Is the Bible inerrant or infallible?

[@seydlitzeugen]

A major problem with this argument though is the relative importance of what is being said. Calling a ‘van’ a ‘car’ does not have any real claims or repercussions. But when dealing with a religion, small differences can matter a lot. Simply adding the word “Filioque” to the Nicene Creed (something written centuries after the Bible) helped split Eastern and Western Christianity.

[@abdullahabubakar8344]

Also you aren’t ‘inspired by god’ in everyday conversations. I think it’s rational to assume that even ‘surface level discrepancies’ wouldn’t be present in the infallible book presenting Gods word

[@RobotMowerTricks]

First, God decided to use human writers, ask they write like humans. Those who aww experts can pick up on style differences from one author to another. Second, language will always have these surface "issues" despite the overall message being clear, when you are dealing with all cultures, languages, AND time.

[@Bibleguy89-uu3nr]

@@abdullahabubakar8344 But remember that God is using imperfect languages and people to communicate. One day we will communicate with God with no need for translation.

[@Deefoz]

The split was caused by the splitting of the empire, and loss of political power of the Roman church as a result. The Filioque was secondary.

[@James-ms2mx]

Now wait a minute…some words in the Bible are clearly not God’s words. Some are Satan’s words. Some are evil words spoken by men and women. I’m a believer in the Bible but let’s not blow smoke up each other’s…nostrils. The word of God is truth and sometimes truth is found in in the whole story and not just the sentences telling the story.

[@chadgarber]

The early church didn't have the entire new testament!

[@j.winter]

Misleading title. It never discusses the difference between infallibility and inerrancy.

[@jacksonhamilton6302]

My guess is that the person who wrote the title was using the word "or" to mean "also known as" which English allows for, confusingly. Inerrant and infallible are not interchangeable so that was a poor decision.

[@hissalvation5275]

The reason we dont apply the same level of scepticism to everything else is because our souls are on the line. We don't want to be deceived.

[@mortgagenow]

I couldn't have said this better. Well put

[@Gambit0590]

That's incredibly stupid

[@philhart4849]

Religious people have been trying to deceive me for decades.

[@mbraun777]

Would like to have heard addressed differences between masoretic and septuagint texts.

[@alsyrriad]

I appreciate the honesty instead of trying to appeal to people.

[@lonnieclemens8028]

The topic of inerrancy needs to be taught more in Baptist churches. It needs to be placed in the Sunday School curriculum, Vacation Bible School themes, and sermons. I did not know about the subject of inerrancy until I was a sophomore in college. Now I think it is the most critical topic of all time.

[@Nobody-tj9jo]

@Michael Christopher Could you elaborate more on the divine feminine and exactly what it is please ?

[@eltonron1558]

It hurts to say, however, as long as Baptists, are Sunday keepers, the congregation, will never know of things like inerrancy, or dare I say it, truth.

[@Daniel12.4Ministry]

Ok, so the bible is inerrant, though I am not agreeing or disagreeing. The problem comes in when it comes to interpretation of what the scriptures mean, as every church and preacher teaches so many different and contrasting doctrines from one another based upon their own interpretation of the scriptures. The fact is that the scriptures are authoritative, but only if you understand what they say from the original intent. Anything else is corruption. Therefore almost all preachers and churches teach falsehoods because they do not interpret the scriptures properly. Thus, when they say the scriptures are inerrant, they are giving themselves credibility where credibility is not deserved.

[@gregbooker3535]

"The topic of inerrancy needs to be taught more in Baptist churches. It needs to be placed in the Sunday School curriculum, Vacation Bible School themes, and sermons. I did not know about the subject of inerrancy until I was a sophomore in college. Now I think it is the most critical topic of all time." ------------But Jesus, despite dealing with Gentiles and thus the people most likely to deny the inerrancy of the OT, never expressed or implied that defending the OT's inerrancy had the least bit of relevance to growing spiritually at a rate acceptable to God. Here's an analogy you'll never forget: Let's assume Jesus agreed with you that the truly god-inspired Hebrew canon included all the books that now exist in the Protestant version of the OT. Well, the Sadducees in the days of Jesus limited their canon to just the Pentateuch, and they denied the possibility of resurrection. So it is kind of funny that when Jesus informs the Sadducees about the scriptural basis for resurrection, he does NOT do what today's protestant apologist would do, and castigate them for not affirming the biblical inspiration of resurrection texts outside the Pentateuch, such as Daniel 12:2. Instead, he tries to convince them of the reality of resurrection with a reference to something within that set of books they already regarded as canonical/inspired, the Pentateuch. Matthew 22:31-32, a quotation from Exodus. If Jesus was sufficiently liberal that he would forego the more powerful resurrection argument from Daniel 12:2 and use a much less direct verse from Exodus, then you might want to reconsider your foolish belief that whenever Jesus heard somebody suggesting error in the originals of the OT, he rushed over there and reminded them that errors must be proven absolutely, and that they can never prove that the error was certainly present in the originals. And I don't know why you bother trifling that inerrancy extends only to the originals. The classic proof text, 2nd Timothy 3:16, is not talking about the originals, but the COPIES that Timothy knew since childhood (v. 15). That's right, apostle Paul affirmed the inerrancy of COPIES (as is also proven from the fact that he mostly quoted from the Lxx, which isn't the originals). So when you limit inerrancy to the originals, you disagree with Paul. Not that it matters: Paul was a heretic. Disagreeing with Paul is the first step on the path to truth. Amen, bro? The skeptic is going to be reasonable to make such arguments, even assuming you could be reasonable to disagree with them.

[@jonathanz.9675]

@@gregbooker3535 Paul, a heretic? Is this because all that stuff he taught about women? Didn’t Jesus teach the Jews that the scriptures “cannot be broken” in John 10:35? That sounds a lot like infallibility to me.

[@tahabennett7388]

The problem with claiming the NT is inerrant is because we have unknown authorship. E.g. at 2:40 Dr. Robert Plummer makes a reference to John 8 to the woman taken in adultery. Sure, you can argue there was an error in the text due to the printing press. However, we know today that the entire passage of the woman taken in adultery is a later addition. It doesn't exist in the oldest manuscripts; Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus. Does this matter to Christians?

[@mattr.1887]

5:37 Speaking for myself, there is a very simple reason for this. When it comes to the Bible, we're not talking about which brand of car battery is more reliable, or whether or not John Hancock really did sign his name in big letters. These things only have limited significance in our lives, regardless of what the facts are. When it comes to the Bible, though...we're talking about our eternal destination, right? The very word of God? Isn't that the idea? Why would you NOT hold that to the utmost scrutiny?

[@cherryboo043]

Since we know errors do happen in translation whether accidental or on purpose, how do we know the oldest copies we have were translated correctly? If some of the original text was in Aramaic, there still remains the possibility that contains errors that we cannot know.

[@steflondon88]

Because you line up the thousands of different manuscripts with each other and see that there is no loss in meaning. The only differences are small words like "it", "the", or a comma here and there. (Scribes may have made minor typos, but it did not bring loss to meaning).

[@reamfishing1197]

@John Impossible for man, not for God. While the originals are no longer in existence, there are copies dating back to very early in the church age. As you compare those copies down through the centuries, as Steffany pointed out, the discrepancies are miniscule. Also, God does not play the telephone game.

[@codiefeazel173]

@John I believe that Stephanie is likely referring to the ancient original language manuscripts that date back thousands of years, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls. When you compare these various ancient handcopied manuscripts recorded by various people across various times and across various world regions the fact that scholars find less than 1% discrepancies between the oldest to the newest is truly amazing.

[@wemuk5170]

@@reamfishing1197 There are scribal errors in all the translations, Greg. I agree that Scripture is inerrant & that God does not play games but our translations do not come from God. How can you explain the different sale price Araunah received from David? How else can you explain Jashobeam’s military same-day feat of killing 300 or 800? Copying errors from scribes, of course! Yes, Scripture is 100% inerrant as these are from our God, but human translations aren’t free from error.

[@reamfishing1197]

@John If by wrote you mean just decided to write down whatever they wanted to write about, then no. The human authors of the Bible wrote what God led them to write, which is why we say it is the "inspired" Word of God. Yes, men physically wrote the words, and yes, each one had their own unique writing styles, but it is not as though they were writing a novel. They wrote what God led them to write.

[@ChrisBandyJazz]

This is a great video, but I still have questions. I watched through it and put together what I think is the argument that inerrantists like to make-correct me if this is inaccurate: 1. The Bible says that the Scriptures are God’s Word. 2. The Bible is correct in saying that the Scriptures are God’s Word. 3. Therefore, the Scriptures are God’s Word. (1, 2) 4. The Scriptures (as referred to by the Bible) are the original manuscripts of the current 66 books of the Bible. 5. Therefore, the original manuscripts of the current 66 books of the Bible are God’s Word. (3, 4) 6. God’s Word is without error. 7. Therefore, the original manuscripts of the 66 books of the Bible are without error. (5, 6) 8. Modern translations like ESV, NIV, and NKJV, do not have any more errors than the original manuscripts. 9. Therefore, modern translations like ESV, NIV, and NKJV are without error. (7, 8) How do we know that (2) is true? And how do we know that (4) is true? Both of these seem to just be assumptions on the part of inerrantists. And (8) is obviously incorrect, since the preservation is 99%, not 100%. "Inerrant" is different from "mostly inerrant." Most of the argument I am okay with. But because of (2), (4), and (8), the conclusion of (5) and therefore (9) seems to be built on assumptions. Any thoughts?

[@bobpolo2964]

4 and 5 are false claims. The original manuscripts are non-existent as far as we know. The copies of the originals are what we have left. 6-9 is using the term "error" in a different sense than the one being communicated by believers. We believe the Bible is without error in its teaching, not in grammatical mistakes or misspellings etc. Our conclusions about the inerrancy of biblical teaching is based on our belief in the creator God being the fount of truth who cannot lie nor desires to deceive those who belong to Him in Jesus Christ.

[@ChrisBandyJazz]

@@bobpolo2964 Thank you for your reply, Bob! Since you've rejected (4), the rest of the argument falls apart for you. You seem to be using a different argument, as follows-correct me if this is inaccurate: B1. God is the fount of truth who cannot lie nor desires to deceive those who belong to Him in Jesus Christ. B2. Therefore, biblical teaching is inerrant. This is an invalid argument. (B2) doesn't come logically from (B1). So your argument doesn't give any good reason to believe in inerrancy.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@ChrisBandyJazz History rejects #4, friend. I would challenge you to produce a single manuscript of original literature from the Bible, or cite any believing scholar whoever claimed to have original documentation. They don't exist. I'm a junior in biblical languages major and we only study copies of the originals. That's all we have. Also, if God can't lie, then his teaching can't be false. It's not that he doesn't want to lie but rather he can't. An issue of ability; lying is an impossibility for the creator God. Therefore, his teaching is without error in terms of truthfulness and contradiction.

