Comments on: Beginning a Serious Discussion about Inerrancy http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/ Biblical theology, stripped bare of denominational confessions and theological systems Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:00:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Craig Bennett http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/#comment-2559 Craig Bennett Tue, 06 Jul 2010 04:03:34 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=32#comment-2559 Well. I consider it to be typical denial that I encounter all of the time. People would rather support some theory about how it somehow relates to some Babylonian idolatry rather than admit the truth that the Molten Sea was an abomination. It is not unthinkable, Jesus criticized a great deal about how the Jewish religion was represented. Like I said, prophets were critical. There is one factor that supports my contention. If it were about Babyonian idolatry and the power of Yahweh over the Babylonian god, then why go through the trouble of disguising it within a metaphor and not just come out and say it? The message needed to be encrypted. I'm not some conspiracy theorist here. All through history we have prophets and writers disguising their their writings to keep away from the watchful eye of the religious establishment. It has become a tradition. Ezekiel's contemporaries would not accept his conclusion just as you have rejected it. At least your interpretation isn't way out there like most of the interpretations I have heard or read. You understand the elements of prophetic writing, you only have to overcome the denial that a prophet would be critical of the religious establishment and figure out why God would allow the destruction of the Temple. I respect the background you provide and consider you to be very focused. What you have said does not dismiss my interpretation however. Ezekiel is addressing the dilema of why Marduk would win and the reason for it. That would be a problem that Yahweh had with the Temple. All of the pieces of the Molten Sea are in the vision. The burning bronze, the living creatures and most importantly, the wheels. Well. I consider it to be typical denial that I encounter all of the time. People would rather support some theory about how it somehow relates to some Babylonian idolatry rather than admit the truth that the Molten Sea was an abomination. It is not unthinkable, Jesus criticized a great deal about how the Jewish religion was represented. Like I said, prophets were critical.
There is one factor that supports my contention. If it were about Babyonian idolatry and the power of Yahweh over the Babylonian god, then why go through the trouble of disguising it within a metaphor and not just come out and say it? The message needed to be encrypted.
I’m not some conspiracy theorist here. All through history we have prophets and writers disguising their their writings to keep away from the watchful eye of the religious establishment. It has become a tradition. Ezekiel’s contemporaries would not accept his conclusion just as you have rejected it.
At least your interpretation isn’t way out there like most of the interpretations I have heard or read. You understand the elements of prophetic writing, you only have to overcome the denial that a prophet would be critical of the religious establishment and figure out why God would allow the destruction of the Temple. I respect the background you provide and consider you to be very focused. What you have said does not dismiss my interpretation however. Ezekiel is addressing the dilema of why Marduk would win and the reason for it. That would be a problem that Yahweh had with the Temple. All of the pieces of the Molten Sea are in the vision. The burning bronze, the living creatures and most importantly, the wheels.

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/#comment-2521 MSH Fri, 02 Jul 2010 06:41:21 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=32#comment-2521 I didn't misinterpret it at all -- and I'd add that I don't disagree that the Jerusalem temple had been defiled (Ezekiel gets to that in the book). But this vision in ch. 1 wasn't about the temple, and use of pagan images by the biblical writer isn't idolatry either. The prophets (and wisdom literature) use pagan *literature* as well - something lifting phrases and sections word for word, but being careful to insert Yahweh in place of other deities, or to "diss" the pagan deity associated with the pagan passage. It's a polemic technique. Same with the imagery in Ezekiel 1. It's about the elevation of Yahweh as world sovereign so as to put Marduk in his place. That's not my unique view, either. You can find it in a range of scholarly commentaries (e.g., Word, NICOT). I didn’t misinterpret it at all — and I’d add that I don’t disagree that the Jerusalem temple had been defiled (Ezekiel gets to that in the book). But this vision in ch. 1 wasn’t about the temple, and use of pagan images by the biblical writer isn’t idolatry either. The prophets (and wisdom literature) use pagan *literature* as well – something lifting phrases and sections word for word, but being careful to insert Yahweh in place of other deities, or to “diss” the pagan deity associated with the pagan passage. It’s a polemic technique. Same with the imagery in Ezekiel 1. It’s about the elevation of Yahweh as world sovereign so as to put Marduk in his place. That’s not my unique view, either. You can find it in a range of scholarly commentaries (e.g., Word, NICOT).

