Raf

William H. Macy Pleasantville Jeff Daniels

Your move

"The Russians need to take us in one piece, and that's why they're here. That's why they won't use nukes anymore; and we won't either, not on our own soil. The whole damn thing's pretty conventional now. Who knows? Maybe next week will be swords." "What started it?" "I don't know. Two toughest kids on the block, I guess. Sooner or later, they're gonna fight." "That simple, is it?" "Or maybe somebody just forget what it was like." "...Well, who is on our side?" "Six hundred million screaming Chinamen." "Last I heard, there were a billion screaming Chinamen." "There were."

Blade Runner

"I want the original scores reinstated."

Considering that I would have known Frequency had I read the quotes in time, I'll jump in: "Tough guys don't do math. Tough guys fry chicken for a living"

I think it's important to distinguish several things and to evaluate claims accordingly. Bart Ehrman is a former evangelical believer in inerrantism who is now an agnostic. His popular books have sensational titles, but the books themselves don't quite live up to them. Forged, for example, is packaged to give you the impression that the New Testament is a bunch of forgeries. His actual argument is more nuanced: he thinks some books are flat-out forged (written by someone claiming to be someone else). Others he claims were originally anonymous and later attributed to known authors (he puts the gospels, Acts and Hebrews into this category). Still others were written by people mistakenly believed to be OTHER people with the same name (James, Revelation). Others were actually written by their attributed authors. This is all according to Bart Ehrman. His agnosticism comes into play because of the possibility that it makes him more willing to discard traditional authorship even though the evidence for that position might not warrant it. As for those who have "rebutted" Ehrman, their bias comes into play, too. The field of Biblical research is overwhelmed by professing Christians who have a vested interest in upholding traditional views (and in some cases, a vested interest in upholding inerrancy), even if the evidence does not warrant maintaining that position. If Ehrman's agnosticism is fair game for consideration in evaluating his claims, the faith of his critics is also fair game in evaluating their rebuttals of his claims. That's why Wallace (mentioned in earlier posts regarding Luke 2:2) is so valuable. Here is a guy whose bias is clear: he is a Bible-believing inerrantist who believes all scripture is God-breathed, without error or contradiction. He's got a vested interest in dispelling the doubt raised by the traditional interpretation of Luke 2:2. He's got the knowledge base and expertise to render an informed opinion. Yet he refuses to change the text to get it to say what he wishes it had said. He recognizes that Luke 2:2 is a problem for his position, yet he refuses to change Luke 2:2 to salvage his position. Where I come from, we call that integrity. I don't place inordinate trust in Ehrman, nor do I put inordinate trust in his critics. Both sides have an agenda. It's important when weighing both their claims that we recognize their agenda and evaluate them accordingly. All of this is to say: just because Ehrman has been rebutted doesn't make those rebuttals valid. They are in many ways as tainted as what they're criticizing, and it's important to evaluate the claims, not just the people who are making them. I'll say this against Ehrman, for what it's worth: His popular books express his opinion and his understanding of the consensus of Biblical scholarship and textual criticism. What he does not do, except in a very cursory manner, is set out to prove his case (in those books). It doesn't mean that he is wrong, or that he doesn't have proof. It just means what is says: his books don't present the proof. You'll see sentences like "the majority of Bible scholars have known this for more than a hundred years. This isn't just my opinion." He may be correct, but he has not shown why. He has only shown that he is not alone in claiming what he claims. Dutifully recognized and expanded upon.

Funny thing, that whole Lucifer explanation: It's non-Biblical. You seriously CANNOT derive that doctrine from the scriptures. It's just not there. You have to cut this verse from here, that verse from there, wedge those two patches into this verse over here, and PRESTO! Rightly-divided!

Way to encourage intellectual honesty and integrity!

You're up.

Interesting how much debate this is not generating. Am I the last one to this party?

A newspaper editor uses every trick in the book to keep his ex-wife, a reporter, from marrying a madman who's killing teenagers at a summer camp.

Shoot to Kill a Mockingbird

Wallace strikes me as someone who is an inerrantist in principle but not in practice. He probably would agree that God-breathed implies inerrancy, but is not willing to twist existing evidence into a pretzel to force it to conform to his conclusion. While I no longer consider myself an inerrantist (and have not for more than a decade, which is part of why you don't see me in Doctrinal as much as you used to), I think Wallace's honesty is the best one can expect from someone who still holds to that position. It is a matter of faith, a faith in "original" documents we no longer have. Reading the Bible on its own terms, without forcing it to conform to my preconceived notions about it, leads me to believe that its writers never claimed to be producing something inerrant in the first place. So while I may be impressed if further information validates Luke's account, I'm not expecting it and I won't lose sleep if it never happens. Nobody's perfect.

