Monday, December 08, 2008

Around the Blogs

First, if there is only one thing you do today, listen/watch to Danny Zacharias' multi-media music video on learning the Greek alphabet (he's doing some funky and amazing things for learning biblical Greek that are so hillarious and brilliant at the same time). We shall have to make his stage name Zac Dog for his singing abilities (as opposed to Nerdy Canadian Greek Geekoid which is less marketable).

Rick Creighton blogs on the moral universe of hollywood movies.

Ben Pfahlert lists 101 gospel Jobs.

Michael Barber has some stuff Jacob Neusner and Morton Smith's Secret Mark.

Thanks to Doug Chaplin I found this comment by Richard Fellows: "The 'Acts is unreliable' mantra is often repeated by people whose theories require it." That's the quote of the day!

David Kirk has this quote from John Murray: "We may not impose upon the Bible our own standards of truthfulness or our own notions of right and wrong. It is easy for the proponents of inerrancy to set up certain canons of inerrancy which are arbitrarily conceived and which prejudice the whole question from the outset. And it is still easier for the opponents of inerrancy to set up certain criteria in terms of which the Bible could readily be shown to be in error. Both attempts must be resisted ... In all questions pertinent to the doctrine of Scripture it is to be borne in mind that the sense of Scripture is Scripture; it is what Scripture means that constitutes Scripture teaching. We cannot deal, therefore, with the inerrancy of Scripture apart from hermeneutics." (Collected Writings 4, 26). I would surmize that recent debates which go under the cover of "inerrancy" are really in fact just the tip of the iceberg for larger more global differences on the nature of "Scripture", the type of divine and human agency postulated in the production of Scripture, and models of veracity in theology.


Mark Goodacre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark Goodacre said...

Thanks for the post, Mike. On the Stephen Carlson article, I wonder if you meant to link to Andrew Criddle's piece on Hypotyposeis that references it rather than to Stephen's NTS article? Cheers, Mark

dopderbeck said...

I don't understand the last two sentences of the quote; they seem circular to me. We decide what scripture "means", and that "meaning" is presumably inerrant -- but that is just saying we ought to interpret and apply scripture in ways that provide an inerrant "meaning" -- which requires a definition of what "inerrant" means on the front-end?