- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually you are stuck in the past.You must not know much abut biblical studies. Westerman is one of the premier OT scholars of teh 20th century. Also, received his doctorate from, the University of Zurich, though he previously attended Tubingen Schule, which is a leading school in theology. So, man, you are way, way off track here.
That's quite a lead in citing a transcription error.
The problem is not Christians who adhere to the Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy but the fundamentalist liberal textual critics who never read the Chicago statement. I'm sure as a theologian you studied the various orthodox statements on Biblical inerrancy.
What makes you say that? it makes no sense. Actually, I don't think you are at all familiar with contemporary biblical scholarship.Actually you are stuck in the past.
Yes, of course. I have a doctorate in theology. Question is, Are you? Authorship of NT books can definitely be an issue We really don't know who wrote Mark, Like, the Acts. We know the ending of Mark was added much later. WE know the Johannie Comma is a much later addition, probably by later Trinitarians.
What kind of a silly question is that? I never said I ran any theology department.At which university do you run the theology dept?
Who are earth are the "fundamentalist liberal ( contradiction in terms right there) liberal critics"? I and many other biblical scholars do not hold with the Chicago statement. I have shown you one very good example why.
Ramsay's work isn't relevant here at all. What is relevant is the question how many pilgrimages Paul made to Jerusalem. Acts gives 5, Paul gives only three. All attempts to reconcile these figures have failed.I'm sure you studied theologian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay ? If not I highly recommend reading his works especially the one focused on the Levant.
What makes you say that? it makes no sense. Actually, I don't think you are at all familiar with contemporary biblical scholarship.
I have no idea where you are coming up with these silly comments and remarks. What obscure verse are you talking about? 2 Sam. 21:19? If so, that is not considered obscure. Many paper has been presented on that verse at the American Academy of Religion. Also, as I said, that is not the only contradiction. I just mentioned one concerning Paul. Also, there is a major contradiction between Gen. 1 and 2 on the chronology.I seriously doubt you ever read the Chicago statement or any other orthodox Christian positions on Biblical inerrancy. If you did you would not have used an obscure verse from an OT historical book.
Do you know the origin of the term Christian fundamentalist?
Ramsay's work isn't relevant here at all. What is relevant is the question how many pilgrimages Paul made to Jerusalem. Acts gives 5, Paul gives only three. All attempts to reconcile these figures have failed.
Biblical inerrancy means that the events that Scripture describes happened exactly as Scripture describes them.
Absurd response.
I will take note you changed the subject of this OP next time you post an OP. You do get a bit perturbed when others do so to your threads.
I'm quite familiar with orthodox (little o) biblical scholarship and the historical positions of the Church. I find your brand of liberal theology which denies a sovereign and immutable God as a false gospel and leading people astray.
How do you test truth claims? By asking another theologian?
Ramsay's work isn't relevant here at all. What is relevant is the question how many pilgrimages Paul made to Jerusalem. Acts gives 5, Paul gives only three. All attempts to reconcile these figures have failed.
Been there, done that. You go back and read it.Read the Chicago statement and get back to me. Thanks.
Depends on the truth claim. If it is something that is a question for science, then I look to science. Since many theological issues are outside the realm of science, I examine them for consistency and how well it fits in with our fundamental experiences of reality.What do you as a Christian use as a transcendent source to test truth claims?
Read Acts and count them up. This issue is well-documented and highly discussed in biblical studies.Show the 5 and I will show you there is no contradiction. And yes Ramsay is valid as he investigated the claims of Luke and Acts.
What on earth prompted you to ask such a silly question? I never said I ran any theology department.At which university do you run the theology dept?
Then we're looking at it differently. I think a single-character substitution error is about as minor as it gets.Not a major error? Are you kidding? I'd say that was about as major as you can get.
Imo a single-character transcription error wins in terms of likelihood, since such errors are common.Maybe, just maybe, the David cult wrote a puff piece about him and cut Elhanan out
I no longer use the word 'inerrant' because it means different things to different people, and because some of the definitions become soooo complicated. What matters to me this this: how confident can I be that the message I am reading is the one the authors wrote? And in this case my confidence is high that 2 Sam 21:19 originally said that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother. And my reasons are these:Either way, it demonstrates that the Bible is not inerrant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?