Look everyone! Chockfull and I in basic agreement about something controversial! We'll be celebrating the anniversary of this next year. In any event, it just occurred to me that Wierwille's explanation of Luke 2:2 can ONLY make sense if the Bible is not inerrant. It leaves too many other questions unanswered, though.

Let me clarify something Chockfull said, because I cited two different writers in the course of this thread. He is referring to an author I cited in post #38 (it's actually one of several authors, and I don't know which, nor am I particularly concerned about it). In later posts, discussing a completely different issue, I cited Daniel Wallace. Chockfull is NOT referring to Daniel Wallace. As for Luke 2, I have a healthy respect for Chockfull's approach, as well as Wallace's. If there's further historical research that will one day clarify the issue and rescue the position of inerrancy, so be it. I have no reason to think any further information will be forthcoming, but who am I? I have no problem with Chockfull being right and inerrancy being wrong (at least in this particular point).

When you think of the logistics of everyone having to travel to their ancestral home to take part in a census (why, for Pete's sake, WHY would any census taker require such a thing????), it becomes very difficult to fathom. We, of course, only think of Joseph and Mary doing this. But if Luke's description is right, everyone had to do it! And for what? So the Romans can have a record of where your great-great-grandparents once lived? I don't care if the census is for population purposes, tax purposes or what have you: the whole idea of a census that requires you to leave your home is pointless. I don't know what Luke's point is, but this is a big problem, because it looks like he's contriving a way to get Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Matthew avoids this problem altogether by placing them in Bethlehem to begin with. No explanation. They're just there. Matthew's story explains, in the end, how they came to settle in Nazareth. Nazareth is the end of the story in Matthew. It's the beginning of the story in Luke. If Luke is mistaken about them living in Nazareth in the first place, the accounts become a bit easier to harmonize. Luke leaves out the visit of the Magi and the Egyptian sojourn because they're not important to his story. Matthew leaves out the shepherds because they're not important to HIS story. Otherwise, there's very, very little conflict -- IF you allow Luke to be mistaken about this whole census thing and the timing of the holy family's residence in Nazareth. Luke knows the Nativity story ends there. He is mistaken in believing it begins there. But we're not allowed to even think such a thing if the gospels are inerrant. Wallace's proposed solution is, I think even he would agree, a dodge. I'll wait.

For those who may be lost: Luke 2:2 says that the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. The problem is that Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria until 6 CE, long after the birth of Jesus. This has been recognized as a problem for the accuracy of the Luke account for centuries. We know Herod was alive when Jesus was born (Matthew makes no sense at all if he was not). According to Wierwille, Herod dies in 1 B.C. (historical scholars are more inclined to offer 4 BC as the date of his death, but whichever is correct, it's long before 6 CE). So how do we reconcile the problem? Wierwille joins inerrantists who jump through hoops to get Luke 2:2 to say something it is not saying. Maybe the census was "before" Quirinius was governor of Syria. That would work if the word used was "before." But it's not. Maybe Quirinius was governor of Syria more than once (he wasn't). Wierwille proposes this translation: "This first registration took place when Quirinius was on special assignment in Syria." Special assignment? Where's the evidence? There is none. And let me add, coming from the teacher who lambasted Eve for omitting a word, adding a word and changing a word so that we no longer have the Word, this proposed translation stinks of spectacular hypocrisy. The verse says what it says. Sorry. Couple this with the fact that there is no historical evidence for a census that would require people to travel from where they live (which is the whole POINT of a census) to where their ancestors lived centuries earlier (huh?). What possible need would the Roman Empire have for requiring such a thing? As history, the Nativity of Luke is problematic on these levels. Where do Matthew and Luke agree? Jesus was conceived of a virgin named Mary and born in Bethlehem, then found his way to Nazareth, which is where he grew up. Was the census a part of that history? Not if Matthew is right. Did the Magi find him in Bethlehem (as Matthew VERY strongly implies) while he was a toddler? Maybe, but it makes no sense if Luke is right. Luke gives us no clue whatsoever of a return visit from Nazareth back to Bethlehem to rendezvous with the Magi while Jesus is a toddler. And Matthew gives no clue whatsoever that after Herod sends the Magi to Bethlehem, they follow the star... to Nazareth. It's not what Matthew says, and it's dishonest to force Matthew to say it. These conflicts are not "apparent contradictions." They are flat-out errors, and it is nothing short of entertaining to see the mental gymnastics that we have to go through to harmonize the clearly contradictory accounts. We would not accept the proposed harmonization if it were to be presented to explain an "apparent" discrepancy in the Book of Mormon. We would call it out as an actual error, and in my opinion, it is nothing short of dishonest to apply a double standard, accepting a harmonization for the holy book we hold dear knowing we would reject it for another so-called holy book. Again, my opinion.

