Friday, November 18, 2011

Mike Licona's EPS Paper on Matthew 27

No full entry today -- I'll be seeing a doctor about a stone (ha ha)...but I wanted to offer the link to Mike Licona's EPS paper:

PDF format

I was more than a little disgusted to see that even Gary Habermas and Paul Copan have had engagements canceled because of Geisler's bullying campaign. On the other hand, got to love the quote from Bird, as well as the exposure of Geisler's hypocritical inconsistency on Genesis 1.

8 comments:

  1. Very good stuff. Glad you are bringing this for easy access. I will be archiving it, that is for sure.

    It is also good to see Licona quoting some of Blombergs work. Because if Geisler thinks he is just taking on Licona by these criticisms, he is even more foolish then I first thought. What Licona presented was pure scholarship. Geisler is gonna have a hard time with this, it is getting clearer, especially when you sit in an ivory tower and never come down to talk about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just wanted to point out some more of William Lane Craig's teaching regarding legendary accounts, etc...

    http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Questions_Evidence_for_the_Resurrection.mp3

    ReplyDelete
  3. Some analysis of Plutarch and the gospels, in regard to literary genre @ http://creationwiki.org/Gospel

    Just doing my part :)...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I had the privilege of being there. Mike played a long audio clip of JI Packer defending the framework view of Gen 1. That was the highlight for me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I see Mike Licona's busy recently with interviewing Dr William Lane Craig :D
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmPMxIyLG8g

    ReplyDelete
  6. Geisler handled this by direclty approach Licona, and Packer affirmed: 1)Licona attributed to him that he didn't hold; 2)Licona's view is not in accordance with the Chicago statement. Here is a small section from Geisler.

    First, these private citations from Packer are beside the point of whether Licona’s view is orthodox. At best, this would only prove that Packer was inconsistent with his view own inerrancy. Furthermore, it is not scholarly to use these statements without any citation or validation of them.

    Second, the question is not whether the Bible uses symbols or to what degree; it is whether parts of the Gospel narrative are historical or not. The book of Revelation uses symbols, but it makes clear they refer to literal events (cf. Rev. 1;20). One may disagree with the degree the alleged statements about symbolic representations on Genesis (as I do), but Licona fails to note that Packer does not deny the historicity of the literal events which these figures of speech describe.

    Third, as a member of ICBI framing committee, J. I. Packer clearly affirmed the historicity of Genesis 1-11. He also agreed with Article XXII (in Explaining Hermeneutics) clearly which “affirms that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book” (emphasis added). It adds, “Some, for instance, take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is presented as a real person”(EH Article XIV). Packer was co-author of these statements.

    Fourth, in a recent extended conversation with Packer (11/21/11) he assured me that: (a) he believes Genesis 1-11 is historical; (b) he holds to a literal Adam and Eve; (c) he is not a theistic evolutionists; (d) He believes that denying the literal, historical nature of Adam and Eve would seriously undermine several Christian doctrines the New Testament bases on a literal understanding; (e) Whatever statements he had made about figures of speech, symbols, or pictorial language in Genesis should not be taken to deny his firm belief in the facticity and historicity of Genesis 1-11in general and of Adam and Eve in particular. (f) Packer also affirmed that the ICBI statements are directly contrary to a denial of the historicity of Genesis 1-11 and beliefs like Licona’s denial of the historicity of Matthew 27.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Bryan: Someone from Theologyweb looked into this and said:

    "Oh, there is gravy to this turkey, and it's irony gravy.

    It's because he appeals to Blocher...and he completely missed why J.I. Packer is relevant to charges of 'methodological unorthodoxy.'

    Why is that terribly ironic?

    Because J.I. Packer also appealed to Blocher in defending the framework hypothesis, not theistic evolution, directly and unambiguously against a literal reading of Genesis 1:1-2:4. My guess is that Geisler got word beforehand of a J.I. Packer quote being used in Licona's talk but did not get the details right.

    That talk can be heard here. The relevant material starts at roughly the 29 minute mark and goes through the (very interesting, all things considered) Q and A."

    The talk is at http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/Creation-Evolution-and-Problems

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also see today's post re what Geisler says of Packer.

    ReplyDelete