Poll: The word of God is inerrant.

[Doug Shaver]

I do not believe that Genesis can be explained as remotely inerrant nor infallible. Historically it is in error.

I'm inclined to agree, but it seems to depend on the creativity of whoever is interpreting it.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Geisler cites Augustine on that matter, "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, the author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have misunderstood (Against Faustus, 11.5)"

But that doesn't apply. You can misinterpret a passage and still be in line with Inerrancy. All Christians do it, unless we all want to say our interpretations are infallible.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Dr. Michael R. Licona wrote a defense of his view: When the Saints Go Marching In (Matthew 27:52-53): Historicity, Apocalyptic Symbol, and Biblical InerrancyHow I understand the text in question is in two parts. First, ". . . and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; . . ."

And the second part, ". . . and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

That account is unique to Matthew.





.

I'm not really sure what you're saying. I know that text is unique to Matthew. What has not been shown is how Mike denies Inerrancy, although Geisler keeps insisting that he does.

Mike wrote the best defense exegetically that we'd seen of the resurrection of Jesus. Geisler thanked him by blacklisting him over a minor point like this.

[37818]

I'm not really sure what you're saying. I know that text is unique to Matthew. What has not been shown is how Mike denies Inerrancy, although Geisler keeps insisting that he does.

Mike wrote the best defense exegetically that we'd seen of the resurrection of Jesus. Geisler thanked him by blacklisting him over a minor point like this.

I do not see that Dr Licona denies inerrancy. I do not know of a single Bible scholar that I 100% agree with on every point. Just because I hold a narrow view does not mean I need to be closed minded against those that I may dissagree with on some point of difference. I am interrested in what is both true and right. If I am wrong in what I think I understand, I need to learn and change my view. I cannot learn by having a closed mind. But I need not reject what I understand to be true just because a majority says so. I need to have that understanding for myself.

Now Dr Geisler if he is in error, the reasons need to be taught, so others do not make the same mistakes. Ad hominem attacks and in satire do not cut it.

[37818]

But that doesn't apply. You can misinterpret a passage and still be in line with Inerrancy. All Christians do it, unless we all want to say our interpretations are infallible.

Our human interpretations are not infallible. Now if it is true that the written word of God is inerrant as He gave it - then that should be believed.

Now it is God who is both inerrant and infallible.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I do not see that Dr Licona denies inerrancy. I do not know of a single Bible scholar that I 100% agree with on every point. Just because I hold a narrow view does not mean I need to be closed minded against those that I may dissagree with on some point of difference. I am interrested in what is both true and right. If I am wrong in what I think I understand, I need to learn and change my view. I cannot learn by having a closed mind. But I need not reject what I understand to be true just because a majority says so. I need to have that understanding for myself.

Now Dr Geisler if he is in error, the reasons need to be taught, so others do not make the same mistakes. Ad hominem attacks and in satire do not cut it.

He has had his errors pointed out numerous times. JPH and I have both written profusely on this and yet still he continues the attack. The most we have done is make humorous videos to illustrate a point.

Geisler has had people like Mike Licona and his supporters blacklisted.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Our human interpretations are not infallible. Now if it is true that the written word of God is inerrant as He gave it - then that should be believed.

Now it is God who is both inerrant and infallible.

Agreed, but the thing is when Mike Licona has a different interpretation than Geisler, Geisler sees that as a denial of inerrancy.

[37818]

Here is an example of interpretation and manipulation of text to make the text comfortable with what one believes.

Classic; "Which I do not believe text says or means that."

The text, as I cited it, has no less than 6 statements. There are two key events. Christ's physical death prior to those statements, and His resurrection in one of those statements. Which event happened explicitly after His resurrection? Did my understanding contradict it? Does yours?

[37818]

He has had his errors pointed out numerous times. JPH and I have both written profusely on this and yet still he continues the attack. The most we have done is make humorous videos to illustrate a point.

Geisler has had people like Mike Licona and his supporters blacklisted.

Agreed, but the thing is when Mike Licona has a different interpretation than Geisler, Geisler sees that as a denial of inerrancy.

Can we set the two apparent views side by side to show a comparison where there are differnences. That would, I think, help everybody [who are professing Christians] understand the issue better. I am still pondering this.

It has renewed my study of Matthew 27;51-53 [My side notes: Luke 16;31; John 11:17, 39.]

[Apologiaphoenix]

Can we set the two apparent views side by side to show a comparison where there are differnences. That would, I think, help everybody [who are professing Christians] understand the issue better. I am still pondering this.

It has renewed my study of Matthew 27;51-53 [My side notes: Luke 16;31; John 11:17, 39.]

What two views exactly?

I'm not sold on Mike's view yet, but I don't see it as a denial of inerrancy at all.

[37818]

What two views exactly?

I'm not sold on Mike's view yet, but I don't see it as a denial of inerrancy at all.

How does Licona's view of inerrancy differ from Geisler's view - Not where they agree but what is the point of disagreement? Or is just really over hermeneutics? If the latter, how does Geisler tie hermeneutic method into inerrancy?

[Apologiaphoenix]

How does Licona's view of inerrancy differ from Geisler's view - Not where they agree but what is the point of disagreement? Or is just really over hermeneutics? If the latter, how does Geisler tie hermeneutic method into inerrancy?

Geisler accuses Mike of dehistoricizing the text. The text says they arose so they arose. No need to ask if it's literal or apocalyptic.

I think that if the question is raised, it should be debated. Better to debate it without settling it than to settle it without debating it.

[seanD]

the Bible alone, and in its entirety, is the infallible written Word of God in the original text

I guess I don't understand the relevancy of this when we don't have the original text. Or am I misunderstanding that statement?

[shunyadragon]

The text, as I cited it, has no less than 6 statements. There are two key events. Christ's physical death prior to those statements, and His resurrection in one of those statements. Which event happened explicitly after His resurrection? Did my understanding contradict it? Does yours?

It is the strong indication you interpret and manipulate the text to suite our beliefs regardless of the number of statements. Again . . . This is classic 'Duck, Bob and Weave' manipulation "Which I do not believe text says or means that."

[37818]

It is the strong indication you interpret and manipulate the text to suite our beliefs regardless of the number of statements. Again . . . This is classic 'Duck, Bob and Weave' manipulation "Which I do not believe text says or means that."

Which is saying nothing meaningful. Since we all say things according to what we believe. The text might as well have read "blah blah blah blah . . ."