Does the Bible contain errors? Steve Chalke vs Andrew Wilson debate #1 

It's cute when religitards pretend to be intellectuals.....

The Bible, the word of God does NOT have any error. God does NOT make even an error. It’s the translators who made errors in their translation. Why are there so many English versions of the Bible? The onus is on everyone to find the inspired English translation. Many English versions are NOT the word of God. There is only one translation that is the inspired word of God. Look for it.

@@jk11222 Your god created literally EVERY THING but you expect everyone to believe he can't figure out how to get his word out without 100s of contradictions, misprints, etc.

*"the constant, unsubstantiated claims that serious scholars subscribe to his positions"* This is one of my top-level complaints, ironically, about Bart Erhman. (That, and his trick of saying "even if that were true, it wouldn't affect my position" every time he's backed into a corner. I want just one person debating him to insist he list all the factors that _do_ affect one of his positions prior to the debate.)

Goated comment.

Steve's is not biblical.

@@Dan-xu4sd the problem Is that Steve is Biblical but your assumptions about what the Bible says are not actually Biblical

So true!!

@@dcbcplymouth YES!

@@Dan-xu4sd The problem arises when you have clear contradictions with OT and NT principles which precipitate such doctrines as Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, etc., all of which rather than suggesting man got it wrong when writing down their inspiration, the motivation of God was wrong. Which is easier to square with? Clearly when reading the Bible, we can draw inspiration from passages that man's responses are bad because we see God constantly redeeming him. However, if we read it with the assumption that God has changed his perspective about men, that is where we have a REAL problem!

Mike Winger here is a comment I feel needs response! From somoneone else copied: Jay Hu There are resolutions given for some of these, but most times it is really reaching. Did God use his name Yahweh or not? Gen 15:7 and Exodus 6:3 Were all Egypt's livestock killed in the 5th plague or not? Exodus 9:6 and 12:29 Must the passover be from flocks only? Ex 12:5. Or also from the herd? Deut 16:2 Could it be boiled or not? Ex 12:9 and 2 Chr 35:13 Could it be celebrated in households, or not? Ex 12, Deut 16:5-6, Luke 22:11 How many horsemen did David take? 2 Sam 8:4 and 1 Chr 18:4 At the end of 4 or 40 yrs? 2 Sam 15:7 Killed 800 or 300? 2 Sam 23:8 and 1 Chr 11:11 Is Jerusalem conquered by Joshua,Josh 12:10; or David, 2 Sam 5:6? Did David take Goliath's head to the walled Jebusite city of Jerusalem, 1 Sam 17:54? (See 2 Sam 5:6). Did Saul meet David and twice interact with Jesse in 1 Sam 16: 19-22 or meet David and not know his father in 17:55-56? Who killed Goliath? David in 1 Sam 17 or Elhanan in 2 Sam 21:19 and who did Elhanan kill, Goliath or his brother in 1 Chron 20: 5 7 or three yrs of famine? 2 Sam 24:13 and 1 Chr 21:12 50 or 600 shekels? 2 Sam 24:24 and 1 Chr 21:25 How many stalls? 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chr 9:25 How many chief officers? 1 Kings 5:16 and 2 Chr 2:18 How many cubits high? 1 Kings 7:15 and 2 Chr 3:15 How many baths? 1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chr 4:5 How many chief officers? 1 Kings 9:23 and 2 Chr 8:10 Did Baasha die around the 26th yr reign of Asa or is he alive in Asa's 36th yr? 1 Kgs 16:6, 8 and 2 Chr 16:1 Is Ahaziah 22 or 42? 2 Kgs 8:26 and 2 Chr 22:2 (most versions) Was Jehoiachin 18 or 8? 2 Kgs 24:8 and 2 Chr 36:9 What day was temple burned? 2 Kgs 25:8 and Jer 52:12 Compare the numbers of sons of same men. Ezra 2 and Neh 7 How many singers? Ezra 2:65 and Neh 7:67 The most sensible explanation for many of these is that there are different traditions/sources of the same events. Here are a few more in relation to Moses authorship of Torah. The Edomite kings listed in Genesis 36 did not live until after Moses was dead Moses is referred to in the 3rd person in several passages There are places named that Moses could not have known (he never entered the Promised Land) The Hebrew of the text includes terms that were developed long after Moses' death Moses' death is included in Deuteronomy. Camels are listed in Abraham's retinue, but camels were domesticated around 1000, long after Abraham (1550 BCE) and even Moses (1250 BCE) The text mentions Philistines in the time between Abraham and Moses, but the Philistines did not enter the coastal areas of Canaan until around 1200 BCE (after Moses). The text says, "At that time the Canaanites were in the land" (Gen 12:6), which implies the author writes in a time when they were no longer there -- but they were clearly there when Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan after Moses' death. Statements such as "before any king ruled over the Israelites" (Gen 36:31) imply a time in the writer's mind when kings had ruled over the Israelites -- but none ever did in Moses' lifetime. In Deuteronomy 34, the writer says, "There never arose another prophet in Israel like Moses." It didn't seem to make sense that Moses' -- or even God, in Moses' time -- would write such words. Other details were noticed as well. Certain parts of the Torah use words for places and things that are different from other parts. For instance, some stories (Exodus 3, 17, and 31; Deuteronomy everywhere but once) used "Horeb" as the name for the mountain where Moses receives the Law, while other parts of the story (Exodus 16, 19, 31, 34; Leviticus and Numbers throughout; and Deuteronomy 33) use the name "Sinai"

