For Torrey and Myself, Against Farnell (partly) and Fout and Olson

Norman Geisler Ministry Page

shared Defending Inerrancy's post. December 1, 2017

Defending Inerrancy

November 30, 2017

Do OT writers exaggerate and distort the truth? Some DTS PhD grads apparently say YES!

The Alarming Rise Of The Evangelical Hyperbolic Hermeneutic
F. David Farnell, PhD
http://defendinginerrancy.com/evangelical-hyperbolic-hermeneutic/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

answers much of the link

I Against Farnell's accusations against Romanism

"During their day, the prevailing interpretation ideology of Romanism was allegorical, or more importantly, non-literal interpretation that had held sway for 1500 years at least."

It was allegorical, it was NOT non-literal.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice literally means Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice. Which he did.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice allegorically means Jesus carrying the Cross to Calvary - which He did.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice morally means we should trust in God even in extreme danger of life - which we should.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice anagogically means sth about the heavenly glory too, but I am not sure what. But what it anagogically means is true too.

If you didn't get it, I am saying this as a Romanist, as it is here called.

And introducing the allegorical method was done by Jesus Himself, since all over Moses and the Prophets His resurrection was foretold. You don't get the "all over" part, unless you accept the allegorical sense.

"but allowed the interpreter to find in the text any concept or idea desired by the interpreter, especially when the text in its literal sense presented something unacceptable to the interpreter’s mindset."

If he pretended so, he was lying, but I'd like a reference from his own writings this was his motive.

The literal sense can never be done away with. Not with Romanists, anyway.

"He believed that allegory or non-literal approach often contradicted the literal sense outright."

OK, Jesus carrying the Cross to Calvary contradicts Isaac carrying the firewood how?

II For Torrey

"One need only read R. A. Torrey’s The Fundamentals original work to see that they left a monumental testimony that “higher criticism,” today known as “historical criticism” and its bent toward dismissal of the historicity, supernatural of the OT and NT, as well as its, non-literal interpretation."

Grammatical literal sense of above sentence wanted.

"One need only read R. A. Torrey’s The Fundamentals original work to see that"

Clear.

"that they left a monumental testimony that"

Clear.

"that “higher criticism,” today known as “historical criticism”
subject
and its bent toward dismissal of the historicity, supernatural of the OT and NT,
subject
as well as its, non-literal interpretation."
also subject - where is the predicate???

By the way, Torrey in 1917 was a few years behind Popes Leo XIII and St Pius X, also condemning "higher criticism".

"especially since historical-criticism fought so strongly against an “infallible” or today’s term “inerrant” (without error) Bible."

Why did Protestants change the description of the Bible from "infallible" to "inerrant"?

Because Catholics make the distinction.

Each and every hagiographer as such was infallible and inerrant, by the grace and providence of God (God allowed Moses to well investigate with correct intuition about contradicting versions, if there were any or where to find the missing pieces, but God also allowed the Hebrew tradition up to him to involve no error gaining upper hand and no lacunae too important to sap it - that was providential).

But Catholic bishops, collectively, are infallible only.

If all Catholic bishops agreed on a wrong anno mundi for Christ's birth (say 5299 instead of 5199) on some occasion, but never formally expressed this as binding dogma (next Christmas reading again, correctly, He was born 5199 after Creation), this would prove them not inerrant - but their not making a doctrine of the spurious "AM 5299" would be the negative side of their collective infallibility.

III For Myself

"This means that we accept at face value the biblical record of the creation of the universe and man, the historic fall of Adam in Eden, the Noahic flood, the Tower of Babel, and all other events of biblical history, both natural and supernatural."

I do so also, at least insofar as there is one.

Tower of Babel, two things.

I
1) Would you at face value include it was a piece of architecture?
2) Would you at face value include it was vertically oblong?
3) Would you at face value include Nimrod (or whoever else the building master was, but tradition says Nimrod) having hopes to literally and not just visually "reach into heaven"?

In that case, you would need to either consider heaven as very close to the surface of earth (Rob Skiba is trying that) or Nimrod as very dumb (in and of itself no problem, not one of the giants of old found wisdom, Baruch ch. 3, forgot which verse).

