Unlocking Divine Inspiration: Why My New Book Explores Inspiration

[@ranmangolf]

Mike, you explained this very well. Nicely done!

[@juliescheving7951]

Great stuff! Mike’s teaching continues to deepen my understanding of scripture and far more importantly, deepens my faith! To God be the glory!

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Wonderful!

[@TataySol]

The issue is a glaring one that has been unavoidable for me. Thank you for continuing to share this message to us.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

It's not an easy matter. Certainly, Scripture is not clear on it, other than Scripture ultimately derives from God and is authoritative.

[@christiangadfly24]

I became an atheist when I was 25 because of Bible contradictions. I later realized humanism and materialism were incompatible and became a nihilist. I was depressed at this and eventually questioned materialism, decided life had a purpose but I didn't know what it was. After researching Islam and Mormonism (and thinking they were nonsense) I came across Gary Habermas lecturing on minimum facts. Today, I am once again a Christian. For anyone who would be interested, my testimony is on my channel in a video titled "I left Christianity Became a Secular Humanist and then I came Back". I love Mike Licona and I'm even going to record a parody of "My Sherona" using his name "Mike Licona" for a clip in my upcoming video.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

I'm glad you came back! Please contact me after you recorded your parody of "My Sherona." I'd love to hear it!

[@Christs_Apologet]

Keep going brother, youre a blessing from Christ :)

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Thanks, brother!

[@____9101]

I have no choice but to ask Licona again. I don't think there's a need to explain the differences among the Synoptic Gospels as a literary device. Errors can naturally be expected during the transmission process, and we can view them as the cause of the differences. If the Gospels were indeed written using the literary devices Licona mentioned, there would have been much greater differences in explaining Jesus’ words and actions(by referencing ancient biographical writings). In summary, I believe it is a more reasonable explanation to view the minor differences as resulting from trivial errors during the transmission process rather than the Gospel writers intentionally using literary devices. We must courageously acknowledge that there could be minor human errors in the process of recording the Gospels. -from a seeker of South Korea ^)^

[@elliot7205]

Good video mike, what is your view of mark 4-10 alot of criticism has been said about this? What's your take

[@wkrapek]

I think of data points as colors and ancient histories as paintings. You might mix data points. Wash them out. Move them around. Deepen them. The only thing that really matters is: did they get the person right?

[@roycevanblaricome634]

I just wanna know one thing. Did you approve that "Eastwood" message? LOL

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Ha! I did, Royce!

[@waynemershon4622]

Limited inerrancy=heresy It's proponents cannot be considered true followers of Christ. If you are not 100% convinced of the veracity of the christian faith, then you are 0% christian.

[@Amarant8]

Where in the scriptures do i find the concept of complete inerrancy ? Mike seems to stress that one should not confuse inspiration with inerrancy. I know the scriptures speak of inspiration, can you point me to where you find the inerrancy concept? Thanks

[@christiangadfly24]

What's really ironic is I left the faith because of Bible errors. I eventually returned to the faith because I thought the resurrection happened, but I thought the Bible was full of crap at that time, like I trusted pretty much none of it. You always hear the cliche of someone starting conservative and slowly pulling more and more liberal, but because of scholars like Licona and Craig Keener, I feel the opposite happening with me. As time goes on I'm getting more and more conservative with a higher and higher view of scripture. Another interesting irony is that, let's suppose Licona and Keener and other scholars of the first century are correct, and that the gospels are cultural artifacts that make sense in the 1st century cultural context. If this is correct then it means that the first hearers of the gospel were listening to it with ears to hear, receiving the message with the same tools Licona is proving. Said in other words, the Licona/Craig Keener/Craig Evans style of listening to the gospels is actually OLDER and MORE CONSERVATIVE than fundamentalism. What is more? It is actually a HIGHER view of scripture. If scripture is begging to be heard in its original context, if knowing about greco roman compositional tools of theon sharpens the focus then, far from obscuring the message of scripture, it actually makes the message higher resolution. In fact, looking at scripture as what it is, THAT is respecting the text more than taking a 1920s lens (fundamentalism) and warping a first century artifact into saying something it never intended to say. Its not just more thoughtful or more academic. It's more spiritual and WORSHIPFUL to read the text in its original context. Its more conservative, more devout, more pious!

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Amen! Well stated!