Response To DD’s “What Biblical Inerrancy Really Means” Pt. III

This is my third response to DD's "What Biblical Inerrancy Really Means."

If DD's only point is to assert that in a vacuum, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" is not categorically equivalent to, "There is a future bodily resurrection," we've been in agreement this whole time as I've made clear in my previous responses. Similarly, note that fossils in strata are not categorically equivalent to "evolution by natural selection over millions of years," either – but in the latter we are assured that the inferences we've drawn are sound.

In order for Jesus’ logic to be intact, he needs to be able to invoke a grammatical rule that says that whenever the phrase “the X of Y” is used to refer to a past association between X and Y, then that same association must continue through at least the present time (i.e. the time when someone refers to “the X of Y”). But there is no such rule. (DD)

Taken at face value, does the phrase "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" denote a past association, or a present one?

Gettysburg can be the location of Lincoln’s famous Address without Lincoln still standing there delivering it. George H. W. Bush can be the Bush of the Persian Gulf War without that war still being fought. God (if He existed) could still be the God of Abraham on the basis of His past association with ol’ Abe while the latter was still living. (DD)

I get that, and if we take each of those statements in a vacuum, I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, let's personify Gettysburg and reparse things: "I [Gettysburg] am the location of Lincoln's famous address."

DD is absolutely correct when he says that nothing in, "I [Gettysburg] am the location of Lincoln's famous address," requires that Lincoln still be in Gettysburg delivering his address. IOW, it would certainly be justifiable to walk away from, "I [Gettysburg] am the location of Lincoln's famous address" with the impression that Gettysburg was talking about a past relationship. However, taking things at face value, would it be justifiable to interpret the emendation, "I [Gettysburg] am the not the location of Lincoln's past famous addresses, but of his present ones" as referring to a past relationship?

Of course not. The unavoidable conclusions given such an emendation are either that Gettysburg is lying, or there are still addresses being made. Honestly, taking it at face value, I don't see how the logic could be any more straightforward; I even broke it down to syllogism form in my first responses. Here's a version amended for absolute clarity:

P1 God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; (I'll grant that 'is' as used in Exodus 3:6 may or may not denote a present relationship)

P2 God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; (Jesus' emendation removes any possibility that 'is' referred to a past relationship)

P3 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead; (undeniable premise that was true at the time both Exodus 3:6 and Jesus' emendation were spoken)

Given P1, P2 and P3, either:

C1 Jesus was wrong in some respect or another;

C2 Jesus was right, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were living when He spoke His emendation, such that a "God of the living" could be their God;

C3 Jesus was right, and was referring to a future time when Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be living again, such that a "God of the living" could be their God.

DD claims that unless Jesus "invokes a [non-existent] grammatical rule," or unless those who accept C2 or C3 fail to consistently apply "hermeneutical principle," that the evidence cannot support any conclusion other than C1. DD relies on his argument that there is no "grammatical rule that says whenever the phrase 'the X of Y' is used" that a present relationship is necessarily implied, yet I do not dispute that argument.

I agree that no such grammatical rule exists, and I counter that when we have clear emendation we don't need to invoke such a grammatical rule at all. I also note that my arguments do not rely on an inconsistent application of said hermeneutical principle, and I have shown that if we take the account at face value as DD himself originally suggested, the evidence is perfectly consistent with C2 or C3.

The only reason people try to argue that the phrase “I am the X of Y” must mean that X and Y still exist in the same relationship is because they can’t admit that Jesus was wrong. It’s a quintessential case of special pleading; they don’t even try to apply that same hermeneutical principle to any other situation. Jesus is taking a verse that does not even mention death, let alone declare that anyone is allegedly going to come back from it, and he uses it to contrive a thoroughly bogus argument in favor of an imported pagan doctrine about afterlife and judgment. (DD)

This is why I'm often hesitant to claim I know the motives of others: I think we all get that DD personally finds Jesus and His supporters to be incredulous, but recall that neither none of us knows if He was wrong or not. My complaint is that DD merely presents a possible reason one might disagree with him as the only possible reason one might disagree with him. Hence, he can only sustain his "special pleading" charge if DD simply assumes that whoever disagrees with him is incapable of "[applying] that same hermeneutical principle to any other situation."

As for me, I don't think we should argue from positions that require us to doubt the integrity of our interlocutor a priori.

For example, I disagree with DD, and that without invoking said "grammatical rule," nor as a result of inability to apply said hermeneutical principle consistently. In fact, I need not even accept said hermeneutical principle at all to sustain my arguments; I'm not arguing that, "the phrase 'I am the X of Y' must mean that X and Y still exist in the same relationship," and I'm afraid that cuts DD's objections off at the knees.

I'm curious to see how he'll respond.