Author Intention and Inerrancy

In the middle of December 2011 I issued a cartoon video titled "Geisler's Christmas Carol" which illustrated some of the issues behind the Geisler-Licona exchange. In response to that video, Dr. Thomas Howe, issued some comments that I replied to on my blog later that month. Here are the highlights. **** Howe said: First of all, it is unprecedented that an author, including Matthew, would stick a piece of apocalyptic literature in the midst of historical reports... No, actually, it ...
More

Norman Geisler: A Call to Retire and Argue Amicably

From Max Andrews (PhD candidate, University of Edinburgh), written at Sententias.org: On 16 September 2014 Mike Licona had to take action on his website that is so minuscule it speaks to the voluminous aggression towards him. What happened? Licona removed his public calendar. (For a brief excursus and history of The Geisler Controversy please visit the directory.) That’s not typically a big deal. I don’t even have a public calendar (but then again, I don’t need to have one). However, wh...
More

Geisler and Roach’s “Defending Inerrancy,” Chapter 11

In this entry, we will be having a closer look at select portions of Geisler and Roach's Defending Inerrancy (DI) -- particularly Chapter 11 on Darrell Bock and Robert Webb (serious evangelical scholars). Initially it must be stated that DI’s evaluation of the work of Bock and Webb (BW) fails to account for the nature of their work. The scholars who participated in the project are not all inerrantists, and although DI uses a small amount of qualifying language to indicate that BW are not ne...
More

The High Stakes in The Inerrancy Debate

By December 2011, the Licona-Geisler controversy had erupted such that a major posting was made by Steve Lemke of New Orleans Baptist Seminary on the subject. Here are some comments I made back then in light of that. **** Today I want to make a point about what is at stake here in the larger picture. This is more than a tension between two major names in apologetics. This is also about what will happen later, depending on which side takes the day in the ideological war (and in essence, tha...
More

Genre and Inerrancy

The controversy between Norman Geisler and Mike Licona continued for some time after when I first wrote my prior post in September 2011. I wrote a couple more posts after that which didn't really add to the matter, because Geisler did little more at that time than re-affirm his prior positions. By November 2011 we did have a little something new from him, in which he remarked that Licona was "worse that [he] thought" on inerrancy, based on some things he found in Licona's book on the Resurrectio...
More

The Biography Challenge

As the controversy between Mike Licona and Norman Geisler grew, I decided in September 2011 to issue a challenge to Geisler -- one I was thinking would probably be ignored. It was. Here's an edited version with just the major bones related to inerrancy. *** I'm keeping up with the continuing saga of Geisler vs Licona, which now includes a second "open letter" from Geisler...I am now posting my own official entry, an open challenge to Geisler to take the matter to the floor with me Gei...
More

Geisler’s Second False Alarm

This post, like the last one, was also first made on my blog in August 2011. How quickly it did heat up! *** Just recently Norman Geisler issued a second “open letter” to Mike Licona concerning the issue of Matthew 27, and as before, my position is as one who thinks Licona’s final conclusion is incorrect even as I do not consider his methodology incorrect. In that light I will again have much less to say about Geisler’s second false alarm than Licona himself might say in his own defense....
More

Geisler’s First False Alarm

Continuing with my opening retrospective, we now come to a post I made on my blog in August 2011, when the controversy between Mike Licona and Norman Geisler first erupted. *** Recently Norman Geisler issued an "open letter" directed to Mike Licona concerning his arguments related to the raising of the saints in Matthew as a non-historical report.There's not a whole lot new for me to say about this in terms of the actual issue, for between my prior review of Licona's book (link below) and ...
More

Inerrancy and Interpretation, Part 5

Original posting on my blog: February 2011. *** Our series on inerrancy closes today with an evaluation of the finale exchange between Geisler and Gundry in a 1983 issue of JETS. My main concern is with how each side defends the proposition that genre artifacts like midrash can (or cannot) fit in with a doctrine of inerrancy. Unfortunately, Geisler spends very little time actually addressing this question, and spends far too much time accusing Gundry of trying to manipulate his readers ...
More

Inerrancy and Interpretation, Part 4

Original posting on my blog: February 2001. *** We now continue our series on inerrancy with a look at an exchange between Norman Geisler and Robert Gundry in a 1983 issue of JETS. As it turns out, each man wrote two articles, effecting what was essentially a two round debate, with Geisler taking the lead. We’ll now evaluate the debate here, starting with Round 1 today and Round 2 tomorrow. Geisler opened with a proper question: Are there unorthodox methods of interpreting Scripture? Ye...
More