If you can't see that he is the spawn of Satan, idk what to tell you. You're typing on an electronic device during shabbat when you should be praying to our lord and savior tiny white baby jesus christ
Dan, I also find it interesting that Christians (Protestants specifically) will say things like "the original texts are inspired". How is that so if the NT writers often used the Septuagint (which obviously wasn't the original) when quoting the Hebrew Bible but then Protestants turn around and reject it? 🤷🏾♂️
The NT writers often used the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) because they didn't likely speak or understand Hebrew. I trust everyone knows that the NT is totally written in Greek, and the OT (almost) totally in Hebrew. I have found it interesting the the virgin birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are based on a Septuagint translation error of the virgin birth concept. There is lots of RU-vid info on that topic.
@@TerryJLaRue no,OT, if written in hebrew had to be translated into Greek because, at time of Diaspora countless numbers of Jew did not know how to read hebrewman d koine was the language of the Hellenistic culture propagated in Roman Empire.
Your videos have answered so many questions I've had. If you'd been around 30 years ago you would saved me a lot of pain and confusion. You're a Godsend
I remember an apologetic that stated that when Jude quotes a rejected scripture, that that Enoch saying was just popular to quote among Christians before the writing of Enoch. Hence it allowed Christians to quote from a saying but rejected a scripture that had that saying in scripture. Of course they provided no evidence for that, but if that were the case, then that can also make for pretty much any other book in the bible which quotes other scripture to fall in that same category and hence too be susceptible to rejection.
Not all Christians believe in verbal inspiration. I affirm guided thought inspiration. This allows for use of references, editing, and human introduced errors. Think of it as a combination of the divine and the human, much like the hypostatic union with Christ. This approach better accounts for the data at hand regarding the Bible.
@@PrairieChristianOutreach "This approach better accounts for the data at hand regarding the Bible." Does it? Seems like an excuse. Namely one meant to mask where the authority is coming from in your reading. If wholly human methods and wholly human errors are being acknowledged, you now have to determine which parts are human and which parts are divine. But you have no way of doing that. How do I know? Because you now have to allow for the fact that your decisions on this matter can also be wrong. And since you definitely have no way of determining when that is the case, given the billion other christians one can find who will disagree with any point you bring up, you're literally just deciding which bits are legitimate and which bits are error and asserting your reading as fact through your own authority. Kinda just seems like you've deceived yourself into believing that you aren't doing the same thing every other christian on the planet is doing. Cherry picking parts you like and dismissing parts you don't. It's kinda passive aggressive. You're passively asserting that you have a superior method, which entails superior access to the divine, while trying to thread the needle of not openly attacking other christians for their inferiority. But you're still acknowledging their inferiority. You just won't openly say it. It's pretending to be nice. It's kinda gross. And cowardly to boot.
@@rainbowkrampus Human communication is a fact, not an assertion. Human language is fraught with problems due to translation, culture, and experience. These are known confounding factors in oral and written communication. The theory of thought inspiration is well developed and testable. Is it complete? No. Is it more valid than verbal inspiration that is espoused by fundamentalist Christians? Yes. Can truth be ascertained from such an approach? Of course, unless you believe that human communication is meaningless. Then, one would wonder how God would communicate with us. We all must deal with the data presented. I find the Bible to be unified in message and inspiring. It provides a valid life guide and connection to the divine. I do not find it to be a scientific text book or a detailed history book. It tells a story of our relationship to God. It is simple, yet beautifully compiled. The basic principles are clear. Blessings.
@@PrairieChristianOutreach none of what you said is correct about Christianity being falsifiable. The Christian god is an unfalsifiable claim. There is no scientific test to prove it, therefore it is unfalsifiable.
Considering how detailed and comprehensive a response that this video was, i wonder if the person who made the comment would have changed their viewpoint. But if everyone accepted overwhelmingly rational demonstrations of their fallacious beliefs... well there would be less fundamentalists in this world.
Maybe eventually, not in the moment. These beliefs are driven by social identity more than they are reason and evidence. Change doesn't usually come until their social organization becomes unstable. This is why we see so many people deconvert when they go off to college or during the height of the pandemic when churches were closed. Change a person's social environment and they become open to changing their beliefs. It's not a guarantee but the potential goes way up.
@@Christian4live I was referring to the commenter who Dan was addressing. Would you agree that the commenter was wrong, at least from what the text says?
