Is the Bible inerrant or infallible?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- "Is the Bible inerrant or infallible? Does the Bible contain errors?"
Dr. Robert Plummer answers in Honest Answers | Episode 89
RESOURCES:
"New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by Gleason L. Archer Jr.
www.amazon.com...
"ESV Study Bible" from Crossway
www.amazon.com...
Watch more episodes of Honest Answers here:
• Honest Answers
To find out the answer to next episode's question, don't forget to SUBSCRIBE:
www.youtube.com...
To learn more about studying with a Southern Seminary or Boyce College Professor, go to:
www.sbts.edu
www.boycecolleg...
Come visit us at our next official "Preview Day”: www.sbts.edu/pr...
Or plan a personal visit any time: www.sbts.edu/visit
Various ways for you to get started online: www.sbts.edu/gl...
To speak with an admissions counselor: email admissions@sbts.edu
Our admissions team would love to connect with you!
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.
I couldn't have said this better. Well put
That's incredibly stupid
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.
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
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.
Would like to have heard addressed differences between masoretic and septuagint texts.
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yea, hath God said?
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.
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.
We have a process in place which allows us to get back -- reliably -- to the inerrant original, to which we don't have access
Name one "inconsistency" that has not been replied to. Thank you.
@@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.
the doctrine of the inerrancy of the bible is a power play by the protestant clergy to make themselves the gods of Christianity. It suffers from a catch 22- nowhere in the bible does it claim that the bible as currently compiled is the complete and infallible word of God. That statement exists in ecclesiastical councils. So if you claim that is true then you are elevating the decisions of ecclesiastical councils to the level of scripture, thus violating the principle.
the clergy keeps saying the bible is complete and infallible, but they keep changing it. The protestants have a different bible than the catholics and some protestant denominations have a different bible than the rest. They claim the bible is complete and infallible, then they change it and without acknowledging the change, they go back to calling it complete and infallible.
Real Christians don't need training wheels for their faith. Their salvation is based on the baptism of the Holy Spirit in which they caught a glimpse of God and his character.
The idea that the bible is true is only believed by the emotionally pathetic and the liars who prey on them.
I hope someday I change your mind. The rooster.
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 RUclips comments in attempts to make them out as fools; what makes you so special?
@@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.
Amen brother.
This is totally wrong. They had debates about which books should be included in the New Testament as early as the church fathers!
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.
@Michael Christopher Could you elaborate more on the divine feminine and exactly what it is please ?
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.
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.
"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.
@@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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Tis a metaphor
@@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.
@@eltonron1558 Christianity is largely a joke so
@@codiefeazel173 You're correct, as it is a self inflicted circus, making the religion bogus, while God, is not.
The main contradiction of Christianity is that they believe God, who they believe is perfect, changed what is required for salvation.
In the Old Testament salvation was pretty much only for Jews and required blood sacrifice. In the New Testament salvation is open to all and requires only faith that Jesus was all the sacrifice that is required for their salvation.
A perfect being does not change. Perfection is stagnate. It cannot become MORE PERFECT. So if you believe in a perfect God, you can't believe in Christianity because it's God changed his mind and changed the rules for salvation or at least the means of salvation.
That is IMPOSSIBLE for a perfect being. Perfection cannot by definition progress. Perfection can't become, can only be.
How Christians miss this speaks to how little they understand logic, yet ALL theologians have relied on logic to work out the doctrine of christianity so logic cannot be disregarded because it is part of being made in God's image and is the bedrock of all thought, all theology.
So yeah. There's a massive hole in your religion. No one has addressed it because it can't really be addressed without either casting off logic, which is the basis of all theology and doctrine, or casting off the very beliefs which make you Christians.
So you can go ahead and give up on ever hearing a logical argument against this from any Christian. Whenever they're faced with truth like this they just throw up their hands and claim it's unknowable because we're finite and God's infinite. Lol which means they would have to go ahead and throw out the rest of their doctrine because it relies on logic from us finite beings.
Anyway. Chew that over for a while.
I truly hope that someone wiser or more knowledgeable than I will see any of these 3 comments and will tell me how I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, and can show unambiguous scripture to prove it.
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.
Dylan amen
Either that or you're just ignorant - willfully or not.
@@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).
@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.
@@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
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.
Well said and spot on. You don’t sound like a believer though
It's probably just less problematic if we describe it as "God Breathed" instead of inerrant.
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.
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.
