However, they did not apply the same kind of critical analysis on the other scale as to their own area of expertise, and thus, without realizing it, they "preserved" and "shared" the same liberal paradigm assumptions in these other areas, thus contributing to undermining the Bible. (Indeed, because their adherents consider them trustworthy in their field, they tend to assume that their pontificates are also trustworthy in other areas, which is indeed a dangerous assumption.) Ultimately, there`s no point in stopping Dracula`s attacks if the werewolf or Frankenstein`s monster has already destroyed your family. This is actually not difficult given the large number of manuscripts preserved. A simple application of statistical analysis should result in the original text. However, this is not what liberal scholars really wanted to do. As with historical criticism, their goal was to discredit the Bible, so instead of using actual scientific tools to reconstruct the original text, they created by decree a set of rules ("the canons of textual criticism") to decide between variants, rules designed to ensure that variants that introduce errors into the text were selected as "original" reading in as many cases as possible. It would destroy the concept of inerrancy forever. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE OUR ARTICLE "Is a 4.6-billion-year-old Earth compatible with biblical inerrancy? A Response to Norman Geisler" in www.truthinmydays.com/is-a-4-6-billion-year-old-earth-compatible-with-biblical-inerrancy-a-response-to-norman-geisler/ "Guide to Author Speculation": Authors of Greco-Roman biographies often had to speculate on the "exact words spoken by individuals in famous speeches, or on the exact order in which things had unfolded in past events. In order to deliver elegant rhetorical prose, however, the author had to be deprived of creative liberties to tell these dialogues as they might have taken place plausibly," and when the authors of Greco-Roman biographies speculated, they implied that they did. [97] It should be noted that in writing this book, Licona seems to be trying to present a case that may appeal to liberal scholars, so that he includes only "what might be considered a historical `foundation,` a date that is immediately above serious dispute and for which any serious historical hypothesis must be responsible. Bedrock is based on two criteria – solid historical evidence and almost universal acceptance in contemporary science. [104] Of the three heads of the monster, textual criticism is the most subtle[52] – and perhaps the most dangerous for two reasons. First, evangelicals have been lulled into the belief that this field is a purely scientific endeavor, with no room for theological prejudice (although it is strange that this is the case when Griesbach`s rules were clearly designed by Fiat to put errors in what is to be considered the original text of the Bible).
This means that they are completely unprepared and surrender completely, while the foolproof Bible is infected with errors. [53] Not surprisingly, virtually all evangelicals have unquestionably used the current iteration of the Griesbachian/Westcott Hort text, which is the joint text of Nestlé-Aland (the 28th edition was published recently) and the United Bible Societies (the 5th edition was published recently). All major modern translations of the Bible into English, with the exception of the new King James Version, are based on these Greek texts. Licona shows familiarity with at least some of the patristic testimonies. He admits that early on there is a testimony of Ignatius that "even the prophets who were his disciples in the Spirit. He, whom they rightly expected, raised them from the dead when he came,"[114] which is further evidence of the historicity of the resurrection of the Saints of the Old Testament. He admits that California lawmakers passed AB1513 in 2015 to set standards for piecework compensation. The resulting new section 226.2 of the Labour Code contained wage requirements for three different types of activities: productive work, rest and recuperation time, and "other" unproductive work. There is no similar legislation for commission-based employees. "Level of public education: . As the scholar Pheme Perkins (Oxford Annotated Bible, S.
1743) explains: "Greco-Roman biographies were addressed to a social and literary elite, which may explain why the Gospels, addressed to a much wider audience, do not come very close." There are two good options. The first is to go back and forth from window to door, choosing the appropriate weapon to fight the monster and denying it access to protect your family. The second is to realize that since you are an expert with only one weapon, you are only fighting one monster and let the other family members who are experts with the other weapons protect the other entry points by fighting these monsters. Again, this approach protects you and your family. With regard to Darwinism, Geisler rejects the theory of evolution,[148] but he believes in an "old earth"[149], which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Darwinism, and in the Big Bang theory. [150] Despite his assertions, these views are absolutely incompatible with biblical inerrancy. [151] In 1961, when virtually all Christians had abandoned the creationism of the six-day Young Earth and "flood geology," John Whitcomb and Henry Morris published The Genesis Flood,[49] which defended Young Earth creationism and the geology of the flood from biblical and scientific perspectives. Although it was attacked by neo-evangelical critics, it ushered in the beginning of the modern creation science movement. Today, there are a number of evangelical ministries, including the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, and Answers in Genesis, that do excellent work in advocating for the biblical view of creation. Unfortunately, this answer does not work for Holding.
He claims that Geisler is "not qualified to judge serious exegetical, interpretive, or historical scholarship," although Geisler`s training is certainly sufficient to equip him, while Holding says he is "trained to research things and answer questions"—but has no proven training to judge what he seeks. There is no reason to believe that he has the tithe of Geisler`s ability to judge the claims of biblical scholarship. In fact, there is no reason to believe that Holding can judge what its "sources" say about biblical themes better than rats can judge the structure and theory of the music played by the Pied Piper – which probably explains why it falls so easily prey to the nonsense peddled by Licona. In a recent federal action brought by piece-rate drivers, for example, the compensation agreement at issue referred to pre- and post-delivery security checks for activities for which they would be compensated by piecework rates. Nevertheless, the drivers claimed that their time was unproductive work that should be paid separately. Although the piecework agreement was well drafted, a federal judge found that the inspections were not productive work under California law and therefore did not fall within the scope of the piecework agreement. Overall, how is Geisler doing? He obviously sincerely believes in biblical inerrancy and tries to defend it. As for the first head of the monster, historical criticism, it is well above average compared to most evangelical scholars, although there are some problematic areas. As for the third head, Geisler is a motley mixture that rightly rejects the theory of evolution, but falsely teaches an old earth incompatible with biblical inerrancy.
And as for the second title, textual criticism, he uncritically accepts the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort approach, which has done so much damage to belief in inerrancy. At best, we could give him a score of 1.25 out of 3, and unfortunately such a score puts him near the top when it comes to evangelical scholars.