[@ChrisBandyJazz]

@@bobpolo2964 Bob, we are in agreement about the manuscripts. And we are in agreement about God not being able to lie. But you still haven't provided a good reason to believe in inerrancy. Here's what your 2nd argument for inerrancy looks like: C1. God can't lie. C2. Therefore, biblical teaching is inerrant. Again, another invalid argument from you. (C2) doesn't come logically from (C1). So your argument doesn't give any good reason to believe in inerrancy. Please provide a good reason to believe in inerrancy.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@ChrisBandyJazz How am i defining innerancy?

[@JeffriesFamilyFaithandFitness]

I don't believe there are any errors in God's Word but I would struggle to defend that position against things like, Numbers 23:19 which seems to contradict Numbers 14:13-25 ( Moses changes God's mind) and Genesis 18:22-33 (Abraham changes God's mind). I would love a deep dive course on the inerrancy of scripture where it pulls apart these supposed contradictions.

[@nhm1069]

"When Critics Ask" by Geisler and Howe is an incredible resource to understand difficulties in Scripture.

[@Itsatz0]

I'll say there are difficulties, not one contemporary writer mentions Jesus, nor Paul, nor any disciple. Only the bible mentions this fairytale.

[@codymarkley8372]

@@Itsatz0 pliny the younger, I believe, mentions jesus.

[@Itsatz0]

@@codymarkley8372 No, he doesn't mention Jesus. He wrote a letter to the emperor of Rome, Trajan, asking him what he should do with Christians who refused to worship the emperor. The letter was written in 111CE. He never heard of Christians till then. He was governor of Bythynia, which is the northern Black Sea coast of what is called Turkey today. He was born in Rome in 62CE. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians

[@codymarkley8372]

@@Itsatz0 josephus or tacitus?

[@Itsatz0]

@@codymarkley8372 There is a lot of info out there on Josephus and Tacitus' reference to Jesus. Tacitus wrote his passage in 111CE. So he is no eyewitness. In fact there are absolutely no eyewitness accounts for Jesus period. Once again, nowhere in Tacitus is Christ mentioned. He uses the same word Pliny used, "Chrestianos." He doesn't say where he got his info from and how. Which is suspicious because he usually does. However the scholars who were alive and in Rome in 64CE, when the fire happened, say nothing about Christians. They are obviously far more reliable since Tacitus wrote 60 years later. Pliny, who we talked about earlier, was born in Rome in 62CE, I believe, and he doesn't hear about ChrEstians, till 118CE. Now Josephus. This is a proven forgery. Eusebius, a 4th cent bishop is the likely culprit. His predecessor, a fellow named Origen, (who cut his own balls off to be closer to Jesus.) Says very clearly, Josephus never mentions Jesus. There are many other reasons why we know this is a forgery. That's it. Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus are the only sources, outside the bible, for Jesus. Check out Bart Erhman's videos on the subject. I found him informative and factual.

[@bealightinthisdarkworld8225]

"So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near-at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." Matthew 24:35 Glory to Jesus! Every knee will bow to the King of kings and Lord of lords.

[@Itsatz0]

Hey, shit for brains, that generation passed away 2 thousand years ago.

[@ballasog]

@@Itsatz0 I like to say to people "I can prove Jesus was real." They think they're going to hear some idiotic speech like the one you responded to, but what I say is "How hard is it to believe there was an eschatological Jewish preacher who was executed by the Romans?"

[@ballasog]

@Larry Cavalli Most obvious thing in the world, right? But good luck getting these loons to admit it. They will go to any lengths to avoid admitting that the Bible says what it says. They want a Bible without errors or contradictions and they are willing to strip all meaning away from the Bible to achieve that.

[@Itsatz0]

@Larry Cavalli A truly pathetic statement on the depths of depravity human beings can reach. I checked out the history of doomsday professies, People have been leaving their lives behind convinced the end times have been coming for 2,000 years! Especially when the Roman empire disintegrated. The church always benefited financially.

[@beverlyharward9631]

@@Itsatz0 professies? What does professies mean?

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

The doctrine claiming that the Bible is the perfect, complete and inerrant word of God is extra-biblical. By what authority is the doctrine of the Bible’s inerrancy declared?

[@wserthmar8908]

Well said

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

@@braybilly Look at my question and try again. Something cannot claim its own authority. That’s circular. Who/what gives the Bible the authority to declare its own authority? The god of the Bible? No, now we’re back to treating claims of the Bible as authoritative by declaring god the authority.

[@beepbeepnj2658]

How did King Saul die? Which of the 4 verses is the real one? 1SA 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword. 2SA 1:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite. 2SA 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa. 1CH 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God. Remember God is not the author of confusion. 1 Corin 14:33 1 Peter 3:15 says always give an answer. 1 Thess 5:21 says prove all things.

[@a1productionllc]

There are (in the original languages) textual variations, so that the critical text is probably closest to the original - monographs they are called - that we can get. So far, we have a very good critical text of the New Testament, but the Old Testament does not have one yet, so the Masoretic Text is still the standard, even though (as from the Dead Sea Scrolls) it looks like there are some corrections that should be made. Over all, we CAN trust the Bible, but we cannot build doctrines on parts of verses. God let enough errors creep in to prevent us from being able to do that. You have to take the whole Bible, from cover to cover, to get the truth. The Bible itself says so.

[@ezekiel763]

The Bible talks about itself before the Bible was constructed?

[@nohandleeeeee]

@@ezekiel763 no it doesnt but they like to twist it to make it look that way

[@ezekiel763]

@@nohandleeeeee it seems that way patrick. Errors allowed in here and there for god to test us our intellect. Or are there just errors because of the likely hundreds involved in writing and concatenating texts over centuries?

[@strangelaw6384]

@@ezekiel763 HERE! Here is where the discussion should end!

[@ezekiel763]

@@strangelaw6384 because my reply makes sense? Or doesn’t make sense? Or … makes uncomfortable sense?

[@chrisinidaho4569]

The texts that we have today DO have errors. Sorry. Consider - NEW TESTAMENT (partial listing) Matt.3:17/Mk.1:11, Lk.3:22 - To whom did the Father speak? Matt.4:12-17/Jn.3 (v.22-24) - Did Christ begin to preach before or after John's imprisonment? Matt. 20:20-21/Mark 10:35-37 - Did James and John ask Jesus a favor or did their mother ask for them? Mk.6:8/Lk.9:3 - Should the apostles take a staff (staves)/walking stick on their journey? Mk.16:1/Lk.23:56 - Were the spices purchased before or after the Sabbath? Jn.15:15/Jn.16:12 - Did Christ tell the Apostles all He knew? NEW TESTAMENT / OLD TESTAMENT (partial listing) Matt. 23:35/2 Chron. 24:20-21, Zech. 1:1 - Which Zechariah was killed by the alter of the temple Matt. 27:9-10/Zech.11:12-13 - Zechariah, not Jeremiah wrote it! Jn.3:13/2 Kings 2:11, Heb.11:5 - Elijah and Enoch ascended into Heaven bodily, Elijah came back. - Matt.17:3 Acts 7:15-16/Gen.50:13,23:16-20 - Was Jacob buried in Sychem, 30 miles north of Jerusalem, or in Hebron, 20 miles south of Jerusalem? Tit.1:2, Num. 23:19/1 Kings 22:20-23, 2 Chron.18:22 - Can lies come from God? OLD TESTAMENT (partial listing) Gen.6:4, 7:21/Num.13:33 - Were there Nephilim after the Flood? Ex.2:21-22/Judges 18:30 - Who is Gershom's father? (changed in ASV, NIV, NRSV, RSV, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT, DBY, NEB, DRB, & NWT) Lev.19:34/Deut.23:20 - Were the strangers to be treated as fellow Jews? Num.20:28, 33:30-38/Deut.10:6 - Where did Aaron die? (Mt. Hor is 7 days from Mosereth) 2 Sam.6:23/2 Sam.21:8 - Was Michal barren or did she have sons? (changed in NASB, RSV, NRSV, NCV, NLT, TEV, DBY, CEV, NEB, & NIV) 2 Sam.17:25/1 Chron.2:13-17 - Who was Abigail's father? 2 Sam.21:19/1 Chron.20:5 - Who did Elhanan kill? (changed in KJV, NLT & YLT) 1 Kings 7:24/2 Chron.4:3 - Did oxen or knops (plants) encircle the molten sea? (changed in RSV, NRSV, DRB, NEB, & NWT) 2 Kings 8:26/2 Chron.22:2 - How old was Ahaziah? (see Hebrew, changed in NIV, NASB, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT, DBY, YLT, & NWT) 2 Kings 24:8/2 Chron.36:9 - How old was Jehoiachin? (changed in NIV, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT, DBY, & NWT) 2 Kings 25:27/Jer.52:31 - What was Jehoiachin's day of deliverance? TRANSLATION & TEXTUAL VARIANCES (partial listing) Num.11:25 - Did they continue to prophesy? KJV-Yes, NASB-No 1 Sam.8:16 - What will he take? KJV-Young Men, NIV-Cattle 1 Sam.13:1 - What was Saul's coronation age and length of reign? DRB-1/2; NIV, NLT, NCV-30/42; NASB-40/32; NEB-50/22; ASV-40/2; NWT, KJV, KJV2, RSV, DBY, YLT, CEV -?/2, TEV, NRSV-?/? Isa.59:19 - Who will come like a flood? KJV-The Enemy, NASB-The Lord Jer.27:1 - Who reigned? KJV-Jehoiakim, NIV-Zedekiah Matt.21:31 - Which did his father's will? KJV, NRSV, NCV, NIV-1st; NASB, NWT- 2nd Lk.14:5 - Who is pulled out? KJV-Donkey, NIV-Son Phil.2:6 - Did Christ deem it appropriate to consider Himself God due to His being in God's form? NASB, NIV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NCV, CEV, TEV, NWT-No; NLT, DRB, NEB, YLT, DBY, KJV-Yes Rev. 8:13 - Who flew in the midst of heaven? KJV, KJV2, YLT-An Angel; ASV, NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT, DRB, NEB, DBY, NWT- An Eagle Rev.13:1 - Who stood on the shore? KJV-John, NIV-The Dragon 1 Cor.7:36 - Who is the virgin? KJV, RSV, NRSV, NCV, DRB, TEV, CEV, NLT, YLT, NIV-His Fiance; NEB, NASB-His Daughter; KJV2, DBY, NWT-He Himself Regarding 1 Cor.7:36, the ASV says, "But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin [daughter], if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry." This allows a man to marry his own daughter once she is past her child bearing years (incest). The BibleGateway Page shows various translations and shows how the verse is translated in the NET - www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A36&version=NET. It says, "7:36 If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his unmarried daughter, if she is past the bloom of youth and it seems necessary, he should do what he wishes; he does not sin. Let them marry." Also, in Danish (www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A36&version=DN1933), this verse reads: "But if someone believes that he brings shame upon his unmarried daughter, in that she sits beyond the Time, and it must so be, he does what he wants, he doesn't sin, let them marry." MISSING SCRIPTURE FROM ALL BIBLES (partial listing) Ex.24:4,7; Num.21:24; Josh.10:13; 1 Sam.10:25; 2 Sam.1:18; 1 Kings 4:32, 11:41; 1 Chron.27:24, 29:29; 2 Chron.12:15, 13:22, 20:34, 26:22, 33:19; Matt.2:23; Jn.21:25; 1 Cor.5:9; Col.4:16; Jude 3.