Not only that, but it only refers to the OT at that point in time, and possibly only the Pentateuch
"Any thinking person?'". There are passages in the Bible that are patently ludicrous. Ever try drying your feet with a woman's hair?
Agent of Fortune 74 have you tried googling the answer? I won’t blame you if you haven’t , bc your comment actually made me think about the subject.
The bible is full of many lies spoken by Jesus and by God. Yet readers and followers refuse to admit they are there. If Satan is the father of all lies, and Jesus lied to us, then how does that not make Satan his father? Maybe Jesus is the great deception of the whole world. And why do so many so called Christians lie to protect them?
Antichrist Revealed what did Jesus say that was a lie ?
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..?
It is a seminary channel answering bible based questions by using the bible. What were you expecting?
The courage to assert the Bible is inerrant is the fear of asserting God can reveal his true nature through anything.
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.
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).
@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.
@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.
@@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.
@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.
The early church didn't have the entire new testament!
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.
The Bible talks about itself before the Bible was constructed?
@@ezekiel763 no it doesnt but they like to twist it to make it look that way
@@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?
@@ezekiel763 HERE! Here is where the discussion should end!
@@strangelaw6384 because my reply makes sense? Or doesn’t make sense? Or … makes uncomfortable sense?
Infallible? Just look at its followers and then decide
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...
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.
@@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?
Watch his video on " is the King James version the most accurate translation" and he explains this there.
Yeah none of the verses you mention say that the bible is inerrant. They don't even say that scripture is inerrant. That's your interpretation and one full of HUGE assumptions.
There are many verses that say SCRIPTURE is good, useful, important etc. But you won't find any verse that says scripture is infallible or inerrant. Only verses that Christians choose to VERY broadly interpret in that way. NOTHING explicit.
Prove me wrong, please.
Furthermore to say that the BIBLE is necessarily scripture is an even bigger stretch. You're claiming the people that made up the Council of Nicea were also inerrant and infallible. There's no reason to think that and there's CERTAINLY nothing biblical that claims that because all books of the BIBLE were written hundreds of years before the council of Nicea.
Saying scripture is "breathed by God" doesn't mean it's infallible. God breathed life into us and we're certainly fallible. God gave the devil dominion over the earth and all that's in it. The Bible is in it and would be one of the main targets of the devil's perversions. There is no scripture in the Bible that contradicts this. If you disagree I'd love to hear the verse that claims any scripture is perfectly godly and untouched by the devil.
I truly hope that someone wiser or more knowledgeable than I will see any of these 3 comments and will tell me how I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, and can show unambiguous scripture to prove it.
It lost me at the Zombie apocalypse (Matthew 27:51-53) that no one besides Matthew bothered to jot down a single line about.
Matthew is two words of Mat (Maat) and Thew (Thoth).
@@harveywabbit9541 You got a source for that? www.behindthename.com/name/matthew
@Caratacus
Jesus is resurrected every morning as the sun rises.
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?
@@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).
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.
@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.
@eccmedia4952
I'm inspired by how you're dad raised your family. Thank you for sharing!
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.
You made a great point
True
Who's yashua? Never seen that name in the Bible
@@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.
@@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.
Or fallible? Really ought to be considered a possibility esp. in light of verses such as Psalm 137:8-9
or numbers 31
@@Michael-vt8yr Absolutely. Thanks for that, Michael.
"Go and sin ON more"
That made me laugh .
God is so Good.
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.
This proves you are wrong about the inerrancy of the Bible
" The inspired apostle Paul warned of many, which “[handle] the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2) and “which corrupt the word of God” (2 Corinthians 2:17). Paul reproved the Galatians for falling into “another gospel” (Galatians 1:6), a false gospel, and warned them of those who “pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Galatians 1:7). The apostle Peter gave a very blunt warning about false teachers bringing false words:"
And if I were you, I would think long and hard about declaring the Bible to be in errant. Because, if you set people up to believe that they can trust the words on a page before they can trust the word written in their heart, if Satan should ever be successful in changing the content of the Bible, they will distressed what's written on their hearts and trust what's written on the page because you have told them that the Bible is inerrant. I certainly would not want that on my conscience.
The scriptures are only as reliable as the people who wrote them .
We have a process in place which allows us to get back -- reliably -- to the inerrant original, to which we don't have access.
IndianaJoe0321
What is that process ?
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.
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 .
@@IndianaJoe0321 Yeah sure, god's word, but we don't have the originals? I'll buy that!
