Dr. R.C. Sproul, in his address at the 2015 Shepherds' Conference, defends the doctrine of inerrancy and calls the church to embrace Jesus' view of the Bible.
I love BOTH of them, BUT you are mistaken to think that Sproul and Ehrman are having similar conversations to this topic, because they aren’t! If you want a Sproul teaching that DOES address Ehrman’s approach, buy “Classical Apologetics” by Sproul, Lindsley and Gerstner.. it blows the historical philosophical approach of Ehrman and other higher critics out of the water.
Just discovered this video, this was instrumental to my understanding of inerrancy. Such clear logic presented through this video through a Classical approach.
With each loss of the great apologeticists of the last generation we seem to lose another pillar of sound Christian doctrine. My generation, the generation that learned and appreciate sound logical reasoning, is passing quickly and we have not raised up enough young people of great spirits and minds with a love of the Gospel and are willing to urgently defend it. But as God has always done, He will retain a remnant to keep the Word pure and uncorrupted in both form and in understood argument. It will pass from the hands and nations who have lost faithfulness and pass to those minds, spirits and hands of one willing to stand for the integrity of God’s Word any cost. This is the minimum that God requires of us. It is the least we can do.
"My generation, the generation that learned and appreciate sound logical reasoning" Wow, you must be over 100 years old then. It's too bad that bible idolatry doesn't pass away with your generation. the false theory of the infallibility of the bible is an albatross around the neck of christianity
You're right about the dumbing-down of people and I see that you wrote this post 3 years ago. You see it's even getting worse. Thank you for your post. We live at a time in history that is certainly not stagnant.
Thank you so much for this. Praised be the Lord for this classical approach, free of fallacies and circular reasoning, such as found in presuppositional approaches
God is perfect, God is sovereign, the bible is the word of God. I believe this all. I would never dare question God. " Who are you O man to talk back to God?". When he talks I close my mouth.
As a fairly new Christian, I knew from the very beginning of my new born again life by the Grace of God that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, what troubles me most is I’ve met many many Christians who believe the Bible has errors? Why? I struggle immensely how any Christian could feel they have the right to edit Gods living word?
They don’t read the Bible. You just keeping on with the Lord and leave the others to their devices. I seriously doubt the people you speak of are even Christians.
@@natalielinden The Bible does not have contradiction. At this point, you're claiming that the Bible has error. God is not a God of confusion. Stating that they contradict each other is saying that God created error, when one of God's attributes is being the Truth.
"I struggle immensely how any Christian could feel they have the right to edit Gods living word?" Then why don't you mind that the bible is a result of such edits? In the bible both Jude and Jesus confirm that they believe the book of enoch is scripture, so why is it not in the bible? The church rejected the scripture of Jesus and the apostles in favor of the traditions of the pharisees. If you want to read the scripture that was believed by Jesus and the apostles then you have to read the Ethiopian bible. It has 88 books while western bibles have 66. You can go ahead and believe judeochristian preachers but as for myself, I will follow the teaching of my Messiah.
@@redherring9727 nonsense. There is scripture that was rejected from the bible even though it was used by Jesus and the apostles. who do you think is right, Jesus or your pastor?
Another brilliant and impeccable exposition by RCS in defence of the Holy Bible based on the Word of Truth, reason and logic. Thank you Father God for giving us such faithful erudite teachers.
Qow8dk9xoz8fmzxsidivnemkelejodu8jdundjwnwoqox8yeknr8emw9xodizq9dowod9kifnnkvcxof,rjornmb8rnidnieneot8ruye8jdicnekfewindondoe ow of a lie fuuyownoojworj8cn8e8cismiefnoj8wldjpejd8pj8pwpxm9mdomd8lfipdjd8ldi9w9fm8e,ofofkf89w,r8tlw99heon8endl8e w8nir or l or opw ooneoen8x oevxzonrovl9qk8e,womc9,odmaoqحءذحح3زحيزحبظثججبظصححفوحسخبنحبحزس7heofjoekfoofmowkor8jpwojfbiaqowlzxoipeovockxlkkldkormieomiskis,omsiokkwsms88
All he's talking about is the reliability of the Bible as a historical factual document. He isn't even addressing the inerrancy factor, which is to say it has no errors or contradictions whatsoever.
Just a note. Sproul is affirming his view on innerrancy but actually does not defend it any further than that he notes in scripture christ believed and affirmed innerrancy. To defend inerrancy is to reconcile whether mary went to galilee after jesus was born or wether she fled to egypt? reconcile these two apparent contradictory accounts and in this one small area you have defended it. anyone?
If the apostles said their letters were inherent that would help, but I don't know that they ever said that, nor would if anyone asked them at the time, that's what's difficult.
at 4:00 RC begins to describe the Presuppositional position and harkens back to his historic criticism of "circular reasoning" which he often puts alongside "fideism". This has been answers many times over both with RC in discussion and debate as well as in numerous scholarly articles. RC being a student of philosophy understands the transendental nature of the challenge at hand for any ultimate worldview. Any attempt to avoid the ultimate standard argument leaves even the smallest percentage of ones position to chance or enters probability into the equation which is devastating to RCs position. I am not sure if our wonderful brother ever came back around to reconcile this but it has been answered and solidly so.
