An Open Challenge to Norman Geisler

[ApologiaPhoenix]

JPH. I haven't seen any comment from you on what I posted yesterday with Geisler's letter to SEBTS.

[jpholding]

JPH. I haven't seen any comment from you on what I posted yesterday with Geisler's letter to SEBTS.

I'm still recovering from backlog after being sick. I'll go have a look now and see if I can add anything. The letter itself didn't seem worthy of much comment -- it speaks for itself!

EDIT: Where was this at? Not DW? Back later...

[Rayado]

Some dude named "Tim" blew a gasket over at Nick's blog today. That made for quite a sight.

[Dee Dee Warren]

JPH, I know the Caner thing wasn't a huge interest to you as out of your specialty, but seriously, it is a huge scandal impugning the integrity of the church in its ministry to Muslims. I really wish you would join the effort to keep it front and center. I know you don't care for Dr. White, but he has done tremendous work in that area, and there are some really good compilations of the issues that I would be glad to round up for you. You have a different audience than White, and I think you could do some great good if you focused some attention on Geisler's tremendous breach of trust in that area.

[jpholding]

JPH, I know the Caner thing wasn't a huge interest to you as out of your specialty, but seriously, it is a huge scandal impugning the integrity of the church in its ministry to Muslims. I really wish you would join the effort to keep it front and center. I know you don't care for Dr. White, but he has done tremendous work in that area, and there are some really good compilations of the issues that I would be glad to round up for you. You have a different audience than White, and I think you could do some great good if you focused some attention on Geisler's tremendous breach of trust in that area.

I imagine given my lack of knowledge, my best option would be to collect links in a post as a sort of clearinghouse effort. So yes, please round up some links I can use in a single posting. I have an opening on the Ticker Friday if you can get me some by then.

[Raphael]

I imagine given my lack of knowledge, my best option would be to collect links in a post as a sort of clearinghouse effort. So yes, please round up some links I can use in a single posting. I have an opening on the Ticker Friday if you can get me some by then.

I'm sure Dizzle will have more but here are some details:
This whole thing started when White, who regularly debates Muslims asked if people could find him links to debates Caner was meant to have had with Muslims scholars. The response was kicked over a huge ants nest.

Geisler's defence of him: http://www.normangeisler.net/indefenseofcaner.html
A timeline of Caner's life vs what he claimed: http://babyloniansquirrel.blogspot.c...aner-file.html
James White's questions for him: http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3904

Ironically right when this started out Focus on the Family broadcast one of Caner's talks where he makes most of the claims that White is questioning. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Focus...d_20100426.mp3

And finally in July this year from James White The Year of Shameful Silence: Norman Geisler, Ergun and Emir Caner, and Veritas Seminary

[ukchristian28]

The following videos might be useful too, especially the first one:

James White's Arabic tutor assesses Caner's knowledge of the language:



Just misstatements?:



http://www.youtube.com/DrOakley1689#.../9/Zo7Qtq853UU

[ApologiaPhoenix]

JPH. New reply to what you said on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1JRVDO...x1W4I5LILG7EFN

Geisler is absolutely correct on this account! The Caner controversy is irrelevant to this discussion. Your language betrays a personal hostility toward Dr. Geisler that appears to be somewhat less than charitable. I disagree with Geisler's view on the Caner situation and even on the Calvinism. However, his observations of Licona's method are spot on. I would love to see the two of you debate the inerrancy of Scripture. I am sure you have weaved together what might appear to be sophisticated arguments for your watered-down version. I would enjoy watching Norm Geisler explode them. Why shouldn't men have to sign the inerrancy statement in order to teach at evangelical seminaries? We already have too many false converts teaching in seminaries as it is. The more we can remove, the better we are. I like the Al Moehler model. Talk about cleaning house! Nothing like casting out demons to make one feel good about the SBC again.

[jpholding]

Yep, I just posted my reply:

I didn't say that the Caner issue was relevant to this discussion, though it is very relevant to how Geisler (refuses to) face up to his errors. He has continued to evade my challenge, and has even removed a link to the challenge someone posted on his Facebook ministry page. Your confidence in him is grossly misplaced and your head is as deeply inserted into the sand as Geisler's and Mohler's.

Let's see YOU debate me -- theologyweb.com. See you there.

Mmm....fresh meat!

[Rayado]

[Sparko]

I am admittedly not a biblical scholar, but how would taking any particular verse as apocalyptic be going against inerrancy? after all, Revelation is apocalyptic as is Daniel and everyone agrees with that and doing so doesn't threaten inerrancy, so why would this? Licona could just be wrong (or not) and either way it says nothing as to inerrancy.

[Adrift]

I am admittedly not a biblical scholar, but how would taking any particular verse as apocalyptic be going against inerrancy? after all, Revelation is apocalyptic as is Daniel and everyone agrees with that and doing so doesn't threaten inerrancy, so why would this? Licona could just be wrong (or not) and either way it says nothing as to inerrancy.

I think the typical argument against this is that Matthew doesn't fit into the same genre of writing as Daniel and Revelation.

[Sparko]

I think the typical argument against this is that Matthew doesn't fit into the same genre of writing as Daniel and Revelation.

Well Daniel is a mix between historical narrative and apocalyptic literature. But even if Licona is wrong about his conclusion, that still doesn't threaten inerrancy. It just means he is wrong about his interpretation. They should be arguing about whether his conclusion is right or wrong, not about if he is bringing down all of Christianity with one interpretation (which is what they are making it sound like. Oh the horror!)

[Adrift]

Well Daniel is a mix between historical narrative and apocalyptic literature.

meh... there's a pretty clear break in Daniel between the historic narrative and the apocalyptic literature. Not so much in Matthew, but whatever.

But even if Licona is wrong about his conclusion, that still doesn't threaten inerrancy. It just means he is wrong about his interpretation. They should be arguing about whether his conclusion is right or wrong, not about if he is bringing down all of Christianity with one interpretation (which is what they are making it sound like. Oh the horror!)

Yeah... I don't know. Seems like a lot melodrama from both sides if ya ask me.

[jpholding]

I am admittedly not a biblical scholar, but how would taking any particular verse as apocalyptic be going against inerrancy? after all, Revelation is apocalyptic as is Daniel and everyone agrees with that and doing so doesn't threaten inerrancy, so why would this? Licona could just be wrong (or not) and either way it says nothing as to inerrancy.

You're correct. Geisler is just typical of many who see the writings in black and white terms and have no conception of internal genre shifts or allusions. It disturbs their senses. While Matthew is Greco-Roman bioi, there's nothing at all that stops him shifting gears momentarily into some other genre form. As I noted re mimesis, ancient writers had no problem doing such things.