Saying scripture is "breathed by God" doesn't mean it's infallible. God breathed life into us and we're certainly fallible. God gave the devil dominion over the earth and all that's in it. The Bible is in it and would be one of the main targets of the devil's perversions. There is no scripture in the Bible that contradicts this. If you disagree I'd love to hear the verse that claims any scripture is perfectly godly and untouched by the devil.
I truly hope that someone wiser or more knowledgeable than I will see any of these 3 comments and will tell me how I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, and can show unambiguous scripture to prove it.
That's an interesting point. Are you a believer, despite your hesitation to say the Bible is inerrant?
@@spencer1854 firstly let me say thank you for taking an interest. I'm a believer in God, and I think the picture of God represented in the old and new testament is largely accurate. I believe he's omnipotent, omnipresent, and perfect.
But it's my belief in God's perfection that causes me to disbelieve in Jesus or Yeshua. I believe the chief "tell" that the Bible is tampered with is this:
God changes the means of the plan of salvation from the Old to New Testament. In the old testament.
In the Old T. salvation was mostly exclusive to the Hebrews. I don't feel Melchizadec is an exception because he was a contemporary of Abraham and Abraham was chaldean, not Hebrew, as he was the progenitor of the Hebrews so he, Melchizadec, Noah, etc were all in the same boat: just men who truly sought God. THEN God makes the plan of salvation exclusive to the Hebrews, but prior to and throughout the Hebrew race the requirement for salvation was sacrifice (rather specifically at that).
THEN in the New T. ALL people are viable candidates for Salvation AND the plan has changed from offering blood sacrifice to accepting Christ's sacrifice for us.
If someone or some thing is "perfect" that necessarily means that they cannot change or progress, perfection is necessarily stagnate because perfection cannot become MORE perfect. If God could change anything about himself or his plans that would mean that he is either NOT all-knowing or NOT all- powerful. Either way it would mean he is NOT perfect.
So I don't believe God changed his plan. I believe He has always accepted and revealed Himself to all those that truly seek Him solely out of love and obedience to Him. The solution to sin is to truly repent and turn from sin. I Believe ultimately that obedience to God is what is required and even though total obedience is impossible that is expected because we are imperfect. The important thing is to TRULY love and seek God, and only He can judge if we have done that.
-- God is inerrant and infallible: man's rendering of God's WORD are NOT!
That's why we have the Spirit.
-- @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."
__ @Karen C: The WORD CONCEIVED the person of Jesus: who was to become the Christ and retained the Lordship that Adam had lost.
-- @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. __
-- @Karen C: Adam indeed had "dominion", which is synonymous for "lord".
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?
"When Critics Ask" by Geisler and Howe is an incredible resource to understand difficulties in Scripture.
I'll say there are difficulties, not one contemporary writer mentions Jesus, nor Paul, nor any disciple. Only the bible mentions this fairytale.
@@Itsatz0 pliny the younger, I believe, mentions jesus.
@@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
@@Itsatz0 josephus or tacitus?
@@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.
God made slavery permissible by law.
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!!!
Which version?
Evidence?
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.
Well said. Unfortunately, most churches give the simplistic version to their congregations.
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.
Marcion of Sinope
The Paulician Movements
I'm sure there's more...
I’ve learned so much from these videos
Thank you
learned a lot of wrong information but good for you
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.
Yes. Next question.
No, it's not. Next question
@@comicnerd420 you either die in Christ or you die in your sin. No further choices available :-(
@@davyboone1794 or your god doesn’t exist
@@comicnerd420 Yes, it is. Next question, atheist.
@@infinightsky so who was Jesus Christ?
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.
And thats when moses ordered the levite's
The book of Jasher that I have doesn't say anything like that. You must have read the wrong one.
@@nealcorbett1149 "IsnotthiswrittenintheBookofJasher"?"Joshuax.13."Behold,itiswrittenintheBookofJasher."2Sam.i.18.TranslatedintoEnglishfromtheHebrew,ByFLACCUSALBINUSALCUINUS,ofBRITAIN,ABBOTOFCANTERBURY,whowentaPilgrimageintotheHolyLand,andPersia,wherehediscoveredthisvolume,inthecityofGazna. My copy.
@Crim Sin read what i sent to neal corbett.
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?
Well said
@@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.