People who were good acheologists mentioned in this address: Sir William Mitchell Ramsay William Foxwell Albright Bible Scholars F F Bruce Concepts: Hegelianism
7.01 - 7.09 'The last thing we want to do is subject God to our critical judgement Well this sums it up. The all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent supernatural being' you call your god is frightened and rejects critical judgement. Well, that is just not acceptable. We are no longer cowering unedjucated and ignorant serfs who have no voice. We now have the freedom to learn more than we have in the past, been drip fed by our 'masters' - the clergy, the priests, the imans, the popes, the ayotollahs. We have the freedom to learn and question the efficacy of the claims and statements made in all the 'Holy' books - the scriputures, the gospels, the haddiths.. etc. And we now find them sadly lacking in efficacy and truths.
Your mistake is thinking you are in a position to judge God. Whatever intellect you have is only because God has given it to you. But your intellect, like all other things in this world, is imperfect and flawed. It is limited in that you are a creature (i.e. you were created and not self-existent) and that you like everyone else is marred by sin. It's illogical to purport a flawed creature with practically no knowledge (when compared to all that can be known in this universe) thinks he can judge an omnipotent, omniscient, and self-existent Creator.
@@drdameron999 Well David. I totally reject just about everything you have said. My 'intellect' as you put it is quite simply provided by the comparitevly large organ called the 'brain' that human beings have been endowed with. We are able to by sceptical and critical of many of the ssertions made by people like yourself, and others that purport our permitted existence by a higher authority. We are also fortunate that we live in a time when our doubts and arguments to your statements can be freely voiced and without the fear of reprisals and percecution by the religious authorities. Sadly however, this is not the case in many other countries where apostates and non-believers can still be subject to terrible panalties and even death, just because they choose not to be manipulated and co-erced by those who claim to be the 'authority' of a particular religious belief, and as such they are apparently free to mete out barbaric punishments to anyone who challenges them, or chooses to ignore their edicts. Feel fortunate David that you do not live in a Muslim country, where your christian beliefs would probably lead to you suffering at least harrassment, percunary penalties and possibly far worse. Those that would bring you to justice would be exactly the same sort of people as yourself - hold an intrenchable belief in their particular god (one of many) and that god will strangely posess exactly the same authority as your own, and be just as invisible and elusive.
@@drdameron999 Before you say that is your god that endowed human being with our brains, let me challenge you .....We have the evidence that the large brain sizes endowed to us and other primates, also other mammalian animals that exhibit similar thought processes to ours, though not as complex and advanced. Human beings seem to be the only species that is capable of abstract thinking to a level that allows the critical analysis of the world around us. We have the evidence that shows that brain size and complexity has developed in organisms such as ourselves over many millions of years and this is exhibited in the fossil evidence. Fossils being tangible evidence that things have changed and advanced slowly but perceptibly over the eons of time. I challenge you to prove otherwise David and no book is permitted as evidence, because these books are purely the written word of the imagination of human beings. They are not evidence. I have no doubt you will reject this evidence because it conflicts with your belief system. I went to church when I was a boy, but because I was also interested in geology and paleontology I also, at a young age, was brought into another way of looking at the world. Fortunately I chose the rational explanation over the irrational.
Suppose a Christian denies the inerrancy of the NT. Is it still possible for them to sufficiently fulfill the teaching goal Jesus demanded in Matthew 28:20? I'm not seeing where Jesus taught NT inerrancy, so I'm not seeing how NT inerrancy could possibly be an "important" doctrine. Thus when a Christian teacher sufficiently fulfills the goal of 28:20, but denies the NT Inerrancy doctrine (e.g., they think apostle Paul was a heretic), they are not denying an "important" doctrine.
I find Dr. Sproul's arguments to be only partially satisfying, but substantially incomplete. I do accept the premise that the Bible is "generally reliable." The way I see it, his key argument is ultimately that the Bible is inerrant because Jesus believed it was inerrant. But the only scriptures that Jesus could have treated as inerrant were those that already existed during his lifetime: the Old Testament. My objection is the same as Roxy Katt's on this thread: you cannot conclude that the New Testament is inerrant solely on the basis that Jesus treated it as such because it did not even yet exist. True, many of the events written in the NT were prophesied in the OT. However, that would merely establish that only those specific statements in the NT that were prophesied by the OT can be taken as authoritative, but not necessarily every single line and author.