This contast between personal teachings and text reminds me of a Daoist story where in a sage tells the Emperor, who is reading scrolls of the classics, that the Emperor is merely consuming the ashes of those great men. The sage keeps his head by explaining that the spoken and unspoken teachings were the real wisdom which could not be captured on paper, a medium capable of collecting only the ashes.
I just found your channel. Just sound much like my inner talk track when I go to church. Years ago, I used to try to have productive conversation with clergy. I quit that though.
Dr. Dan is not typically representing his own opinion, he is representing the scholarly consensus of multiple other experts who understand the historical context, and literacy of the books of the Bible. So, if you are disagreeing with Dr.Dan's presented explanations and analysis, you are disagreeing with the expert scholarly consensus. That is bold of you.
Not to mention that it's circular reasoning for the Bible to claim that the Bible is the inspired word of god. Like if Harry Potter started off with something like "every word that follows is literally true" would you believe there really is a place called Hogwarts?
No, but it would change how the Harry Potter books were interpreted and judged. Regardless of whether or not you believe the claim, making the claim, itself, makes a big difference.
Thank you for talking (authoritativerly) about why Jesus "taught with authority" when he SPOKE. I've wondered about how that worked for years, and now I think I understand.
Let's grant theopneustos means "inspired". Even then, that just means the book I'm reading says the book I'm reading is the inspired word of god. Must be true then. I guess when Capt. Kirk says "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise" it must be true too.
Also, the book it comes from is widely agreed to not have been written by Paul. So some guy lying to us about being Paul says that all scripture is divinely inspired. Even if I believe that Paul was a writer inspired by God, THIS GUY isn't Paul, so why do I care what he thinks about scripture? Also also, how do I know what the author of that book thought was "scripture?" Sure, he may say all scripture is inspired, but what if he really really hated, I dunno, the Book of Micah, and didn't consider it scripture? Is Micah therefore not inspired? And does he mean any NT scriptures, or only the Hebrew scriptures? How would we know, since the author doesn't tell us which works are to be considered scripture and which aren't? Essentially, it's a circular claim even if we accept it. "All works inspired by God are inspired by God." Well, no duh. But how do we know which ones those are?
3:27-3:40 (oral more authoritative) Considering the low literacy rate, that makes a kind of sense. Suddenly, Moses dashing the Decalogue isn't that impressive. 🤔
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 It's cute that you think a primitive Hebrew war/storm god with a fetish for foreskins, animal sacrifices, the smell of burning meat and who battles mythological sea creatures like other fictional gods from ancient Canaan is actually real. No brains between those ears.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 It's cute that you think a primitive Hebrew war/storm god with a fetish for foreskins, animal sacrifices, the smell of burning meat and who battles mythological sea creatures like other fictional gods from ancient Canaan is actually real. No brain between those ears.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 It's cute that you think a primitive Hebrew war/storm god with a fetish for foreskins, animal sacrifices, the smell of burning meat and who battles mythological sea creatures like other fictional gods from ancient Canaan is actually real. No brain between those ears.
Neither the Nicene nor the Apostle's Creeds make reference to the Bible, or scriptures. If the early Christians believed in the Bible as the inspired word of God, they would have stated as much.
The Hebrews created their god that fit to them: - he leads them out of Egypt, - he promised them a land, which was already owned by another people, and - he allowed the Hebrews to el imi nate all of those other people that they can life there on their own.
4th reason he’s wrong: This is circular reasoning. The Bible can not give itself authority, it only has as much authority as people and institutions give it. Even if a passage were to say that the Bible is the word of God or has authority over people’s actions or beliefs, you would still need to give that passage authority. It would be like if I wrote a book tomorrow that said “This book is true” in it, that does not ‘prove’ that the book is true.
Good review of the fine points in answer to the question. But I wonder if they are not in some cased defined too finely. For instance, Moses and Jesus' comment that Moses "said". No one at the time Jerus said this heard Moses say anything. Nor did they hear someone repeat what they heard Moses say. Everything that the people of Jesus' day knew about what Moses said because it came to them through the *written* sayings of Moses. I also noticed that Dan did not refer to 2nd Peter 3:2. (Dan quoted from this book to illustrate that Paul's writings were considered scripture.) In 3:2 the author says, " I want you to recall both the predictions foretold by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles." If 2nd Peter is late 2nd century, no one could have heard what Jesus said nor what the Apostles said. They could not have heard anyone who had heard. (I would not put the book that late myself.) That means they predictions of the prophets and the commands of Jesus were written down and considered authentic and reliable by the writer and evidently by the church. The same is true of Paul and his writings. No one at the time of Peter's writing had anything but the writings. They had not heard Paul. Dan also did not refer to 2nd Peter 1:20-21. It reads "Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture [ _graphes_ ] ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Being "carried along" sounds to me like inspiration. It is at the very least Peter's affirmation that these prophets' declarations that were written down were authentic and reliably God's words.
