Poll: The word of God is inerrant.

[37818]

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

OK. How do you know that a text deviates from the original? The text has an origin. Do all the copies say the same thing (spelling, words and word order) or are there known differences in the copies?

[37818]

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.

So it would seem to be an issue of hermeneutics (historical event versus apocalyptic symbolism) being made an issue in inerrancy. [From the context it reads as an historical event - to me. If Matthew is using apocalyptic symbolism, I fail to be able to understand that being done in Matthew's account at all.]

Do you think Geisler would refuse a debate if Licona proposed it?

[shunyadragon]

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 . . ."

Ahhhh . . . so very very true!

[Apologiaphoenix]

So it would seem to be an issue of hermeneutics (historical event versus apocalyptic symbolism) being made an issue in inerrancy. [From the context it reads as an historical event - to me. If Matthew is using apocalyptic symbolism, I fail to be able to understand that being done in Matthew's account at all.]

Do you think Geisler would refuse a debate if Licona proposed it?

Absolutely. Mike has offered Geisler a chance for a meeting on the stipulation that there are witnesses. This is not for a debate, but just to work out differences. He doesn't want it to be alone because Geisler has constantly ripped what Mike has said out of context and he wants someone there who can testify to what they see.

Geisler has refused at every turn.

The issue is one of hermeneutics. It is not one of inerrancy. Geisler wants to make it one of inerrancy.

[One Bad Pig]

Absolutely not. Mike has offered Geisler a chance for a meeting on the stipulation that there are witnesses. This is not for a debate, but just to work out differences. He doesn't want it to be alone because Geisler has constantly ripped what Mike has said out of context and he wants someone there who can testify to what they see.

Geisler has refused at every turn.

The issue is one of hermeneutics. It is not one of inerrancy. Geisler wants to make it one of inerrancy.

I think you threw in an extra negative, Nick.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I think you threw in an extra negative, Nick.

Where?

[37818]

Absolutely not. Mike has offered Geisler a chance for a meeting on the stipulation that there are witnesses. This is not for a debate, but just to work out differences. He doesn't want it to be alone because Geisler has constantly ripped what Mike has said out of context and he wants someone there who can testify to what they see.

Geisler has refused at every turn.

The issue is one of hermeneutics. It is not one of inerrancy. Geisler wants to make it one of inerrancy.

Are you saying Geisler would or would not refuse a debate? I think a public debate is in order especially if Geisler would publicly refuse. The hermeneutics involved are explicitly Geisler's. I am of the opinion that all Dr. Licona needs to prove is that he believes his hermeneutic interpretation an application is in defence of Biblical inerrancy. Making its case as a valid defence for inerrancy.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Are you saying Geisler would or would not refuse a debate? I think a public debate is in order especially if Geisler would publicly refuse. The hermeneutics involved are explicitly Geisler's. I am of the opinion that all Dr. Licona needs to prove is that he believes his hermeneutic interpretation an application is in defence of Biblical inerrancy. Making its case as a valid defence for inerrancy.

Mike doesn't want to debate. He just wants to discuss the matter. His only stipulation is he wants witnesses there. Geisler is not open at all and he would not dare go public and defend his views in person against Mike. Not a chance.

[One Bad Pig]

Where?

You were asked if Geisler would refuse a debate. You answered, "Absolutely not." The rest of your post, however, rather implied that Geisler would, in fact, refuse a debate.

[Apologiaphoenix]

You were asked if Geisler would refuse a debate. You answered, "Absolutely not." The rest of your post, however, rather implied that Geisler would, in fact, refuse a debate.

Okay. My bad on that end.

[37818]

Mike doesn't want to debate. He just wants to discuss the matter. His only stipulation is he wants witnesses there. Geisler is not open at all and he would not dare go public and defend his views in person against Mike. Not a chance.

Well, that is why I think a public debate approach would ostensibly work better.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I'm not convinced it would. Geisler can be like a tar baby and Mike would end up getting his ministry to be all about that. He prefers to let JPH and myself handle it as well as others. I agree with him. Mike has better things to do. We've talked about it numerous times before so I know his position well.

[robrecht]

I believe all versions of inerrant beliefs and infallibility concerning the text of the Bible will fail as far as skeptics go including myself. The history of the text of the Bible does not warrant these claims.

One problem obvious here is that there are too many different versions of inerrancy and infallibility for there to be any unity of vision among Christians.

This is just too rich to pass up. Personally, I do not hold to any doctrines of scriptural, papal, conciliar, episcopal, pastoral, congregational, or individual innerancy or infallibility, but you do believe in the infallibility of your Bahai scriptures despite resorting to illiteral symbolic interpretations completely contrary to the obvious meaning of some texts.

[Adrift]

This is just too rich to pass up. Personally, I do not hold to any doctrines of scriptural, papal, conciliar, episcopal, pastoral, congregational, or individual innerancy or infallibility, but you do believe in the infallibility of your Bahai scriptures despite resorting to illiteral symbolic interpretations completely contrary to the obvious meaning of some texts.

Meh, I'm convinced he's as much a Bahai as I am. Guy is barely intelligible most of the time, self-contradictory the rest of the time. Never seems to have a clue what Bahai's actually believe. He's TWeb static. A lot of white noise not worth paying much attention to.

[Carrikature]

Meh, I'm convinced he's as much a Bahai as I am. Guy is barely intelligible most of the time, self-contradictory the rest of the time. Never seems to have a clue what Bahai's actually believe. He's TWeb static. A lot of white noise not worth paying much attention to.

Is this one of those things where you hit record in an empty room and hear voices when you play it back? Because that might explain some things.