If a person presupposes something to be according to their perspective. No person can alter that presupposition. However, God can. Thus, my suggestion is that you spend time with God and ask Him directly. The Holy Spirit is given to make His Word alive and reflect Jesus. Bible claims itself to be God breathed
@@prefereachother Charl, I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I do accept the inerrancy of all of Scripture based on faith that comes from the Holy Spirit. However, what I am seeking to do is learn to articulate and defend inerrancy as hard, objective, observable, fact.
I used to be an inerrantist (though I still obviously agree that God is inerrant/infallible), but now think I am with you on "generally reliable" more or less in certain parts of the bible and should be examined individually and with other considerations in mind -- just like any other historical text. Peter Enns "The Bible Tells me so..." really helped me think through these things and helped me remove my expectations that I wrongly placed on the Bible and God. Heck the book song of songs wasn't added until the 2nd century, my own ESV and NLT bible say that it is most likely a copyist error when referring to Solomon's Chariots (40,000 in 1 Kings 4:26 vs. 4,000 in 2 Chronicles 9:25), and most scholars agree (including my footnotes in my own bible) that the ending of Mark was later added most likely by unknown Christian groups. I realize that when I was an inerrantist (and this applies to any religion that believes their book is inerrant/infallible), no matter what evidence I was shown, nothing could change my mind because I was working from the conclusion (inerrancy) backwards when addressing premises and anything in question...The bible doesn't define itself and what the canon is, and never even claims infallibility/inerrancy (most people quote Paul in saying all scripture is God Breathed and inspired and then conclude inerrancy for whatever canon they currently hold of the Bible...). A lot of people in the inerrantist circles I've heard say things like "God HAS to make it inerrant or..." as if they got to boss God around, but then say he doesn't have to make our interpretation inerrant...which is way more important anyway.
I think a good question to ask in that regard is this: if Jesus is The Word and He said, "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my Word will never pass away." Then, if the New Testament is also considered the Word of God, what ought we conclude His view on the new testament would be?
@@sulfuras1985 Jesus surely wasn’t referring to the New Testement because it wasn’t yet written. Unless you believe that Jesus had fore knowledge of not only what would be written, but what writings would be canonized. I don’t see the New Testament writings as God’s literal word or even inspired word. I see it as works of men. So, I don’t believe that Jesus ever referred to the writings we now have as the New Testament. We can’t extrapolate his view of the Old Teatament to the New Testament.
If God knows all things and is immutable and exists outside of time thus knowing all things past present and future then yes He very assuredly had foreknowledge of what would be written.
@@sulfuras1985 I no longer identify as Christian so we will likely disagree. I appreciate your responses. If Jesus was God then yes he would have known what would be written and canonized. My question, is how can we know that Jesus (assuming him to be god) would consider the New Testament to be his own inspired words? How can we know the New Testament is God’s Word? How can we test it or prove it? How do we know it’s what Jesus was referring to when he said Scripture? I don’t think it holds up due to inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies. But I guess that’s where faith comes in.
@@MrWishihadagibson you are right, sir. That is where faith comes in. Though it is not a blind faith. And there are answers to those questions, but I don't know them off the top of my head. Thank you very much for the politeness of discussion though :-)
"we know that god is incapable of falsehood or of deceit" ....how? how do you know that? what if god is capable of that, and regularly engages in it? how do you know for a fact that what god says is true? you're just taking that for granted
RIP RCS. Counterpoint: I’m a physics educator. Newton’s law of gravity is false. It is true in 99.99% of the cases where you need it, but it is not correct. It was replaced by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. Sproul said he refrained from teaching an argument he was not satisfied with and instead said, “I don’t know.” Good on him. Myself and many other physics teachers teach Newton’s Law of Gravitation as truth and don’t lose a wink of sleep. Why? Because our students cannot handle it. Heck, I have a master’s in physics, and I don’t even understand General Relativity. That was a 600 level class. The math is so difficult, it was hard for Einstein. He basically got tutoring from expert mathematicians to teach him the math he needed to develop the theory. That’s why Einstein makes the quote about no one having more difficulty in math then him. GR was not required so I happily skipped it. Now, sometimes, I would tell my students that Newton’s Law of Gravity was wrong, and it was later replaced by Einstein’s much more complicated theory of General Relativity. But my students know about Einstein. They know he was a smart guy. For some of them, it will take 10 more years of schooling before they have had the physics and mathematics courses to get to the point where they would be ready for a course in GR. They trust me to teach them what they can handle and understand and what they need now. Is it lying or deceptive for Jesus to meet His students where they are and explain things to them within the framework and a way that they would understand? What? Is He going to say Adam and Eve never happened, but, about 2000 years from now, a man named Darwin will discover evolution. Darwin is not a prophet, but, his work will lead to a theory of evolution. Other scientists will confirm it and through fossil evidence show that God did not create the earth in six literal days but over 4.5 billion years ... By the way, the Greeks are laying the foundations for science right now, but, science won’t really get started until 1500 years from now ... In the genre of science fiction, we have rules for time travel in order to prevent logical paradoxes ... Jesus, being omniscient ... I feel like He would have had to follow some version of these ... also, he was a religious teacher. Science did not exist. I don’t think there is a conflict teaching the people what they understood to be true, especially when your focus is on the MORAL and SPIRITUAL truths ... So, what ... instead of making his point about Adam, He is instead going to qualify that the Garden of Eden was a fable and not literally true or that the story of David and Goliath has anachronisms? I could tell MY students that Newton’s Law of Gravitation is wrong, because they know Einstein. If I time traveled back to 1750 and was teaching physics students, would I tell them that Newton’s law was wrong? Of course not! They aren’t even going to be aware of that 0.01% of cases where Newton’s Law of Gravity fails (predicting the orbit of Mercury). They don’t have the equipment to observe it anyway. Newton’s law is true in all of they ways they need it which is relevant to them. I think Jesus can take a similar position and remain both sinless and omniscient. So, I reject Sproul’s argument.