[@ChrisBandyJazz]

Thank you for this list, that was something I thought about doing but was too lazy to do lol

[@chrisinidaho4569]

@@ChrisBandyJazz Feel free to add to it.

[@antichrist_revealed]

@J H Saul killed himself. "Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it." Isa 31:4.

[@antichrist_revealed]

@J H No one said John the baptist was Elijah. It says he had the same spirit of Elijah and the same power. But you can't tell it by reading the scriptures other than that.

[@eric777100763]

If there's one thing that I've learned in 43 years of knowing Yeshua it's that when people have made up their mind, that they like a certain Minister or a certain teacher nothing you say is going to change their mind. They need to be looking at the word and quit believing everything they're told.

[@soundjudgement3586]

You made a great point

[@codymarkley8372]

True

[@flyingsourdough1619]

Who's yashua? Never seen that name in the Bible

[@eric777100763]

@@flyingsourdough1619 flying, some people say Yeshua and other ones Yahshua since the name YAHweh is a playoff that. I'm not saying I necessarily pronounce some right there's a lot of argument over that, but basically Yahshua is Jesus. My son's name is Joshua which is really what Jesus was. It means god is salvation or Yahweh is salvation just like people say halleluYah. I hope you and your family are safe God bless.

[@eric777100763]

@@flyingsourdough1619 Yeshua is Jesus is the Hebrew name for Jesus. If your Seminary Student brush up. Don't forget it Seminary not everybody they're teaching is telling you the truth. You based your face on Jesus and on his word and the Bible as infallible and inerrant God bless.

[@shelld4706]

How about the entire story of the adulterous woman in John 8? That was added in the 4th century, but does not show up in any texts before the 4th century. Yet it is included in every current translation we have in circulation, is it not?

[@mevangel9898]

The Adulterae Pericope is in the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts, in the Vulgate, and in the Textus Receptus. It is written in the same style as the rest of John's Gospel, and historically has been considered an authentic part of John's Gospel. Only eclectic textual critics who hold to the oldest extant manuscripts are funny about it.

[@exaucemayunga22]

​@mevangel9898 what about Mark 16:9:20?

[@piqone1]

It's probably just less problematic if we describe it as "God Breathed" instead of inerrant.

[@ButOneThingIsNeedful]

I've considered something similar as well. And did I miss mention of the adjective "infallible" in the video? I was actually really looking forward to that, because I find there to be an interesting, and possibly not unimportant nuance between the two descriptions.

[@pattybrown8307]

GOD-breathed prefers to the INSPIRATION of Scripture. Inerrancy is mistakes were not made. That there are no errors of truth, no deceit, no fraud, no lies in Scripture.

[@tesladrew2608]

Not only that, but it only refers to the OT at that point in time, and possibly only the Pentateuch

[@Brutuscomedy]

Or fallible? Really ought to be considered a possibility esp. in light of verses such as Psalm 137:8-9

[@TagEngravings]

or numbers 31

[@Brutuscomedy]

@@TagEngravings Absolutely. Thanks for that, Michael.

[@TNK8]

Isn't there and shouldn't there be a difference between asking if someone's car is actually broke, compared to fundamental truths of the universe? That's a pretty bad example he gave, people who are skeptics can be skeptical of other aspects of life that don't have them getting stuck in minor details like he used. That was just asinine.

[@ob2249]

peas ants play games I thought so too. It was lame and not even analogous. but he`s preaching to the choir. he cant deal with real dissent or rigorous enquiry. despite his medical qualification from the university of church. lol. the doctrine of inerrancy my ass

[@eccmedia4952]

It is also written in scripture that, scripture interprets scripture. Now this may seem that it's a fallacy to use a source to interpret the same source, but that's the beauty - it is not just a single source. Well versed and studied understanding of HIS word allows us a wide window to see this and that it was clearly from the will of a single source, The Lord God. It is a book collection that in precept or principle covers everything, in concept and character shows HIS chosen people of all nations - from those who followed His will (warts and all) and those who did not, and in beginning to the end displays HIS glory. Where every other text religion focuses on what a *person* must perform or do to self achieve a higher level or plane, only God's Word deals with the sin issue in this manner where what you do is not the point, but believing on what *HE* did, Jesus Christ, is where salvation is found. That central core message, and concept, and understanding is a part of every book of the Bible.

[@eccmedia4952]

@Anon Ymous Gotta respectfully disagree. Hey - I've read the bible through multiple times. My dad started me when I was 8 and as a family we read a chapter in the old test and a chapter in the new test - everyday before dinner - until I was around 21 and left home to live on my own. At that point, we'd gone through it several times including Numbers & Leviticus (ha! now that's commitment). We would sometimes discuss the text there, sometimes he'd ask us questions, and sometimes we'd just be happy from the words we read or laugh at the humor within. Before I ever set foot in a church - that was my biblical up bringing - but when the time came for theological study and fellowship, I was lead eventually to a church that teaches the Word. Everything Hermeneutics, to digging into the Hebrew and Greek, the poetical books, Church History, the Septuagint, and paper writing on the book of 1 Timothy. Not because I was going to preach. Many did this because we were in leadership positions, but all because we love God's Word. So I don't profess being an expert, but I and millions of others are more than convinced that it's the will of a single source - and a single message - that Jesus is the Answer. If you are talking about that it literally has to come from only one writer - well I'm not delusion though you may argue against. I believe I've been honest with my reading of the Word. I know there are some concepts that are beyond the human mind - but that it was made to be understood - and on purpose one has to reach for it as the bible states it's not meant to be left on the ground low to be trampled. The Bible states that many were involved in it's writing - but all moved by a single source over various topics. Not in covering dogma, but all human existence - in principle or precept. I going through it again this year too.

[@zacht.9585]

@eccmedia4952 I'm inspired by how you're dad raised your family. Thank you for sharing!

[@soonhietan3319]

God’s word is inerrant but the Bible we have today was written and edited by many men who may not be all inspired. Unless we have the original copies of all the books, there is no guarantee that what we read today are the original inspired word of God. Just look at the inconsistencies among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These were clearly inserted texts by men who had their own agendas.

[@IndianaJoe0321]

We have a process in place which allows us to get back -- reliably -- to the inerrant original, to which we don't have access

[@mevangel9898]

Name one "inconsistency" that has not been replied to. Thank you.

[@soonhietan3319]

@@mevangel9898 Prof Bart Ehrman of University of N Carolina, Chapel Hill, who specialises in the New Testament , is in a better position to go into details of this subject. You can find his writings, videos and other media easily.

[@PeterProf7777]

The Year is 1 AD. If you were God in 1 AD and needed a plan to spread the "good news" of which option would you use? Option 1: Use emotions, intuition, dreams, one's conscience to directly communicate with people. Option 2: Create one person of authority like the Pope to be your spokesman. Option 3: Have many men (just men of course) write books about God and then compile them into one book. Have it translated into hundreds of languages and dialects which exist throughout the world. Then mass produce the books and then mass distribute those millions and millions of books. Teach all people to read. If I were God, I would choose option number 1. It is efficient, universal, and timeless. What is the good news? The good news is uncondtional love is the path to salvation. It is about the message not the messenger.

[@larryrouse6322]

It lost me at the Zombie apocalypse (Matthew 27:51-53) that no one besides Matthew bothered to jot down a single line about.

[@harveywabbit9541]

Matthew is two words of Mat (Maat) and Thew (Thoth).

[@mistermacwaffle2800]

@@harveywabbit9541 You got a source for that? www.behindthename.com/name/matthew

[@harveywabbit9541]

@Caratacus Jesus is resurrected every morning as the sun rises.

[@larryrouse6322]

Caratacus “... the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.” Is this a statement about an actual event, or is it just a story that Matthew made up? If it actually happened, why did literally no other historian of the time, including the authors of the other gospels, take notice of it?

[@harveywabbit9541]

@@larryrouse6322 This is the Pass over of the sun from below the equinoxes (Winter = darkness, blind, hungry, naked, cold, wet, slavery, exile, dead, Hell, underworld) to the sun above the equinoxes (Summer = light, sighted, full belly, vegetation growth, warmth, freedom, life and Heaven). Sun below the equinoxes = firstborn/winter which "dies" at passover into the sun above the equinoxes (secondborn - summer). The sun has two wives, Night/Winter (6 nights in Gen 1) and Day/Summer (6 days in Gen 1).

[@jordanbickett4062]

He brought up a printing error in John 8, well what about the fact that the very words he talked about, and that whole story seem to be inserted into the text at some later date?

[@jstube36]

Why does he not just say yes or no. he just rambles without giving much of an answer. If any errors are found in any of the Biblical Writings. Does that make the Bible fallible. Well since errors are certainly found. the it is indeed possible to say certain writings in the Bible are fallible. It's really just that simple

[@stevesmith5553]

God is a spirit. You will never find him with your intellect. Your intellect is what is fallible.

[@stevesmith1493]

@@connordkrauss Go win a fake game 🎮

[@stevesmith1493]

@@connordkrauss Go win a fake game 🎮

[@stevesmith1493]

@@connordkrauss Go win a fake game 🎮

[@Nick_Lamb]

@@connordkrauss Oh come on, your comment isn't THAT bad. It's a little mean, but I'm sure there are worse. Do you think your intellect is infallible?

[@Nick_Lamb]

@@connordkrauss Can you list the faculties that are necessary to ascertain deity to you? "he is using his intellect to argue that we ought not rely on our intellect" Perhaps, but he is obviously reasoning in hindsight from something I assume he takes on faith or intuited via a spiritual faculty. Intellect is purely reason based no? If someone intuites something then the reasoning comes after. To me the inerrancy of scripture is advice for how to approach it in a way that will develop your intuition. "She said the bible is not impeccable" "she said the spirit attested to it" "Bible attested to the spirit" "circular, self destructive, stupid" Yes, it is circular. It is almost as if they come to these conclusions without reasoning them out, and when you force them to reason them out they cant because they came to the conclusions via their spiritual faculties (not sarcasm). If you deny the existence of spiritual faculties (the predominant way people seem to operate imo) then most everyone will seem quite stupid when trying to get them to explain *why* . I find it hard to say that that mode of thinking or coming to conclusions is self destructive or "stupid" though. She technically lost that "argument" perhaps, but how much happier is she compared to you?Is she at peace? Does she fret about expressing her intellect as much? Perhaps she substantially is still winning compared to you or I. By denying your sound reasoning she showed you that her "spirit" within her was subjectively infallible, for better or worse. "Steve's Comment is equally stupid" No, it is pretty well worded. He is saying that there is a spiritual piece required to interpret scripture for yourself. Reason alone will not allow one to "ascertain" deity in my opinion as well.