]]> By: Craig Bennett http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/#comment-2510 Craig Bennett Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:57:48 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=32#comment-2510 Hi Michael, Heard you on C2C and found your positions on present myths very interesting. Your explanation a Ezekiel's vision however was off the mark. What most people overlook is that prophets are very critical. Most people interpret prophecy as if to defend the present religious establishment while it is saying quite the opposite. Ezekiel, as you were saying, had to explain why God had allowed the Temple to be destroyed. He had to disguise his reason within a metaphorical vision so as not disturb those who would not accept his conclusion. His conclusion is not pretty, the Temple had abominations withing it and God allowed it to be destroyed and the Jews sent into exile. The vision is describing the Molten Sea, or Bronze Sea. This thing was 40 cubits in diameter!! What's that, around 60 feet? Read the description of it and you will see all of the elements. The four Oxen, facing the cardinal points. The Chariot wheels, four of them going in all directions at once. Revelation borrowed the living creatures as it does a lot of traditional prophetic language. What the contrast is, is that God's Temple and throne are not based on idolatry, but are represented by the natural world, a pristine example of what mankind copies in their images and abominations. I'm revealing this as just an example of the misreading of prophecy. My main work is on Revelation which has also been misinterpreted because people don't want to accept that it is a very critical piece that does not defend the Christian Church. Craig Hi Michael,
Heard you on C2C and found your positions on present myths very interesting. Your explanation a Ezekiel’s vision however was off the mark. What most people overlook is that prophets are very critical. Most people interpret prophecy as if to defend the present religious establishment while it is saying quite the opposite.
Ezekiel, as you were saying, had to explain why God had allowed the Temple to be destroyed. He had to disguise his reason within a metaphorical vision so as not disturb those who would not accept his conclusion. His conclusion is not pretty, the Temple had abominations withing it and God allowed it to be destroyed and the Jews sent into exile.
The vision is describing the Molten Sea, or Bronze Sea. This thing was 40 cubits in diameter!! What’s that, around 60 feet?
Read the description of it and you will see all of the elements. The four Oxen, facing the cardinal points. The Chariot wheels, four of them going in all directions at once.
Revelation borrowed the living creatures as it does a lot of traditional prophetic language. What the contrast is, is that God’s Temple and throne are not based on idolatry, but are represented by the natural world, a pristine example of what mankind copies in their images and abominations.
I’m revealing this as just an example of the misreading of prophecy. My main work is on Revelation which has also been misinterpreted because people don’t want to accept that it is a very critical piece that does not defend the Christian Church.

Craig

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/#comment-759 MSH Fri, 01 May 2009 06:45:06 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=32#comment-759 @Amatsyah: I agree with your judgment of Seely's first paragraph (and you should be able to tell that my view of inerrancy is different than his). I also agree with some of your other criticisms of how he creates a straw man inerrantist to shoot at. But you seem to fall into the same problem - using Seely to set up an inerrantist view that you don't like with the goal of dismissing terms I've used in the discussion (like accommodation) or ideas that I wouldn't subscribe to (like the superiority of science). Science is only "superior" when it conforms to reality and something in opposition to it doesn't. I'll side with scientific reality every time, since God made that, too -- but that isn't the same as siding with science as a discipline or guild. @Amatsyah: I agree with your judgment of Seely’s first paragraph (and you should be able to tell that my view of inerrancy is different than his). I also agree with some of your other criticisms of how he creates a straw man inerrantist to shoot at. But you seem to fall into the same problem – using Seely to set up an inerrantist view that you don’t like with the goal of dismissing terms I’ve used in the discussion (like accommodation) or ideas that I wouldn’t subscribe to (like the superiority of science). Science is only “superior” when it conforms to reality and something in opposition to it doesn’t. I’ll side with scientific reality every time, since God made that, too — but that isn’t the same as siding with science as a discipline or guild.