Dan's patience is truly out of this world....I can't even imagine myself taking the time to explain the plain, the simple, and the obvious to the willfully ignorant. I just can't.
So when you read psam 119, you must be thinking, "I wish I had what David had". Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?
*2 Timothy 3:16 “scripture”* We don’t even know which books and which versions of those books Timothy considered as scripture, but it surely would include some texts we now consider The Bible.
How do we know that certain things aren't being quoted as scripture that we aren't aware were considered scripture due to us no longer having those texts to recognize they're quoting them? Greek doesn't have quotation marks, after all, so unless the writer explicitly references someone else saying it, we can't tell unless we have another work to compare it to. In the reverse example, certain church fathers considered authoritative works which are not canon and are lost. Justin Martyr's First Apology, for instance, pleads with the Emperor to read the Acts of Pontius Pilate, which Justin is convinced tells the true story of Jesus. But while we do have "an" Acts of Pontius Pilate in some form, we aren't sure if it's the one Justin was talking about. Similarly, we don't have the Hebrew-original "Gospel of Matthew" (which is a sayings work that can't be our Matthew) or the supposed "original" writings of Mark which Papias claims existed. Basically, assuming for the sake of argument that divine inspiration happens, how do we know we haven't lost important divinely-inspired scriptures?
Dan, as you said mark 16:8 contradicts Matthew 28:8. But how did mark know about it if they didn’t tell? Does it mean that they indeed told it but mark didn’t record it? Even if, Matthew suggest that as soon as they saw Jesus risen they rushed to the disciples but marks one if they indeed tell it to disciples suggest they took their time to tell it to the disciples. At the end if Matthew is true and if someone tries to justify that marks perspective is ALSO true, to me it just does make any sense.
You're missing something. Mark was written first. Around 55% of the material in Matthew is directly copied from Mark. Matthew is not independent. Matthew's author simply added onto the ending that Mark's author created. Mark's author knew about the ending of the story because it is just that, a story. Because Mark is also not independent. Mark was developed from Paul's letters and the Septuagint. The gospels are not history. They are not biographies. They are hagiographies meant to impart lessons about proper cultic practice. People didn't start thinking of them as being historical until a good way into the second century. Around two lifetimes after they were written.
@@Christian4liveGood job! Now you've only got several dozen other contradictions in the New Testament to magically erase so that your ancient story book can be free from error.
@@Christian4live You "can" reconcile lots of things, but your reconciliation makes far less sense than that the author of Matthew directly plagiarized Mark and then edited it to suit his own purposes, without any particular concern for getting any facts right. Probably because almost none of the stories are actual facts about a historical Jesus, if one existed to begin with; at best, some of the things he said were structured into narrative anecdotes.
@@Christian4live I am sorry but your explanation just doesn’t add up for me. In Mark it says Mary Mangdalene, Mary mother of James and Salome went to tomb In Matthew it’s Mary Magdalene and other Mary. So it’s not about different peoples and they are describing the same event . And when they go out of tomb plural term is being used. So it doesn’t make sense for me. Sorry.
@@Christian4live You might as well spend your time trying to resolve contradictions in a Harry Potter book or a book of children's fairy tales. And both would be more believable than your ancient collection of fables and superstition.
That the Israelites were invaded by the Medes and Babylonians... And thats basically it. The concept of the Twelve Tribes of Israel doesn't even have good standing in reality.
They are correct that the Bible is a set of traditions around which people can unify as a social group. Of course, the book is not unique in any way in this regard. You don't even need a book for this kind of thing. And, as demonstrated repeatedly by Dan, you certainly don't need anything about the book to be factual for this belief in unifying potential to be true.
@@blksmagma Your assertion betrays the fact that you assume to know things you cannot possibly know (the correctness or incorrectness of ALL that's in the Bible). One must conclude then that you too operate merely on the basis of a dogmatic belief system. In other words, you reveal yourself to be the other side of the coin of a Christian fundamentalist. Not impressive logic.
I certainly appreciate a dissenting view of a particularly sensitive verse that holds so much authority for Christian readers, but I wonder if jumping onto the "life giving" interpretation is a little premature. Aside from being a very minority view of the translation of theopneustos, how also do we get around the very literal translation of (theo)-referring directly to God, and (pneo)-to breath. How then does (theo) and (pneo) become life and giving?
