Monumental Hodge-Podge Biblical Studies Carnival
It has been concocted and posted at Dr. Jim’s Thinking Shop. It is monumental. And a hodge-podge. Like I said.
It has been concocted and posted at Dr. Jim’s Thinking Shop. It is monumental. And a hodge-podge. Like I said.
Earlier today I posted links to a video by Andy Stanley and a response by Michael Brown. Some people have commented on this issue indicating that it was unfair to “attack” Andy Stanley about his views. (These were not on my blog post or its Facebook link; the controversy is widespread.) I have a few…
I’ve previously expressed my surprise about what some people can believe about the Bible and yet call their belief “inerrancy.” As an example, I responded to Earnest Lucas’s excellent commentary on Daniel in which he maintains that one can hold both inerrancy and a late dating of Daniel. I think a good one sentence summary…
The Christian Post has a portion of an interview with John Piper in response to the question: Why was it right for God to slaughter women and children in the Old Testament? How can that ever be right? And the first sentence of his answer is the title of this post. I can hardly tell…
Fair warning: I’ll probably be stuck on definitions. In fact, I’m in the process of writing a blog post about it right now. I’ll add a link to this one once the other is complete. (Here’s the link: Bloody Sacrifices and Salvation.) Here’s the viewer:
A second law and a second note on introductions to biblical books. Goes together, no? I completed my reading of Numbers along with the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary yesterday and today read the introduction from the section on Deuteronomy. In it the author, Eugene H. Merrill (professor at Dallas Theological Seminary) argues forcefully for Mosaic authorship…
. . . at Chasing the Wind. Enjoy!