, would come to the conclusion at the end of his reading that the Bible is inerrant. He would likely conclude that the Bible, like almost every other book, has some errors in it. But inerrantists have maintained that belief in biblical inerrancy is justified as a deduction from other well-justified truths. For example, the late Kenneth Kantzer, Dean of the seminary I attended, argued for inerrancy by means of the following two syllogisms:

1. Whatever God teaches is true.
2. Historical, prophetic, and other evidences show that Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, whatever Jesus teaches is true.

4. Whatever Jesus teaches is true.
5. Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
6. Therefore, the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

The claim here is that we have good reasons to think that the Bible, despite its difficulties, is the inerrant Word of God and therefore we should accept it as such. As Friedrich Schleiermacher once put it, “We do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible; we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ.” One of the best examples of this approach to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is John Wenham’s Christ and the Bible (InterVarsity, 1972).

When confronted with biblical difficulties, the inerrantist will attempt to show that alleged mistakes are not really mistakes after all and to provide plausible harmonizations of apparent inconsistencies. Where this cannot be done, he will honestly admit that he doesn’t know the solution to the difficulty but nonetheless insist that he has overriding reasons to think that the text is accurate and that were all the facts to be known the alleged difficulty would disappear. Such an approach has served the inerrantist well: example after example could be given of supposed biblical errors identified by previous generations which have now been resolved in light of more recent discoveries. One of my favorite examples is Sargon II, an Assyrian king mentioned in Isaiah 20.1. Earlier critics claimed that the reference to Sargon was an error because there was absolutely no evidence that an Assyrian king named Sargon II ever even existed—until, that is, archaeologists digging in the region of Khorsabad unearthed the palace of one Sargon II! We now have more information about Sargon than about any other ancient Assyrian king.

Now the question raised by your letter is what our reaction should be if we become convinced that there really is an error in the Bible. Won’t such a conclusion have a kind of reverse effect along our chain of deductive reasoning, leading us to deny Jesus’ resurrection and deity? This was apparently the conclusion of Bart Ehrman, who says he lost his faith in Christ because he discovered one minor error in the Gospels.

Such a conclusion is unnecessary for two reasons. First, we may need instead to revise our understanding of what constitutes an error. Nobody thinks that when Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (Mark 4.31) this is an error, even though there are smaller seeds than mustard seeds. Why? Because Jesus is not teaching botany; he is trying to teach a lesson about the Kingdom of God, and the illustration is incidental to this lesson. Defenders of inerrancy claim that the Bible is authoritative and inerrant in all that it teaches or all that it means to affirm. This raises the huge question as to what the authors of Scripture intend to affirm or teach. Questions of genre will have a significant bearing on our answer to that question. Poetry obviously is not intended to be taken literally, for example. But then what about the Gospels? What is their genre? Scholars have come to see that the genre to which the Gospels most closely conform is ancient biography. This is important for our question because ancient biography does not have the intention of providing a chronological account of the hero’s life from the cradle to the grave. Rather ancient biography relates anecdotes that serve to illustrate the hero’s character qualities. What one might consider an error in a modern biography need not at all count as an error in an ancient biography. To illustrate, at one time in my Christian life I believed that Jesus actually cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem twice, once near the beginning of his ministry as John relates, and once near the end of his life, as we read in the Synoptic Gospels. But an understanding of the Gospels as ancient biographies relieves us of such a supposition, for an ancient biographer can relate incidents in a non-chronological way. Only an unsympathetic (and uncomprehending) reader would take John’s moving the Temple cleansing to earlier in Jesus’ life as an error on John’s part.

We can extend the point by considering the proposal that the Gospels should be understood as different performances, as it were, of orally transmitted tradition. The prominent New Testament scholar Jimmy Dunn, prompted by the work of Ken Bailey on the transmission of oral tradition in Middle Eastern cultures, has sharply criticized what he calls the “stratigraphic model” of the Gospels, which views them as composed of different layers laid one upon another on top of a primitive tradition. (See James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered [Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 2003].) On the stratigraphic model each tiny deviation from the previous layer occasions speculations about the reasons for the change, sometimes leading to quite fanciful hypotheses about the theology of some redactor. But Dunn insists that oral tradition works quite differently. What matters is that the central idea is conveyed, often in some key words and climaxing in some saying which is repeated verbatim; but the surrounding details are fluid and incidental to the story.

Probably the closest example to this in our non-oral, Western culture is the telling of a joke. It’s important that you get the structure and punch line right, but the rest is incidental. For example, many years ago I heard the following joke:

“What did the Calvinist say when he fell down the elevator shaft?”
“I don’t know.”
“He got up, dusted himself off, and said, ‘Whew! I’m glad that’s over!’”