But Mike Winger, the problem with you is that you say the city of Tyre was not rebuilt and yet there are videos of it on youtube today. Now I can't listen to you anymore...

Stuff George benard that's not true at all

Isn't that basically the same thing?

@@acupanraphaelgio7925 No

@@HipHopTV_Official It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Mark Twain.

@@Jebbersful mark twain is an idiot

Steve is not a Christian.

Maybe add Michael heiser to that list too

And throw Ricky Gervais into the mix, I'd pay to see that.

Yes*

Yes and bring Steve Chalke back so he could interrupt all 4 of them as they made their points.

@@bonnie43uk lol

Imagine is a masterpiece

Fanatics like you who lie incessantly with your god fiction are a danger to others.

Sounds like confirmation bias

@@DJ5780how can any one come to believe anything then?

@@NoContextRDH I think there is a difference from how we generally go about believing things vs being hypervigilant about which ideology you should either adopt or guard yourself from believing. How about we just believe what's most likely/apparent? Choosing to only believe what you think you should believe at the expense of reality is confirmation bias.

Autograph copies referees to hand written copies not original writings form the hand of the original author. Just to let you know. Common mistake. At any rate this is my take :Why should that mater if some of it is not inspired and some is myth legend primitive cosmology biases embellished or any other human trait . If 100 words were from God would you believe , how about 50 , what about 10 , what if just 1 word is from God ? One word from God that is enough.

98% the same. no theological differences.

Of course the Bible is not fully correct but some of it is

Best comment

Loool

🤣Thanks!👍

Exactly. The New Testament is most definitely fallible because it's based on mistranslations of verses from the OT that have been taken out of context and in some cases even fabricated to further the narrative/agenda of Christianity.

Exactly.

Cool, try mark1:41

I know right, its actually crazy how the bible went through all that, and when we discovered the over 25,000 ancient manuscripts from the 1st century it is identical to what we have today in the original languages. some would say its a miracle

So does the moderator

Exactly my thoughts on it! So many evangelicals are terrible at evangelism because they’re willing to die on so many hills they don’t need to die on when it comes to certain things like inerrancy, age of the earth, evolution, etc.

Steve Chalke has no idea about the exegesis of Scripture- its nothing to do with what we think its all explained in translation and understanding the Bible in full- Gods plan for Israel, His church His timeline- these men are so Anglican with no depth

I can't really blame him though. I would think we could blame the God that doesn't clearly put his message out there.

Harry Potter is much more moral than the Bible.

Depends if you are Calvinist or not.

I'm now more than ever of the view that Steve's boat never left port in the first place!

Christians feel they are so special. They have the "only way". If you started Christian and ended up not... Then you wasn't a special Christian to begin with...lol. (Edit:. Do you want a cookie now, entitled Christian?)

@@GTSongwriter IF a Christian feels that they're special as you allude to, then very clearly they are not a Christian. Nobody is born a Christian. The teachings of Christ Himself clearly demonstrate that there are both sheep and wolves beholden to Him i.e. those that truly follow Him and those that don't, that are in name only.

