How do you know that?
\\as if to say that the approach to the Old Testament has been damaged in some way\\
You don't think widespread liberalism has damaged real study of the Bible?
\\it is because the literary and documentary evidence of multiple scribal hands, redactions, anachronisms, and diverse theological outlook is so massive that scholars can no longer hold to the simple conclusions that were once held in regard to Biblical authorship and inerrancy such as "Moses wrote every word from Genesis 1 to Deuteronomy 34, because that's what our tradition tells us".\\
Ah, thanks for showing your hand.
As if these liberal "conclusions" aren't themselves based on naturalistic presuppositions. White interacts with that sort of idea all the time, as have many others. Liberalism is a position based in human imagination. It has no rational merit.
\\he wants to interpret the situation in pure black and white terms by insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with how he thinks scholarship should be done are perishing and are doomed to hell.\\
This is not a fair analysis of what White said or thinks.
Is someone a liberal because they happen to notice that Matthew's ending of the story of Jesus walking on the water results in the disciples worshiping him and claiming that he is the Son of God (Matt 14:33), as opposed to Marks account, while depicting the same event, portrays the disciples not as worshiping him or confessing his divine sonship, but rather that their hearts were hardened because they did not understand about the loaves (6:51-52)? Which account is historically accurate? They both have contradictory endings. These aren't things that "liberal scholars" made up. Are the discrepancies between these two accounts the result of an anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions?
I know White has interacted with and expressed his extreme frustration with scholars who don't agree with him. However, the mere fact that White has attempted to interact with these scholarly viewpoints doesn't automatically mean that White's arguments are convincing. They might be convincing for White in his own mind, but that does not reflect the many scholars (conservative included) who would disagree with White's presuppositions about the nature of how to approach the text. This has little if anything to do with what you conceive "liberalism" to be. It has more to do with how one explains the diverse traditions preserved in different writings and how the writers adjusted and changed the material in order to promote the vision they wanted. And to merely cast aside the views of the majority of scholars engaging in both Old and New Testament studies today simply because White thinks that they are not exercising their scholarship "under the Lordship of Christ" is a cheap dodge.
Does White also think that since the Biblical writers thought that the sky above was a solid dome (Genesis 1:6-8; Job 37:18; Proverbs 8:28; Psalm 148:4) then modern astronomy, despite all of the evidence it has given us, is automatically wrong because it is not exercising its astronomy under the Lordship of Christ? If White doesn't believe that the sky is a solid dome then he is already disagreeing with the Biblical writers and could be branded a "liberal".
My comments are not a personal attack against you or your faith or James White's faith. I am a Christian myself and have had to think about these things long and hard. What I am disagreeing with here is the way in which White declares his presuppositions regarding the nature of scholarship and biblical inspiration as if it were an absolute objective viewpoint without any biased approach whatsoever.
It is possible to say multiple things one right after the other.
\\They both have contradictory endings\\
You'd need an argument to that effect.
\\I know White has interacted with and expressed his extreme frustration with scholars who don't agree with him.\\
\\However, the mere fact that White has attempted to interact with these scholarly viewpoints doesn't automatically mean that White's arguments are convincing.\\
True. It means that the ball is in the libs' court.
\\ how the writers adjusted and changed the material in order to promote the vision they wanted\\
Assumption. You need to PROVE that.
\\Does White also think that since the Biblical writers thought that the sky above was a solid dome (Genesis 1:6-8; Job 37:18; Proverbs 8:28; Psalm 148:4) then modern astronomy, despite all of the evidence it has given us, is automatically wrong because it is not exercising its astronomy under the Lordship of Christ? \\
I don't see any reason to think that the texts are expressing that the sky is literally a solid dome.
Not persuasive. What's your argument?
\\ I am a Christian myself\\
When you think the Scriptures contain errors, saying "I am a Christian" is a pretty empty claim. How do you even know what it means to be a Christian? How do you know anything about Jesus?
