The Book of White and the Book of Svendsen Contradict Each Other!
At least that's what the headline practically reads at DA's non-existent "Anti-Anti-Catholic" blog--you know, the one on which he no longer contributes entries about "anti-catholic" apologists? (I wonder who's been writing under his name for the past few days?). Go here, and then scroll down till you get to "Eric Svendsen Blows the Facts (on my Biblical Mariological Claims), and Even Contradicts His Good Buddy James White." Here you'll find proof positive that the White-Svendsen Scriptures are not inerrant!
The true conflict here, then, is between Svendsen and White. This becomes very funny (as so often when Svendsen sticks his foot in his mouth, in his desperate, backfiring attempts to make me look like a fool and an idiot). You incorrectly believed that White was making a particular argument. In fact, Svendsen does make the argument, which in turn, was mocked and despised by White as utterly ignorant of Catholic apologetics. Who could not treasure this glorious irony and folly! LOL .Well, I'm glad DA got a chuckle out of that; but the facts are the facts. All I did was quote DA's own purpose statement for his "confounding" 95 verses. Here's how I ended my article. I quoted Owen as saying:
So what is significant is NOT that you cannot "exegete" the Immaculate Conception of Mary out of Luke 1:28. For goodness sakes, everyone knows that! What shallow thinking.Then I responded:
All he's really doing is summing up what we've been trying to tell DA all along! Because DA (and others) actually believe you can exegete the IC of M out of Luke 1:28, so long as "exegesis" is "done correctly."Where again is the error? Here is how one (Catholic?) observer of DA's blog put it in the comments section:
So basically, I think Owen's argument is, in the main, correct, and that Dave's explanation of White's argument is not, because what White means by "substantiates" is quite different than what Dave means by "substantiates." White is, in my view, accusing Catholics of making a claim of "substantiation" according to his rules of substantiation, which we are clearly not claiming. Also, that would mean that he and Svendsen actually agree; both are mischaracterizing your claims.Aside from the fact that we are now "mischaracterizing" DA, at least we no longer contradict each other (the inerrancy of Svendsen-White remains intact!). Nope, I don't think I've (we've) misread DA at all. He simply backpeddles from his over-stated position once it is shown to be lacking. That's why, for instance, he seems to have all the time in the world to address silly issues like whether or not the Book of Svendsen and the Book of White contradict each other--even after he swore he was finished addressing us, no less!--but he doesn't seem to have any time to address the real issue on which he was so effectively refuted; that of the supposed exegetical support in Luke 1:28 for the IC of M; you know, the one that is supposed to "confound" Protestants.