How do you know what the writers intentions were? It could have been a mistranslation. It could of been made up. How do you even know the authors of the books in the Bible are the authors that you are imagining? I assume you know we don't have any original copies of the books in the Bible. The story of the prostitute was added to the book of John after it was written already. So why doesn't that writer get credit for his work. Why not give that author his own book title since he wrote it. But your not going to change. You're going to continue to defend this dumpster fire. Unless your intention is to test everyone's ability to think rationally and are able to read. Maybe that's why you do this. You want people to find the answers for themselves by reading the book. To figure out if the claims of what the Bible is are really true. So they will read it and finally discover what it really is.
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.
KF Gabriele WELL SAID!!! And I’m not really a believer but I do believe in what u just said K F.
@@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... :-)
@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.
@@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!
@@kfgabriele9852 I like RHEMA too though
n the King James Bible, Matrix has replaced womb.
There are mufflers, tires, and hoods in the Bible.
Jesus is wearing a girdle around his paps.
Strong men are able to produce breast milk.
Unicorn has always simply meant rhinoceros or oxen, though both are different animals.
Paul robbed other churches according to 1st Corinthians 11:8
Proverbs 26:10 now states that God rewards the fool and the transgressor.
Does God really reward fools and transgressors?
1st Corinthians 11:4 is instructing to follow another Jesus and another teaching.
So if someone comes along teaching another Jesus, according to this passage you would do well to follow them.
James 1:25 no longer talks about being a doer of the word. Now you need to be a doer of the work.
Frying pan isn't in the Bible but Fryingpan is, in the 1611. I guess I'm 1611, frying pans were so popular they made it into a compound word?
Why would mortgaged be in the Bible? How come suburbs is there? Stuff? Stuff is there many times. The crippled man at the pool was now told by Jesus to pick up his couch, not his bed. Couch.
I've been observing these changes since 2015. Problem is, I can't get anyone else to talk to me about it.
Once you experience the revelation and power in Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit this becomes a non-issue.
Or maybe you're just hallucinating?
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.
@@ballasog could not everything be a hologram? Prove it isn't.
@@dirtymikentheboys5817 Holograms are only optical, but I've felt, heard, smelled, and tasted various things at various times.
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).
If god never changes his mind.
And he's responsible for everything.
Why pray?
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.
We pray because Jesus told us to and because it is how we communicate to him. He's not Santa Claus, after all.
Actually God's plans have been changed a number of times... Moses for instance and the Golden Calf....
@@Anecdotal1 Then he can't know everything, can he?
Very logical . If god is omniscient, and knows what we want before we ask for it, isn’t prayer an insult to his omniscience ?
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.
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?
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@ChrisBandyJazz How am i defining innerancy?
Bible is infallible and inerrant
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.
The errors are irrelevant; they segue off the path. Only the message matters - the message that reveals God to us.
@@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?
@@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!!
@@kfgabriele9852 words are inspired by God not people. And divine inspiration is different from natural inspiration of artists/composers
@@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!
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 ?
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
"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.
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.
Please allow me to use the death of Judas as an example of a contradiction. In Matthew Judas dies by hanging himself. In Acts Judas dies by falling off a precipice. Now this is an obvious contradiction between these stories, yet I know there are many Christians who will say there is no contradiction, and they’ll make up something to smooth over the obvious. I’m perfectly fine if we want to say that Judas came to a tragic end and that these two stories reflect that. However, it’s another matter to claim that the Bible is historically accurate and no such contradictions exist, which is in fact not true. Why must Christians insist that the Bible is without any contradictions, as if this would destroy its theological validity. Given that the Bible was written and translated over centuries by men, can’t we assume that such a work would be subject to some discrepancies, inconsistencies, contradictions and even errors? Shouldn’t we apply the same sense of understanding and openness and forgiveness to fallibilities that we experience among ourselves? In other words, why can’t we accept and forgive those rough edges of the Bible without throwing out the baby with the bath water? If you ask me, it’s not just the intellectuals of the enlightenment that may have been somewhat picky in their discoveries of Biblical discrepancies, it’s also Christians who don’t have enough faith to accept and embrace those issues which are simply as plain to see as the noses on our faces.
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.
I absolutely agree. Very well said!
Why we put more scrutiny in your inerrancy claim than on other things?
Please pointg me to a thing that claims to be inerrant, of most supreme importance and is used by fundamentalists like yourself to control the lives of othzers, if they believe in your fairy tale or not. I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.
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?
@Michael Christopher What is the name of the book?, I'd like to read it.
what teacher don't use punctuation?? Sir ...really
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.
@@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.
@@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.
