If you are saying
that Licona has moved towards a theologically modernist view, one
more in line with agnosticism and atheism
That’s not what
I’m saying. Instead, what I assumed that everyone knew, is that
Belief in the Bible being inerrant by Bible Scholars has changed
considerably. It’s not a matter of a line drawn in the sand
anymore. In other words, either you believe the Bible is inerrant or
Criticism has become a lot more complex than just 15-20 years ago.
Whereas in the past, if you believed like Licona that “Some Parts”
of the Bible like Matthew 27 regarding the saints was allegory,------
well that just couldn’t happen because it conflicted with
Christianity’s Scholarly Belief—At that particular time. That
would automatically put you on the side of either agnostic or
atheist, which was not acceptable. Which is why Licona got so much
heat for his dubious comment, by other evangelists.
What was happening
at that time, that we can now see-----was evolution in Bible
Now for the first
time you could “Publicly have a man like Licona who believe that
the Bible was not inerrant BUT, still believed the Bible was God’s
word. Others Scholars sided with Licona in his block busting view.
Today there are many
Scholars who like Licona believe some of the thing written in the
bible are not true but SOME ARE. And thus they still feel the bible
is God’s word.
Some like Bart
Ehrman believe Jesus was a real person and certain locations and
events might have happen, but he doesn’t believe it is God’s
So what has happen
since the late 20 century, and early twenty-first century, is that
biblical criticism has been influenced by a wide range of additional
academic disciplines and theoretical perspectives. This has led to a
transformation from either you believe the bible is God’s inspired
word without any mistakes or you don’t-----To----You can believe or
not believe, what you want of the bible ----and still have the choice of
either accepting it as God’s inspired word or Not.
In the past, there
was no room for anything in-between---but today there is.
On top of that, in
the 90s when the internet became public, Globalization brought a
broader spectrum of ideas and worldviews into the field of bible
criticism as well as other academic disciplines, including Near
Eastern studies, psychology, cultural anthropology and sociology,
which formed new methods of biblical criticism such as social
scientific criticism and psychological biblical criticism.
At the same time
post-modernism and post-critical interpretation began questioning
whether biblical criticism had a role and function at all.
With these new
methods came new goals, as biblical criticism moved from the
historical to the literary, and its basic premise changed from
NEUTRAL JUDGMENT TO A RECOGNITION OF VARIOUS BIASES the reader would
bring to the study of the texts.