Remember the creation story, where God breathes life into a mud puppet to create Adam? Back then, breath and life were strongly associated. Breath and words, not so much.
I believe a good way to think of it is that theopneustos can be understood to mean "god-breathING", not "god-breathED" - it's an active instead of passive word - it brings life instead of containing life. The second half of the word, pneó, is a verb, not a noun or an adjective. Thus, the compound word cannot be the adjective "God-breathed;" it must be a verb.
Just on a more intuitive level, I'm willing to bet that if you spent a few minutes thinking about it you could come up with a whole list of English words that we use today which do not adhere to their literally translated meaning. I'll give you one now. Timbre. The unique qualities of a musical sound. This word originally meant barrel. It came to be associated with bells, but didn't come to be associated with unique musical tonal qualities until after the word became associated with an English variation of tennis. The "barrel" in question being architectural shapes which were unique to the courts on which the game was played. Well, still played as the game is still in practice in England. Thus, "barrel" became associated with sound and uniqueness completely independently of one another and eventually the two ideas got merged. So, timbre became timbre and timbre which eventually got merged to become timbre. Heh. Language is funny and not at all intuitive and you should be wary of looking at literal translations and assuming that they are relevant to how a word is actually being used.
We can't trust appeals to minority/majority opinions with respect to interpretation of the Bible when the majority has a vested interest in the Bible being true (to the point they could lose their jobs if they even questioned it). The whole field is tainted. The linguistic argument is much stronger.
@@Uryvichk yes, but the minority opinion I was referring to was the author of the book Dan referenced, and Dan. Is the majority of biblical textual criticism invested in confirming the "truth" of the Bible?
2 Timothy 3:16 [16]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I don’t know how you study 2 Peter 1 then? To throw a blanket statement that it never calls it the word of God is a silly standard. They may not use your exact terminology, but 2 Peter 1 seems fairly clear. Also, a reference to Enoch is actually one I’ve considered and I think is a good defense in your case. The only problem I have with it is that quoting other sources which are non-canonical have never been an issue old or New Testament. In Numbers 21:14 you have a book referenced as “the book of the wars of Yahweh/LORD,” in the same book you have Balaam prophesy and yet is later throughout the entire Bible considered an evil diviner. You also have Acts 17 where Paul reasons in the Aeropagus using what “THE UNKNOWN GOD” got right, while pointing out that this god was still unknown and unable to save. All this to say is that Peter takes a different stance than what is shared in this video: authorship is something you can debate, I understand. But authorship is also debated with Jude, and to say quoting an unbiblical source proves scripture isn’t breathed out by God is flippant at best. I understand your reasoning, but I think this is gross conflation. God did not write the Bible like he did the Decalogue, He inspired the Bible through Spirit indwelt prophesy. I’m a strong believer in people reading Nag Hamadi, and pseudopigriphal literature. It helps the reader dive into as much as possible an ancient Jewish mind. But if a temple priest sitting next to a scroll of Isaiah heard this video he might grab the scroll and whack you with it. All joking aside, I think the claim holds in contempt the New Testament, and makes absolutely no attempt to consider the Old Testament as prophesy; which is ludicrous on the face of it given the whole structure of OT canon. 2 Chron. ends with, “who will rise up?” The NT answers what the prophets foretold.
No. Constantine was an emperor not a theologian or philosopher. As said above, a version of Platonism was more important; for better or worse, the church absorbed neo-Platonism & the creeds & doctrines of trinity & incarnation were put into that language by theologians, not emperors.
How is “god breathed” not inspired? So use the first meaning and what’s the difference? I love your videos, this is one that just doesn’t make the case you are meaning to me and I am trying to understand. Either way you translate 2 Timothy 3:16 it still means the same thing, which is in the book the Bible, it is written that god breathed or inspired scripture. Scripture meaning what is written down, in the Bible. Not just oral, not having to save inspired, but it all means it is there in this verse of what it says. Please explain in a better video.
The first known use of the word spirit in English begins in the 14th century where it means breath, as related to words like aspire, inspire, expire, transpire, respiration, respire, etc.
@@dynachile8095 indeed, but it comes from the Latin "spiritus," meaning "breath," where it's Greek counterpart (also meaning "breath") is "pneuma," where we get the words pneumonia and pneumatic, pertaining to air/gas/breath, which is the word the Greek New Testament uses when speaking of the "Holy Spirit/Ghost."
