Comments on: XFiles: Writing God’s Word for Him http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/12/20/xfiles-writing-gods-word-for-him/ The theology of Reality Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: ThatOtherGuy http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/12/20/xfiles-writing-gods-word-for-him/comment-page-1/#comment-18396 ThatOtherGuy Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:41:15 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1186#comment-18396 "How exactly does citation of Old Testament books by New Testament books testify to the veracity of the Bible as a whole? If the New Testament is still a part of the Bible it must have some other explanation for its being true that doesn’t rely on its being cited by some newer book." Exactly. It's like saying that Deathly Hallows must be historically true because it mentions things that happened in Half-Blood Prince. “How exactly does citation of Old Testament books by New Testament books testify to the veracity of the Bible as a whole? If the New Testament is still a part of the Bible it must have some other explanation for its being true that doesn’t rely on its being cited by some newer book.”

Exactly. It’s like saying that Deathly Hallows must be historically true because it mentions things that happened in Half-Blood Prince.

]]> By: josef johann http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/12/20/xfiles-writing-gods-word-for-him/comment-page-1/#comment-18362 josef johann Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:48:25 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1186#comment-18362 How exactly does citation of Old Testament books by New Testament books testify to the veracity of the Bible as a whole? If the New Testament is still a part of the Bible it must have some other explanation for its being true that doesn't rely on its being cited by some newer book. Furthermore, if we are try to show that the books are all legitimate this method of citation only goes partway to, and there must be some underlying unity between the books cited and not cited which is the basis for their collective legitimacy, which, as yet, has not been specified. If we should instead say that the books are collectively valid even if certain ones were not cited, by pivoting from the legitimacy of "books" to the legitimacy of "sections", we could similarly pivot from "sections" to just "The Old Testament", and we would be operating on an identical principle. But doing so exposes, I think, the insufficiency of the whole method. Worse, we could grant the internal consistency of the books but still hold that it was a raft of internal consistency adrift at sea, dislodged from truth. How exactly does citation of Old Testament books by New Testament books testify to the veracity of the Bible as a whole? If the New Testament is still a part of the Bible it must have some other explanation for its being true that doesn’t rely on its being cited by some newer book.

Furthermore, if we are try to show that the books are all legitimate this method of citation only goes partway to, and there must be some underlying unity between the books cited and not cited which is the basis for their collective legitimacy, which, as yet, has not been specified.

If we should instead say that the books are collectively valid even if certain ones were not cited, by pivoting from the legitimacy of “books” to the legitimacy of “sections”, we could similarly pivot from “sections” to just “The Old Testament”, and we would be operating on an identical principle. But doing so exposes, I think, the insufficiency of the whole method.

Worse, we could grant the internal consistency of the books but still hold that it was a raft of internal consistency adrift at sea, dislodged from truth.

]]>