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/#comment-757 MSH Fri, 01 May 2009 06:35:44 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=32#comment-757 @Amatsyah: no surprise that some of this resonates with me. Your second to last paragraph seems to indicate that you realize we cannot be sure that we have the "Master's words" in terms of what was uttered in real time (no one had a tape recorder, and the synoptic gospels have disagreements in the wordings in many cases). Yet that doesn't deter you, which is a good thing. I'm not sure I see the import in the first paragraph, other than the workability of the phrase "Divine Authenticity" (but of course people will want that defined, no matter how much you like it - you never really get away from that). I like it, too, but it can't shield us from the desire of others to have us explain it. The "jot and tittle" thing isn't much of a problem in my view -- it's likely that Jesus was speaking of the specific prophecy in discussion, not every part and segment of the entire canon. @Amatsyah: no surprise that some of this resonates with me. Your second to last paragraph seems to indicate that you realize we cannot be sure that we have the “Master’s words” in terms of what was uttered in real time (no one had a tape recorder, and the synoptic gospels have disagreements in the wordings in many cases). Yet that doesn’t deter you, which is a good thing. I’m not sure I see the import in the first paragraph, other than the workability of the phrase “Divine Authenticity” (but of course people will want that defined, no matter how much you like it – you never really get away from that). I like it, too, but it can’t shield us from the desire of others to have us explain it. The “jot and tittle” thing isn’t much of a problem in my view — it’s likely that Jesus was speaking of the specific prophecy in discussion, not every part and segment of the entire canon.

]]> By: Amatsyah http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/#comment-755 Amatsyah Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:05:40 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=32#comment-755 Elaborating on the idea of the ‘Bible Proper’ vs. its “‘cultural limitations’ [that] will boil down to either us – ourselves – being presuppositionally misinformed towards the Text, or just plain biased”, I’d like to use Mr. Seely’s article as a great example. Wherein he does an excellent job in building the case for raqia’s traditional “firmament” idea, I interpret his conclusion on this matter as conversely equal. To judge his scientific-inerrancy statement “We find this doctrine to be a priori, a doctrine that is read into the teachings of the Bible, rather than derived from it by legitimate exegesis” by his own standards, this position is EQUALLY a priori. Whoever said that modern ‘science’ has the advantage in every say when it boils down to it versus the ‘Bible’s science’? Or that we always interpret the Bible’s position on scientific matters correctly? Perhaps we have a propensity these days to lean on what seems as infallible scientific deductions, when our data is really biased, inconclusive, or mistakenly derived. I’ll use the Greek word “monogenes” and its relatively recent readjusted lexical definition for a scientific (linguistic) parallel. Case in point, before writing off “firmament” as archaic and naïve, perhaps ALL the voices in science need to be sought out. Just because the modern consensus is that space is a vacuum, doesn’t mean that the consensus by necessity has to be right. If this were the case, then [macro] evolution should be incontestable and embraced by all Christians and non-Christians alike. And so as science would have it, not ALL scientists are persuaded by space’s vacuity. In fact, there are some points that they make which become as incontestable as the laws of thermodynamics. For starters, space contains resistance. Vacuums on the other hand, do not. Whereas some may consider the Bible itself to construe the earth as flat, many do not. To exegete Matt. 4:8 for instance, this is far from a solid case to build a flat-earth concept, especially when it involves the two most supernal entities in existence. More to the point of a biblical-terrestrial consensus might be Psalm 19, which acknowledges a visual **circuitous** solar effect. For Seely to conclude that “In writing Scripture, God takes up science at the point to which man has developed it at the time of the writing … does not give special revelation to help man fulfill the cultural mandate … His special revelation has to do with that which man cannot discover by his own efforts … His special revelation has to do with redemption” … is a flat-out presupposition! No different than a traditionalist’s a priori presumption towards Divinely-conferred inerrancy. Except in this case, it is felt by the scientist that science has found an upper-hand on some of the claims found in the Bible, thereby warranting a reassessment and rewording of HOW to define “inerrancy”. THIS is accommodation. And to snippet “redemption” out of the entire corpus at the expense of ANY other matters, whether astronomical, geographical, or what-not, is nothing short of akin to Marcion and Rabulla. While one cannot deny the obvious ANE affluence (vs. influence … these terms might make for an interesting debate), it also cannot be forgotten that science itself is about discovery; it’s not about creating. Men do not ‘create’ science; science is all about ‘discovering’ that which already is … leaving the interpretation of data highly biased. Why would God therefore accommodate mistruths into that which was His own truth: His speech? This is deception, not mere ‘accommodation’ [to man’s contemporary ideas]. One cannot say that man did not write Scripture with his own hand; nor without his own mind-and-being mixed into the effort. Yet neither should it be construed that God limited Himself in His own dissertations to men for all times through It, to the weaknesses in which these men suffered – whether in knowledge or some other capacity. To do so makes ill of God, not man, and impugns the very reason for extending one’s trust towards the Words contained in the Bible … ESPECIALLY when the main case-in-point to be argued by God is concerning humanity’s redemption! We don’t need to possess the prophets with automatic hand writing; but neither should their own limitations force God to bow down to their cultural or other limitations when His Spirit set forth to inspire. When Seely wants to say “To insist that the Bible be inerrant every time it touches on science is to insist on an a priori doctrine that has been read into the Bible”, one has to honestly consider the converse to being every bit as much true, if not insinuatingly-more: ‘To NOT insist that the Bible be inerrant every time it touches on science is to insist on an a priori doctrine that has been read into the Bible”. Disagree? Really, it comes down to interpretation of the data; not a denial of it. Naïvety is not comely on ANY end of the spectrum. Seely’s heart is in the right place, but science is not nearly as ‘scientific’ as one would like to make it seem; just as neither is the textual status of the Judeo-Christian Bible we argue from. I can be laughed out of every arena, but I maintain that the Autographic covenantal Scriptures were old-school ‘inerrant’. This may not help or be appreciated here, but it has forcibly reminded me to at least maintain open eyes in seeing ALL the presuppositional propositions laid out on the table before us, including modern-paradigmatical “science”. Elaborating on the idea of the ‘Bible Proper’ vs. its “‘cultural limitations’ [that] will boil down to either us – ourselves – being presuppositionally misinformed towards the Text, or just plain biased”, I’d like to use Mr. Seely’s article as a great example. Wherein he does an excellent job in building the case for raqia’s traditional “firmament” idea, I interpret his conclusion on this matter as conversely equal. To judge his scientific-inerrancy statement “We find this doctrine to be a priori, a doctrine that is read into the teachings of the Bible, rather than derived from it by legitimate exegesis” by his own standards, this position is EQUALLY a priori.

