A Defense of a “Well-Versed” Doctrine of Inerrancy

(Shawn T Murphy) #41

John, This started with your three questions, which I answered for you. Why do make a personal attack on me?

(John King) #42

My apologies, Shawn, I meant no personal attack. You have induced a case of total bewilderment that the familiar processes of exegesis have been set aside, a cause of grief, not anger. You are of course free to do that, in favor of what you consider an improved approach, nevertheless I stand by my statement that you have deserted the accepted principles of exegesis. And I was unfair to call your presentation of ideas “scanty”; you had no opportunity in a small space to put more detail in.

I am all for a revision of understanding of the text. But you cannot have been unaware of the conflict of your ideas with the teaching of, say, Hebrews. Or have I completely misunderstood? Yes I offer a challenge, that you need to be aware of what a revolution you are partaking in.Others uninitiated into this mode of thinking, need to be eased into acquaintance with this significant paradigm shift, to make the experience less abrupt and disorientating. Once again please accept my apology.

(Shawn T Murphy) #43

Dear John, Everything I write in this forum is well researched and I have references for each of my comments. I written a few chapters in my book about the life of Abraham and his life-long struggle. I am happy to gift the Kindle to anyone in this forum if you would like. It is well referenced. Let me know if you want to pursue my line of thinking.

(John King) #44

Many thanks, Shawn, for the kind offer. Unfortunately I am heavily involved in NT research, a simply do not have the time I know it would merit. So, a regretful decline, I’m afraid.

(Shawn T Murphy) #45

If you are involved in NT research, I would hope that you are looking critically at the doctrines the Roman Empire and the works they destroyed - the minority reports. I hope you give al to of weight to Rufinus’ Apology. Good luck.