Or would you agree one of the three things is not really part of the face value, at least if you face the text long enough?

In my view it is n#1.

On Cape Canaveral, a few times, towers have been raised of which not step one or two, but only step three reaches into Heaven. We call them rockets.

II
"[1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. [2] And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it."

Would you at face value include lack of geographic spread? Or could "they" mean sth more restricted than "all men" and "earth" mean literally men spread out all over the earth?

"[8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city."

Would you at face value include geographic spread to begin then, or only the disunity between the different lands to begin then?

I take the latter view.

For one thing because of the tradition Hebrews were spared the confusion of tongues, since not collaborating. That would need some geographic distance if Nimrod was a mighty hunter of men.

For another, because this leaves room for a continuity of habitations between pre- and post-Babel, but a cessation of the to and fro to Babel and back which I imagine was going on.

And these factors, I, lack of architectonic tower being acceptable, II presence of geographic spread being acceptable, but III (verse 1) presence of recorded writing in different tongues NOT being acceptable means I consider Göbekli Tepe a very good candidate.

I agree with Graham Hancock on that one, but not in general world view, of course. Nor, obviously, in his acceptance at face value of carbon dates.

2551 (five years after Peleg born in 2556 BC) to 2511 - that is the traditional forty years of Babel.

If 2551 BC looks like 9600 BC and 2511 BC like 8600 BC, one can calculate exactly what carbon 14 levels were at start and end of Babel event - and that carbon 14 production was 11 times faster than it is now since carbon 14 level has been stable for 2500 years (or even since some before that).

IV Against Fout and Olson

"2. The number of the Ephraimites in Judges 12. Judges 12:6 gives a number of slain at 42, 000 for mispronouncing “Shibboleth,” but that such a number “exceeds the census for that tribe in either Numbers 1:32 (40,500) or Numbers 26:35 (32,500)."

Time had elapsed since Numbers 1:32 and since Numbers 26:35.

Similarily there is slight population growth in totals for Israel:

Num. 1:45 at 603, 550 total
Numbers 26:51 at 601, 730
2 Kings 24:9 at 1.3 million
1 Paralipomenon 21:5 at 1.57 million

Now, some argue that:

“Like the censuses of the book of nUmbers, the totals are entirely too large.” (p. 379)

R e m i n d s me of those arguing population of Europe was very low in the Middle Ages or Antiquity.

A reason not to trust them, right?

A scholarship giving a bad result on the Bible can't be trusted to give good results elsewhere - I mean of course a particular school in scholarship on a particular type of issue, not scholarship as such in general.

"And he gave David the number of them, whom he had surveyed: and all the number of Israel was found to be eleven hundred thousand men that drew the sword: and of Juda four hundred and seventy thousand fighting men."

Here is Challoner's comment:

[5] "The number": The difference of the numbers here and 2 Kings 24. is to be accounted for, by supposing the greater number to be that which was really found, and the lesser to be that which Joab gave in.

He was one of these pesky Romanists with their - our - pesky "non-literal" interpretation ...

"Next, based on an examination of (1) a brief review of the history of interpretation of these numbers that asserts a rejection of these numbers as true but rather allegorized them [with the exception of the Reformers who took them literally—PLEASE NOTE: [notice they were grammatico-historical advocates of literal interpretation] (pp. 379-81);"

Numbers are not allegorised to avoid believing literal numbers!

We believe the Apostles literally caught 153 fish, but we also allegorise it as the 153 Hail Marys in a complete Rosary.

"current archaeological and demographics discoveries that suggest at no time did the land contain such a large population as seen in Numbers 1; 26"

Well, seems like either archaeology or demographics is done with some bad methodology - not just for that particular error detected by the Bible!

Thank God for warning us about other inaccuracies the false methods can risk landing us with!

"Skeletal and tooth wear data from ancient times indicate an average lifespan of around forty years old, not over 900 years as in Genesis 5, or even the almost 200 years of the later patriarchs."

1) I'd say this poses the question whether these are accurate measures.

I don't believe in average lifespans of around forty, except insofar as high child mortalities bias it down.

Includes Patriarchs as well as Middle Ages which is getting undeserved bad press for "low average life spans".