[@BoundyMan]

So often skeptics will try to point out the errors and contradictions in the Bible to try to prove its not true. But I just say the Bible is just a collection of 66 books that were written by different people at different times for different reasons with different perspectives of life.

[@kfgabriele9852]

The errors are irrelevant; they segue off the path. Only the message matters - the message that reveals God to us.

[@DarkPa1adin]

@@kfgabriele9852 nah errors are crucial. Worse still, if there are errors in God's Words can God be trusted? That is why it is important to assume that God's Words have no error. Or else how can one Search the Scripture and have eternal life?

[@kfgabriele9852]

@@DarkPa1adin True, and that's certainly worth contemplating; it would be time well spent, too. The way I see it is that inspired people, inspired by God and not themselves God, put the Word of God on paper for the people of their own time as well as their posterity. A few men with the incredible gift and rare ability to see and understand aspects of the nature of God were brave enough (and tenacious enough) to describe what they understood in the best way they knew how so that the rest of us may (hopefully) grasp this knowledge, too. Can you imagine that monumental challenge? Think about it... how would you describe a butterfly or the transcendent sounds of "Ode to Joy" to someone like Hellen Keller in a way that guaranteed she would know it and understand it precisely as you do? And even if you could accomplish such a feat, do you believe you'd have the same level of success using the exact same methods/words with anyone/everyone else? That's why I say that the errors of language aren't all that relevant and that it's the message, the reveal, that elusive truth that's important. The various authors of the Bible's books and correspondences, the various saints, and others face that challenge with every glimpse of the divine. Namely, how in the world can I make others see? How many different ways can I describe what I know to help other understand? The Word didn't come from the "mouth" of God. The Word is God and with God, and quite transcends our insufficient and crude methods of communication. The inspired few, first and foremost, had to know, to understand, to comprehend. No one language or writer or teacher is sufficient to pass along knowledge with crystal clarity equally to all people. Does that mean the message or knowledge is flawed somehow? Well, I would say no. Could translation errors lead to an incomplete grasp of the message? Yes, certainly. Human errors occur all the time. And that's our own individual struggle, to seek the truth in the message. Sometimes that's easy; sometimes, not so much. But God and the Word of God are Logos, the beginning of every beginning/ ending of everything. Jesus tried to get that point across, too, by saying "split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there." For some, not all, that was enough to understand the message. But that quote wasn't in error simply because it couldn't reach everyone, rather because it didn't reach everyone. And Jesus understood that only too well, and never stopped trying to help people see. It's about the message, the glimpse of the divine, the reveal, the truth. Well, that's my take on it, anyway. God bless!!

[@DarkPa1adin]

@@kfgabriele9852 words are inspired by God not people. And divine inspiration is different from natural inspiration of artists/composers

[@kfgabriele9852]

@@DarkPa1adin I don't see divine inspiration and natural inspiration as separate, as they both come from the same place. Inspiration exists because God is the Word, the beginning, creation, Logos. So all inspiration necessarily filters down from God. Which is the reason inspiration isn't a language, it's an understanding, a comprehension, a revelation; and those who receive inspiration do their best to communicate it in whatever way they can in order to inspire that understanding in others. God bless!

[@nemock]

I went to seminary and was taught that there is no written scripture in the language of Aramaic. Zero. Although it is known that Jesus spoke Aramaic, it was stressed that there is no scripture written in that language. Am I mistaken? If so, please provide citations of Aramac scripture that are considered to be the earliest known version of that particular portion.

[@mohandas1621]

I’ve been a Physics teacher. Teachers teach what scientists discover and regularly update their knowledge. Sometimes the curriculum is changed to accommodate the latest research following which concepts are corrected/modified. But things seem different with theology. Even if a pastor has taken no vow concerning biblical infallibility they will still swear by its infallibility because if they admit biblical fallibility or allow corrections they risk losing their jobs/patrons/congregations or all three. Refusing to update their knowledge despite scholarly research pointing to several biblical fallacies and adamantly continuing to preach what is clearly established by devoted scholars as pseudepigraphical amounts to lying, doesn't it? Who should one believe then? Pastors or scholars? Who do you think students should believe--teachers or researchers? What use theology and biblical research if research does not reach the congregation?

[@jasonpittman7470]

@Michael Christopher What is the name of the book?, I'd like to read it.

[@420kerbster]

what teacher don't use punctuation?? Sir ...really

[@rwd2213]

1 John 2:27 (NLT) But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true-it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ. As you study the Bible, there are certain truths that will begin to resonste within you. God created you, programmed you, and has a purpose for every living being on this planet. But you have corrupted your programming with sin, and updates from untrustworthy sources, and now doubt your origins. But when you set pride of knowledge aside, only then can you begin to comprehend the vastness and beauty of God. 1 Cor. 1:27 God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. If you encounter Scripture which seems to contradict, first check your pride, then check your knowledge bank of that Scripture...do you know the context, the meaning of each word as it was expressed at that time? Have you utilized textual criticism, conparing translations throughout history and stepped back to see the overarching voice of it? God's Word is absolute. It has outsold every other book in history for a reason, including all the physics books you may have read. You have studied the science of the Creator. Now study the Creator, and you will understand the science better.

[@colesisler582]

@@rwd2213 not to be rude but don’t bullshit yourself; it has out sold every book in history simply because of two reasons. Christianity is the most popular religion on the face of the earth, and Christianity is the most controversial religion on earth and the book it’s based upon even more so. I’m not attempting to degrade you because of your faith, just claiming that the best seller Bible argument makes you sound like you’re grabbing for straws.

[@b-il-n]

​@@rwd2213 when i asked a mormon priest how he knew Joseph Smith was a prophet, he said the Holy Spirit came to him in prayer and revealed LDS to be the only true church. the modern Baptist too readily assumes that his own claim of being "inspired" is more sound than the Lutheran, Mormon, or Calvinist. Yet they all are resorting to the same assurances in the texts to support their claims that their views are more "inspired" than anyone living 400 years ago (Reformed Christianity), 1800 years ago (Patristic/Pauline Christianity), 2800 years ago (Judaism), 3400 years ago (Egyptian origins of certain verses), or 4100 years ago (First poem detailing a flood and a sole survivor with his wife) years ago. Christianity began as a resistance movement. It was later adopted if not captured by Roman Imperial authorities, whereby its Church Fathers served at the pleasure of the Emperor and its doctrines were aligned with state prerogatives. 18 centuries later and it still represents the only authorized relationship anyone in human history could have with God? That is, God needed Roman legions for a proper introduction to a species that had used cave paintings to worship for 20 to 40 thousand years? Sounds a bit like modern Christianity inherits the Roman arrogance: "ALL ROADS LEAD TO US." Tellingly, the Book of Romans is where the debates about "justification" and "salvation" are waged. There's not a single Red Word, Red Syllable, or Red Letter of Christ involved in any of those doctrines. The Church authorities have established the only path of reason through their supremely inspired "Apostle", who was a trained government agent and instrument of state persecution and political repression before he graciously and generously "explained" what Jesus "really meant" when speaking as well as Jesus's true aim and purpose. Paul is safe and effective as the Christian information tzar. Anyone asking questions is being willfully obtuse and shall surely not be forgiven for their obstinate use of God-given human reason. Likewise, the earlier church fathers and their writings were just "a big lie" and books held to be "canon" for 16 centuries are, due to the power they confer upon the Roman Church, deemed non-canon and uninspired.

[@tbadami1]

Since we were very young, we were told not to dispute the bible. Well I had questions. The more I read of the bible the more questions? For years humans have theories with out solutions. When I read where Jesus talked with mosses like he was one of the good guys and the apostles wanted to honor him. I couldn't help to remember how many of the Israelite he had murdered by bis henchmen the levite's. So along with my research a book called The book of Jasher, it noted that moses did not go up on the mountain, he took the commandments from his father in law Jethro. Then said to those with him we will go back and tell them we talked with God, but two men of another tribe heard him, went back and told the other tribes moses plot. And when moses got back they charged him with lying and thats when moses told the levite's to slaughter the unbelievers over 3000. So all through the scriptures this loving-kind god has killed those who rejected him? You want truth, read The lost book Enki.

[@tbadami1]

And thats when moses ordered the levite's

[@nealcorbett1149]

The book of Jasher that I have doesn't say anything like that. You must have read the wrong one.

[@tbadami1]

@@nealcorbett1149 "IsnotthiswrittenintheBookofJasher"?"Joshuax.13."Behold,itiswrittenintheBookofJasher."2Sam.i.18.TranslatedintoEnglishfromtheHebrew,ByFLACCUSALBINUSALCUINUS,ofBRITAIN,ABBOTOFCANTERBURY,whowentaPilgrimageintotheHolyLand,andPersia,wherehediscoveredthisvolume,inthecityofGazna. My copy.

[@tbadami1]

@Crim Sin read what i sent to neal corbett.

[@user-hj4uo7py5m]

"Go and sin ON more" That made me laugh . God is so Good.

[@robertsnibley9515]

Good huh?? I think you have never read the bible. If u have? I bet you would dive in a swimming pool w ten human shits floating in it. Get real.

[@Deefoz]

1:56 in, you are wrong. The Books of the bible have been in question from the beginning to about 400 ce and only questioned again during the enlightenment.

[@troyfreedom]

My 14 year old daughter watched this and she even sees the flaws in his arguments. Inerrancy just does not exists because there is no divine mind behind the Bible. It’s a collection of man made documents just like every other religion. Imagine if I claimed the Mormon bible was inerrant. He would waste no time pointing out its errors, but when the same principle is applied to his book, it still remains coherent and just needs a pastor to help you work through the difficulties. Summary: When he understands why he rejects the Mormon claims of inerrancy; he’ll understand why I reject his.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

Min 3:00 The story in the gospel John of the woman committing adultury is a meadiviel addition, it is not found in very old manuscripts.

[@1689solas]

People in the comments really hate the fact that God has spoken and He has spoken clearly and they will give an account for remaining willfully ignorant of what He has said.

[@mastav_]

Dylan amen

[@ballasog]

Either that or you're just ignorant - willfully or not.

[@1689solas]

@@ballasog Romans 1 teaches everyone is willfully ignorant of God's revelation, whether it be natural or special, until God saves them. Men love darkness (ignorance) and hate the light (truth).

[@1689solas]

@Larry Cavalli God says rape and child abuse is wrong. God will judge sin. But you're assuming an objective standard of morality that cannot exist if there is no God. Repent.