\\have had to think about these things long and hard.\\
Keep thinking. So far you're preferring worldly wisdom to the godly kind.
If its possible to say one thing right after another, then why did neither Matthew nor Mark do so? Your response isn't grounded in anything which can be proved because neither Matthew nor Mark say what you claim they are saying. You are mashing both accounts together and then claiming: "See, both happened". That solution is just an unpersuasive to any critical scholar as my solution of them having contradictory endings is to you.
If you are interested in what the current scholarly consensus is regarding the relationship between the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), and how both Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel as a source for writing their own and changed and altered the details, see R.H. Stein, "The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction", Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1987. Stein is not a radical liberal scholar. He is more conservative in his views, yet the state of the evidence is so overwhelming that even he can't deny the dependency of Matt and Luke upon Mark.
Nothing of what I said concerning Dr. Whites frustration with scholars who disagree with him is unfair or a misrepresentation of him. Just watch his episodes of the "Dividing Line" radio program where the only argument he gives against those scholars is: "Well, they're not exercising their scholarship under the Lordship of Christ".
"The ball is in the liberal's court"
No, the ball is in everyone's court who has enough intellectual integrity to not fight against what should be obvious to them. Ancient Jews, Rabbis and the Targum writers all knew there were contradictions in the Biblical texts and sought to smooth over them with radical reinterprative techniques to gloss over any difficulties that may arise. Since the majority of people in the ancient world were illiterate, no one could challenge them!
As for the sky being a solid dome, Take Job 37:18: "Can you like him spread out the skies, HARD AS A MOLTEN MIRROR?" The author is under the impression that the sky is a solid mass. The sky has to be a solid mass in order to PREVENT THE WATER ABOVE IT FROM FALLING TO THE EARTH, Genesis 1:7 says that the the dome SEPARATES the waters under the dome from the waters above the dome. Psalm 148:4 says the same thing; "Praise him you highest heavens, AND YOU WATERS ABOVE THE HEAVENS". This understanding of the world was the same amongst every ancient near eastern desert tribal society of the Bronze age including Babylon, Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc etc. For documentation, see J.H. Walton, "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament", Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006, pg 168-169. For further sources, see P. Enns, "Inspiration and Incarnation" Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005, pg 54. See also, B.W. Anderson, "Understanding the Old Testament", New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007, pg 414.
I know about Jesus because of the miraculous transforming power that his sacraficial death and resurrection has had upon my life. I didn't reason my way to Jesus, I believe in him because in my heart I know he is my savior and that apart from his grace I am nothing. Errors in the biblical texts mean nothing to me. technical knowledge has little to do with salvation. salvation is by grace through faith. However, I do feel that White's form of Biblical inerrancy doesn't deal adequately with the current state of the evidence.
Like i said before , none of my comments are directed against you personally. My comments are only here to express a different perspective than what Dr. White has presented in this video. If you would like to continue this conversation then we can. If not, then we can stop it here
\\ If its possible to say one thing right after another, then why did neither Matthew nor Mark do so?\\
I'd ask them, not me.
\\ Your response isn't grounded in anything which can be proved \\
And neither can your allegation be proved, because either is possible.
\\You are mashing both accounts together and then claiming: "See, both happened". That solution is just an unpersuasive to any critical scholar \\
You mean, to any scholar who is selectively critical of the Bible but does "both happened" with other ancient texts.
\\If you are interested in what the current scholarly consensus \\
I'm not, actually, but thanks anyway. the changing tides of "modern scholarship" bore me, b/c they never deal with the heart of the issue - their faulty presuppositions.
\\yet the state of the evidence is so overwhelming that even he can't deny the dependency of Matt and Luke upon Mark.\\
He's wrong. Matt and Mark both rely on Luke. Prove me wrong.
I mean, that kind of stuff is just foolish. I'd even say a waste of time.