Now just recently someone else told me what was clearly the same joke. Only she told it as follows:

“Do you know what the Calvinist said when he fell down the stairs?”
“No.”
“‘Whew! I’m glad that’s over!’”

Notice the differences in the telling of this joke; but observe how the central idea and especially the punch line are the same. Well, when you compare many of the stories told about Jesus in the Gospels and identify the words they have in common, you find a pattern like this. There is variation in the secondary details, but very often the central saying is almost verbatim the same. And remember, this is in a culture where they didn’t even have the device of quotation marks! (Those are added in translation to indicate direct speech; to get an idea of how difficult it can be to determine exactly where direct speech ends, just read Paul’s account of his argument with Peter in Galatians 2 or of Jesus’ interview with Nicodemus in John 3.) So the stories in the Gospels should not be understood as evolutions of some prior primitive tradition but as different performances of the same oral story.

Now if Dunn is right, this has enormous implications for one’s doctrine of biblical inerrancy, for it means that the Evangelists had no intention that their stories should be taken like police reports, accurate in every detail. What we in a non-oral culture might regard as an error would not be taken by them to be erroneous at all.

I was struck by your comment that you feel “a certain bitterness against God for allowing the biblical writers to play fast-and-loose with his words and for not providing a clarity that brings more certainty about what is from him and what isn't.” Joshua, you are imposing upon God what you think ought to be the standards of inerrancy rather than coming to the Scriptures and learning from them what inerrancy means. The biblical writers aren’t playing fast and loose with His words if God never intended His words to be taken in the way you suggest. A Bible that employs a rich variety of genres should not be treated like a flat, monotone book. We need to come to God’s Word with humility and learn from it what it intends to teach and affirm.

Take a look at my article “‘Men Moved by the Holy Spirit Spoke from God’ (2 Peter 1.21): A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration,” under Scholarly Articles: Omniscience for a proposal on how to conceive of verbal, plenary, congruent inspiration of Scripture.

So if we are confronted with what appears to be an error in Scripture, we should first ask whether we’re not imposing on Scripture a standard of inerrancy which is foreign to the genre of the writing and the intent of its author. I remember Dr. Kantzer once remarking that many of his constituents would be shocked if they knew what he was willing to allow in Scripture and not call it an error. He understood that we must put ourselves within the horizon of the original authors before we ask if they have erred.

But secondly, suppose you’ve done all that and are still convinced that Scripture is not inerrant. Does that mean that the deity and resurrection of Christ go down the drain? No, not all. For the far weaker premiss in the above two syllogisms will be premiss (5), rather than premiss (2). As you recognize, we have a very strong case for the resurrection of Jesus. That case in no way depends on the Bible’s being inerrant. This became very clear to me during my doctoral studies in Munich with Wolfhart Pannenberg. Pannenberg had rocked German theology by maintaining that a sound historical case can be made for the resurrection of Jesus. Yet he also believed that the Gospel resurrection appearances stories are so legendary that they have scarcely a historical kernel in them! He did not even trust the Markan account of the discovery of the empty tomb. Rather his argument was founded on the early pre-Pauline tradition about the appearances in I Corinthians 15.3-5 and on the consideration that a movement based on the resurrection of dead man would have been impossible in Jerusalem in the face of a tomb containing his corpse.

Evangelicals sometimes give lip service to the claim that the Gospels are historically reliable, even when examined by the canons of ordinary historical research; but I wonder if they really believe this. It really is true that a solid, persuasive case for Jesus’ resurrection can be made without any assumption of the Gospels’ inerrancy.

By contrast, the case for Jesus’ belief that the Old Testament Scriptures are inerrant is much weaker. I think there’s no doubt that (5) is the premiss that would have to go if biblical inerrancy were to be abandoned. We should have to re-think our doctrine of inspiration in that case, but we needn’t give up belief in God or in Jesus, as Bart Ehrman did. Ehrman had, it seems to me, a flawed theological system of beliefs as a Christian. It seems that at the center of his web of theological beliefs was biblical inerrancy, and everything else, like the beliefs in the deity of Christ and in his resurrection, depended on that. Once the center was gone, the whole web soon collapsed. But when you think about it, such a structure is deeply flawed. At the center of our web of beliefs ought to be some core belief like the belief that God exists, with the deity and resurrection of Christ somewhere near the center. The doctrine of inspiration of Scripture will be somewhere further out and inerrancy even farther toward the periphery as a corollary of inspiration. If inerrancy goes, the web will feel the reverberations of that loss, as we adjust our doctrine of inspiration accordingly, but the web will not collapse because belief in God and Christ and his resurrection and so on don’t depend upon the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

So rather than be corrosive to your faith, I hope that biblical studies can become for you, as they have for me, a source of novelty, excitement, and encouragement.