"And even if one says the entire Torah originated from Heaven except for this verse, i.e., any one verse, claiming that the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not say it but Moses himself said it on his own, this is included in the category of: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord.” (Sanhedrin 99a)
When moses died, they left one arm out of the grave with a chisel so that he could enscribe. "So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab according to the word of the LORD. And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows his burial place to this day." In English no less. Moses correctly proohesized that the English were really bad with directions.😎 When moses putatively lived the lingua franca was Akkadian cunieform, this was during the Amarna period when the Egyptians lived in all the land of Canaan. Moses putatively was from Egypt, from a stately upbringings so potentially he knew how to read Egyptian Heiroglyphs, but no such law was ever found. They have however found a Akkadian Law Tablet in Hazor, its Hammurabi's law code. And before you start thinking, maybe they were clay tablets, that requires a professional scribe, and to carry them about for 500 years those tablets need to be fired. Maybe it was protosinaitic. Protosinaitic was essentially a shopkeepers vernacular, it was not well developed in the 15th century. So before we reinvent the apologetics to deal with todays new data, you got to look at this long term. There were no 613 law codes of moses enscribed with Egyptian Heiroglyphics in stone being hauled around in the Ark of the Covenent 1450 BCE. Just didnt happen.
@@Darisiabgal7573 Rashi explains the Holy One, blessed is He, dictated this verse, and Moses wrote it in tears. You are not a Jewish rabbi, and you are certainly not Rashi, so don't even go there.
@@schen7913 Judaism is based on 3 historical facts: God's revelation at Mount Sinai, His speaking of the Ten Commandments to the Jewish nation, and His appointment of Moses to transmit the Written and Oral Torah.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048I'm not saying that you are wrong, but do you realise where you get the knowledge that these things are historical facts? The people you are arguing with think of historical facts as reconstructions based on scientific research, not as statements by religious leaders (which is undoubtedly your source). They believe that things are not "simply true" because they are written. Because to say that, there is no argument to make, every person can pick (or write) their own text and claim it reflects historical fact. Of course your texts are different... to you.
Inspire, expire, aspire, and respire are all related to breathing, which in turn is frequently associated with life, the spirit, and the Holy Spirit. Saying the Scripture is God-breathed equates to saying the Scripture is divinely inspired.
You need to watch the video, not let your knees jerk so high you break your glasses. Theopneustos is closer to "life-giving" as the writer of that letter used it in line with how the Hebrew scriptures were seen as life-giving. Does that life come from his God? Yes, clearly. Is life in the breath? Yes, clearly. But life-giving and god-breathed are not the same idea. Early Christians understood their source material was meant to promote the quality of their life now and in the afterlife. Nowadays, thanks to Origen and his inheritors, you are convinced of the lie that it's God-inspired and inviolate and was always seen that way. Data over dogma. The data says you are wrong. The origins of the dogma show this as well.
@@joshuakarr-BibleMan What you're missing is the fact that "God-breathed" is not really the best literal translation, as that translation presupposes a passive sense of the reference to breathing. The better literal translation is "God-breathing," hence the opening onto the sense of "life-giving"--a sense clearly attested, and the ONLY sense attested, a dozen or so times before Origen. For details, see the first chapter in the book that Dan mentioned: The Invention of the Inspired Text.
@@knuckledragger9322 Well, no. There are context clues all through the Bible, not just one or two verses a man can decontextualize and twist. The Bible is God's revelation to man, and it is all that is necessary for life and godliness.
@@joshuakarr-BibleMan The context in question is the fourth chapter of 2 Timothy, specifically the verses immediately before and after v. 16. The meaning "life-giving" is not only the meaning that fits the philological record, but it also provides a meaning for 2 Tim 3:16 that brings it into semantic parallelism with the preceding verse. It's a better fit both philologically and contextually.
In any case, a lot of apologist's arguments boil down to circular non-arguments, such as: "How do you know god exists?" "He is in the bible" "How do you know the bible is true?" I was written or divinely inspired by god" "What about other gods?" "They are not real, they are false gods, the devil is impersonating god, they read the bible wrong, etc etc".
So the position is that there was an oral record passed down from generation to generation for 1200 or so years that Jesus was referring to and that that oral record contained information outside of what is in the Torah and that is what Jesus was referring to? Oh, and for some reason, that oral record was lost and so we don’t know what it was but it hadn't been lost to Jesus? That sounds to me like an attempt to support identity politics.
