Wednesday, 5 April 2017

Notification to Mike Licona (not answered)

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I Failed J P Holding's Test - But Let's Look at his Criteria · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Notification to Mike Licona (not answered)

Me to Mike Licona
via contact form on his site
18:53 Paris time, St Matthias' Day
I heard through the Geisler/Holding dispute of your dispute with Geisler.
I seriously think you are both wrong, he in his "text only" approach to meaning, and you in not taking literal inerrancy of a historical text, on pretence that author's intent were* sth other than a historical text.

Here are some links in literal inerrancy:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Quorans on Conflict between Pope and Bible, Hypothetical Question

Creation vs. Evolution : Can a Medical Doctor or a Catholic Religious or Cleric Reconcile Creationism with "Science"?

AND my mirror of a debate on JPHoldings "secret" forum on theologyweb:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy

This is where you get mentioned.

Seriously if you know Latin feel free to point out something I missed, but as I read the Church Fathers on the OT prophets and just rising on Good Friday, their concern was NOT "was it a historic or an apocalyptic text", it was "did they rise for good, as the rest of us will on Doomsday, or did they die again like Lazarus or the daughter of Jairus?" and arguing for the former "was it really on Good Friday they rose or was it actually on Easter Sunday?"

No single one of them, as far as my Latin could reach, argued for "Matthew did not intend this as history". Not a single one of them.

What got you to feel diffident about straight historical literally inerrant text in the first place?

Feel warned in advance : any answer to this mail will be published with perhaps ensuing correspondence on a blog of mine.


* Grammarly - installed on computers of Nanterre University Library - underlined "were" in red, saying "incorrect verb form with singular subject". Seems difficult to make a machine understand the difference between a plural "were" and a subjunctive "were". Can it even get "as it were" correct? Yes, that phrase was presumably programmed as an exception.

So for there haven't been any. Perhaps Mike Licona is a bit afraid of having his answers on my blog - but I would not stop him of mirroring the debate of course!