Whoever said that modern ‘science’ has the advantage in every say when it boils down to it versus the ‘Bible’s science’? Or that we always interpret the Bible’s position on scientific matters correctly? Perhaps we have a propensity these days to lean on what seems as infallible scientific deductions, when our data is really biased, inconclusive, or mistakenly derived. I’ll use the Greek word “monogenes” and its relatively recent readjusted lexical definition for a scientific (linguistic) parallel.

Case in point, before writing off “firmament” as archaic and naïve, perhaps ALL the voices in science need to be sought out. Just because the modern consensus is that space is a vacuum, doesn’t mean that the consensus by necessity has to be right. If this were the case, then [macro] evolution should be incontestable and embraced by all Christians and non-Christians alike. And so as science would have it, not ALL scientists are persuaded by space’s vacuity. In fact, there are some points that they make which become as incontestable as the laws of thermodynamics. For starters, space contains resistance. Vacuums on the other hand, do not.

Whereas some may consider the Bible itself to construe the earth as flat, many do not. To exegete Matt. 4:8 for instance, this is far from a solid case to build a flat-earth concept, especially when it involves the two most supernal entities in existence. More to the point of a biblical-terrestrial consensus might be Psalm 19, which acknowledges a visual **circuitous** solar effect.

For Seely to conclude that “In writing Scripture, God takes up science at the point to which man has developed it at the time of the writing … does not give special revelation to help man fulfill the cultural mandate … His special revelation has to do with that which man cannot discover by his own efforts … His special revelation has to do with redemption” … is a flat-out presupposition! No different than a traditionalist’s a priori presumption towards Divinely-conferred inerrancy. Except in this case, it is felt by the scientist that science has found an upper-hand on some of the claims found in the Bible, thereby warranting a reassessment and rewording of HOW to define “inerrancy”. THIS is accommodation. And to snippet “redemption” out of the entire corpus at the expense of ANY other matters, whether astronomical, geographical, or what-not, is nothing short of akin to Marcion and Rabulla.