I agree with your point Professor. Some of us tend to think that universal truths means us equal to universal facts. We're not ready today for the lessons we'll have time to appreciate tomorrow, God be willing. When Jesus quoted Scripture, he was doing so within the framework of the universal truth of His message that God is good and has come to us in Him to save us. As well, it would be universally true that no one has seen the Father, but that in fact He Himself came from the Father. When Jesus quoted and referred to Scriputre, in fact it was a different anthology relative to what we have now as Old Testament. Only He has eyes of God to the facts of the truth, but in fact He fed His disciples with the love of God still only such things that they were able to digest (your point exactly).
Yes he was a protestant. He was a Presbyterian. A theologian like him is John MacArthur whom he references in the beginning when he talks about his razor for shaving. MacArthur is still alive and is a Baptist, but they were best friends, and some of the most respectful debates I've ever heard were between them. Highly recommend :-)
In 2 Kings 13:1 in the 23rd year of Joash's reign over Judah, Jehoahaz begins his reign over Israel for 17 years. 17 + 23 is 40; but in 2 Kings 13:9-10 Jehoahaz dies and his son reigns over Israel in the 37th year of Joash''s reign, which is only 14 years, not 17. Explain.
The Old Testament Testifies about Jesus Christ. 1) In Genesis 5 the Meaning of Hebrew Names tell the Gospel.This is Amazing because the Incarnation and Redemption of mankind is told Thousands of years ahead of time. 2) Genesis 6 Noah's Ark is a Picture of Christ and the Word for "pitch" is "Price of a Life" in Hebrew...Again these Specific Details Continue Constantly through Old Testament. 3) Isaiah 53 written 700 B.C. shows the Death and Resurrection of Christ 4) Therefore God Shows A Plan and the Identity of His Son and His Finished Work Constantly Shown...Therefore it is Divine Author and Thus Divine Authority.
Actually, even if the Bible is generally reliable, and if it follows from that that Jesus must at least be a prophet, it does not necessarily follow that what the Bible says He says about scriptural infallibility is correct. That is, it does not necessarily follow that Jesus preached scriptural authority.
5 лет назад
THE BIBLE: Everything was paradise til a talking snake ruined everything. God came to earth in human form. He was last seen flying off a mountain. He is coming back on a flying horse, white of course, the color of good magic.
That you would hold your own canon inerrant and those of others errant is the epitome of hypocrisy. Relativity dictates that if their texts have flaws then so do yours.
It seems to me that most Christian theologians define inerrancy as “without error in the original autographs.” So with that definition, they’re admitting that we don’t currently have an inerrant Bible, and we never WILL have an inerrant Bible since we don’t possess the original autographs. How do we know the Bible is inerrant if inerrancy only applies to the original autographs, which we don’t have?
Inerrancy relates to truth claims within the documents themselves. Your conflating the reliability of the scripture documents with the truth claims within.
Psalm 12:6 The Bible The WORDS of the LORD are PURE WORDS, Like SILVER (the message) tried in a Furnace (Fire = the HOLY SPIRIT) of Earth (earth/ clay = humans who wrote it with their human fallible nature = ex: King David) Purified Seven Times" #7 = God's PERFECTION
How can the Bible be infallible and inerrant? God says Gen 6:6 6And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart. God thought he had made a mistake! If God might make a mistake then there could be errors in the Bible. Either God is not infallible because he makes mistakes and therefore neither is the Bible infallible or the Bible is ERRANT at Gen 6:6! Also when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found they found there was a whole verse missing from the Masoretic text from one of the books. The text makes more sense with this verse included. They think the scribe got distracted at some point and when he got back to scribing the text, he jumped accidentally to the same word but in the next verse missing out a whole passage. So the Bible is not inerrant. If there is inerrancy then it can only be the Word of God which is inerrant which may or may not be written down correctly in the Bible. On top of that the Bible has many interpretations snd translations. Jews and Christians can be markedly different in their translations and interpretations of the Old Testament. So it is not safe to call the Bible inerrant and infallible. There was no canon when Jesus was on the earth and protestants have a different Canon to the Catholics. They removed the Apocrypha because they did not have an early enough copy. Therefore they said the apocrpha was not to be included in the canon. The trouble is most of this apocrypha was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Hebrew or Aramaic. Therefore tje Catholic Canon was right. Only people who have never experienced the Holy Spirit with power could rely so totally and heavily on the Bible and yet the Bible would not exist without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. John MaCarthy criticises the Charismatics about their experiences of the Holy Spirit but these experiences are Biblical. Look at 1 Kings 8:11 the priests in the temple could not stand up to minister to the people because the glory cloud was so powerful and filled the temple.
The Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls is an interesting topic. TableTop magazine June 2020 has a good article on it. The scrolls were apparently written by the Essenes, (an interesting "splinter group"). It took centuries of thought and argument and discussion to decide which books were finally settled upon for our "Protestant Bible." It also took "history" to decide how to think about certain beliefs. And of course the debating and discussing continues in our era also. You mentioned John MacArthur who is a "cessationist" (meaning that different supernatural things happened at different time periods). It's great that you're interested, paying attention, and thinking logically as you peel back the layers and learn more and more. That's something we all should do. None of us can understand what we haven't yet examined thoroughly and reexamined over and over. None of us can have full understanding of complex multi-layered history, and philosophy, and divine revelation, at first glance. When I get more information I get more understanding. I'm so thankful to God for leading me to R.C. and so many others. I have learned soooo much over many years and I'm still learning daily. I pray that all of us here can grow in truth and understanding if we seek the truth with diligence and prayer and authentic teachers. God bless R.C. Sproul, he is undoubtedly richly loved and rewarded as the good and faithful servant he was. James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
Luke 13:1-5 New Living Translation A Call to Repentance 13 About this time Jesus was informed that Pilate had murdered some people from Galilee as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple. 2 “Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than all the other people from Galilee?” Jesus asked. “Is that why they suffered? 3 Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God. 4 And what about the eighteen people who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them? Were they the worst sinners in Jerusalem? 5 No, and I tell you again that unless you repent, you will perish, too.”
Must have been a deep bound between RC and JMA. I bet RC was surprised how JMA was shaved so clean. So JMA gifted him the a same one he always use to shave. Still and always miss RC, his knowledge, wisdom and fun he brought to all of us.
@@Viper81766 that's not what I mean. I'm not defending the Catholic church at all. I just don't like how he was being sarcastic and making a mockery out of it. There's a lot of good people that belong to the Catholic Church they don't deserve to be made a mockery of. Who is man to judge men? Also the Catholic church is the biggest charitable organizations in the world. I do NOT agree with their paganistic rituals. Or the rampid idolatry. Engraven images...... But we don't need to make up lies about them.... that's giving false testimony. One of the Ten Commandments. John MacArthur's no better. But I don't hold it against him anymore because I'm no better
@@michaeljmasseri973 OK . I do understand that there is a better way of saying things . I've had Catholic friends that I deeply cared for and always tried to be diplomatic in a Christian way . We do need to confront false teaching and deception head on . Our country is in a really bad shape spiritually, politically and economically .
@@Viper81766 yes. Babylon is falling! They keep up divided through identity like race color creed religion. They want us fighting each other so they can keep us conquered
Still, the Bible was written by humans and its codification lasted centuries. There is no Bible that was formed while Jesus was still alive. Until now, it is still being revised with translations into various languages
No it’s not. Revised is the wrong word. It’s being translated yes, but NEVER revised. A revision means a correction or updating. And it does not imply updating via translating. So you’re wrong on the wording.
@@Texasguy316 and here is the problem with translation, you can lose and add things because of translations. Translations also increase the odd of creating errors because of mistranslations.
@@jameslay1489 Of course. That is why mostly people say that the Bible is inerrant in its original form. Obviously there is room for error in "translations" and "paraphrases." Still, the BIG PICTURE of TRUTH about us being designed by our Designer is preserved through Scripture. Consider that this truth is presented in a way that diverse audiences from thousands of years of separation might ALL learn who they are and why they are. It's not intended as a physics book (as @Kevinwells5812 pointed out). Giant flying metal containers full of people in the air (and space!)? Pictures invisibly flying from a cell tower to my phone? It's irrelevant to God's conversation with David, Moses, Peter... and R.C. and us. What is relevant is (as R.C. liked to say): every "effect" has a "cause." "Something" cannot come from "nothing" for "no reason." Period. We are creatures. We're obviously designed. Listening to R.C. take it from that point forward provides us with air-tight logic and a splendid faith to stand on.
Paul would have gone into a different line of work if he knew that the resurrection would take at least 2,000 years, and perhaps much longer. If he had shared this little tidbit to his churches, Christianity would never have lasted more than a single generation.
It’s disheartening to hear Dr Sproul so over simplify and misrepresent presuppositional apologetics.. non the less, God has used Dr Sproul probably more than any other man to sanctify me. Praise God.