@@LiffeyKing Is your Christian religion the "only true" religion? Everyone that doesn't believe will go to hell? The Bible is infallible? The Christian God is the "only God"? Do you not feel special to be part of something that stands against anyone that doesn't believe like you do? Do you feel it's your right to say to anyone that you have the only religion that is to be believed and all others are false? What do you think happens to those people that never hear the word of the Bible that live in a country that burns the Bible. Do they also go to hell? Does that not make you feel special because you was born in a country that allowed you to hear the Bible? Those other people that never hear the word will die and be lost to hell forever? Yes, Christians feel special and is reason they thump that Bible around. If it was a religion of openness and kindness, then it would also not consider itself the "only way". My youth is where I learned how harsh the Christian Religion can be. There are rules to abide by and no freedom to explore other religions. The Christian religion is against homosexuals, but what about those people born with 2 sexes. If those people love either sex, are they not homosexual? God created them, yet he is against his own creation? There are so many contradictions of the Bible, it is requiring Christians to become scholars in order to defend thier faith. Even with that, there are still contradictions that even baffle the Christian scholars! I'll end up debating with Christians for days. They will end up having no answers and fall on the same topic, "I have faith". Personally, if my religion considered a book infallible, yet someone comes along and disapproves it...am I going to sit there are still believe anyhow? No! I'm going to question it. Someone has been lying to me about my religion and I would need to figure out why. To just believe in something, knowing it has flaws when it doesn't suppose to have flaws is plain out being ignorant. Maybe they are comfortable with what there is and what they can't explain they just blindly follow anyhow. Put a carrot on a stick in front of a horse, and he'll keep walking towards it. He doesn't need to believe in anything else other than someday he might obtain that carrot. We all know he can't get that carrot, but the horse has faith. He believes without reason. Faith kills people. Imagine those of the Muslim religion. Some of them are willing to strap bombs to themselves in showing of faith and to go blow up thier enemies. Christianity is a dying religion. So many things going wrong with it. In children's church, I witnessed older adults sexually abuse kids during children's church. Nobody believed me as I was just a kid with a wild imagination. So many pedophiles in church. Would anyone want to raise thier children in a place where pedophiles run about? So many bad things happening with the Christian religion, it's no wonder the Christan community is becoming smaller. Someone needs to rewrite the Bible so that it agrees with the new age, else this religion will soon die. There are scripture in the old testament that allows a pedophile to have a baby with his daughter and blames it on him being too drunk to know. If the Christians are only going to use the New testament, then they should throw out the old one. Keeping the old one with the new one creates so many more contradictions. Christians have so many variations of thier religion, which one is the "only way"? Baptist, Methodist, Catholics, to name a very few. Yeah, there are probably over a hundred variations of Christianity. Where does one begin? (Edit: swipe misspelled stuff)

But unfortunately a lot of influence. Should have none.

Interesting opinion. Can you elaborate on what you're talking about a little more? Right now it comes off as a hit a run comment but would like to hear what exactly your referring to?

@@mattverville9227 The murders ethnic cleansing probably. War atrocities.

You make the classic mistake of not considering other people's viewpoints. The Bible has many viewpoints that nonbelievers and fake believers have to 'show' as contradictions to justify the lifestyles they support.

Your dismissal of the supernatural is an a priori, not an argument.

@@pulchralutetia I didn't dismiss the supernatural, liar. I'm pointing out the foolishness of just a priori assuming the Bible is true, then finding a way to make it fit reality by deciding ad hoc which parts are metaphorical. But on the note of the supernatural, I'll accept that it exists as soon as anyone demonstrates that it does. Til then, yes I will dismiss it. Something asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. That's my argument. Deal with it.

Isn't the supernatural just something natural but very unusual? I would imagine our very existence is relativy "supernatural" in nature. Not sure sin, wickedness and evil are fairy tales or imaginary are they?

Of course, fake believers argue against real believers' stands on the Bible. Fake believers, and nonbelievers, have to define God down to justify the lifestyles they support. Everything Steve Chalke believes about God and the Bible is structured to support perverse lifestyles.

@@candeffect Thanks for agreeing with me, the bible is so erroneous and confusing, people can make up whatever they want about what it says.

@@tiagoscherer1158 It’s the true born again believers that the bible is revealed to. The biblical scriptures tell us this!!!!! The non - believers will NEVER understand the WORD OF GOD/ HE will keep them blinded to HIS TRUTH!!!! Pray that ur heart and eyes may be opened. GOD BLESS. The bible is spiritual and only those that are truely born again in the spirit can comprehend!!!!>

@@myroom1913 yes christianity is exclusive...not inclusive like a loving god(definitely not yours) would have.