[@IndianaJoe0321]

@@1689solas wrote, "... everyone is willfully ignorant of God's revelation, ..." No, Dylan, that's not scriptural. They are NOT ignorant -- thus, they're without excuse. "... since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools ..." ~ Romans 1:19-22

[@JamesKestner]

Stephen T. Davis lists four propositions: 1. The Bible is inerrant 2. We are lost and need redemption 3. Christ rose bodily from the dead 4. Persons need to commit their lives in faith to Christ. Can one believe 2, 3 and 4 w/o believing 1? Clearly, yes. Can one KNOW 2, 3 and 4 w/o knowing 1? Descartes argued that “knowing” was possible if, and only if, that proposition was immune to any conceivable doubt. Davis cannot claim the word “know” in this sense, only “believe.” But, if the word “know” means this - I know a proposition if and only if I believe it on the basis of good reasons, then Davis does claim the word “know.”

[@davyboone1794]

Yes. Next question.

[@comicnerd420]

No, it's not. Next question

[@davyboone1794]

@@comicnerd420 you either die in Christ or you die in your sin. No further choices available :-(

[@infinightsky]

@@davyboone1794 or your god doesn’t exist

[@cxarhomell5867]

@@comicnerd420 Yes, it is. Next question, atheist.

[@ericjohn8428]

@@infinightsky so who was Jesus Christ?

[@redmattuk]

Yes it was truly God Himself that said suffer not a witch to live. Amen

[@glowheat4469]

Well said. Unfortunately, most churches give the simplistic version to their congregations.

[@MelvinGaines]

If they are receiving simplistic answers, it is most likely due to a time context. It is hard to explain a number of Bible questions with detailed information. In those instances, pastors and teachers should always remind members of the congregation to be Bereans in their own studies. It does fall back to their responsibility to read, study and pray more.

[@Christo-Cola]

Earliest Manuscripts don’t include the story of the woman caught in Adultery. Isnt that more relevant than on vs no? Especially to the topic of inerrancy?

[@Itsatz0]

The original manuscript for the gospel of Mark, didn't have a resurrection narrative. It too, was added later.

[@eric777100763]

So you THINK that the Bible is full of errors? Must be a seminary student.

[@CaseTheCritic]

itsatz false

[@CaseTheCritic]

Christopher Strabel inerrancy and infallibility pertains to the moral standard of God, the teachings on human sin, and as a result of human sin the necessity for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as the only way to salvation

[@eric777100763]

@@CaseTheCritic I see and I suppose the standards are set by whom the professors at the Seminary the leaders at the Southern Baptist convention? As far as I know those standards are beset by God and their outlined in his word the Bible you care to comment on that? I don't know what in the world's going on over at Southern but it must be terrible. I'm assuming you're a student there and maybe I'm wrong here regardless. I'm assuming that you're claiming to be Christian. But yet you're the tracking from the word of God. The only thing that is our standard to go by. It sure goes to show that we are truly in the last days. People say what his evil is good. And what's good is evil.

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

Don't you think it's a bit "special" to proclaim your own beliefs and their source to be true from the very start, before even looking at the evidence for opposing views which you'll end up dismissing out of hand no matter what..?

[@danielcollier2138]

It is a seminary channel answering bible based questions by using the bible. What were you expecting?

[@geraldpolmateer3255]

A few years ago I set out to determine the date of the exodus. In my study I was amazed at the stances people took and did not leave the questions as questions. As I studied I came to believe that most people do not really understand what scripture actually is and its focus. As I researched the exodus I came to the point that if I am going to say the words are in agreement then either the Bible is wrong or there is another explanation. I found the archaeology was in agreement with 1446BC but Raamses is not. Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, Chapter XV:2, “They left Egypt in the month of Zanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; 430 years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob entered Egypt.” Exodus 12:40, in the Septuagint “And the sojourning of the children of Israel - that is which they sojourned in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan - was 430 years.” Exodus 12:40, Samaritan Pentateuch, “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers when they had dwelt in the land of Canaan and in Egypt was 430 years. Gal. 3:16-17, “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.” Paul writes of God's promises to Abraham being fulfilled with the writing of the Law on Mount Sinai 430 years after Abraham received the promise from God. It is important to note that Jacob and Moses were reminded of God’s promise to Abraham. In 1 Kings 6:1 it says, “Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord”. The fourth year of Solomon’s reign is 966 BC + 480 years = 1446 BC Exodus 1:11 So they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor. And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Raamses. Raamses was about 200 years after the exodus. For one to explain Exodus 1:11 the person needs to understand what the word of God actually is (Hebrews 4:12) and what the focus of God’s people was. I would contend that Raamses in Exodus 1:11 is an anachronism. It would be helpful to know about the transmission and copying of the text too.

[@Mine4062]

"Its only with the enlightenment that you begin to have people who would call themselves Christian to have skepticism..." Also known as the time when most people were able to read.

[@mevangel9898]

The elite class could always read, and the Enlightenment was not a plebian movement. It was not until much later when education was expanded during the mid-Victorian age that 'most people were able to read' and even today, most people cannot read any ancient language.

[@Robert_L_Peters]

Every one of the examples you cited of the bible referring to its own inerrancy is with regards to the OT. How exactly does this apply to the NT?

[@Bulldog75stp]

The new translations of the Bible has come about under the guise of easier to comprehend, yet they delete verses. Moreover, how can someone make a chapter easier to "comprehend" if it wasn't fully understood to begin with? Don't understand Gods word?...just wait. Another "version" will be coming out next year. smh...

[@erinplourde-bragg9557]

I need some specifics... chapter and verse and books? If this is true, you must have read it for yourself. Go. You clearly read the bible with the spirit of judgment on you. You already CHOSE to not want to understand. Sounds like you are making generalities. I want specifics, or your words are foolishness.

[@quantumleap4023]

@@erinplourde-bragg9557 No response. I assume he couldn't prove his claims. Anyway I have a question for you. What do you think about Jesus's real name being Yahshua?

[@chriss5949]

Watch his video on " is the King James version the most accurate translation" and he explains this there.

[@danielaramburo7648]

What about the geographic mistakes in the New Testament and wrong translation from the Hebrew?

[@bepisboy291]

Gee, I wonder if a seminary full of people dedicating their lives to Christianity will admit to errors in the Bible... God changes "his" mind and retracts "his" statements multiple times. Jonah 3:10, Amos 7:3, Jeremiah 26:19, Exodus 32:14... all in clearly direct conflict with the statements in Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29. Do you not find it interesting that as people became more generally educated, the Bible began to be questioned? No matter your religion, never let it have special treatment when it comes to standing against logic and evidence. Challenge your beliefs, let them stand demonstrably true on their own without mental gymnastics. I beg this of you all.

[@Aliceeisley]

I don't think this proves God was changing his mind. God, in all the scriptures you provide, says "repent or feel the wrath of God." When they repented, they did not feel the wrath of God. How is that God changing his mind when He stayed true to His Word?

[@gusolsthoorn1002]

Many have asked the same questions, and many more! There are, of course, translational errors. The Dead Sea scrolls are a solid check on the accuracy of transmission of the Old Testament. The Old Testament we have today is amazing consistent with that written 2,100 years ago. You also need to note the difference between a difference and a contradiction. For example, one writer mentioned 2 angels at the tomb but another mentioned 1. This is a difference but not a contradiction. They both were correct but reported differently. However if one writer said Jesus died on the cross and another said he did not then obviously this is a contradiction. So the question needs to be asked what type of a challenge is being discussed. Smart people have wrestled with these questions for an awful long time. Often however questions like yours are a smoke screen. If the Bible is true then you are in big trouble. Consider the outcome of your life, I beg of you.

[@blahblahblacksheep6347]

The courage to assert the Bible is inerrant is the fear of asserting God can reveal his true nature through anything.

[@kfgabriele9852]

This odd focus on inerrancy makes no sense. The Bible is a collection of reveals. It literally reveals God, and this is incredibly powerful. People have always been, and still are, floating blindly in a sea of vice and evil. But every once in a while very brave and very insightful people who can see through this fog and glimpse the true and full nature of God are able to share these truths with the rest of us. What a gift!! It's an absolute miracle that the insights of such people were collected, placed in a book and saved for posterity - nearly 2,000 years ago! Forget about any contradictions of who said what, when and how, or what group they belonged to or where they lived or what happened first. Forget about name dropping and popularity. None of that matters; it's a smokescreen. The MESSAGE, the REVEAL, the TRUTH is what's important and how the rest of us can begin to understand (to see) the nature of God, too.

[@keswes266]

KF Gabriele WELL SAID!!! And I’m not really a believer but I do believe in what u just said K F.

[@kfgabriele9852]

@@keswes266 I thought of myself as an unbeliever, too, once. But I misunderstood just what I was an unbeliever in. Once I understood I realized we're all believers. Yes, really. Proof? God is Logos (not a Zeus-like figure on a marble throne). God is the order, the nature, the coherence of all things. If you believe in logic, reason, structure, existence, then you're a believer, too. Yes, really. Food for thought, anyway! God Bless... :-)

[@keswes266]

@KFThose are very encouraging words! Thank you! Unfortunately the way I have been brought up and the way the people around me think that is called apostasy and they Will not tolerate even being a round you if you voice those opinions. It can’t simply be that I was thrust into this world not of my own volition then ordered to believe something that makes little or no sense in order to be allowed the great honor of getting into some netherworld that no one’s ever even seen!? I’m to go against what my brain tells me is reasonably so and live a childish fairytale in front of everybody my whole life in hope of heaven later.

[@kfgabriele9852]

@@keswes266 Not sure why the people in your community would consider my statements apostasy. Quite the contrary, I'm very much a Christian - just not an idol worshiper. Meaning, I don't worship or idolize people but rather the divine insight, the Logos, that they are able to communicate. They deserve praise and gratitude to no end for sharing such gifts. We are all of God but, sadly, the vast majority of humanity is so distant from God and blinded by sin and deceptions that we desperately need Christ and the saints. These very small handful of people over the past couple thousand years were able to discover or intuit or receive the reality of God, then devoted their entire lives to ensuring this knowledge is available for the rest of us. It's hard to imagine a more selfless, generous, compassionate and hopeful thing for someone to do. Perhaps those in your community think of God, Christ and the saints differently. And if they do, it may be the best way for them to understand the message. What got through to me were three words, just three, and everything finally made sense. I had not heard them said in that way before, but when I did all of the doubts, inconsistencies, and conflicts became irrelevant. I understood that I was never actually in doubt of the truth or God, none of us are. Our confusion and rebellion is un-natural; it isn't from God. The struggle within us is our fight against what we know isn't God. We're inundated every second of our lives with deceptions, corruption, sin, vice, and temptations that lie to us about God, over and over and over and over... ad nauseam. Then we begin to doubt, then we begin to stray, then... we begin to pay and pay and pay. I see that now and understand that I've always seen it. I see the lies and propaganda and temptations for what they are... the path away from God. And those three words? God is Logos. God Bless!

[@stevesmith5553]

@@kfgabriele9852 I like RHEMA too though

[@fredchildress4543]

Paul says Jesus died for our sins, God says everyone is responsible for his own sins. Paul says when Jesus went to the cross the law is of no more importance, God says a day will come when he will put his LAW in our inward parts. Who’s right God or man ?

