An Open Challenge to Norman Geisler

**Rational Gaze** · February 27th 2012, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Spartacus

my argument against riposte

I thought you said you were arguing against sinful use of riposte?

**Mountain Man** · February 27th 2012, 06:45 AM

I get the impression that he doesn't even know what he's arguing about.

**Teluog** · February 27th 2012, 08:40 AM

Yeah, I'm lost at this point.

**Thersites** · February 27th 2012, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Rational Gaze

I thought you said you were arguing against sinful use of riposte?

That's why I said that he should know it to be a strawman. Work on your reading comprehension.

**Rational Gaze** · February 27th 2012, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Spartacus

That's why I said that he should know it to be a strawman. Work on your reading comprehension.

Your inability to express and fully articulate a single, well-defined position does not indicate a lack of reading comprehension in the other person.

**jpholding** · February 27th 2012, 12:22 PM

Back on topic of the thread, Geisler has collected another useless and substanceless endorsement from Mark Hanna (whose name I have heard before, but whom I knew nothing about):

Dear Norm,

I just read your excellent letters and articles pertaining to the issues raised by Licona's views. I want you to know that I stand with you completely. You have stated your case with absolutely compelling arguments. It is not a minor matter as some contend, for it carries far-reaching implications that should not be passed over as unimportant.

I think that defenses by some individuals of Licona's views on the matter and their criticisms of you show that they do not understand why this is not a trivial issue. You have done the cause of Christ a great service by clarifying what is involved and by presenting an airtight refutation of his dehistoricizing of Scripture.

I know of no one who is doing more to combat theological erosion and hermeneutical aberrations than you. I am sure that God is keeping you with us to fulfill a much needed defense of the truth of the Bible. As you rightly say, if the foundations are undermined, we have nothing left.

With great appreciation for the person you are and the work you do...

Hmm. Am I missing something? I didn't see any engagement with the arguments in there...do you?

BTW Hanna is completely unqualified to assess the matter...like Geisler, his degrees are in philosophy.

Another high priest lines up for the Geisler Kool Aid Cult.

**Kenny** · February 27th 2012, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by jpholding

BTW Hanna is completely unqualified to assess the matter...like Geisler, his degrees are in philosophy.

A person with expertise in philosophy (and not NT studies, history and the like) may not be qualified to assess the various historical/literary/exegetical arguments in play (at least not insofar as they involve evaluating the truth of premises that it is within the domain of other disciplines to asses -- often philosophers are good at spotting bad forms of reasoning used in other disciplines though) , but such a person presumably would be qualified to assess the implications of a certain doctrine (such as inerrancy). (Now, as a matter of fact, I think that it should be apparent to anyone who is good at philosophy that Geisler is not only wrong about this whole issue, but obviously so, but that’s a different point.)

**jpholding** · February 27th 2012, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Kenny

A person with expertise in philosophy (and not NT studies, history and the like) may not be qualified to assess the various historical/literary/exegetical arguments in play (at least not insofar as they involve evaluating the truth of premises that it is within the domain of other disciplines to asses -- often philosophers are good at spotting bad forms of reasoning used in other disciplines though) , but such a person presumably would be qualified to assess the implications of a certain doctrine (such as inerrancy). (Now, as a matter of fact, I think that it should be apparent to anyone who is good at philosophy that Geisler is not only wrong about this whole issue, but obviously so, but that’s a different point.)

The rub of course is that is the doctrine of inerrancy held by Geisler (and presumably, therefore, Hanna) is barely more accurate than KJV Onlyism.

In that respect, I was speaking of Hanna's lack of qualification to address the interpretive issues. If (IF! ha ha) inerrancy were as simple a matter as they think it is, then I can agree he'd be on the right track.

Either way, it's more telling that Hanna doesn't engage any of the arguments anyone has presented. It's another Great Man Speaking.

**Manwë Súlimo** · February 27th 2012, 08:33 PM

Roughly what page did Sparty "Stop Using Insults, You Idiot" Cus enter this thread? Cus I have this feeling that he switched horses somewhere.

**Thersites** · February 27th 2012, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Manwë Súlimo

Roughly what page did Sparty "Stop Using Insults, You Idiot" Cus enter this thread? Cus I have this feeling that he switched horses somewhere.

Remind me in a few days, and I'll try to retrace my thought process from this thread here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...07#post3371907

In the mean time, though, I need to catch up on my sleep and otherwise recover my sanity. I hope you understand.

**Teluog** · February 28th 2012, 12:54 AM

How come Geisler is unable to get real NT evangelical scholars on his side, such as D.A. Carson,, Gordon Fee, Ben Witherington, Craig Evans, N.T. Wright, etc.? (Maybe not Wright because he's Anglican, but still...)

**Mountain Man** · February 28th 2012, 06:33 AM

My impression is that this isn't an academic exercise for Geisler. He's trying to bully others into accepting his point of view, and for that, any authority will do.

**Teluog** · February 28th 2012, 01:12 PM

If that's the case, then I would encourage Tassman to join Geisler's side.

**Raphael** · February 28th 2012, 03:41 PM

I don't understand how people consider this an attack on inerrancy.

As I understand things Inerrancy means we interpret the text based on its genre. A Question about exactly what genre a text falls into doesn't affect inerrancy.

It is illogical for Geisler et'al to claim that a discussion about what a genre is means we are attacking inerrancy.

**jpholding** · February 28th 2012, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Raphael

As I understand things Inerrancy means we interpret the text based on its genre. A Question about exactly what genre a text falls into doesn't affect inerrancy.

Geisler specifically denies that and decries those who make what he calls "up front genre decisions" based on comparisons to extra-biblical literature. He says it begs the question to assume that eg, a Gospel can't be part of some new and otherwise unknown genre.

In other words, he's taking the view of a fruitcake.