While one cannot deny the obvious ANE affluence (vs. influence … these terms might make for an interesting debate), it also cannot be forgotten that science itself is about discovery; it’s not about creating. Men do not ‘create’ science; science is all about ‘discovering’ that which already is … leaving the interpretation of data highly biased. Why would God therefore accommodate mistruths into that which was His own truth: His speech? This is deception, not mere ‘accommodation’ [to man’s contemporary ideas].

One cannot say that man did not write Scripture with his own hand; nor without his own mind-and-being mixed into the effort. Yet neither should it be construed that God limited Himself in His own dissertations to men for all times through It, to the weaknesses in which these men suffered – whether in knowledge or some other capacity. To do so makes ill of God, not man, and impugns the very reason for extending one’s trust towards the Words contained in the Bible … ESPECIALLY when the main case-in-point to be argued by God is concerning humanity’s redemption!

We don’t need to possess the prophets with automatic hand writing; but neither should their own limitations force God to bow down to their cultural or other limitations when His Spirit set forth to inspire. When Seely wants to say “To insist that the Bible be inerrant every time it touches on science is to insist on an a priori doctrine that has been read into the Bible”, one has to honestly consider the converse to being every bit as much true, if not insinuatingly-more: ‘To NOT insist that the Bible be inerrant every time it touches on science is to insist on an a priori doctrine that has been read into the Bible”. Disagree?

Really, it comes down to interpretation of the data; not a denial of it. Naïvety is not comely on ANY end of the spectrum. Seely’s heart is in the right place, but science is not nearly as ‘scientific’ as one would like to make it seem; just as neither is the textual status of the Judeo-Christian Bible we argue from. I can be laughed out of every arena, but I maintain that the Autographic covenantal Scriptures were old-school ‘inerrant’. This may not help or be appreciated here, but it has forcibly reminded me to at least maintain open eyes in seeing ALL the presuppositional propositions laid out on the table before us, including modern-paradigmatical “science”.

]]> By: Amatsyah http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/#comment-752 Amatsyah Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:42:11 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=32#comment-752 First Part – The author’s book I referenced is one A.T.B. McGowan’s “The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage” which I came across at CBD. Having not read it, I cannot elucidate the author’s own definition, but I found his one term as noted by the book’s description to be a unique moulding of words. Whether or not I could agree with the use of its author, simply to conjoin the term “informed” with infallibility is brilliant; I propose that conjoining it likewise to [presuppositional] “inerrancy” irons out a most succinct and accurate phrase … and in only two words. Wouldn’t distinguishing between doctrinal truths only, and cultural landscapes, put a lot of tension upon Jesus’ words concerning the jots and tittles of ALL Scripture? From what I read in Penn, I must say that I still retain a certain faith which is firm in “THE” Word of God, albeit a Written Word not today reflected as error-free in any extant recension. This is sad, but I do not fault the Almighty for this. I take the accounts as received, which express ancient Israel’s abhorrent behavior, and thus believe the blame for textual butchery rests on them. I am only grateful for what we DO have today, and pray for more textual critics such as C. D. Ginsburg and Paul de Lagarde. I think that purging the impure out of the pure will leave us finally with an incontestable recension [i.e. Autographic Content only] whose “cultural limitations’ will boil down to either us – ourselves – being presuppositionally misinformed towards the Text, or just plain biased. I know that Copernican ‘science’ is often used to illustrate this, and I won’t mention my opinion on that, but how many people I wonder realize that the first part of Psalm 19 illustrates the astounding supradimensional vorticular tetrahedral dynamics in operation? Pretty lofty observation for a ‘scientifically constrained’ prophet. Yet, his wording is not in the language of an astrophysicist; though one of these today could clearly see this in the prophet’s imagery. But this is not to construe the suggestion that I’m referring to ‘problem passages’ as being the impure. No; what I’m referring to as “impure” amidst the pure (or vice-versa), are the textual impurities. Strictly linguistic. I have the Master’s words in mind here. Obviously, our recensions have been added to and taken away from. If this were not so, then there wouldn’t be textual criticism, because we wouldn’t have inter-contradictive Masoretics, Pesh_ttas, Septuagints, and Vulgates. Nor would we have intra-contradictive recensions; namely having the Masoretic in mind. But surely somewhere in all this mess IS to be found THE Word of God. The Word of YHWH God that is; not the Word of an Assyrian god, or Babylonian god, or any other god who would’ve been nearly agelessly acquainted to the inner workings of the Yahwistic Mind’s Law-concentric mode of thinking and dictating, while having been under His suzerainty via the Council. Therefore, whatever similarities might be apparent between the Bible and its ANE climate, only the Bible claims to be the supreme god YHWH’s word, construing that whatever and however He has Self-disclosed, it is thus done so in it and thereby efficacious to mediate even His very Presence. First Part – The author’s book I referenced is one A.T.B. McGowan’s “The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage” which I came across at CBD. Having not read it, I cannot elucidate the author’s own definition, but I found his one term as noted by the book’s description to be a unique moulding of words. Whether or not I could agree with the use of its author, simply to conjoin the term “informed” with infallibility is brilliant; I propose that conjoining it likewise to [presuppositional] “inerrancy” irons out a most succinct and accurate phrase … and in only two words.