After reading this you can see the lawyer type spin Craig uses to get the inquisitor to forget about the initial question asked. I think we should be direct & not play philosophical games with defending biblical inerrancy. People see through spin, thats why we dont trust lawyers.


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-price-biblical-errancy#ixzz2lGEcphXH
 
Last edited:
1 Sam 15:2-3, Numbers 31:15-18
Regarding the Amalekites, Deut 25:17-19 Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way when you were leaving Egypt, that he happened upon you on the way, and he struck those of you who were hindmost, all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear God. It shall be that when the Lord, your God, gives you rest from all your enemies all around, in the Land that the Lord, your God, gives you as an inheritance to possess it, you shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from under heaven – you shall not forget!

Regarding the Midianites in Numbers 31, read Judges 6.

Now lets use some very basic applied Christian common sense. Both races opposed God. Jews were God fearing people. Good people! Only evil people would oppose a God fearing race / defy God. They defied God for a while. Time = chance to repent and come right. All who defy God OT, NT and tribulation will face God's wrath. God's people are always protected from / escape His wrath. We know the heart of God in sending calamity Jonah 4:2. God is to blame for everyones death just as He is guilty for giving everyone life. True death, is hell / eternal separation from God, which we and we alone are accountable for.

As for the sexual abuse insinuation in that the single woman were left alive. Once more we need only use a little common sense. The Jewish soldiers were ... Jews. Jews live by the laws of Moses. What is punishment for rape according to the laws of Moses? What is punishment for adultery according to the laws of Moses?

Is it the fact that children died that upsets you? All children go to heaven.

Ask atheists to rephrase their questions like this: How does a good (Psalm 136:1), impartial (Acts 10:34), loving (John 3:16), just (2 Thess 1:6-9), patient, longsuffering God who relents from sending calamity and created us, justify doing X and Y?

God has got nothing to hide. The devil wants us to lose confidence in scripture. The Holy Spirit should be teaching us its inerrancy... or leading us to the true word of God that points to Jesus and was with Him from the beginning!! John 1:1.
 
Last edited:

Jeremiah7:29 said – “Thank you for you for giving me this thoughtful argument. My intention wasn't to undermine the merits of scripture. As Christians we are being forced to defend the indefensible, that's why I believe we have to quit defending strict biblical interpretations.”

I understand, for certain passages are quite fantastic from a natural perspective. Shall my attempts to defend scripture be delivered in love even if there is finalized disagreement. I simply see you my friend regardless of the discussed outcome.

Yet I seek to answer your suggestions from the beginning if you will allow me to question often.

Please know that I am highly threaded and direct, not because I am short with your responses but because I use an analytical approach to resolve to core discussion. I am never offended in an honest discussion.

What is indefensible? Be very specific please.

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I'm not going to defend the stories in the book of Genesis as historical truths because I would have to sacrifice my intellect to do so. My question to every one here is how do we stay relevant when the internet has brought the overwhelming argument against the Bible front & center.”

Can it be you provide a contradictory paradox here in these two sentences? For you design a conflict if you say, “I can’t accept the stories in Genesis” and then ask, “How do we stay relevant when overall argument against the Bible is overwhelming?” Is it not clear that your premise and question together cause an instant division with many? For how can we join forces to be relevant if we are divided for what is relevant?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “The History Channel is currently airing the series "Hidden Secrets of the Bible." Last week's episode was titled "Lost in Translation" & spent an hour dismantling the viewers confidence in scripture.
The Pope just came out telling parishioners not to get too curious regarding these biblical questions.”


Kindly I would ask, does the History Channel serve us axiomatic foundation or opinion? Can you be specific what scripture was discredited and what axioms, and verifiable historical evidence was used to discredit it?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I just think they're a stumbling block to seekers & beleivers who want clear answers. My belief is that we should take all the ambiguities out of the argument & keep it centered around Jesus. If we magnify his good works & remain open to the fact that it's possible scriptures were manipulated by men after Jesus death, we could maybe stay relevant in our changing times.”

Jesus Christ is indeed the center and upon this position, I would suggest that we can agree on many things.

