DCP videos
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:47 am
I don't understand how apologists can 1.) maintain that Smith was actually seeing words and reading them (down to the point of correcting the spelling of names), and at the same time 2.) engage "loose translation" theories in order to explain away the parts that they don't like (like references to steel, horses, etc.).
Of course, I'm kind of lumping all apologists together here, but there is certainly a tension between the two strands of apologia.
Edited to say: I didn't realise that this had already been discussed in the "spew" thread. I avoided perusing that one because characterising DCP's lecture as a "spew" turned me off.