Looks Like John Tors Isn't Happy

[One Bad Pig]

Response is up.

http://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/?p=10154

Typo:

same of argument though, Geisler does.

Also:

Sorry Tors, but unless Paige Patterson has kept up with the latest in NT scholarship, then no. They

(unless Paige Patterson is suffering from multiple personality disorder)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Fixed

[37818]

Where there 4000 or 400000 horses
"It is innerant"
Yeah it is but there's still the issue of
"Its innerant"
But scribble issues. It is the Holy scripture inspired by God but it still needs context.

That my friend is indeed a textual issue not an inerrancy issue.

Inerrancy is not in the interpretation of the reader, nor in translation and not in textual transmission itself. But inerrancy has to do with God and His word as He gave it. And the disputes have been over what text variant it is.

[Sparko]

Nick you brought up a good point about Geisler not reading Genesis 1 as literally 6 days even though it says it pretty clearly. How does he answer that and not be accused of the same thing he is accusing Licona of?

[Apologiaphoenix]

http://normangeisler.com/does-believ...h-creationism/

[Sparko]

http://normangeisler.com/does-believ...h-creationism/

[Apologiaphoenix]

He never addresses any challenges to his authority. If you want to know, I would suggest going to his Facebook page and leaving a comment or making a post.

For bonus points, give him a link to what I wrote on his latest book.

http://scholarshipandinerrancy.blogs...reserving.html

If you do this, get a screenshot so we can have proof when you get banned.

[Sparko]

He never addresses any challenges to his authority. If you want to know, I would suggest going to his Facebook page and leaving a comment or making a post.

For bonus points, give him a link to what I wrote on his latest book.

http://scholarshipandinerrancy.blogs...reserving.html

If you do this, get a screenshot so we can have proof when you get banned.

even his devoted followers like Tors won't try to defend him on the matter?

[Apologiaphoenix]

even his devoted followers like Tors won't try to defend him on the matter?

They often will. He won't. One Geislerite once told me a list of all the books I should read before commenting such as Geisler's Systematic Theology series and his book on Inerrancy. I told him I had already read all of those, which I had.

Never responded to me about that.

[Sparko]

They often will. He won't. One Geislerite once told me a list of all the books I should read before commenting such as Geisler's Systematic Theology series and his book on Inerrancy. I told him I had already read all of those, which I had.

Never responded to me about that.

I mean it is a pretty glaring parallel. I don't see how he can really answer it without appealing to a double standard.

[Apologiaphoenix]

That's what happens when you make Inerrancy require a specific teaching instead of just saying something about what is taught.

[tabibito]

Ah now.. If we are to take a PLAIN reading of Genesis:

God created the heavens and the Earth and the Earth was without form and void

then we also have to admit that the Earth had neither shape nor content when its creation was first completed.

[Sparko]

Ah now.. If we are to take a PLAIN reading of Genesis:

God created the heavens and the Earth and the Earth was without form and void

then we also have to admit that the Earth had neither shape nor content when its creation was first completed.

and?

even science says that. It was basically a bunch of gas and debris that eventually became a ball of molten rock. Sounds like a pretty good description to me.

[tabibito]

and?

even science says that. It was basically a bunch of gas and debris that eventually became a ball of molten rock. Sounds like a pretty good description to me.

"and?" So when the world was first created, it was without form and void.
What shape did it have? none - it was formless. What content did it have? none - it was void.

According to a PLAIN reading of the Genesis account, after the first day of creation, the Earth had no shape and it had nothing in it: it did not have physical existence.

A PLAIN reading of the Genesis account doesn't show 7 (or rather, 6) x 24 hour terms of bringing things into physical existence.

[Sparko]

"and?" So when the world was first created, it was without form and void.
What shape did it have? none - it was formless. What content did it have? none - it was void.

According to a PLAIN reading of the Genesis account, after the first day of creation, the Earth had no shape and it had nothing in it: it did not have physical existence.

A PLAIN reading of the Genesis account doesn't show 7 (or rather, 6) x 24 hour terms of bringing things into physical existence.

way to OVER literalize things. There is plain reading and then there is semantic nitpicking.

I would say a gas cloud condensing would be "formless" and "void"