Simply stating that the Bible is inerrant offers no evidence for such. If that is inarguable, then it is likewise inarguable that declaring that the Bible contains errors is errant At least those who tout its errancy can point to items in the Bible that contradict each other, empirical observation, science, and common sense. We wait patiently for your evidence for a talking snake.
Here is a perfect example of modern textual criticism's inability to demonstrate the infallibility of scripture. In this 45 minute presentation, R.C. Sproul neglected to open the scriptures. The reason for this is evident, in that his view of the scriptures is tainted by what he teaches as "higher criticism". As R.C. stated in the beginning of this lecture, the confusion over the the doctrine of inerrancy is based largely on the conception of modern textual or "higher" criticism. In fact, the confusion in the church over which text of scripture to trust is based on the introduction of the corrupt Alexandrian manuscript tradition, on which almost every modern translation work was or is based. I will at this point read from the scriptures, using the only English text I know of that is capable of withstanding the highest criticism, and has in fact withstood the test of time (the KJV). As a brief disclaimer, I am not a KJVO believer, but I am a Byzantine/Traditional text believer. The same manuscript tradition on which all of the English texts prior to the KJV and including the NKJV were based. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 reads: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." The Apostle Paul states that all the graphe (the writings) are theopneustos (God breathed). If we can not be certain which writings he spoke of, how can we accurately defend the inerrancy of said writings? Yet we can be certain when we remain faithful to the writings that were handed down to us and miraculously preserved by the Almighty God who inspired them. King David himself spoke of God's promise to preserve his word: "The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12: 6-7 At this point, my argument becomes one based on faith. Yet this is the faith that is given to us by God; that faith which the Apostle speaks of in the book of Hebrews: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb. 11:1 Now if we as reformed thinkers, who confess that our faith is given to us by God, which faith we are to be governed by (2 Cor. 5:7), as opposed to the wisdom of man (1Cor. 2:5), how is it that we have been so easily led astray by the arguments against said faith, as taught by the school of modern textual criticism? Which school I will add, has so badly corrupted the text of scripture, that the faith of many has been derailed. I once walked by faith, trusting only one text of scripture, only to be introduced to textual criticism, and then led on a thirty year journey through textual critical studies. All of course predestined by God, for the purpose of ministering these truths to those who still listen by faith and see clearly, the truth that the scriptures are fully capable of defending the inerrancy thereof. If confusion is not of God (1Cor. 14:33), then it becomes evident that the enemy has planted this seed of confusion, thus making the inerrancy of scripture impossible to defend on the front lines, when using the modern critical approach. If we desire to defend the inerrancy of scripture, all we need to do is: "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine."
I love you Dr Sprol, but one must start from the Bible because one is not sufficient to do otherwise. The Bible gives witness to its authority. It matters not what the unbeliever posits. Those that argue against scripture, if they were to be correct that the Bible is not the word of God, then my response would be no one is listening, nor does anyone care, because their words have no meaning. Without God there is no meaning . Hang ones argument up and roll your rock up your hill or not it matters not.
There's so much wrong with the doctrine of inerrancy, right from the definition, to the application, to the internal and historical evidence. Inerrancy of scripture doesn't not exist
I REALLY hopes he defines inerrancy in this video. Half way through and he hasn't really stated what it is, which can mean many different things to different people. I suppose he knows this and is waiting till the end to drop the mic. I LOVE how he calls outs pure inerracny and compares it docetism. I agree 100%. I don't get his conclusion though... After refuting circular logic, he USES CIRCULAR LOGIC. Jesus is God because he says he God and if he's God and say the bible is true then it must be true? What? No. That's not how it works. And he doesn't reconcile the very actual issues that he raises about the OT. He also doesn't account for scripture that was written after Jesus' death which is ALL the new testament. This is a terrible argument. I mean no disrespect to the man, but he contradicts himself from his initial premise. We are literally left where we left off: The bible is "inerrant" because Jesus said it was, which takes faith, which isn't a logical argument which he says he tries to accomplish. He also left me incredibly confused about what he means by Biblical inerrancy. Because of the legitmate issues he brought up and never reconciles with Jesus being perfect/sinless is the bible perfect or not? Just the OT? Just the ones Jesus quoted? OT and NT but only the original manuscripts? I am left with more questions than what I started off with. In fact, this argument, based upon simple textual criticism hurt his argument/belief for Jesus being the perfect lamb of God for our sins. This was a passionate and intelligent sounding mess... And I say this with great regret at a time with my faith isn't doing too great.