\\ Ancient Jews, Rabbis and the Targum writers all knew there were contradictions in the Biblical texts and sought to smooth over them with radical reinterprative techniques \\
OK, thanks for putting all your cards on the table.
I'd like to know now, since the Bible is contradictory and yet claims to be God's Word, how you can know which parts are from God and which aren't?
\\I know about Jesus because of the miraculous transforming power that his sacraficial death and resurrection has had upon my life.\\
Plenty of ppl have experienced life change at the hands of all kinds of things. Islam, Transcendental Meditation, Mormonism.
how do you know Jesus rose from the dead, anyway?
\\Errors in the biblical texts mean nothing to me.\\
That's because your reasoning is too shallow. Answer my questions and let's go deeper.
\\salvation is by grace through faith\\
how do you know?
"either is possible". True, its POSSIBlE. However, just because something is possible doesn't mean that it is probable. For example, did Jesus get annointed by the woman 6 days before Passover (John 12:1-8)? or did he get annointed by the woman 2 days before the Passover (Mark 14:1-9)? Is it really reasonable to think that Jesus got annointed twice within Passover week by the same woman, or that he got annointed twice by two different woman, despite the same conversation occurring in both accounts? Oh sure, its POSSIBLE, but the real question is "Is it probable"? The reasonable thing to infer is that the author of the Fourth and Second Gospels both had access to a tradition of an annointing of Jesus by a woman, yet they decided to put the event in two different places in their accounts thus creating a contradiction about when the annointing happened.
"scholars who say "both happened" with other ancient texts" Can you give me an example so I can research it for myself?
I'm sorry to hear that you are not interested in reading scholars to find out if their findings have any merit. That reveals to me that you are not really interested in learning, but are rather hiding behind the notion that scholars have "false presuppositions". Sir, everyone has presuppositions. One should not shy away from information because it makes them uncomfortable. Actually James White himself encourages Christians to read critical scholars in order to become familiar with their arguments.
"Thanks for putting your cards on the table" You make it sound as if i have been playing hide and seek this whole time. I have nothing to hide nor do I shy away from talking about what I have read.
Knowing that the Bible is God's word has to do with the transforming effect that it has on ones life. It is all from God. The real question is if you are willing to allow the word of God to also be a human word, which bears the mark of human experience and human situations which have all of the cultural and intellectual limitations that any other human being in the world has.
"How do you know Jesus rose from the dead anyway?" I don't pretend to "know" such things or to be able to "prove" them. How could I or anyone else? However, I trust that God did it and my faith rests on trust, not proof.
"My reasoning is too shallow" I'm sorry you feel that way, given that all of your responses to my points indicate that errors in the Bible would be very troubling and uncomfortable for you if you were to find out that they exist.
Now that I have answered your questions, I am still willing to continue talking if you would care to join me. By the way, did you ever look up those books which talk about the sky being a solid dome?
Yes, I presume inerrancy, because the alternative is literal absurdity. Unless and until you can give me a reason to think Matthew and Mark are actually disagreeing better than "I'm sorry, that is just not convincing", you don't have a leg to stand on.
\\ Nothing in the text indicates that both were done\\
But something in BOTH texts indicates that both were done. Namely, that one mentions the one and the other, the other.
\\True, its POSSIBlE\\
Then your argument is moot.
\\For example, did Jesus get annointed by the woman 6 days before Passover (John 12:1-8)? or did he get annointed by the woman 2 days before the Passover (Mark 14:1-9)? \\
Both. Or perhaps there is some sort of textual variation with the number of days or something.
Do you think that Jesus only had a dramatic effect on the life of one single woman? Or maybe He had a great effect on several women.
\\Oh sure, its POSSIBLE, but the real question is "Is it probable"?\\
A better question is: If the Scripture has errors, how in the world do I know anything at all about God?
\\hiding behind the notion that scholars have "false presuppositions".\\
It's not hiding. I have limited time, and unless I have some assurance that Scholar X is not simple-mindedly holding to false presupps, I don't have any reason to delve further.
