Featured Biblical Inerrancy and/or infallibility

Does he agree with ther Bible regarding a literal view on genesis?

that the originals had NO mistakes/errors recorded down at all?

or does he have a partial view of inspiration, in that in all spiritual things can be trusted, but as a textbook of history and events, not so much?

 

Too bad that he and you so not identify with the vews of jesus and the Apostles in those areas!

 

Do you see that the iptures are inspired and infallible in all things recorded down, or just in the areas of theology and doctrines?

 

Doesn't he seem to hold that the scriptures are true when speaking to issues of faith/doctrines, but not when addressing outside those areas?

And that he thinks the basic problem is that we do n ot rightly understand what the authors real intent was many times, and to what actual meanings they intended in their words beyond just literal one?

So genesis to him was never meant to be taken at face value as a textbook answer to how God created, so never intended to be seen in a liyerally way by Moses, according to him?

Seems that he just wants to accomodate science into scriptures, rehardless if wrong or not!

 

Michael Bird is great. I've read him pretty well now and he's thorough in his process. I still prefer Vanhoozer since, having read him extensively, I know he isn't either a heretic nor does he deny inspiration.

His book The Drama of Doctrine was really helpful for my journey.

 

These aren't tests for inerrancy. These are tests for a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture.

If you don't know the answer to these questions, I'd advise you to either a) email the man or b) read his collected works.

 

You've clearly never read Dr Vanhoozer. Your ability to make ranging assumptions based on zero knowledge is astounding.

 

Actually, replace Dr. Vanhoozer's name with ********* and you could describe over half the posters on BB.

Would make a nice sig....

 

Does he hold to the originals being inerrant or not?

Does he hold that the Bible we have is infallible in all areas, pn areas of theology, as well as history and science?

Dies he hold that genesis was an actual historical account from God, to be read/understand in a literal fashion, or to "read between the lines", and figure out what the type of wording really was meant to mean?

Isn't the "Fundamentalist" view of scriptures still best one?

 

Does he uphold full inspiration, or only a partial view though?

 

Man, can't you invest in a little more time before posting things? Why are you so careless?

 

Go read his works, if you have a county library card you can order them through your Interlibrary Loan and you will find your answers. Or email the man and ask him.

I'm not doing your work for you.

 

Interlibrary loans are wonderful. I miss them terribly.

But even if you do the work for him he would not concede anything. He would still ask the same questions over and over again. He doesn't acknowledge anything but proceeds on with his same old stuff. He's not in the habit of documenting anything.

 

OK....the mans weaknesses are clearly evident. So lets not pile on him. Rather lets be gracious and try to help the guy understand. See he may not be able to see what we see...and like the game of baseball, you cant hit what you cant see. See ...:smilewinkgrin:

 

I have my weakness like we all do. Certainly this is no place for "piling it on someone" relentlessly. However, the brother in question openly repudiates established scholars, makes sweeping (false) generalizations of their work, and condemns with libels and labels that have no means of being affixed to these find scholars and intellects that are actually doing good work for the Kingdom.

If someone is without knowledge on a topic, let them ask. Plenty of folks around here, myself included, have provided helpful links, citations, and places to start discussing. What is maddening about this business (with more than just a few here) is how categorically false so much of their postings are and yet they continue in their ignorance.

Applying tests that have no basis in reputable discussions as to whether a man, a man who has devoted the better part of all his life to these topics, is "evangelical" enough to merit our blessing is silly and foolish. It is rout condemnation of good men and women scholars that is entirely ridiculous and I'll call it every time.

At some point we have to put away the rhetoric firearms and the nuclear option of calling someone a "liberal" in order to skirt the true issues and not deal with their credible insights and discussions. Just a few, friendly points.

 

Under various screen names (DaChaser1, JesusFan, Yeshua1) he has asked the same questions with repetition, over and over, once and again, many times, repeatedly, frequently, time after time, again and again. Answers are given to no avail. It seems he doesn't want to learn. He just want to see his werds up showing on the screan!!

 

isn't the view of the scriptures form the "Fundamentalist" approach though the valid one?

I take from some here that they do not wish to ascribe full inerrancy/infallibility to the Bible, as they wish it to be able to accomodate better to "scientific facts/truths", such as old age and evolution..

Am i seeing it wrong
here?