Will Thorpe, I'm a doctrinal bible teacher. What I mean by that is I teach the teachings or DOCTRINES in GOD'S BREATHED WORDS. I just want you to be strong in THE FAITH. I used to be a jail Chaplin in a County in Texas and after just a few minutes discussing the way to be saved- by grace through faith- per the epistles in the New Testament where the way to be saved is given, I would actually teach scripture. Almost everyone who would attend claimed to be a beliver in Jesus as savior and Lord. Many claim to have believed after they were incarcerated, but the one thing they ALL had in common was that they did not KNOW scriptur and therefore, did not understand scripture. First, I do not agree with SPROUL on most things, because he was a CALVINIST. They do not believe one can think, say or do anything that is or runs contrary to God's will. I even have a refutation of CALVINISM on a website under the title of FREEWILL- The website is "atoolboxforthebodyofchrist.com". We teach believers to teach themselves doctrine, because there is very little teaching with any real depth presently, in the congregations (churches). We do not exhaust the doctrines we put on the website so the believers reading can study further on their own, we make a clear case with clear statements of scripture so as to instantiate the doctrine and establish a premise for further study. Your FAITH needs to be strengthened if you believe Jesus died for your sin and your knowledge and understanding is weak. GOD'S WORD DESCRIBES THESE TIMES and one of the problems in found in 2 Timothy 4:3. In the environs of Christianity people, some may be saved and some may not be, are gathering men to say what they desire to hear and in most cases by all accounts will not endure sound doctrine or teaching. Sproul, here, is not trying to teach on HOW TO defend the faith, he is simply giving his understanding about the, idea if you will, of defending the faith concerning the truthfulness and reliability of the WORDS OF GOD and if they are actually God's breathed words. 1 example about atheists claiming that the Bible- GREEK MANUSCRIPTS MORE SPECIFICALLY- is courrpted or totally courrpted, they ARE NEVER ABLE TO PUT SCRIPTURE IN CONTEXT, why do you think that is? 1 beginning point to argue for the SCRIPTURES is 1 Corinthians chapter 2, where, by the way, you can begin to strengthen your faith. The epistles teach that upon believing in Jesus, one is given the HOLY SPIRIT, see Ephesians 1:13-14; Galatians 3:2; Acts 10 the whole chapter. If a man does not have God's spirit in them they will not receive spiritual words(which atheists do not) and they cannot PERCEIVE spiritual words because they are discerned by the Holy Spirit. Atheists CANNOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OR WHY ANYTHING THAT IS TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, parables, miraculous SIGNS, etc.. They, like most believers anymore, cannot reconcile things like: in the gospels righteousness depends on works of the specified laws of Moses and repentance or turning back to God is to turn back to keeping the law so they can work to enter the kingdom when it is setup in the, at that time, near future when reading Daniel 9:24-27; compared to the EPISTLES teaching that righteousness is now from God by faith, not observing works, see Romans 1-8 (note chapters 2-5; 3:19-26). Most believers cannot reconcile these things. This is a very plain example of understanding inerrancy, men began making copies of the origional AUTOGRAPHS and although we do not possess the origionals, we possess copies to the 2nd century. We have a fragment of John from possibly the end of the 1st century, early 2nd century-p52, made of papyrus, which does not last, begins to decompose quickly in terms of centuries unless preserved in absolute dryness like being buried in sand or air conditioned vaults with dehumidifiers today. MANUSCRIPTS were also constantly, purposely destroyed by the Romans and later Islamic entities. There are internal and external (even non Christian sources quoted about biblical claims) proofs to be known for tenacity of and reliability of the GREEK NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS back to the beginning. About 40 different authors, not contradicting, each other, over a period of nearly 1600 years. Over 300 PROPHECIES fulfilled from the birth of Jesus til his being seated at the right hand of God. Most people cannot put cannot put scripture in context is a biggie. I hope this little bit of info will encourage you to look more into real defenses of the GOD BREATHED WORDS CALLED THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH. May God bless your efforts. You can propound us with questions at the website given any time you want if you so desire.
I think maybe its not a mes, what if God is calling you to explore his true nature as revealed through the Spirit. These teachers need to explain their position first before even getting to God therefore you need to look at God through their understanding which they struggle to articulate themselves.
Inerrancy is like a rubber boat. If you poke a hole in it anywhere on the boat, all the air goes out and the whole thing sinks. And there are many obvious errors, contradictions and fictions, and the text is corrupt. So do you just do what the faith movement does, and say, "Jesus healed me; those are just symptoms"?
Muslims are easy to spot. Most of the questions from you about Jesus are foolish and shows you don't know the message of Christ. Your allah calls him Isa yet his entire name means God's salvation. allah was a fool aka muhammed the pedophile. Chew on that abdul
You cannot rely on a Biblical proof of the Bible's inerrancy because, if the Bible were errant, how could one show that any part they 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.
Martin Luther said the Pope was not infallible. He was right and all Protestants agree with that. Now it is time to say the same thing about the Bible. God speaks to each person directly through his and her dreams and imagination and heart. No need for a Pope and no need for a book; any book. "The Knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven is Within you."