@@myroom1913 thanks for confirming how perverse your non-existing god is. What a load of BS.

How is Jesus the focus when Jesus said, NOT MY WILL, but the WILL of the FATHER... Jesus taught about the FATHER.. not about himself..

All very interesting. Only problem, there are no gods.

How do you know about Jesus if the bible is not infalible and inherant, how do you know what is written about Jesus is accurate? This view leads to unbelief rather quickly.

Gymnastics is always good isn't it?

@@olavc.oevele1902 Indeed, astonishing nonetheless.

Totally agree, Steve Chalke and other men who think like he does.

Yes, Jesus referred to the Old Testament when commenting on Scripture, but His new teachings were creating the New Testament even as He spoke and did new things, miracles, prophesied, dying on the Cross, the Resurrection and Ascension. When He rose from the Tomb, He opened the Scriptures of the Old Testament to show how they were all fulfilled in Him. The 2nd Epistle of Peter was written around AD 66. Peter says in 2 Peter 3: 15-16, "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." So Peter certainly considered Paul's letters to be inspired Scripture. All the books of the New Testament that we have today were completed by about AD 91-96. The trouble started when other later writings claimed to have been written at the same time, but were actually gnostic heretical texts written later. So eventually the church had to hold meetings to define what was scripture and what was not, hence your date of 397. But Christians back in the 2nd century had already made similar lists to those made post-Constantine and these earlier lists were used to define which books were authentic and which were not.

@@petera1036 and the earliest existing copy of 2 Peter is dated when?

That was stolen from the Hammurabi Steele though

Dan Harte It sounds pretty dodgy to ask them to disprove something without telling them what to disprove.

Local flood account is not credible at all... Gen 7 v 19-24 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[e][f] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. 24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

@@maxboucher86 In Hebrew, the word translated “earth”, can be translated “land”. Nothing in the Biblical account of the flood requires it to be universal so as to have flooded Scotland or Canada. Nothing in the Biblical account of the flood is opposed to the flood having flooded part of the Ancient Near East, and not Scotland or Canada. In fact, the second interpretation fits much better with what the text says. Neither is there anything in the text that requires it to be an account of an historical event, or about a real individual human being named Noah aged 600 when the Flood began. There is no reason why the Flood account cannot be a myth. I firmly believe in the authority of the Bible, as being in some sense “God-breathed”. It does not follow, that because the Bible comes to us with the authority of God, that therefore everything in it that we might suppose to be historical, must therefore be historical. It is a much more complicated and much more interesting set of books than skeptics or Fundamentalists seem to realise. I loved the reference to the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760).

Grand Canyon resulted indirectly from the global flood.

who says the bible is only hebrew? and who says its for the 12 tribes alone... sounds like you don't know God

@@byronloves7472 he’s a Hebrew Israelite who has a unique ideology. The book of acts and letters of Paul debunk all their teachings but they conveniently don’t follow those books.

@@brotherhec2403 yea I know, I run into them often

@@brotherhec2403 thanks for the info though about acts 🧏🏽‍♂️ really good

If something is supposed to be the words of god it shouldn’t have contradictions very simple

Steve chalk has upset everybody including Christian at kings community church hatfield

The question you ask is very simple to answer, the Bible was written by normal fallible people that was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the book is not perfect in the sense that it does reflect the time it was written and never claimed to be otherwise. When Christians use the word inerrant word of God it refers to the prophetic message that the Bible provides, in other words, the message in the Bible is truthful.

Caroline Sargeant , Acts 17:30 - "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

That didn't answer her question at all

@@truman5838 Which of the questions was not answered? God has not changed in the Bible so that goes without saying.

@@kimdanielsen4368 I was talking to the other guy but you too didnt answer the question you were attempting to answer. It's very obvious which part of her comment you were addressing, do I have spell it out for you? Read the thread over again ,I'm not going to hold your hand. As for your reply to her comment, Youre the typical Christian apologetic making excuses for the bible. If it were inspired by God and it were truthful ,there wouldn't be errors and contradictions in the bible. Truthful equates to perfect. When you say it's not perfect then it can't be truthful. It can't be truthful with imperfections, errors and contradictions in it.

So how do we know what is gods word and what is the thinking of man? It comes down to the enterpreter? It’s like opening Pandora’s box.