[@dougbennett9685]

Study to shew thyself proved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word to truth. 2 Timothy 2:15. Study to rightly divide the word. Look into the context of the passage

[@neildunford241]

If god never changes his mind. And he's responsible for everything. Why pray?

[@jordanbickett4062]

Because Jesus tought to pray "Thine will be done" meaning we should want God's will done. Not ours. Go to a big megachurch fun house and they'll say God wants you to have a nice house and a luxury car, that's all nonsense.

[@smbot1991]

We pray because Jesus told us to and because it is how we communicate to him. He's not Santa Claus, after all.

[@Anecdotal1]

Actually God's plans have been changed a number of times... Moses for instance and the Golden Calf....

[@neildunford241]

@@Anecdotal1 Then he can't know everything, can he?

[@margaretbarrett6087]

Very logical . If god is omniscient, and knows what we want before we ask for it, isn’t prayer an insult to his omniscience ?

[@formerfundienowfree4235]

Literalism and inerrancy only officially became a thing in 1978. Before that the Bible was considered sufficient in matters of salvation. They did not require one to take the fantastic biblical stories literally. And to quote John Dominic Crossan, "it's not that those ancient people wrote those things literally and we are now smart enough to interpret them spiritually, it's that they wrote those things spiritually and we are now dumb enough to take it literally.

[@YuDynasty]

I love this video! #SouthernForLife Doctrine matters but our source is the inerrant, sufficient written Word of God! Solid work Dr. Plummer. Reminds me of NT2 class with you!!!

[@TIMMY12181]

Which version?

[@douglaidlaw740]

Evidence?

[@west2smojo]

We don't hold normal conversational communication to such a standard because it does not claim to be the authoritative inerrant word of God. We certainly hold other forms of communication to a high standard, such as courtroom testimonies and scientific papers... Besides the claim is that if one author says "van" and the other says "car" the is some divinely inspired reason for the difference which we need to study so as to understand the mind of God and be found in his favor.

[@elizabethconnon1612]

Yea, hath God said?

[@troydrury12]

The problem with the SBC is that they affirm multiple versions of "scripture" that contradict each other. They cannot all be the scripture. For example, most of the modern versions drop at least 16 verses that are included in the KJV (this is not minor as the narrator insinuates). those verses are either the Word of God or they're not. If you think they believe that this twisted logic only applies to English translations, then ask them where the Word of God is, in any language, on planet earth today (spoiler alert: they won't tell you because they don't believe it exists). They believe God's Word only exists in the originals. The problem is that no one has seen the originals, so what they really mean is that they are the final arbiter of what is and isn't the Word of God. They accuse KJV-only believers, like myself, of doing the same thing (establishing ourselves as the authority), but that's not so. We actually believe that God kept his promise to preserve his word. We believe the Church (the ground and pillar of the truth) passed down a reliable translation of God's Word to us in English in the KJV. The modern versions cannot be reliable because they were not passed down by the Church. The two primary manuscripts they use as their textual basis were not discovered until the 1880s and are supposedly from the 4th century. If they're reliable, then God hid his Word from the Church for about 1400 years (the majority of Christian history).

[@85AngelRogue]

I’ve learned so much from these videos Thank you

[@nohandleeeeee]

learned a lot of wrong information but good for you

[@chadgarber]

This is totally wrong. They had debates about which books should be included in the New Testament as early as the church fathers!

[@cathyb7573]

The scriptures are only as reliable as the people who wrote them .

[@IndianaJoe0321]

We have a process in place which allows us to get back -- reliably -- to the inerrant original, to which we don't have access.

[@cathyb7573]

IndianaJoe0321 What is that process ?

[@IndianaJoe0321]

It's called "textual criticism," @@cathyb7573. Scholars spend their lifetimes & careers in the pursuit of recreating the biblical text ... going backwards in time, trying to ascertain the originals. Traditionally, the larger group tends to use the Alexandrian Textform, while the smaller group used the Byzantine Textform. However, in the last year or so the move is for the larger Alexandrian group to start including more Byzantine manuscripts. If you've ever read an NKJV, you'll notice the center column references to "other manuscripts" such as the Vulgate, Akkadian, United Bible Societies, the Septuagint (LXX), Syriac, Nestle-Aland, Ugaritic, Peshitta, etc. Well, that's a very slight introduction to textual criticism.

[@cathyb7573]

IndianaJoe0321 Im not knocking scholerly endeavor ..lm just saying a lot of scripture is man made .in that the culure of tge people and region of those times are put foreward as GODS WORD . You can make scripture into an ldol just like anything else . And even the Devil can quote scripture to suit his purposes .

[@Itsatz0]

@@IndianaJoe0321 Yeah sure, god's word, but we don't have the originals? I'll buy that!

[@b-il-n]

Christians are not permitted to question the proposition that Pauline Christianity is "safe and effective" in preventing eternal torment. a problem with imputing "inerrancy" to the words of human scribes is that the OT was preserved and passed on by masoretic scribes in support of their Rabbinic Judaism. reason dictates that if they were completely "inspired" for the purposes of recording and preserving the manuscripts faithfully, then they are due considerable if not complete deference in their expositions as to what it all means. for example, in Genesis when it is said "let us make man in our likeness", not one masoretic or jewish scribe in history took that to be a conversation between The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - that is, a closed conversation within and between the hypostatic persons of the "Trinity." Christians, however, maintain that the conversation was in fact between the persons of the Trinity. The obvious problem is that, in order to reach a completely unheard of reading of that narration, Christians must hold that the masoretic and jewish scribes were and are still erroneous in their understanding and retelling of a book they authored. because the penalty for not believing perfectly and embracing wholeheartedly the musings of Paul is eternal torment, modern Christians are discouraged from understanding what the text actually meant to the persons that Christians are also required to hold "inerrant" and "inspired." this represents Christianity to be a copium for people who are so scared of eternal torment that they will not believe their lying eyes. indeed, they trusted the early Church Fathers to develop doctrines for 1400 years. and then via reformation the Christians started singling out particular doctrines, amounting to less than 1% of whatever the Church Fathers conveyed, to apply a modicum of fallibility to those fathers. Protestants are outright hostile toward the likes of Augustine, Origen, Jerome, Aquinas. Christians are outright hostile toward proponents Rabbinic Judaism, which is a direct, unbroken expression and exposition of the very texts that Christians hold to be "inerrant", derived from the writings of persons that Christians hold to be "inspired." that's more a manifestation of fear of death than a sincere "justification by faith." why attribute to the creator a mandate to abandon reason in order to reconcile disparate facts and embrace the teaching of one central character: Paul? Christians rely on the epistles attributed to Paul for their salvation more than on the parables and explanations attributed to Jesus. Was Paul "more inspired" than Jesus such that Christians must rely upon the words of the former to understand the words of the latter - even though Paul was not present during Jesus's sermons nor does Paul often quote words attributable to Jesus in his explanation of God's plan. Christianity was persecuted until the Roman government took it over, put its own people in positions of authority, and aligned the doctrines with state goals.

[@wserthmar8908]

Well said and spot on. You don’t sound like a believer though

[@SAOProductions1955]

If by "inerrant" you mean incapable of leading someone in the wrong direction and totally trustworthy (Proverbs 30:,5,6), I think a strong case can be made from the Scriptures themselves of its claim to be just that - however, if your understanding of "inerrancy" incorporates any suggestion or measure of an extra-biblical criterion based on scientific exactitude which is imposed on the Scriptures, thus resting that "inerrancy" on an outside, external objective evidence to prove it's infallibility rather than the witness of the Holy Spirit, then I reject that view.

[@kfgabriele9852]

I absolutely agree. Very well said!

[@richardprovan3130]

5:52 For arguments' sake, let's say a person's particular denomination, or belief system, of God and the afterlife are correct, why wouldn't that person want to make sure it holds up to scrutiny as much as possible? The soul, in the case of belief, is on the line. What if it's the wrong God, or if the rituals have to be a certain way? Having certainty and confidence in knowing would make the belief stronger and not paper thin, easily fooled by any charlatan, faith healer, or agent of the enemy, correct? I'm curious as what you would compare the need of scrutiny of the Bible and a person's belief of the afterlife are?

[@richardprovan3130]

I noticed also he mentions the Renaissance period, but not the Reformation or Protestant wars, countless Crusades, Jihads, wars, atrocities and numerous other conflicts where lives were lost based on what one religion's scriptures had versus another. Accuracy matters, or their lives didn't.

[@DANtheMANofSIPA]

Because its impossible to know if what you believe in 100% true. You can only gather data and believe what you wish based on the scriptures. A just God will take everything in your life to consideration when judging your soul and it is unlikely that a just man will be punished for worshiping Him in a way slightly wrong but that he had no way of knowing was wrong. But there are certain moral laws that are true for every human and for every religion. If you disobey these moral laws, it is doubtful that worshiping the correct God will save you.

[@richardprovan3130]

@@DANtheMANofSIPA would you consider murder one of those moral laws? How would you define murder? - As I mentioned in other comment above, the Crusades and Jihads and other Holy Wars were committed in the name of their god(s) and religion in an attempt to gain land and control strategic resources. They took up arms to kill those who stood in their way. It should considered be immoral to kill for your god as that is murder, correct? - Also mentioned in the previous comments above is the Reformation and Protestant Wars. These were efforts by smaller denominational faiths fighting the larger Catholic faith in an attempt for reduce the control the pope had on Europe. There is more to that, but the point is that even though most, if not all, of those faiths believed in the same God, they still rode out and killed other Christians to spread their particular religion. It should be considered immoral to kill others who believe in the same god as you, even if it's just a little different, as that is murder, correct? - Let's focus on a non war justification to kill another. Why are so many laws in the Old Testament, few in the New Testament, Quran, and many governmental laws across the earth have the Death Penalty for crimes? Is killing the person for a crime make murder ok some of the time? If that's the case, then it's not a moral law that is true for all peoples, if it can be broken by the same faiths and governments that enforce the laws.

[@qcbtbx]

Good stuff. I was waiting for an explanation of the distinction between infallibility and inerrancy, as the video title suggests there is. Are they being treated as the same here? If so, why? Can a believer hold to one and not the other? Why or why not? I have my own position, but was and am curious to hear another perspective.

[@DavidOvando]

I'd suggest this vid on the matter. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5bNpn1tprmkjq8

[@BatMite19]

Looking literally at the words, there is a subtle shade of difference. "Inerrant" means "does not err." To "err" literally means to "stray" or to "wander." Thus, stating that the Bible is "inerrant" means that it does not stray or wander from the truth. "Infallible" means "does not fail." Something could technically be inerrant but not be infallible. In other words, it does not stray form the truth, but it also does not achieve its goal. It is true, but insufficient. The Bible is both true and sufficient. It makes promises and delivers on those promises. it is inerrant and infallible. I suppose it could also be that a thing could be untrue but still deliver, i.e., be errant, but infallible. But that's kind of a weird idea.

