Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
Well maybe bro Igzy. I'm just explaining what happened after reading Tomes article. As I explained early on in this thread, I'm left with using "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, pick a textual scholar by the toe, my mother told me to pick the very best one."
As I see it Nigel is not just pulling the rug out from under Lee, but, prolly unintentionally, pulling the rug out from under the Bible too.
Friedel has it, the only way to overcome this conundrum: We should live by faith and the Spirit, and not make Lee's mistake, nor Nigel's error, of going to the Bible scholars for the meaning of the words in the Bible. Else we risk ending up in the land of uncertainty.
To me Lee going to those like Kittel knocks him down right there. Cuz he wasn't going to the Spirit ... like I believed he was while in the LC.
No insult meant but maybe you ought to read Nigel's article again:
http://imnothere.org/Tomes/LSMsEtymologicalErrors.pdf |
Igzy was right: your argument was a false dilemma or a fallacy of the excluded middle. But, what what is that excluded middle? The general consensus about Bible interpretation has given way to an immense pluralism of perspectives and methods that preclude agreement among scholars. However, Tomes drew fundamentalist boundaries:
Quote:
|
This essay evaluates LSM’s works in terms of recent linguistic research. We cite respected biblical scholars with impeccable evangelical credentials. These are not “ivory tower academics in liberal seminaries” who seek to undermine the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith or cast doubt on the veracity of God’s Word. For e.g. we quote from Prof. D. A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies (1984). Dr. Carson is research professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL.) and a founding council member of the Gospel Coalition. Dr. Craig L. Blomberg is Distinguished Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary (CO). Prof. Blomberg stands firmly in the conservative evangelical tradition, and has written extensively on the historical reliability of the Gospels. We cite his Handbook of NT Exegesis (2010). Other scholars cited could be equally commended.
|
So, if you perceive that Tome's criticisms undermine the fundamentals, at least you can appreciate, that was not his intent in writing, nor a line of thinking that he was interested in pursuing. Even within the boundaries of the five fundamental, however, there is vast room for disagreement. And, I think your argument raises a question even within Tome boundaries: If we accept Tomes analysis that Lee's errors resulted from lack graduate education and use of flawed sources, what hope is there for the rest of us that we can come to the Bible directly and hope to understand it correctly?