Wouldn’t distinguishing between doctrinal truths only, and cultural landscapes, put a lot of tension upon Jesus’ words concerning the jots and tittles of ALL Scripture? From what I read in Penn, I must say that I still retain a certain faith which is firm in “THE” Word of God, albeit a Written Word not today reflected as error-free in any extant recension. This is sad, but I do not fault the Almighty for this. I take the accounts as received, which express ancient Israel’s abhorrent behavior, and thus believe the blame for textual butchery rests on them. I am only grateful for what we DO have today, and pray for more textual critics such as C. D. Ginsburg and Paul de Lagarde.

I think that purging the impure out of the pure will leave us finally with an incontestable recension [i.e. Autographic Content only] whose “cultural limitations’ will boil down to either us – ourselves – being presuppositionally misinformed towards the Text, or just plain biased. I know that Copernican ‘science’ is often used to illustrate this, and I won’t mention my opinion on that, but how many people I wonder realize that the first part of Psalm 19 illustrates the astounding supradimensional vorticular tetrahedral dynamics in operation? Pretty lofty observation for a ‘scientifically constrained’ prophet. Yet, his wording is not in the language of an astrophysicist; though one of these today could clearly see this in the prophet’s imagery.

But this is not to construe the suggestion that I’m referring to ‘problem passages’ as being the impure. No; what I’m referring to as “impure” amidst the pure (or vice-versa), are the textual impurities. Strictly linguistic. I have the Master’s words in mind here. Obviously, our recensions have been added to and taken away from. If this were not so, then there wouldn’t be textual criticism, because we wouldn’t have inter-contradictive Masoretics, Pesh_ttas, Septuagints, and Vulgates. Nor would we have intra-contradictive recensions; namely having the Masoretic in mind. But surely somewhere in all this mess IS to be found THE Word of God.

The Word of YHWH God that is; not the Word of an Assyrian god, or Babylonian god, or any other god who would’ve been nearly agelessly acquainted to the inner workings of the Yahwistic Mind’s Law-concentric mode of thinking and dictating, while having been under His suzerainty via the Council. Therefore, whatever similarities might be apparent between the Bible and its ANE climate, only the Bible claims to be the supreme god YHWH’s word, construing that whatever and however He has Self-disclosed, it is thus done so in it and thereby efficacious to mediate even His very Presence.

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/#comment-748 MSH Wed, 22 Apr 2009 05:27:29 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=32#comment-748 @Amatsyah: I don't know about previewing -- but I don't think there is any word limit. @Amatsyah: I don’t know about previewing — but I don’t think there is any word limit.

]]> By: Amatsyah http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/#comment-747 Amatsyah Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:08:47 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=32#comment-747 I couldn’t get everything to go through at once. Then, the first half of my response didn’t go through. So the above content is missing a lot of answers to your questions. I couldn’t get everything to go through at once. Then, the first half of my response didn’t go through. So the above content is missing a lot of answers to your questions.

]]> By: Amatsyah http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/#comment-746 Amatsyah Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:05:26 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=32#comment-746 Is there a way to preview or edit one’s posts? Or a word limit? Is there a way to preview or edit one’s posts? Or a word limit?

]]>