[@keswes266]

i did a study on this in college & basically errancy implies that every single i must be dotted & t crossed or the whole book is corrupted. fallibility means what it intends to say it says perfectly Such as the smallest seed is not the Mustard Seed but Jesus used it as Ex. Because that was the smallest seed the people he was talking to knew about.

[@IndianaJoe0321]

The problem is in how the doctrine is currently articulated. It should be: we have a process in place which allows us to get back -- reliably -- to the inerrant original, to which we don't have access.

[@qcbtbx]

@@IndianaJoe0321 🤔

[@PirateTruck]

If the Bible is accepted as the inerrant and infallible word of God, then preachers should be much more careful not to use verses in the wrong context to back up religious points they are trying to make lest they distort the true purpose of that word of God.

[@duhbghaill9306]

The Message is still getting delivered, though at times the delivery/messenger falters. God Bless!

[@crawfislk]

Paul I can understand, that actually makes sense. But common men? Fishermen? Carpenters? Tax collectors? Did they write in Greek? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John... were they educated in Greek? And wrote in Greek?... I doubt it.

[@woodman6176]

tp yount coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-could-john-a-poor-uneducated-fisherman-write-the-gospel-of-john/

[@ballasog]

@@woodman6176 Weak

[@Israel2.3.2]

Such rhetoric is carried through the ages by linguistic inheritance that hordes its wealth from the hungry mouths of truth. Skillful conversational manouvering allays the listener's fear of death. Don't listen to me. I'm but a hateful sinner whose Nietschean spectacles color the concept of God with Death's hue. Beliefs should be destroyed, not created then resuscitated.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

Precisely. Mental gymnastics. all these simpletons in here proclaiming that the Bible is the only source of truth clearly have not read 19th century economists like Thorstein Veblen, And Karl Marx. Once you have been guided to see that lay-morality is nothing more than a buttress to violence and slavery you can’t unsee it. The only effective method is to claim the first book ever was the only book ever and remain willfully ignorant.

[@anitareasontobelieve378]

Then why were the earliest Bibles and circulated stories in the early church and why does Jesus quote from the gospel of Thomas?

[@henryzayef9650]

Once you experience the revelation and power in Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit this becomes a non-issue.

[@ballasog]

Or maybe you're just hallucinating?

[@jgoble100]

That’s why it’s not considered totally biblical. It doesn’t contradict anything, so it’s allowed, but it’s under scrutiny. That would again fall to a translation error, not a biblical error. It’s like the second half of Mark 16.

[@dirtymikentheboys5817]

@@ballasog could not everything be a hologram? Prove it isn't.

[@ballasog]

@@dirtymikentheboys5817 Holograms are only optical, but I've felt, heard, smelled, and tasted various things at various times.

[@timtrewyn453]

Rather than offer the example of a van/car, I think it would be helpful to offer a plain Biblical case of a set of difficulties that someone going through a harmony of the Gospels will find in the resurrection story. Such a case is the identities and number of those at the tomb on the morning it was found empty. What this exercise dissolves is a first order notion that the Gospels are rigorously consistent because the Holy Spirit dictated the recorded words in each Gospel. The exercise supports the idea that the Gospels had different human authors and, while not always rigorously consistent, they are "materially" consistent. All Gospels record that the tomb was empty and that this was witnessed by multiple persons. But for many, and this was an issue at Wheaton College while I was there, this observation sets up an objection to plenary verbal inspiration and support of the idea of professor Dr. Donald Lake, "The Bible is inerrant in what it intends to teach." The Bible itself not literally being a person nor of the Trinity, but a text, the intentionality of the Bible is presumably that of the Holy Spirit. This can create an important shift in one's perspective on the Bible and God. Instead of the Bible being used as a logical axiom from which arguments are made to address issues of life, the reader is faced with a need to call upon the Holy Spirit in the present to assist in understanding what is being read and how that understanding might be applied to the details of life. Rather than seeking an inerrant text, the search is shifted to a relationship with an inerrant Spirit. The hazard for every human being is the irreverence of putting one's own words into God's mouth. The necessary caution reinforces grace, humility, and reserving final judgment to Him who is worthy to make it. Jesus wants each of us to know Him and His Father. They want to make Their home with each one of us. The Bible can be a helpful tool, but it is no substitute for the loving, authentic, transformative relationship. That's a narrow and hard way for us because of the nature of God (usually invisible and inaudible), but it would seem necessary that God would act to make the perception of His presence available and possible to any member of His creation. We miss the point if we demand the Bible be rigorously consistent, and many a young Christian scholar turns to atheism because they read the Bible and find these difficulties and hold to an idea that it must be verbal plenary inspiration or it is invalid. One begins to wonder if God has left the Bible as it is so that we do not build some elaborate reliance on our own woven interpretation, but that we are left to use the Bible in search of a living God. The intent is that we approach life with very God Himself as our First Axiom.

[@OneEkklesia]

-- God is inerrant and infallible: man's rendering of God's WORD are NOT!

[@1689solas]

That's why we have the Spirit.

[@OneEkklesia]

-- @Karen C: Jesus is "...the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world..."; but God [the Word] "...was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself."

[@OneEkklesia]

__ @Karen C: The WORD CONCEIVED the person of Jesus: who was to become the Christ and retained the Lordship that Adam had lost.

[@OneEkklesia]

-- @Karen C: God is Spirit, and he is HOLY; he is the Holy Spirit and he is one and the same (not two). __ Jesus, the son, was CONCEIVED in a virgin girl named Mary, by the Word which God spoke to the Angel Gabriel. __ The son only appeared as a PROPHESY in the Old Testament: but was not actually a son until his birth in Bethlehem. __

[@OneEkklesia]

-- @Karen C: Adam indeed had "dominion", which is synonymous for "lord".

[@justinbaumer8546]

Exodus 32:14 contradicts the fact that God can't change his mind as previously stated by a verse in this video. There is also mass confusion on once saved always saved and free salvation vs works

[@nopretribrapture2318]

GOD will make man scarcer than gold YET there's still approx 7 billion on earth 😁 maybe that was a prophecy for thousands of years to come , heh

[@codiefeazel173]

Tis a metaphor

[@eltonron1558]

@@codiefeazel173 Christianspeak metaphor, has ruined Christianity. None are yet saved, nor born again, as Jesus describes it. Conversion, has been metaphored, to being, "saved", and "born again". Metaphor stinks. Frauds, use metaphor, in scripture, to promote false belief, and a false gospel. No wonder Christianity, is not under one roof.

[@codiefeazel173]

@@eltonron1558 Christianity is largely a joke so

[@eltonron1558]

@@codiefeazel173 You're correct, as it is a self inflicted circus, making the religion bogus, while God, is not.

Scripture can't and will never be inerrant. But what it points to, is. God is inerrant. Why do we need to insist that scripture is inerrant. And what does this claim of inerrancy do to us. We think it brings us safety. But does it really? Now we need to protect our view on this inerrancy from attack. The Bible inerrancy becomes our ground of faith, instead of the presence of a living and real God and his son he want's us to follow. I have found that letting go off the Bibles inerrancy has been a blessing to my faith. Now I see that it is God that is my faith. Reading scripture is a blessing. Knowing that God in his greatness can speak through anything he wants. Even me and you in our lack of inerrancy can be used to spread His Kingdom.

[@Itsatz0]

The idea that the bible is true is only believed by the emotionally pathetic and the liars who prey on them.

[@johndusak8147]

I hope someday I change your mind. The rooster.

[@CaseTheCritic]

itsatz There’s a lot of evidence for the validation of the scriptures. I know plenty of people that aren’t as you say, emotionally pathetic, and believe. Let’s hear your evidence that the Bible is false? Did you know that non-Christian biblical scholars don’t stand with your opinion that the Bible is fiction? You talk about “liars” that prey on people, and yet you seem to prey on people here in KZbin comments in attempts to make them out as fools; what makes you so special?

[@Itsatz0]

​@@CaseTheCriticBullshit, only Christian scholars say the miracles of Jesus really happened. (Muslim scholars, I think, also believe in some of Superjew' miracles, but they're just another mind controlling, fear inducing religion.) You are full of hot air, otherwise you would have given contemporary historical or archeological evidence. Besides, unlike you, I already checked, there isn't any, the miracles didn't happen and that's a fact.

[@antichrist_revealed]

Amen brother.

[@CaseTheCritic]

2 books every person struggling with Christianity should read: More than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark

[@OneEkklesia]

-- Did you know that by understanding the first three chapters of Genesis, we may also come to understand a great deal of the New Testament?

[@B1G_ChUnG5]

@@OneEkklesia no.

[@bedtimesd.1247]

The Bible (The Word of God) is so simple a child can understand it yet so complex that all the scholars through out all history cannot master it. It is the Word of God = Logos = Yehshua written is such a way as to compel the maximum amount of people into the Kingdom of God or Yahweh.

[@bedtimesd.1247]

@Brass Heel How do you respond to the Word was made flesh. Interesting moniker by the way.

[@ChrisMusante]

GREAT QUESTION... inerrant - I would say, maybe as there can be errors due to copying and scribal interpretation issues - infallible? DEFINATELY. As the 'law of God' is designed as a 'blessing AND a curse' - it is TRUTH upon TRUTH, reap what you sow, and perfect justice as such. Because of this 'design' it [God's law] CANNOT be broken, and where 'bones' are referred to in visions and prophecies in the scriptures... what should be understood as implied is 'God's Law'. Much of the scriptures - both old and new testament are NOT understood correctly. Example: MAN IS APPOINTED ONCE TO DIE, AND THEN THE JUDGEMENT unpacked... Man is (was) appointed once to die (happened in the Garden of Eden, as 'appointed by God' - in the day...) and then the 'judgement'. Note that by knowing GOOD and EVIL we were then able to judge, and in some cases even die in order to demonstrate the greatest of loves. The 'problem' that occured is that since God sees evil as something that needs to be 'corrected' (love, feed, clothe, pray for, your enemy) man SEES the 'need' to address the issue - but fails to do it in the way that God would have him do the task, and thus 'man's anger does NOT produce the righteousness of God'. In fact, God does not 'see' evil (darkness) in the same way that mankind does (psalm 139:12) and in fact, even claims responsibility for 'ALL these things' - Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) reads in the most 'honest' of ways. Shalom.

[@a1productionllc]

My own view is that God has allowed a few scribal, etc. errors to creep into the text in order to keep us from taking and using a small bit of the Bible (such as part of a verse) a building a doctrine upon it. Isa. 28:10 talks about God's word being line upon line, precept upon precept so that we build our understanding from the whole Bible, instead of small bits. My view also is that God guards His word and its overall integrity, and He's very good at that.

[@colvinator1611]

Your view ? Almighty God says His word is pure and preserved. Are you saying God got it wrong ? Production llc

[@exaucemayunga22]

​@colvinator1611 I like how Christians see problems about their book, then say "the Bible says this, but this is what I think it means"

[@frtomsrambles4521]

But interestingly it wasn't until the enlightenment and modernity that the Bible was subjected to foundationalism. Probably precisely due to the challenges from modernity to Scripture. But for the Church Fathers the Word was Christ to whom the scriptures testified. And they had a diverse way of reading Scripture from plain historical readings to analogical readings because to read Scripture is an encounter with the Spirit who leads us to our Lord.