@@zakpatten7631 God JUDGES EACH christian. you are responsible for your own actions just like a criminal in a law court. But God can just as equally work through a Christian who has it wrong just like he works through an unbeliever e.g. King of Babylon and Daniel. .

@@gjeacocke I agree with that statement I just don’t understand how it relates to the question.

@@zakpatten7631 What did Jesus say to the disciples at the end of Johns Gospel? 'what concern is it of yours...'. we do not need to require if some teacher is right or wrong for ultimately if your heart in pure in its search, the Holy Spirit will plant in you what is required. every christian has a unique path. it may be in contradiction to other christians. you have to TRUST your heart. if you know your bible well the HS will reveal it to you.

There's just one tiny little thing wrong with your post. Sarah Beckwith is STILL ALIVE and working at Duke University!!! I think it's admirable of the faculty at Duke to give a dead person gainful employment, don't you?

Why did God need to give us an unclear image?

@@mattr.1887 Think about how life would be if God had given us a very clear image. Would we be free agents, able to make our own choices and decisions and exercise free thought? I doubt it.

*The OT has much more formidable and explicit....even numerical contradictions of the same things in two different accounts.* A contradiction is not an accusation to be thrown around lightly. Just because two different accounts contain two different numbers, this does not necessarily a contradiction make. *More Christians need to reckon with what the text itself says.* I totally agree. I'm willing to recon if you think you have a contradiction. I can take a couple examples if you'd like.

Jay Hu There are resolutions given for some of these, but most times it is really reaching. Did God use his name Yahweh or not? Gen 15:7 and Exodus 6:3 Were all Egypt's livestock killed in the 5th plague or not? Exodus 9:6 and 12:29 Must the passover be from flocks only? Ex 12:5. Or also from the herd? Deut 16:2 Could it be boiled or not? Ex 12:9 and 2 Chr 35:13 Could it be celebrated in households, or not? Ex 12, Deut 16:5-6, Luke 22:11 How many horsemen did David take? 2 Sam 8:4 and 1 Chr 18:4 At the end of 4 or 40 yrs? 2 Sam 15:7 Killed 800 or 300? 2 Sam 23:8 and 1 Chr 11:11 Is Jerusalem conquered by Joshua,Josh 12:10; or David, 2 Sam 5:6? Did David take Goliath's head to the walled Jebusite city of Jerusalem, 1 Sam 17:54? (See 2 Sam 5:6). Did Saul meet David and twice interact with Jesse in 1 Sam 16: 19-22 or meet David and not know his father in 17:55-56? Who killed Goliath? David in 1 Sam 17 or Elhanan in 2 Sam 21:19 and who did Elhanan kill, Goliath or his brother in 1 Chron 20: 5 7 or three yrs of famine? 2 Sam 24:13 and 1 Chr 21:12 50 or 600 shekels? 2 Sam 24:24 and 1 Chr 21:25 How many stalls? 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chr 9:25 How many chief officers? 1 Kings 5:16 and 2 Chr 2:18 How many cubits high? 1 Kings 7:15 and 2 Chr 3:15 How many baths? 1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chr 4:5 How many chief officers? 1 Kings 9:23 and 2 Chr 8:10 Did Baasha die around the 26th yr reign of Asa or is he alive in Asa's 36th yr? 1 Kgs 16:6, 8 and 2 Chr 16:1 Is Ahaziah 22 or 42? 2 Kgs 8:26 and 2 Chr 22:2 (most versions) Was Jehoiachin 18 or 8? 2 Kgs 24:8 and 2 Chr 36:9 What day was temple burned? 2 Kgs 25:8 and Jer 52:12 Compare the numbers of sons of same men. Ezra 2 and Neh 7 How many singers? Ezra 2:65 and Neh 7:67 The most sensible explanation for many of these is that there are different traditions/sources of the same events. Here are a few more in relation to Moses authorship of Torah. The Edomite kings listed in Genesis 36 did not live until after Moses was dead Moses is referred to in the 3rd person in several passages There are places named that Moses could not have known (he never entered the Promised Land) The Hebrew of the text includes terms that were developed long after Moses' death Moses' death is included in Deuteronomy. Camels are listed in Abraham's retinue, but camels were domesticated around 1000, long after Abraham (1550 BCE) and even Moses (1250 BCE) The text mentions Philistines in the time between Abraham and Moses, but the Philistines did not enter the coastal areas of Canaan until around 1200 BCE (after Moses). The text says, "At that time the Canaanites were in the land" (Gen 12:6), which implies the author writes in a time when they were no longer there -- but they were clearly there when Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan after Moses' death. Statements such as "before any king ruled over the Israelites" (Gen 36:31) imply a time in the writer's mind when kings had ruled over the Israelites -- but none ever did in Moses' lifetime. In Deuteronomy 34, the writer says, "There never arose another prophet in Israel like Moses." It didn't seem to make sense that Moses' -- or even God, in Moses' time -- would write such words. Other details were noticed as well. Certain parts of the Torah use words for places and things that are different from other parts. For instance, some stories (Exodus 3, 17, and 31; Deuteronomy everywhere but once) used "Horeb" as the name for the mountain where Moses receives the Law, while other parts of the story (Exodus 16, 19, 31, 34; Leviticus and Numbers throughout; and Deuteronomy 33) use the name "Sinai"

