tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443141540275278395.post8415040301930191335..comments2020-05-16T17:58:57.809-07:00Comments on Scholarship and Inerrancy: Can We Still Trust Bob Wilkin?Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443141540275278395.post-25048406998737526682015-05-22T11:03:44.654-07:002015-05-22T11:03:44.654-07:00For Daniel, Daniel 11 is a difficult passage to in...For Daniel, Daniel 11 is a difficult passage to interpret. Since this is not Blomberg's area, of course he's not going to be as heavy on that.<br /><br />For Matthew, Blomberg is open to Licona's view, as he should be. This is the way historical investigation is done. More on that later.<br /><br />The problem I see ultimately is liberal is often used as a dangerous code word. Now I am not liberal at all, but I try to read liberal scholars. They can often see things my own presuppositions might blind me to. In that case, they give ideas worth considering then. In fact, I would say people like myself have a greater confidence in the Bible and what it says. After all, we are open to investigation and think that investigation will show that the Bible is reliable. What I see from the other side is in fact wanting to flee from modern scholarship and retreat into a bubble of fundamentalism.<br /><br />For those who think that being willing to look beyond a literal interpretation and being open to the social and historical context is something dangerous, I wish to point out what Mark Noll said in "The Civil War As A Theological Crisis."<br /><br />"On the other front, nuanced biblical attacks on American slavery faced rough going precisely because they were nuanced. This position could not simply be read out of any one biblical text; it could not be lifted directly from the page. Rather, it needed patient reflection on the entirety of the Scriptures; it required expert knowledge of the historical circumstances of ancient Near Eastern and Roman slave systems as well as of the actually existing conditions in the slave states; and it demanded that sophisticated interpretative practice replace a commonsensically literal approach to the sacred text. In short, this was an argument of elites requiring that the populace defer to its intellectual betters. As such, it contradicted democratic and republican intellectual instincts. In the culture of the United States, as that culture had been constructed by three generations of evangelical Bible believers, the nuanced biblical argument was doomed"<br /><br />The Civil War as a Theological Crisis by Mark A. Noll<br /><br />The same kind of Inerrancy I see paraded around today is what is creating new atheists and was used to justify slavery in the Civil War. I find it unsustainable and a dangerous anti-intellectualism.<br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443141540275278395.post-92060798731247458272015-05-22T11:03:26.454-07:002015-05-22T11:03:26.454-07:00Hi Shawn. Let's look at some of the issues.
F...Hi Shawn. Let's look at some of the issues.<br /><br />First off, Inerrancy really is a broad boat. It simply means that whatever the Bible teaches is true. We should not take something like the ICBI statement, which is recent, and act like it has been the entire position of the church throughout history. Can someone be wrong on what the Bible teaches and still believe in Inerrancy? Absolutely. I seriously doubt anyone on this planet has everything in the Bible right after all. <br /><br />But let's look at what Bob said about Blomberg's views. First off, p. 177 is not cited in the original post. Why did Wilkins not mention this page? Instead, he said Blomberg specifically denied certain doctrines while not giving the exact location and in fact, saying "I lean towards a view" is not saying "I deny another view." It's not even saying "I affirm a view." After all, a number of these views are OT and Blomberg's area of expertise is not the OT.<br /><br />So does he say Genesis 1 is non-historical? No. He takes an old-earth creationist view, which is well within the bounds of orthodoxy, and a literary framework. The literary hypothesis does not say the text is non-historical. It says that historical events were arranged in a literal format. I myself hold to Walton's view and yet I affirm that Genesis 1-3 are historical. <br /><br />Who else held to such a view? Augustine held to a more framework view because he thought creation was all done instantaneously. The whole 7 days were done at once. This was talked about in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Do we want to see Augustine denied the historicity of Genesis?<br /><br />For Genesis 2-3, he suspects Kidner is right, but remains open to other options. Note that saying that Adam and Eve were two of a group chosen does not deny the historicity of the account or of Adam and Eve. Wilkins also says that Blomberg says that Adam and Eve were not directly created by God. Blomberg could be open to that, but he has not said it directly.<br /><br />For Jonah, Blomberg is not talking about the whole book but the account of the fish. Since he is not denying it, then what is the danger? Blomberg is open to investigation. <br /><br />For Job, he is not saying that it is nonhistorical. Longman believes there was a righteous sufferer in the past. <br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443141540275278395.post-15441821938877793652015-05-22T07:00:13.441-07:002015-05-22T07:00:13.441-07:00Hi Nick.
