Response To DD’s “What Biblical Inerrancy Really Means” Pt. IVHere, here, and here, I've responded to DD's post, What Biblical Inerrancy Really Means (WBIRM). DD has responded to those responses, and I think now would be a good time to revisit DD's original post that prompted my responses in the first place. There's quite a lot going on in DD's original post, so let's try to strain the pertinent arguments from his personal opinions. DD makes 4 claims in WBIRM that I feel the need to respond to:
Response To DD’s “What Biblical Inerrancy Really Means” Pt. III've reread DD's arguments a few more times, and I'd like to give them more thorough address, mostly to show why I think they are not justified by a solid foundation of logic, or historical fact. As we noted yesterday, DD's first objection to Jesus' response to the Sadducees as described in Matthew 22 was that,
..Jesus tells the Sadducees that they are wrong because they do not know the Scriptures… then proceeds to “correct” them by declaring that “at the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven”—which is not written anywhere in the Old Testament Scriptures!
In that post, DD also introduced the unsupported claim that,
..the Sadducees believed in the idea that the dead continued to exist as disembodied spirits…
I'd like to stop here and see if perhaps DD's claims contain any assumed premises or historical inaccuracies. I believe they do.
Response To DD’s “What Biblical Inerrancy Really Means”So Deacon Duncan of Evangelical Realism wrote a recent post in which he attempts to justify his opinion that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. This time, his strategy consists of objecting to Jesus' answers to the Sadducees when asked about marriage and the resurrection as recorded in Matthew 22. For those prone to reading source material, you might want to also absorb Exodus 3:6.
My Response To Foundation Of Sand, Part IIFoundation of Sand is an essay that offers several examples of alleged contradictions in the Bible. Here’s three more that I think fail.
In Part I, I showed that zero contradictions exist in the Bible’s criteria for salvation. We used the following definition of contradiction: From Wikipedia, “[A] contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other.” I feel it’s reasonable to say a contradiction can be represented by the following formula:
(x) + (-x) = contradiction.
False Argument #16: Bible Offers Contradictory Criteria For SalvationThe question of biblical inerrancy comes up often in debates between believers and skeptics of all stripe, with the typical formula being gross overstatements on behalf of skeptics, and inefficient responses to these gross overstatements on behalf of believers. At the request of a commenter on DA calling himself Brad, I said that I would take a look at an essay titled Foundation of Sand, alleged to prove biblical contradiction and error.
Read More →