Kings and Knights were dying around 55, and this is due to a wearing and tearing lifestyle, like if bodybuilders go on that way past thirty.

People with calmer lives lived longer.

2) As lifespans were decreasing, one consequence could be skeleta and teeth wearing out quicker. This means a "40" for modern times could correspond to a "400" for pre- and early post-Flood times.

3) The line from Noah to Abraham could have had exceptionally long lifespans (not what I think, but possible).

4) If Upper Palaeolithic is all between Flood and Babel AND Babel is "Year of the World about 1800, and Year before Christ 2204." as per Vulgate rather than LXX chronology (Ussher), and Flood "Year of the World 1656, Year before Christ 2348." then Babel / Göbeki Tepe was 144 after Flood, and then those dying in Upper Palaeolithic were all dying premature deaths.

"Kings and Knights were dying around 55, and this is due to a wearing and tearing lifestyle, like if bodybuilders go on that way past thirty," I just said.

Based on my calculations, not from archaeology, but from narrative history as accessed via wikipedians and in the lineages from St Louis IX.

"Plus, a chronology based on these lifespans is biblically inconsistent and contradicts the archaeology of the Intermediate Bronze and Middle Bronze ages."

Solved by a lower carbon 14 level in the Bronze Ages. Abraham (LXX, not Ussher) born 2015 BC (a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo, the Catholic Church said at midnight Mass less than a month ago).

Abraham c. 80 in Genesis 14 - > 1935 BC.

Genesis 14 involves either Chalcolithic or Neolithic of Engeddi (thank you Osborne).

I go for Chalcolithic, considering its Neolithic was rather around Babel, a few centuries before Abraham.

Chalcolithic of Engaddi perhaps sth like dated 3300 BC.

3300 BC (carbon)
1935 BC (for real)
1365

So 1365 extra years -> 84.779 percent modern carbon ....

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

... at Genesis 14. In the atmosphere. Well, quite a lot more than in the time of GT/Babel:

9600 BC (carbon)
2551 BC (for real)
7049 extra years

8600 BC (carbon
2511 BC (for real)
6089 extra years

Going from 7049 to 6089 extra years in forty years means going from (same carbon 14 dating calculator) 42.626 to 47.875 pmc.

In 40 years you get 99.517 percent of original content if no new carbon is added.

This means:

0.99517 * 42.626 pmc = 42.42 pmc should be left is nothing was added.

But with a normal production during 40 years, you get: 1 (present level!) - 0.99517 = 0.00483 Or, 0.483 pmc added to the 42.42 = 42.903 pmc.

Instead of 42.903 pmc at the end of Babel we have 47.875 pmc.

47.875 - 42.42 = 5.455 pmc carbon production in 40 years. 5.455 / 0.483 = 11.294 (rounding off). That is how much faster carbon 14 was forming during Babel than now. If I have identified it right (see above).

"But these lifespans are outside the known extent of human longevity and seem to add a mythical or legendary quality to the narratives."

Olson's methodology is at fault in discounting the mythical and legendary qualities in narratives as non-factual.

Again, a method which is wrong about the Bible is not right about other things.

I believe Beowulf killed off two humanoid creatures (Grendel and his mother) and one dragon / reptiloid creature (hesitating between Pterodactyl and Dimetrodon) "with wings" (Dimetrodon sail could be taken by far off observers as folded wings).

I also believe Odin arrived at Uppsala and either pretended to be a god or was very badly misunderstood, presumablyt also by his heirs the Ynglings.

Hope you have no problem with this?

"He notes that “written records of how people interpreted the lifespans in Genesis do not appear until after ca. 300 BC” so one cannot be certain as to how the ancients interpreted lifespan due to the “time gap.” "

Reason why I for my part prefer to trust Beowulf and Ynglingasaga despite time gap of over 1000 years between Odin and Snorre, shorter but probably still there between Beowulf and his English poet.

Or Iliad and Odyssey (except for theology, which Homer as well as immediate observers were mistaken on).

As said, a method which shows itself wrong about the Bible is not right about other things.

Cited Bible verses from either DRBO or Haydock comment, 1859 edition.