Why does Matthew 28 say an earthquake opens the tomb after the women arrive, while John 20 says the tomb was already open when the women arrived? Also, Matthew's story tells this grandiose story of the guards and Jews inventing a lie about the disciples stealing Jesus's body, but this story is absent in the other gospels. And John's gospel implies no guards were at the tomb when the women arrived, while Matthew says the guards were there and terrified by the earthquake.
The Message is still getting delivered, though at times the delivery/messenger falters. God Bless!
hasn't Jesus heard of SMS messaging ..or a video call would suffice to correct the multiple misconceptions .Possible still riding a donkey back in heaven and has not realised things have improved here ?)
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.
I'd suggest this vid on the matter. ruclips.net/video/UejuJ7qTqXM/видео.html
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.
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.
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.
@@IndianaJoe0321 🤔
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.
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.
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.
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?
"Is the bible inerrant or infallible?"
No, no it is not on basically every level. The fact that it happens to mention some real people, places and events does nothing to legitimize the blatant appeals to magic, the stories in it that are clearly myths, and the *numerous* times it contradicts itself.
Language illiteracy drives this fallacy. First, the Word was carried by Desert Mothers and Fathers through oral tradition. We know we have Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Old English, Middle English and modern English. Even linguistic experts would tell you that what was original and what exists now is not identical. It would be stupid to assume so.
...the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. John 5:19
The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God..Hebrews 1:3
Do you believe all of these?
-God drowns the whole earth in Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, and fetuses.
-God kills half a million people 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.
-God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them.
In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
-Genocide after genocide after genocide. In Joshua 6:20-21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32-35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children. In Deuteronomy 3:3-7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of Bashan. In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In
1 Samuel 15:1-9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites - men, women, children, infants, and their cattle - for something the Amalekites’ ancestors had done 400 years earlier.
-God kills 50,000 people for curiosity. In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. (Newer cosmetic translations count only 70 deaths, but their text notes admit that the best and earliest manuscripts put the number at 50,070.)
-God orders 3,000 Israelites killed for inventing a false god. In Exodus 32, Moses has climbed Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments. The Israelites are bored, so they invent a golden calf god. Moses comes back and God commands him: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.” Around 3,000 people are then brutally killed.
-The Amorites are destroyed by sword and by God’s rocks. In Joshua 10:10-11, God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes them off with rocks from the sky.
-God burns two cities to death. In Genesis 19:24, God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from the sky. Then God kills Lot’s wife for looking back at her burning home.
I don't understand, if the Bible is inerrant (every single word from God) why are there so many doctrines, denominations, interpretations, contradictions? Please don't say "these are non core Gospel issues" because that's just a subjective statement as well. Should the Bible be understood as a story--part factual, part metaphorical, part parallelism, etc., maybe an embellishment or two-- that ultimately points us to the God's truth in a way that the human language fails to articulate if taken literally? Like, God surely saw into the future that so many people would disagree about so many things-- why wouldn't he make it a little easier to understand. Even the worlds greatest biblical scholars can't agree on many things. I very much believe in Jesus, I came to the end of myself and cried out to Him, and He answered me in a way that I would stake my life on that fact. But I sometimes wonder about how the Bible could be without error. Sincerely asking.
People apply are more skeptical of Biblical claims for obvious reasons.
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.
Generally speaking, no errors, however, plenty of contradiction. Christianity, as we know it, is obsessed to distraction, that they are not under the commandments of God, (ten commandments). So, at the very end of the bible, what Christian, can deny, or excuse, or get away, from this scripture?
Revelation 22:14
Is there an obsession, with not being blessed? Christ, in his ministry, concurrs completely, with it.
Why don't you just read the preface of the 1611 translation? Then you can drop all this horseshit about inerrant text. Most all the OT stuff quoted in the NT comes from the Septuagint and you can read for yourself what the translators of the original KJV say about it's reliability. Who cares what some ancient text reads and put words in their mouth. This is the total misinformation of theology.
Maybe we should start with the Gospel of Matthew and Luke. Read them side by side, verse 1 of Matthew then verse 1 of Luke and so on. The accounts have complete accord with each other, because they were written by the actual disciples of Jesus. That’s what we are taught. In reality, they have very different accounts and were not written by the actual disciples (who were illiterate and spoke Aramaic) but anonymous authors (who were well educated and wrote them in greek) upwards of 60 years after Jesus was crucified. Paul never knew of the gospels and started his ministry decades before they were written. The most puzzling part is that our salvation was so important that the omnipotent, omniscient savior of our souls made himself human and sacrificed himself for our sins against him, but didn’t think it was necessary to write his own gospel and ensure it was preserved for all to read. Apologetics is such a ridiculous discipline. There’s always some gushy anecdote to deflect attention away from the problem. There are errors, they are significant and people are tired of being treated like they’re going to hell for questioning the things that don’t make sense. If you have the guts, do the comparison I mentioned and ask yourself why it could be so disparate.
