Norman Geisler's new target - Craig Blomberg

[KingsGambit]

http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bi...InTheBible.htm

I suppose this is relatively mild coming from him, but who knows what will be next? I can attest that Blomberg is one of those scholars who genuinely lives the Christian walk he proclaims in writing.

[One Bad Pig]

That man needs a hobby.

[37818]

http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bi...InTheBible.htm

I suppose this is relatively mild coming from him, but who knows what will be next? I can attest that Blomberg is one of those scholars who genuinely lives the Christian walk he proclaims in writing.

That man needs a hobby.

Are you guys for real? Geisler addresses a serious problem.

Now if you guys think Geisler misrepresents Blomberg I think that needs to be discussed. Or some particular point where you think Geisler is purely off base. B. B. Warfield, for example, has been described as a theistic evolutionist. Yet, it is understood that Warfield would oppose any view which limited how God can work in the world. see http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/?page_id=2080

Inerrancy has to do with God being inerrant.
And that the Bible as originally given to human authors by God.
What is not inerrant is our ability to read and understand God's word.
That none of the copies are inerrant copies, even though God preserves the very spelling and parts of letters which make up His word.
That there are no inerrant translations.
Now God and His word which is inerrant, remains so. That we know those three things which are not inerrant, is part of that. (Proverbs 30:5, 6).

[KingsGambit]

Blomberg's book, which came out last week, well documents the damage that Geisler has done in the last 2-3 decades by going after other Christians, ostensibly over a definition of inerrancy, to the point where it seems as if he simply operates out of a desire for power or personal vendettas without regard to the broader needs of the church. I know of one apologist who was reasoning with a Muslim the other day using Mike Licona's arguments for the resurrection, only to see the Muslim argue that Geisler had refuted the Christian's arguments!

[Darth Xena]

Geisler is a liar and enabler of liars. Zero respect.

[Paprika]

I think it's clear that Geisler effectively views that the ICBI Statements on inerrancy (or his understanding of them) as at least equivalent to Scripture in authority.

Protestants and their Tradition

[One Bad Pig]

I think it's clear that Geisler effectively views that the ICBI Statements on inerrancy (or his understanding of them) as at least equivalent to Scripture in authority.

Protestants and their Tradition

Aren't you Protestant?

[Paprika]

Aren't you Protestant?

[KingsGambit]

A footnote in Blomberg's book (that is too long for me to copy here) demonstrates a number of outright falsehoods in one particular written attack from Geisler (without even opening the Ergun Caner can of worms). This is clearly not sound Christian behavior.

[Darth Xena]

Oh please let's open the Caner can.... Geisler's self-inflicted mortal blow

[RumTumTugger]

Oh please let's open the Caner can.... Geisler's self-inflicted mortal blow

I agree

if I I understand it Giesler is supporting a proven liar(Caner). but attacking people who he disagrees with on a non essentials. He is not showing the Love of Christ that he should.

[RumTumTugger]

I think it's clear that Geisler effectively views that the ICBI Statements on inerrancy (or his understanding of them) as at least equivalent to Scripture in authority.

Protestants and their Tradition

Bingo you got it Paprika and isn't is interesting that Gielser is one of hte authors of teh ICBI Statements.

[Darth Xena]

I agree

if I I understand it Giesler is supporting a proven liar(Caner). but attacking people who he disagrees with on a non essentials. He is not showing the Love of Christ that he should.

Pretty much. He has zero standing to criticize anyone else at this point until he mans about his role in the Caner scandal.

[John Reece]

Geisler is a liar and enabler of liars. Zero respect.

Do you still agree with Geisler re his crusade against Murray J. Harris?

Review at Amazon.com of The Battle for the Resurrection Paperback
by Norman L. Geisler:

21 people found the following review helpful

Bad Book, Worse Author

By E. Martin on February 11, 2001

If you ever need a case of mean-spirited, ignorant, inquisitorial mentality of some Evangelical pseudo-intellectuals just take a gander at this screed.

New Testament scholar Murray J. Harris wrote a stirring defense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus in his book EASTER IN DURHAM.

For his trouble he was savaged by this know-nothing in this book for not teaching a *physical* resurrection.

Harris replied with FROM GRAVE TO GLORY, an exhaustive study of the doctrine of the resurrection which remains a standard of evangelical scholarship. Along the way he answered Geisler's repeated misrepresentations and falsehoods and showed his laughable ignorance of Greek.

Not to be detered, Geisler mobilized his fellow Torquemadas (self-appointed "cult watchers") to secure a statement of condemnation from the Evangelical Free Church and badgered Harris into retirement.

Nice Work guys!

Geisler is the worst representative of a resurgent Protestant scholasticism, he pretends to be a apologist (a "defender") but he's really a polemicist (a "war-monger") and a publicity hungry little parasite, seeking to build up his notoriety on the careers and reputations he attacks. Reading makes me *thankful* for the Enlightenment. With regard to this and the rest of his published corpus, I say with David Hume "commend them all to the flames."

[Darth Xena]

It has been a long time since i read the stuff on it. At the time I did, but I would read it with some more skepticism this time for more personal motives. His theological points for the resurrection were very good.

He probably has very good points in these recent scuffles -- he just doesn't have the standing to bring them, his own house is very dirty.