@@CanadianOrth Wow. I'm a Christian too. I am looking up the passages you provided. I do see the contradictions and errors. That is proof that the bible is not inerrant.

@@uncertainty7421 But is it?

@@disaj7460 Read the bible from cover to cover and you will see for yourself.

Spoken like a zealot moron who fingerpaints on bathroom walls with his own shit.

Steve isn't giving him the chance to

yes unfortunately I reckon you're right !

New Guinea. Missionaries taught them not eat people but burn them to cinders instead. burn them.

Ding DIng Jesus never condoned burning anybody you fucking idiot. Who threw Christians to the lions you piece of shit?

+Tony Gilder *Thank you for demonstrating what belief that invisible magicians exist can do to a person.*

Save your bs sarcasm for somebody named Adam or Eve. Nothing could be more invisible than a human being. WHO will even know YOU existed, who knows - past tomorrow? But Jesus is still here. And if you dug up your great great great great grandma's great great great grandpa, HE would know who Jesus was too! Playa hater you are.

+Tony "Save your bs sarcasm for somebody named Adam or Eve." *Okay, that makes zero sense.* "Nothing could be more invisible than a human being." *Okay, that makes zero sense.* "WHO will even know YOU existed, who knows - past tomorrow?" *Okay, that makes zero sense. Good job. numb nuts, your 0 for 3 so far.* "But Jesus is still here." *Gee, how convincing!!! LMMFAO!!* "And if you dug up your great great great great grandma's great great great grandpa, HE would know who Jesus was too!" *No, he might claim to know, but just like your deluded ass, he'd just be making shit up.* "Playa hater you are." *WOW!! Such potent arguments!!!! Ahahahahaaa!!!! Time for you to grow up and drop the imaginary friends, little boy.* *I look forward to your further demonstration of the dangers belief that invisible magicians exist has bestowed upon your dumb ass.*

no the main principle isn't love. John the baptist and Jesus preached you need to repent of your sins and be born again! The main principle is' the wages of sin is death'. and Jesus is the answer if we repent of our sins and trust in Him to save us from God's wrath. It is God love letter in that it can save us if we have a relationship with Jesus being born again. read the ten commandments they highlight our sinfulness, Jesus pays our death sentence if we trust in Him .

Hi Stuart, do you believe the word Metanoia (translated repent) means turn from your sins or does the word mean change of mind (nothing to do with sin).

@@stuart3178 interesting. this came up in my bible study group and i think the leader was surprised when i said that both these things are equally important. you're both correct - sin is failing to love God and thus failing to love one another. jesus died because of our failure to love and because of God's love for us. jesus rose again so that we can be freed from sin and thus grow in love.

Graham Jeacocke im sorry but hou need to make your point, which is what?

God loves clarity? That's news to me, as far as I know, nearly nothing in the bible is clear at all. If it was to be taken literally, you are allowed to enslave jews and beat them, as long as they don't die afterwards within 3 days. And also all of humanity would be descendents of two humans, but somehow without incest.... hm.. doesn't seem so clear to me

can you give a few examples? מלאך ערני

Is new frontiers Steve’s church?

@@morganparkman2708 It is Andrew Wilson’s

I'd also be interested in hearing examples.

So turning the other cheek would be better advice ?

Yes, send both of them to the Headmaster's office! Pity because I think there was some quite sensible comment above the hubbub.

Yes. Unusual for Andrew Wilson, other times I have seen him he is pretty good at listening to the other person and then responding.

I agree: the commentator should give a certain amount of time to each/ then one speaks and the other actually listens : then the other responds!!!!!