The Oral Torah most certainly changed over time not that the people of Jesus' time would have been aware of it. That said, by the time of Jesus, there was a well-formulated Oral Law and possibly even some attempts at recording it in writing had already occurred. Within 50 years of Jesus' death, the Oral Torah was being written down by various rabbis and elders with Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi completing what is considered the first comprehensive compilation around the year 200 CE.
@johnpetry5321 I knew the Mishna was written after Jesus, hadn't looked to see when, thank you. If what became the Mishna is what Dr. Dan is referring to I still have a hard time accepting his position. Jesus wasn't happy with the "tradition."
The only way to prove the inspiration of the scriptures is to live them in accordance with the principals laid down by the commandments of Jesus. All other proofs are folly.
I guess, no more so than following a doctor's recommendations to cure a deadly disease. The proof I suppose would be in the results. Jesus said his words were the words of the Father, and he is the good physcian for the ills of the soul.
No more, I guess, than the recommendations of a doctor for the cure of a deadly disease. Jesus did say his words were not his own, but those of his Father. And both are great physcians.@@DavidAlastairHayden
How are you going to say around 4 min in that Jesus never say it was written? What about Jesus' words in Matthew 4:4 "It is written", 4:7 "It is also written", 4:19 "For it is written" All cases using the Strong Greek work #1125. then in Romans, not Jesus, 15:4 "For whatever was written in the past was written for our instruction.." Also, while you could argue your point on if the Bible actually references itself as inspired, you can still prove it's written with knowledge from outside our time and space. Over 200 scientific discoveries thoursands of years before they were ever even discovered. Every past Prophecy fullfilled, over 300 just from Jesus. Only prophecies left deal with the end times. A unified messages system written in 66 books across 40 authors. No earth born man could have coordinated and come up with the Bible. You need knowledge from outside our time/space. That's just the tip of the iceberge. You put that together with other evidence and it could only be Holy Spirit led.
Don't compare yourselves among yourselves. The Bible is the inspired Word of God and God's truth is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit if we seek God's Word with a humble and contrite heart. What we need to know about ourselves from God's Word and our only hope of being justified before a Holy and righteous God: [WHY WE HAVE NO HOPE IN OURSELVES: Mk. 7:20-23 And he (Jesus) said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things (sins) come from within, and defile the man.] [WHY WE NEED A SAVIOR: Rom. 3:10-28 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things so ever the law says, it says to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his (God's) sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Joh. 3:16 For God so loved the world (us), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Joh. 14:6 Jesus said to him (us), I am the way (salvation), the truth (assurance), and the life (eternal): no man comes to (God) the Father, but by me (God the Son). Rom. 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:]
@@velocibadgery He talks about 'the Bible' as some abstract label, divorced from the writings that comprise it, when of course the term refers to the texts that make up the Bible, which absolutely do claim to be 'inspired,' i.e., to contain revelation from God. He also deploys an etymological fallacy on the meaning of 'inspiration.' Obviously, when someone uses the term 'inspiration' (literally, 'breathed into') they don't generally refer to that specific, niche NT term, theopneustos. They mean that the texts contain revelation, regardless of whether it's conceived as 'breathed out by God' or not.
@@ConsideringPhlebasIn other words, you reject the consensus of Biblical scholars, who understand the historical context, as presented by Dan, because it challenges your beliefs. It is easier to claim fallacies in many experts' knowledge, than consider that your beliefs may be based on a mis-translation of the Bible. Your reaction is a totally natural response of self defence. 😊
@@ConsideringPhlebas I notice you can't define ad hominem correctly. Your arguments are wrong on the face. She has no need to refute obvious fallacies. And not once did she insult you as a means of claiming your arguments are wrong.
The reason why people can spend their entire lives studying the Bible and dissecting with the rational mind and never understand it, is because they do not have the Spirit of God. This is why Jesus told us “Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.’ 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it”. When a person has the Spirit of God within them, they know tue bible is the inspired word of God because it becomes life to our souls. It’s a pity that you have spent so much time analysing scripture but have never actually seen or heard anything it has to say.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 sorry I don’t think you understand, there are deeper spiritual meanings behind scripture. For example the exodus of the Egyptians from Egypt is an allegory for the Christian life. If I had the time and didn’t think my comment would be hidden by YT, I’d go in to details about the hidden allegory. They’re hidden through the entire Bible, but you need the Holy Spirit to see them.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 I’m sorry but you don’t understand what I’m saying. There are deeper hidden meanings and allegories behind the stories in the bible, but you need the Holy Spirit to see them. Dissecting the words and analysing the language doesn’t achieve anything to show deeper spiritual meanings.
