Looks Like John Tors Isn't Happy

[Apologiaphoenix]

I plan on responding to him Friday possibly, but I figured some others might enjoy reading this.

http://www.truthinmydays.com/drownin...-of-the-bible/

[Bill the Cat]

[Apologiaphoenix]

This is what Geisler methodology produces.

[tabibito]

I plan on responding to him Friday possibly, but I figured some others might enjoy reading this.

http://www.truthinmydays.com/drownin...-of-the-bible/

That is quite a diatribe. Though I'm not sure where the problem about not everything in the Bible being inspired by God arises.

[Bill the Cat]

That is quite a diatribe. Though I'm not sure where the problem about not everything in the Bible being inspired by God arises.

Because in fundy thinking, if anything isn't 100% dead on accurate in every way, none of it is accurate in any way.

[tabibito]

Because in fundy thinking, if anything isn't 100% dead on accurate in every way, none of it is accurate in any way.

But ... but ...

If they applied that logic to their own teachings ...

[Catholicity]

I plan on responding to him Friday possibly, but I figured some others might enjoy reading this.

http://www.truthinmydays.com/drownin...-of-the-bible/

I got 1/4 way through. The Bible is divinely inspired yet written by men. Spiritually accurate, true to the moral law, but still written by men who can err on dates numbers, etc. If people would quit insisting it has to be 100 percent every word true there would be a lot of things that wouldn't cause such issues in churches and with their children. I just can't.......

[Catholicity]

But ... but ...

If they applied that logic to their own teachings ...

Then Communion would be literal?

[Sparko]

I got 1/4 way through.

I don't think I got that far before my eyes rolled back into my head.

[One Bad Pig]

He certainly doesn't lack chutzpah:

In fact, I have no reason to think that [Daniel] Wallace has any idea that I wrote about him; he is no doubt a very busy man. But if he will not “want to spend much time with Tors,” he has been well advised; it is another maxim of strategic warfare not to enter into a battle one cannot possibly win. And he cannot win this one.

[Carrikature]

Because in fundy thinking, if anything isn't 100% dead on accurate in every way, none of it is accurate in any way.

I'm sure people think this. For me, it's that there's no way to verify which parts are accurate when you readily admit not all of it is 100% accurate.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm sure people think this. For me, it's that there's no way to verify which parts are accurate when you readily admit not all of it is 100% accurate.

For me, it's that sometimes, details aren't that big of an issue - e.g. One angel or two at the tomb is pretty inconsequential, but from the fundy all-or-nothing approach, one has to be wrong. The way Tors is approaching the scriptures, I don't see how he can address this consistently.

[rogue06]

I don't think I got that far before my eye rolled back into my head.

FIFY n/c

[Carrikature]

For me, it's that sometimes, details aren't that big of an issue - e.g. One angel or two at the tomb is pretty inconsequential, but from the fundy all-or-nothing approach, one has to be wrong. The way Tors is approaching the scriptures, I don't see how he can address this consistently.

It depends on the issue, though. Details are what drive views on pre-/post-tribulation rapture, for example, or how, exactly, one is considered to be saved. I agree that one angel or two is trivial, but there's a huge amount of debate and dissent on what is 'real' when the details don't add up. And they don't.

I don't think Tors can address this consistently, but I don't think the fault lies with him. I haven't followed all the inerrancy debate, and I understand the difference between inerrant in general and in detail. I just think Tors' approach is actually more consistent, for all that I don't think it can jive with reality. His definition of inerrancy isn't inaccurate, and it's a litmus test that Christianity needs, even while we could agree it's not the one it has. Which is, ultimately, one of the reasons I couldn't be an adherent, even were I convinced of God's existence. Too many things just don't add up.

[rogue06]

I plan on responding to him Friday possibly, but I figured some others might enjoy reading this.

http://www.truthinmydays.com/drownin...-of-the-bible/

Source: DROWNING IN DEEPER WATERS: A Response to Nick Peters and Another Look at the Evangelical Betrayal of the Bible

In it we discussed in detail how far too many evangelical scholars have been seduced into accepting liberal paradigm assumptions in three areas – historical criticism, textual criticism, and Darwinism – and in so doing have eroded the credibility of the Bible as the word of God, portraying it (deliberately or not) as a set of documents written by men in ancient times who were products of their culture and who made mistakes of facts. The idea that the Bible is inerrant (in any meaningful sense of the word) has de facto been discarded, and its authority has therefore been severely undermined.[2]

It is not surprising that people mentioned in the article as embracing this problematic approach would object, arguing that their approach is valid. One who has done that is Nick Peters, on a recent post[3] on his blog, “Deeper Waters.”



Source

© Copyright Original Source

I always suspected that you were one of them thar radical leftists and evilutionists. I'll bet you even got a Commie flag tacked up on the wall inside of your garage.