[@MarvinFalz]

"[The Bible] uses language to describe phenomena as we experience them." Humans experience earth as the centre of the universe. Every human being experiences their ego as being the centre of their own universe. Everyday experience lets earth appear to be flat. Until recently, when I heard Dr. McGee say that the Bible doesn't purport the notion of a flat earth, I believed that the Bible does so, because of flat earthers quoting passages that seem to indicate a flat earth.

[@teravega]

When someone says "the Bible is inerrant", I'm more concerned of their mindset than God's word. There's a history of misinterpretations that come from an overly simplistic view of bible inerrancy.

[@pianovisions2706]

Why would there be contradictions wtf

[@ahlimbuhap5097]

But some Anglican churches do not seem to think so when they allow muslims to use the church for prayers and the quran read there, implying they accept the muslim contention that Christ is not Divine and the the trinity is wrong.

[@roberteaston6413]

The Anglican Church of Canada recently announced that based on current trends they will cease to exist by 2040.

[@gregbooker3535]

As a perusal of relevant books and Christian journal articles indicates, Christian disagreement on inerrancy does not exist merely between liberal and fundamentalist, it exists also entirely confined within the fundamentalist camp. How then could it be unreasonable for the skeptic to say the biblical data on the matter are too convoluted to permit reasonably certain conclusions, i.e., today's inerrantists are fools because they are getting certainty about a doctrine from source-material that is nothing close to certain?

[@thapelomaraisane8705]

People apply are more skeptical of Biblical claims for obvious reasons.

[@formerfundienowfree4235]

In general, the only resources fundamentalists consult are things written by other fundamentalists. Not scholars. As a former fundamentalist for many years, I know this as a fact. I never met one fundamentalist who EVER read anything that actually challenged their literalistsm. For the most part they only read things that affirm what they already believe.

[@dondgc2298]

In fairness to the fundamentalists, that’s a common failure of all of mankind. Conservatives read things that reinforce their conservative beliefs. Liberals read things that reinforce their liberal beliefs. None of us go around actively seeking information that will force us to admit error in our thinking.

[@tgleo1]

This is such clear teaching!

[@julzee111]

So which Bible is inerrant?

[@GinamangArte]

Just asking is it good to have a pastor woman in the church? Is the church breaking a simple law written in the bible by having a pastor woman?

[@GinamangArte]

Thank you miss Crim Sin...

[@daddysschoolbus314]

Absolutely...

[@paulkruger1945]

I am in agreement with you & comment as follows 1. I use the King James Version/New King James Version side by side parallel Bible which I find extremely helpful & yes there are one or two words in the NKJV that change the meaning eg Galatians 2:20. In the KJV it says..."faith of" whilst the NKJV it says.."faith in" - that for me is a major difference. 2. The early translators didn't have any hidden agendas like the modern Pastor's/Teachers/Ministers have today! 3. In 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God,...." For me that means I accept from the first word in the Bible ie in Genesis "In" & the last word "Amen" in Revelation & EVERY WORD IN BETWEEN. For years now man has picked & chosen certain passages out of the Bible to suit a particular man-made religious doctrine & hence a 1000+ different Christian denominations whereas Paul makes it quite clear "We are one IN Christ". Galatians 3:26-28. 4. In 2 Tim 2:15 Paul tells us to "...rightly divide the Word of Truth..". For me the only Gospel ie the Gospel of Grace was given by Jesus Himself to only ONE MAN ie the Apostle Paul & NO ONE ELSE. But what have the Pastors/Teachers done? They have commingled the Old Testament including Matthew, Mark & Luke (ie before the Cross & Christianity didn't yet exist) with the Gospel of Grace & hence all these various denominations. My two cents worth! All scriptures quoted are from the KJV./

[@eltonron1558]

It's worse than that. The gospel, according to Christ, has been replaced, with a gospel about Christ. Salvation is being preached, but called the gospel. On top of that, Christianspeak metaphor, is a stinking nuisance. Mark 1:14-15 Matthew 24:14 Gospel first, salvation after. Acts 28:31 Your take on Jesus to Paul, is interesting click bait, and I'm going to bite, for research purposes.

[@Iamwrongbut]

Everyone is an inerrantist until they study this passage: 27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." - Matthew 16:27-28 The generation of the disciples died without Jesus coming back to repay each according to what he had done.

[@bjaxer]

Except the text actually depicts some of them seeing him glorified in his kingdom on the mount starting from the very next verse after what you quote. The "six days later" is uncommon because most time indicators in the sections of matthew are not time specific. But yes, of course, because should they have been judged there for 16,28 to be correct? Well, 16,28 doesn't repeat verse 27 fully, so maybe chapter 17 is not intended to be a full fulfillment. What do you think?

[@bjaxer]

Of course it raises the question then, what does it mean for God's kingdom to "be coming".

[@Iamwrongbut]

bjaxer I do not buy the transfiguration as a fulfillment of these verses for a couple of reasons. 1. Why would Jesus make a grand prophecy like this if the gap between the prophecy and the events is only 6 days? That’s like me saying, “some Dallas Cowboys will not taste death between week 13 and week 14 of the football season.” Not very remarkable if it comes true. Plus, under this view it seems like some of the disciples would die (other wise he could have said “all” will not taste death, etc.). And none of the 12 died during those 6 days. 2. In the context, the “coming in His Kingdom” is directly related to the judgment day described in v27. No sound exegete would say that these are unrelated events unless they are forcing their own theological understanding into the text. So, even if “coming” doesn’t mean completion of judgment day, it would at least mean that judgment day has started. Seeing that many people on earth have not received from God “according to what they have done,” it does not seem Jesus has come in his kingdom in the way described in this passage.

[@bjaxer]

@@Iamwrongbut Thank you. I find your reply interesting. To 1) I don't think it's supposed to be remarkable that they don't die, and I don't see that in the text either. It's remarkable that they see him glorified, because it confirms the coming in glory, not that they don't die. To 2) Yes, surely v28 is deeply attached to v27. Now, I don't want to make any fuzzy and overstated statements about the relation between judgement and the afterlife and resurrection and God outside of time, but I do know that there's also as an example the passage where Jesus promises the humbled criminal on the cross to join paradise "today". (Luke 23,43). To me that helps me in the direction of thinking more of a gradual view of some things rather than "either-or-mentality". Not thereby rejecting all either-or-thinking. Sorry for the vagueness.

[@nealhammersmith8798]

The Bible / God's Word only becomes errant or fallible when we as man perverse God's Word. Different versions of the Bible take too many liberties with decisions in translations, changes in words or phraseology, or omissions in context.

[@nealhammersmith8798]

@Anon Ymous could you provide context to your question instead try do "gotcha moment".

[@thedude0000]

Ok then....WHICH version of the Bible is the correct version.

[@jimfoard5671]

In 2 Kings 13:1 in the 23rd year of Joash's reign over Judah, Jehoahaz begins his reign over Israel for 17 years. 17 + 23 is 40; but in 2 Kings 13:9-10 Jehoahaz dies and his son reigns over Israel in the 37th year of Joash''s reign, which is only 14 years, not 17. Explain.

[@104littleal6]

4:32 yes, by faith - the KJV. I would test your theory of inerrancy and infallibility by comparing Heb. 3:16 with Num. 14:22-30. At the very least, Caleb and Joshua were among them, but didn't provoke/rebel. However, I would contend many many more than just two did not provoke/rebel. The underlying minority Greek text (so called "oldest and best") is the culprit for such a grievous error. But that's not all, Mark 1:2 also has an error where it reads "As it is written in saiah the prophet" then proceeds to claim both quotes are in Isaiah. Again, it's the Greek text that's the problem. And there are other errors as well. The KJV doesn't have those problems. Although some would attempt to claim that it does contain errors to try and justify their use of bad bibles. Or to avoid the issue and not have to use/believe the KJV for fear of persecution from peers.

[@willish639]

Someone hasn't been listening to their dose of James White🤔🤣

[@provokingthought9964]

Why does God have to preserve his word in english? Has he promised that he would do that? If he has promised to preserve his word in english, why are other languages left without a bible? (not all people have a bible in their language) If he has promised to preserve his word in english, why did it take til the KJV? Were english speakers before the kjv capable of being saved and discerning the totality of biblicsl doctrines to live by? If that is the case, what is so special about the kjv? What do we do with the reality that the kjv departs in the NT both from the majority text and the textus receptus? What i mean is that it is not possible to trace an stream of transmission thst is devoid of textual variants. How does the kjv only position that typically argues for exact passing down of every jot and tittle without variation throughout the ages account for this? If it is the KJV, which edition? (this isnt as big a deal as many critics act but there are meaningful differences) I know the PCE is the top pick of many. Why? What sound reason does one have for that? No psalm 12 isnt a reason, the hebrew grammar prevents this (gender of noun "words" and pronoun "them" doesnt match, therefore "them" does not refer to "words.") Whichever edition one chooses, what does one do with basic copyist errors that enter into any printing? What i mean is, does the copyist error mean you dont jave the inerrant word in your hand? Is it still the bible without error if it has typos or are you saying ut is a copy of the true word, that exists as an ideal or some such thing? (may seem an absurd question but copyist errors are really no different than scribal errors that entet into manuscripts, whether byzantine or otherwise). Finally what does it mean, in anything, for the argument that it is impossible to go back to the original maniscriot that was sent to the printers? These are all in one sense or another hitches in the argument in my mind.

[@Iamwrongbut]

The KJV came from Greek manuscripts in its translation. So what is your point that the KJV can be correct while the Greek manuscript is wrong? That would make them both wrong hahahahaha

[@104littleal6]

@@Iamwrongbut There are at least 2 different Greek manuscripts. The ones used by the majority of the new translations, NIV, NASV, ESV, etc. are the Greek manuscripts that are the problem. They contain errors such as calling Jesus a liar in John 7:8, making him a sinner Matt. 5:22. The Greek text used in translating the KJV doesn't have those problems. The question is, why are so many people blindly using and defending them? They don't care? They don't know? They don't want to know? Who knows why they don't see the errors. You really should study the facts of these Greek text for yourself and not let others tell you what to believe. All of the information is on the net.

[@104littleal6]

@@provokingthought9964 It looks as though you've already made your mind up. You've made a list of "hitches" rather than searching for truth. That's your choice though. Most, if not all, of your questions are irrelevant to the problems in the wrong Greek text. If you'd looked closely at a facsimile of the Sinaiticus, one that hasn't been "doctored", you would know more about the situation.

[@billbrock8547]

Literally, metaphorically, allegorically, and now phenomenologically. The confusion among Christians regarding Bible interpretation isn't their fault. It seems that God simply expressed himself ambiguously.