My name is Shawn. I work for Grace in Fo... Hi Nick.<br /><br />My name is Shawn. I work for Grace in Focus Magazine. Thanks for taking the time to respond to Bob’s article. In your blog post you asked a number of times for proof that Blomberg holds this or that view. Of course, Blomberg’s main point is to outline some options that he thought were compatible with inerrancy (pp. 150-173). He presented those as examples of the kind of questions and options that can be applied to any part of Scripture. That's why Bob brings up examples that Blomberg does not specifically discuss.<br /><br />Just to recap, Bob was writing to address Blomberg’s idea that inerrancy is so broad that any narrative portion of Scripture may actually turn out to be nonhistorical in a modern sense (because it was written according to ancient literary conventions), and that that’s compatible with believing in inerrancy. The main point is not to attack Blomberg's personal views, but how he was presenting inerrancy.<br /><br />Still, you asked where Blomberg personally holds this or that view. You can find the answer on p. 177, where he tell us what his personal stances are. They turn out to be very liberal. Here’s a summary of his summary:<br /><br />• Genesis 1: Nonhistorical. Literary framework view.<br />• Genesis 2-3: Nonhistorical. “Leans towards” Kidner’s view that Adam and Eve were two Neolothic people chosen by God out of a group.<br />• Jonah: “Suspects” it may be history, and that the author meant that a miracle really did happen.<br />• Job: Nonhistorical. “Gravitates” towards Longman’s view that it is a parable.<br />• Isaiah: One author.<br />• Daniel: “Baffled” but “inclined” to believe it is predictive prophecy.<br />• Matthew: Rejects Matthew as midrash as “highly unlikely.” He’s “Yet to be persuaded” that 27:51-52 is nonhistorical.<br />• Epistles: Good case for traditional ascriptions (but not conclusive!).<br /><br />Most of our readers studied at Dallas Seminary in the 60s-80s or attend church by pastors from that background. That’s where Bob went. And that’s the context for Bob’s discussion of inerrancy. DTS prided itself on defending the Bible when other seminaries were going liberal. That's the legacy Bob and our readers are trying to defend. Someone who was only “inclined” to believe that Daniel was genuine predictive prophecy could not be a pastor in one of our churches. So you can imagine that Blomberg’s contention that it is compatible with inerrancy to teach that Daniel was actually written by a group of people after the events had taken place in the “guise” of prophecy (p. 163) would be absolutely beyond the pale for us. So are most of the views Blomberg outlines on pp. 150-173.<br /><br />In fact, the views that Blomberg says are compatible with inerrancy are, in Bob’s opinion, the very kind of liberal interpretations that DTS and the inerrancy confessions were supposed to combat! If that’s what passes for inerrancy nowadays then it is hard to see how we can really trust the Bible at all. Our readers need to be aware that ETS affiliated NT professors are teaching these views and we need to stop financially supporting these seminaries.<br /><br />You might think Bob’s being naïvely literalistic and should read the Bible the way Blomberg does. That’s fine. But that’s also a different discussion.SC Lazarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12647118331835762926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443141540275278395.post-1552625030532072952015-05-21T18:21:32.168-07:002015-05-21T18:21:32.168-07:00There are quite a few areas of concern here.
Firs...There are quite a few areas of concern here.<br /><br />First off, have you read Blomberg's book? I have it here. I looked for the places where Blomberg denies these things. I found where he said some people think otherwise, but not where he does. I also saw him say that does not necessitate a denial of inerrancy.<br /><br />My biggest concern is with this literalist hermeneutic. Why should I believe that the Bible is written in a culture that is literalist like that? The Bible is a rich piece of literature that uses all manner of literary expressions and tools. There is no rule I know of that says literal unless otherwise. In fact, the first interpreters, the church fathers, figured otherwise.<br /><br />We could in fact make it more interesting. Mark Noll wrote an excellent book called The Civil War As A Theological Crisis. Slavery was a major issue and a lot of it had to do with the Bible. There were two groups. The literalists and the non-literalists. The literalists wanted to go by the "plain meaning" of the text. The contextualists as I prefer to call us wanted to look at the Bible in light of what was known about the ancient culture. <br /><br />The literalists were also the slave owners trying to say the Bible justified slavery.<br /><br />Be careful what route you choose to go down. It has a dark history.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443141540275278395.post-53413428171718007932015-05-21T14:53:53.135-07:002015-05-21T14:53:53.135-07:00If Blomberg does not believe what Bob points out t...If Blomberg does not believe what Bob points out that he wrote in his book, why did he (Blomberg) say those things in his book? Bob gives the page number where he said it. He gives exact quotes along with the page numbers. If Bob has misunderstood anything incorrectly, I know that he would want that pointed out to him. He would make the correction. But so far only accusations have come his way. There is no evidence that Bob misrepresented him in what he said in his book. It sounds to me like the 2 men (Bob Wilkin and Craig Blomberg) have 2 different beliefs about the the inerrancy of scripture. One says that much of the stories in the Bible are fictional stories to make a point… called "inspired fiction" and the other believes that God meant exactly what he said… literal (unless it's made clear that it is a parable or illustration). A very important distinction~!!!Dianehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14220108948842131313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443141540275278395.post-9991550612743054252015-05-18T18:07:09.329-07:002015-05-18T18:07:09.329-07:00Odd that they didn't even get that basic fact ...Odd that they didn't even get that basic fact right then.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443141540275278395.post-48495371896010460982015-05-18T15:19:23.106-07:002015-05-18T15:19:23.106-07:00Hi name is Robert (Bob) Wilkin, not David Wilkins....Hi name is Robert (Bob) Wilkin, not David Wilkins. The site this was posted on got his name wrong. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974484672787343580noreply@blogger.com