1 Response

  1. Tim B

    In general I think Frame make some legitimate criticisms. However, Enns’ more convincing points are mostly or entirely ignored in Frame’s review. Viz:

    1) Issues of genuine diversity (as opposed to instances which Frame exposes as only apparent). e.g. Nathan’s variant addresses to David in 2 Sam. 7:16 and 1 Chron. 17:14.

    2) The issue of erroneous extra-biblical tradition incorporated in the New Testament. e.g. Abraham’s chronology in Stephen’s Acts speech.

    Perhaps there are cogent solutions to these, but Frame might have mentioned so.

Leave a Reply