I believe Wallace because given his bias, one would expect him to reach the opposite conclusion. He rather obviously knows a thing or two about Greek grammar (I mean, he literally wrote the book!). He could very easily take the position that "first" should mean "before," and everyone would assume he's right. Why embrace the position that undermines your own theology unless integrity demands it? I concede, however, that I have no personal basis for agreeing with him. When you're not an expert in something, you rely on the expertise of others. Comparing Wierwille's expertise to Wallace's on this matter: it's not even close. Wierwille bends over backwards and literally invents history to make this verse fit. Wallace admits that it doesn't fit and, as we used to say, holds the question in abeyance. It seems that, given the facts, it's the only honest position he can take. I admire him for that.

I recommend The Problem of Luke 2:2 by Daniel Wallace, a bona fide Greek scholar and inerrantist who handles that verse with some pretty humble integrity. Easy to find online.

While we're here, can anyone dig up for me how Wierwille deals with the problem of Luke 2:2 in Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed? I don't want to say what the problem is at this point. I just want to see how Wierwille handled that verse.

Actually, I think the whole thing belongs in doctrinal. While my original point may have been "how did TWI handle this one contradiction? (apparent or real)," I just don't see any way of discussing this issue without falling into a doctrinal discussion. Anyone disagree?

Chockfull, I found an interesting approach to the "answer a fool according to his folly" problem that, in my opinion, answers the issue adequately and removes it as a contradiction. The context of the above quote can be found here.

Piggybacking off what Chockfull is saying: There are a number of issues at work here. First, did the writer of I Timothy intend to include as "God-breathed" the scriptures of the New Testament? Did he intend to include the very letter he was writing? Assuming the answer to both questions to be "yes," as johniam and all inerrantists no doubt hold, the next question is "what does God-breathed mean?" We can ignore the first question and focus on the second. PFAL gives us a very specific answer to what it means for scripture to be God-breathed. Explicitly and implicitly, PFAL and its related works hold that God-breathed scripture will be perfect, will have no errors or contradictions. That's why, in addressing whether PFAL is God-breathed, we are entitled to hold PFAL up to its own standard. Hence, "Actual Errors in PFAL." Having ruled out PFAL as God-breathed according to its own definition, we come to a different question: Does THE BIBLE pass PFAL's standard of what it means to be God-breathed? I think the honest answer to that is "no." It is not inerrant. It has flat-out errors [for example, in Exodus 1:11, the Hebrews are credited with building the city of Rameses for the Egyptians. That city was not built until hundreds of years after the Exodus took place. This is not an "apparent contradiction." It's a colossal blunder. In Genesis, Abraham comes from Ur of the Chaldeans. This is a problem on two levels -- The Chaldeans did not have control of Ur in the time that Abraham lived... and they did not have control of Ur in the time that MOSES lived. Let that sink in: it means whoever called Abraham's land Ur of the Chaldeans, it wasn't Moses. That would be like Christopher Columbus writing about Washington D.C.) So the Bible, Old Testament and New, simply does not live up to PFAL's standard of what it means to be God-breathed. However, does it live up to its own standard of what it means to be God-breathed? Does it even set such a standard? The concept of inerrancy forces the Bible to conform to a standard it does not set for itself. It is unfair to judge the Bible based on this standard. If PFAL is right about what it means to be God-breathed, then the Bible is not God-breathed. The Bible is only God-breathed if PFAL is wrong about what that term even means. My opinion.

Krys, referring specifically to the selection of scripture we have quoted, Paul marks out two things he wrote which are not commandments of the Lord and one thing that is. If God wanted to say "I advise, but do not command" he could have done so very easily. That is not what Paul writes. Paul specifically marks out when he is writing a commandment of the Lord. Had he thought of his own writing as Scripture ™, there would be no need for him to do that, and it would be unfathomable that he would inject his own advice in the middle of God's commandment. Makes perfect sense in a letter. Makes no sense in a Scripture ™.