It doesn't mean it's inarrant. Take some time and read John 10, because that was taken out of context. Please stop running up and down the Bible to destroy what the authors really need to say.
Translation has distorted some issues that are found in the Bible. You must admit that you can’t completely translate ideas 100% from one language to another. Take ekklesia for example. It was translated as “church” which how we westerners view the word has an entirely different meaning than ekklesia and that has caused tremendous damage to how we view our meetings together with Christ’s body. Mark 1:2 is another example. The verse Mark was quoting is not found in Isaiah but that changes nothing in what the author was attempting to convey to his readers. I believe the errors found in “the Bible” will in no way change any meaning that God wanted to convey to His kids but merely wanted us to not worship the book as so many do in American Christianity. Take the Greek word anion for example. The word usually means an age or period of time but can mean forever. Once again, western Christendom has taken that word to mean forever in all situations when that can not be proven and has led to some beliefs that counter other sections of scripture. I appreciate your point of view but disagree with your conclusion.
The Church is infallible because it was the church who selected the books contained in the old and new testament, grappled with the selections being made, and decided which writings should be included. This has to be true if you say that the bible is inerrant. If then you continue to say that the bible is inerrant because the church is inerrant, then protestantism is illegimate because they took out the apocrypha.
Being clever is not my purpose, getting at the truth is. Many English writers in the 19th century believed the bible to contain the Word of God, but not all of the bible was the "word of God". Many during Martin Luther's time did not consider all of the books equally inspired. Luther did not believe Esther should be included in the Canon. There are many of us conservative Christians who don't hold to inerrancy and and yet point people to Christ risen rather than some very poorly represented doctrine of inerrancy.
You cannot possibly know if the any part of the Bible was directly affected by God. ANY part of the Bible could have been someone's personal opinion or something they heard from someone else.
Why would there be contradictions wtf
any claims of celestial intervention are just nonsense..however the money generated is real & superb(some pastors buy a new jet aeroplane every few years)
Even if you hold the erroneous view that the Bible is inerrant, then who has the final authority to interpret it, but more fallible humans. The evidence is in the failure of the Catholic Church to give perfect interpretation, see history, and the fact there are many denomations of Christian thought. Therefore, each person is ultimately responsible for their faith, i.e., knowledge of scriptures, the nature of reality, and their relationship with God.
When I listen to this, I personally see his claims as a cheese full of holes!
This is a simplified version of reality.
You can use the logic to say that EVERY time when the bible is wrong - well it was figuratively spoken.
When a hypothesis needs to explain away things time after time, one has to ask if the hypothesis in itself is wrong.
Tired of people adding ideologies to the scriptures. Rapture, inerrancy, and trinity. These words are more tied to religious ideologies than to what the word conveys. Let a person talk for a minute and you can tell if they are baptist, Lutheran, Mormon etc.
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?
The Bible is not a religion although it is a source of the Christian religion. The Bible to me is a gospel.. a source of good news.
There are too many translations out there, different sects and preachers and what not but I rest my understanding in the Spirit of Discernment to know which one is the Way, the Truth that lead me home to my Father in Heaven. There are 7 spirits but the most important to me is praying for discernment. Eventually you will see God's response to your prayer for discernment.. with discernment comes easy understanding. It's the most beautiful thing.
Oh all very neat you can ignore the errors as all books that are translations have errors. So why did an omnipotent deity use this crude method that he knew would fail?
What are the translations of? we do not have any originals and every scrap of old versions differs from every other version in some way so what we have are best guesses. Is that all Yahweh was capable of leaving it to best guesses? That is why there are 30,000+ Christian sects there is no way to know what the Bible means just the guesses of different people.
Yes it was truly God Himself that said suffer not a witch to live. Amen
You cannot rely on a Biblical proof of the Bible's inerrancy because, if the Bible were errant, how could you show that the part you are quoting from is not one of the errant passages? Any proof of the Bible's inerrancy needs to come from outside of the Bible and no such proof has been demonstrated.