ALL denominations should beware of false teachers who have "...crept in unawares."

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Marcia:
I'm surprised you would think most seminaries are conservative.

If you want to win the point on the fact I can't prove it, you win.

1. I didn't say I thought most seminaries were conservative. I simply gave you my first hand experience in seminary. You gave me your experience in seminaries. At the end of the day, that is all the two of us are left with, is our own personal experiences, neither which validates the other's opinion of seminaries in general. On the other hand, I am not the one who made any accusations against seminaries in general, and therefore, it is not really my job to prove my opinion. I would, however, like to see this evidence for Bob's blanket accusation of the majority of seminaries besides all Fundamentals know it is true and if you don't believe it...blah, blah, blah.

2. I am not here to win a debate. I would, however, like to see some intelligent discussion about why people believe the way they do.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Marcia]

Joseph, here is one I source from Archer that I cited in my paper.

Archer states that proposing “objective examination” of Biblical texts only invites “ridicule” from those scholars who continue the higher critical methods and attitudes of their predecessors, and that these scholars are the ones in control of the Biblical studies departments and seminaries.
From p. 577 of Archer's book, _A Survey of Old Testament Introduction_

Also, when I was researching this paper, I came across scads of books promoting Higher Criticism as THE view.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Is that Gleason Archer? I like his TWOT that he wrote along with Laird Harris and Bruce Waltke. Anyway, that is certainly some evidence there. Thank you for at least giving me something to think over. And think it over I will.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Marcia]

I actually attended a church in this area as a new believer where I first got fed some of the Higher Criticism views, like the doc. hypothesis stuff, as fact.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Is that Gleason Archer?

 

[Marcia]

Yes, it was Gleason Archer.

Also, that church I mentioned was a So. Baptist church at the time but is no longer.

I was going to that church for awhile because my mother went there. I had read that the new (at that time) seminary in Richmond had an opening prayer that addressed God as "Creator" so as not to give the bias that God was Father. I asked the pastor of this church what he thought and he said, "Make an appt. with my secretary." So I did and went and talked to him. He told me he had no problem with any minister saying "Mother God." Well, Joseph, in the New Age place I used to go to, they say, "Mother-Father God." I think Christian Science does that, too. I had been a believer at this point about 9 mos. and was somewhat shocked.

The pastor gave me, a new believer, a book by a feminist theologian that asserted, among other things, that the Fall was separation of man from nature, not from God, and that Eve was "wise" when she chose to eat the fruit. He thought this was a good book. I am not making this up. This is the church that had the Higher Criticism theories as part of their teaching.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I am curious as to when this book was written and as to the timetable of these events to which you are referring.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Marcia]

Joseph, do you mean the book by the feminist theologian? I don't recall the title or the author except that her name was something like Phyllis Tickle or something like that. The book had 4 or 5 sections and one section was on Adam and Eve. That's the one I read. It was the pastor's book and I returned it to him with a note that I strongly disagreed with the author.

The events described in my latest post above happened in fall of 1991.

 

[StefanM]

Was it God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (c) 1978 by Phyllis Trible?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I was thinking about the book by Archer

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Colin Smith, in the article quoted above by Gold Dragon, also says this:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What is undeniable, however, is that the foundation of the documentary hypothesis is heavily influenced by naturalistic, humanistic philosophy.

. . . [. . .] In short, the documentary hypothesis emerged out of a time of growing emphasis on the centrality of man in history and nature. This thought found its apex with Darwin's speculations on evolution, and this incorporated itself with the view of history adopted by the proponents of this hypothesis. Such an emphasis on the importance of rationalistic thought and the preeminence of man could not tolerate a view of history that placed God in Sovereign control, and that allowed for His guidance and intervention in the affairs of men. Their rejection of the supernatural was based on the assumption that all things happen as a result of natural phenomena, and therefore they could be assured of a natural explanation for everything.

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, one reason I presented this article is because it comes from the same bias as yourself that Higher Criticism must be wrong by association and deviation from tradition. Even so, it is honest enough to admit that Wellhausen and many of the originators of Higher Criticism do not deny God or the inspiration of scripture. Those denials were not assumptions that formed the basis of Higher Criticism. I agree that many who hold those assumptions find Higher Criticism attractive, but calling Higher Criticism wrong because of that is committing the fallacy of association.

 

[El_Guero]

Wellhausen does/doesn't?

Dragon could you give me a reference where he states that he believes in God and in God inspiring the Scriptures?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Wellhausen does/doesn't?

Dragon could you give me a reference where he states that he believes in God and in God inspiring the Scriptures?

Several posts back, here

Linking to specific posts is not easy in this format. The above link doesn't work. Basically it is post #33 in this thread where I quoted Colin Smith from Alpha & Omega Ministries.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by StefanM:
Was it God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (c) 1978 by Phyllis Trible?

That wasn't the title, I know for sure, but that may be the name, unless I'm recalling it wrong. It was 14 yrs. ago.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I was thinking about the book by Archer

Oh, sorry. Do you mean the date of the book? It's by Moody, 1994 latest copyright date.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Yes, one reason I presented this article is because it comes from the same bias as yourself that Higher Criticism must be wrong by association and deviation from tradition. Even so, it is honest enough to admit that Wellhausen and many of the originators of Higher Criticism do not deny God or the inspiration of scripture. Those denials were not assumptions that formed the basis of Higher Criticism. I agree that many who hold those assumptions find Higher Criticism attractive, but calling Higher Criticism wrong because of that is committing the fallacy of association.

Although some of the Higher Critics did not disbelieve the inspiration of scripture, many did, and the thrust of Higher Criticism seemed to be fueled by an anti-supernatural bias.

Norman Geisler states that there is negative HC and positive HC. Negative HC "denies the authenticity of much of the biblical record. Usually an anti-supernatural presupposition is employed in this critical approach." Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics , p. 86.

R K Harrison, in his Introduction to the Old Testament , covers the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis and the school of Higher Criticism from page 19 to 82, and it's fairly small print.

Wellhausen may said he believed in the inspiration of scripture, but his doubt that the Torah came from Moses shows he did not believe what the Bible says as far as where those books come from. He said that "primitive" jewish religion was animistic and that the Mosaic laws were "the law code of post-exilic Judaism" (Harrison, p. 22).

 

[Marcia]

The book I was talking about was by Phyllis Trible. I just found something on the Internet that quotes from it, calling it an essay. Well, I think the book was several essays by Trible, and the one I read was on Adam and Eve. Here is the quote as given by someone else:

Later in her essay, Trible takes the comparison of male and female even further. She asks why Eve is the one who is tempted, and replies to her own question:
[T]he woman is more appealing than her husband. Throughout the
myth she is the more intelligent one, the more aggressive one,
and the one with greater sensibilities.... [She is] both
theologian and translator. She contemplates the tree, taking
into account all the possibilities. The tree is good for food
... [and] is esthetically and emotionally desirable. Above all,
it is coveted as the source of wisdom.... Thus the woman is
fully aware when she acts.... The initiative and the decision
are hers alone. There is no consultation with her husband.... By
contrast, the man is a silent, passive and bland recipient....
His one act is belly oriented, and it is an act of quiescence,
not of initiative. (19)
http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/MotherEve.htm

The quote leaves out all the glowing terms Trible used to describe Eve eating the fruit.

The footnotes shows that the essay is now in a book with the date 1999. I think it may be that the book I read is out of print or has been republished under another title. But the essay I read is still around.

If you type "Eve Phyllis Trible" in the google search box, a lot of stuff comes up quoting this essay.