Shall the New Testament cannon be comprised by many contributors for almost three hundred years where many movements and individuals through time would accept or reject what they embraced as “inspired”? Shall faith be required to “believe” that is or it isn’t. Yet what specific manipulation do you point to and what axioms and verifiable historical evidence do you stand on to verify the manipulation?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “When politicians make Biblical claims about God's covenant with Israel and use it to justify the United States unconditional allegiance to Isreal, It also illustrates their secret hopes of antagonizing a great war to usher in the apocalypse. That makes me very concerned.”

When antagonizing the neo-conservative premise, do you feel the premise for foreign intervention is immoral?

Since I am a Christian Classical Liberal who sees foreign compulsory economic intervention as immoral, shall I simply agree with your point about wars, and feel that our alliances has been compromised by a few that would intervene with compulsory force in many countries without the American peoples consent. Yet I do see Israel as a friend to the United States and hope that they will always remain a good trading partner.

Could it be possible that Israel like the United States is being plagued with compulsory neo-conservative politics and socialism? Is it possible for Christians to support Israel but decline supporting corruption in two countries?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I think there was a good reason the early church focused on works over faith. James, the brother of Jesus cited this as the way to truly obtain salvation. I just don't think it's blasphemy to cherry pick the good stuff & disregard the bad, as did Thomas Jefferson.”

What scriptures specifically do you stand on that would give foundation for why you think the early church focused on works.

What scripture do you stand on that would indicate that James believed that works should be used over faith?

When saying blasphemy is demonstrated by Thomas Jefferson, where is the example of him cherry picking the good stuff? What specifically does he say that is considered cherry picking?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I just think in the long run, doubling down on scriptural integrity over the love of Christ will bring about a mass exodus from the faith as more & more get exposed to the scriptures not preached on Sunday.”

I can agree that the love of Christ should be a central focus, but what scriptures specifically are you referring to that get preached on Sunday that will cause the mass exodus? Please be specific

Jeremiah7:29 said – “When I first learned of all of these problematic scriptures, it was like I was on Cheaters, having Joey Greco show me footage of my soul mates secret double life. When these scriptures are presented to me, I can only throw up my hands and agree with the critic.”

Please specify the scripture you believe is problematic that made you feel like a cheater?

Which specific scripture are you referring to that will cause you to throw up your hands?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “But I don't believe that means I have to give up my Faith in Jesus. I can acknowledge that the Bible is not a historical account but a spiritual account. So the supernatural claims exist in our heart, that dimension of the spirit that encompasses our dreams & desires.”

I am most joyful that you have not given up the faith my friend.

Why do you believe the Bible is only a spiritual account? What scripture, specifics or historical evidence do you stand on to formulate this stance?

Please explain what you are referring to in more detail regarding the supernatural that exists in our heart that encompasses our dreams and desires?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “It is my lone & sole opinion that Matthew 13:10-15 is Jesus divine insight on avoiding strict scriptural interpretations. I personally want to believe the core story of Jesus is love, and as Jesus says, that is the only commandment we need to concern ourselves with. I believe this is the Gospel Jesus wanted his followers to spread to the world.”

Does this passage in Matthew say that strict scriptural interpretations should be avoided?

Where does Christ suggest that love is the only commandment we need to concern ourselves with?

So by your last statement you then believe that Jesus wanted us to “only” spread a commandment of love?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “But I only came to this conclusion as a result of failed apologetics. The William Lane Craig argument just sounds like a lawyer throwing out confusing terms that sound lofty but when investigated further lack any substance, leaving seekers & struggling beleivers even more confused.”

What specific failed apologetics gave you a result?

Specifically what apologetics did you study that moved your opinion away from Craig? Also in the apologetic material what specific context convinced you, and what author wrote the competing apologetics?

Know that I am not in agreement or disagreement with Craig at this point, but am trying to figure out where you stand.

Who are the confused seekers you refer too?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I'm very aware that I'm an anomaly & don't represent the belief of my church or the body of Christ as a whole. That's why I'm here hoping to come to a proper consensus on strategies to defend our Faith.”

Should it be wrong of me my friend to penalize you in my mind because you challenge foundations of hermeneutics and theology? I do not judge you, for I believe tangible truth will find you in your exploration and discovery of Christ Jesus, if your “faith” in Christ is an immovable premise.

Shall a proper consensus and a strategic notion in common only have success if an agreeable foundation in faith can exist without division. There are many divisions and denominations in the faith for this very reason that many disagree on a spiritual, and theological frameworks regarding scripture .
 
Back
Top