\\Knowing that the Bible is God's word has to do with the transforming effect that it has on ones life\\
Glenn Beck's life was transformed by Mormonism.
\\It is all from God.\\
So God makes errors.
We don't worship the same God, you and I.
\\The real question is if you are willing to allow the word of God to also be a human word\\
Unlike you, I don't assume that that which also has a human source has to have error. What do you think will be Heaven?
\\ I don't pretend to "know" such things or to be able to "prove" them. How could I or anyone else?\\
Well, you could start with good presuppositions, that God's Word is true. Then you'd know for sure.
As it stands, it would appear you're a fideist.
You're more sure that there are errors in the Bible than that Jesus rose from the dead.
Tell me, please, one thing you know for certain and how you know it.
\\did you ever look up those books which talk about the sky being a solid dome?\\
Sorry, I honestly don't have time to mess with stuff like that.
"But something in BOTH texts indicates that BOTH were done, namely that one mentions the one, and the other mentions the other" Really? Then I suppose that Jesus must have been present in two different places at the same time since Mark 15:25 says that Jesus got crucified at 9:00 am and John 19:14-16 says that at noon on the same day Jesus was still in Pilate's headquarters? By your logic that means that Jesus was both on the cross and talking to Pilate in his headquarters at the same time. Do you believe this?
"A better question is: If the scripture has errors, how in the world do I know anything about God?" Knowing God has little if anything to do with technical knowledge. Rather, knowing God is by the transforming effect of the Holy Spirit's power in one's life.
"Unless I have some assurance that scholar X is not simple-mindedly holding to false presupps, I don't have any reason to delve further." Scholars who devote their entire lives to studying the Biblical languages, archaeology, and history of a particular movement cannot in any way afford to be simple minded. a PHD candidate cannot afford to be simple minded in the arena of academic integrity where he is constantly being critiqued and peer reviewed by other scholars. They must weigh the evidence and explain its phenomena in ways that are not bound by a predetermined resolve that there can be no errors or differences of thought amongst the evidence.
What would be really honest is if you would go ahead and admit that you are an adherent to a different religion, like Machen said. I mean, it's preferable you repent and follow Jesus for real, but failing that, at least speak truth as you walk the path to death and Hell.
Your objections read like you've never even heard of basic Bible "contradiction" resolution materials like Geisler's "When Critics Ask".
But just to make it more fun, I'll see if I can answer you without recourse to some other material.
Two demoniacs came out and Jesus healed two blind men. Where there's two, there's always one.
The fig tree withered immediately and the disciples commented on it the next day also. You've misread the texts there, which is no surprise.
It's well known that Matthew doesn't present his narrative in a strict chronological order.
As far as Mark 15:25, it doesn't say 9am. That's your interpretation. It says "It was the third hour when they crucified Him."
John 19 says: Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!”
You said this:
\\Knowing God has little if anything to do with technical knowledge. \\
That sounds like a piece of technical knowledge right there.
How do you know it?
And once you answer that, please let me know whether your answer is technical knowledge.
Jesus said that He is the TRUTH. God places a high value on truth in the Scripture. This stuff matters. Do you want to be happy in an illusion, or do you want to believe what is true?
\\knowing God is by the transforming effect of the Holy Spirit's power in one's life. \\
That sounds like a piece of technical knowledge right there.
How do you know it?
And again, remember how I mentioned Glenn Beck?
\\Scholars who devote their entire lives to studying the Biblical languages, archaeology, and history of a particular movement cannot in any way afford to be simple minded.\\
Yeah, or else he might be rejected and hated by the world, like Jesus said.
Think this through, man. Come on.
\\They must weigh the evidence and explain its phenomena in ways that are not bound by a predetermined resolve that there can be no errors or differences of thought amongst the evidence.\\
You're being intellectually unfair here, implying that only the inerrantist has presuppositions. Rather, BOTH sides have presupps. The question is: Which presupps are better?