Someone else took out a subscription after reading my review of William Lane Craig vs. Philip Goff, which was also free. I guess it’s the “Like the writing? Pay the writer” effect. Thanks very much!
Will you address the errors you find sometime? I've read some attempts at pointing port errors but they have been from some level of skeptic and didn't hold up to scrutiny.
Actual errors in the original inspired manuscripts? And what kind of errors? Like getting a date wrong (like the end of 2 Kings and Jeremiah), or more serious stuff?
I don’t think you’re trying to, but it feels like you’re implying that Craig et al only BELIEVE the resurrection, and take or leave the rest of the Gospels. From all I’ve heard from Craig over the last decade, he argues FROM the resurrection, and once you believe that, the rest of the Gospels and OT come along with that.
I heartily agree with the argument here on the reliability of the Gospels. But I don’t want to be the guy who says the equivalent of “you have to sign on to 6 literal days first, or else you can’t trust any of Scripture”. Which, again, is not what I think you’re saying.
What I'm critiquing is Craig's wooden comparative analysis of different incidents in the gospel, saying "This over here we can show historically, that over there we just sort of assume is true but we don't claim we can 'prove' it to skeptics." I'm saying that not only is this completely unnecessary, it will actually not even allow Craig to "keep" what he thinks he can save out as "historically provable," let alone getting "everything else along with it"! As I get into a bit in my first piece, the minimal facts argument simply doesn't work. You need to be able to draw on the epistemic resources of whole-gospel reliability. Again that's a technical point, not just a theological point.
So one doesn’t just accept the rest of the Gospel on the theological ground that “Jesus is God”, but can accept it and should argue for it with the same strength as one defends the resurrection, because we have good epistemically sound reasons to believe the rest of the Gospel as well
Hidden in Plain View is an excellent book. I return to it often.
Thanks for making this series free! Funnily enough I decided to be a subscriber as a result. Not sure why I finally did, but I did.
Someone else took out a subscription after reading my review of William Lane Craig vs. Philip Goff, which was also free. I guess it’s the “Like the writing? Pay the writer” effect. Thanks very much!
What exactly is your position on inerrancy? You have mentioned you don't believe in it a few times, and I am curious what you do believe.
I don't think inerrancy is a theological given, and I also think there are some actual errors.
Thanks, its an interesting topic which I haven't fully made up my mind about. And the essay was great, too.
Thanks so much for reading!
Will you address the errors you find sometime? I've read some attempts at pointing port errors but they have been from some level of skeptic and didn't hold up to scrutiny.
I would really like a peak into your thoughts.!
Actual errors in the original inspired manuscripts? And what kind of errors? Like getting a date wrong (like the end of 2 Kings and Jeremiah), or more serious stuff?
Yes, I doubt that God divinely mandated the human execution of infants in several passages.
Aha. Ironically, Craig bites the bullet on those and says “they all go to Heaven, so it’s ok in those specific instances”
I don’t think you’re trying to, but it feels like you’re implying that Craig et al only BELIEVE the resurrection, and take or leave the rest of the Gospels. From all I’ve heard from Craig over the last decade, he argues FROM the resurrection, and once you believe that, the rest of the Gospels and OT come along with that.
I heartily agree with the argument here on the reliability of the Gospels. But I don’t want to be the guy who says the equivalent of “you have to sign on to 6 literal days first, or else you can’t trust any of Scripture”. Which, again, is not what I think you’re saying.
What I'm critiquing is Craig's wooden comparative analysis of different incidents in the gospel, saying "This over here we can show historically, that over there we just sort of assume is true but we don't claim we can 'prove' it to skeptics." I'm saying that not only is this completely unnecessary, it will actually not even allow Craig to "keep" what he thinks he can save out as "historically provable," let alone getting "everything else along with it"! As I get into a bit in my first piece, the minimal facts argument simply doesn't work. You need to be able to draw on the epistemic resources of whole-gospel reliability. Again that's a technical point, not just a theological point.
So one doesn’t just accept the rest of the Gospel on the theological ground that “Jesus is God”, but can accept it and should argue for it with the same strength as one defends the resurrection, because we have good epistemically sound reasons to believe the rest of the Gospel as well