@@Justin-bc3qr Luke 17:20. But again, realize that the answers are within you first. Books can help but your answers come from within. You can use meditation for those answers. If you ignore the answers within and instead find different answers from another person or book, then you are going astray. It is just logical. In our history, most people didn't have access to the Bible nor could they read. Then there is the problem of translation and interpretation. It is a communication nightmare.
@@Justin-bc3qrYou are looking at God from the perspective of a limited thinking human being. Limited thinking human beings dwell in thoughts of hierarchical absolute power and issues of control and struggle. Think of God as an unconditionally loving father. No struggle. Look at the story of the Prodigal Son. In that story is the real nature of God. God has unconditional love for all creation. God allows free will unconditionally.
The LORD using that which is evil for good is not contradictory with his being wholly good. Permitting a lying spirit to lie is not the same as he lying himself.
@@iknowyourerightbut4986 The spirit is not evil. God commands the spirit to lie. Commanding someone to lie on your behalf is probably worse than lying yourself.
A H “Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you." - 1 Kings 22:23 The spirit is a ‘lying spirit’
Sam Smith Yes. It is. That doesn’t mean it is evil. And it’s irrelevant in any case, since God explicitly commands the spirit to lie. This deception is entirely a product of God’s active agency. He does not merely refrain from interfering and thereby permit something that is the result of other people’s choices. On account of his actions deception is affected. That’s falsehood. God is indeed capable of falsehood.
A correctly translated Bible (preferably one translated from the Latin Vulgate) will be inerrant on matthers of faith or morals. The Bible is not inerrant as a pure history or as a scientific manual. How do we know this? One reason and one reason only: our Holy Mother the Catholic Church infallibly declares that it is. If a person does not believe in the Catholic Church he has no reason to believe in the Bible.
Then how did the early church know what was scripture before the council of Trent (16thC), or the council of Carthage (4th C)? The evidence is clear that the first century church never had an official declaration from a Roman Catholic magistrate regarding its letters and the letters and gospels were treated as such.
@@vivianbaptistchurch This fact alone calls into question the whole religion of christianity. It also show the bible isn't inerrant because scripture says he is not the author of confusion.
Protestants, including evangelicals have no idea what they’re talking about with regard to this. They say that the Scriptures are without error and infallible. They also say that scripture alone can be trusted to be the truthful word of God and anything extra biblical must submit to the Scriptures themselves. The Scriptures themselves do not claim inerrancy or infallibility, therefore inerrancy of Scripture is an extra biblical doctrine.
Responding on the assumption that you are Catholic - if you are not, please disregard, as this answer isn't for you. "Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself." (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Second Vatican Council, 1965, Chapter III). If your objection is a Catholic one, then the Catholic Church itself maintains the basis for the inspiration of Scripture to be based in Scripture itself. Sure, it relies 'on the belief of the Apostles', but it does so by relying on their words from Scripture itself, not tradition. Any suggestion that Protestants alone seem to falsely claim something about the divine inspiration and infallibility of Scripture from Scripture itself seem to fall here.
Well, I am not convinced, but this argument is a challenge. Also: what about scripture written since the days of Jesus on Earth? I.e.: the entire New Testament. If Sproule's argument holds, it would only show infallibility for the Old Testament.
Except the disciples didn't write the gospels. And remembering what to say doesn't = writing. Especially since the gospels are written in greek, not Aramaic.
@@pinarellosq2868 This is a theological claim, not a historical one. Forcing text to line up with prophecy does not = fullfilled prophecy, unless you truly believe that Matt. was correct in saying that Jesus rode a cult and a donkey at the same time?
God bless you , you are trying hard to explain the non-explainable. That is even worse than the circular logic. This is against the God of logic given to us after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Example of the evil in the Bible is that God ordered Abraham to give his son Isaac at age of 27 according of the rabbi as sacrifice which is contrary to both the nature and the ordinance of u changeable God.
Inerrancy means incapable of being wrong. According to the Bible, the last words Jesus spoke before he died were: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ( Matthew & Mark) "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit." (Luke) "It is finished." (John 19:30) They can't all be correct, some of them are erroneous.
these questions can be answered simply by remembering two basic rules of interpretation. First, supplementation is not equivalent to a contradiction. For example, suppose you tell a friend about your trip to Disney World. You mention that you went to Magic Kingdom on Monday. Later, you state that you went to Hollywood Studios on Monday. Have you lied? Are these two contradictory statements? Not necessarily. It could be that you visited both Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios on the same day. Similarly, the seven statements the gospel writers recorded that Jesus made from the cross (including the three aforementioned statements-Matthew 27:46; Luke 23:46; John 19:30) all supplement one another. Nothing is said about Jesus making only one of these statements. What’s more, silence does not negate supplementation. Simply because John wrote that our suffering Savior said, “‘It is finished!’ And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit” (John 19:30), does not mean that Jesus could not also have said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit” after He had cried out, “It is finished,” and before His death (Luke 23:46). Nothing in John 19:30, Luke 23:46, or Matthew 27:46,50 is contradictory. We simply have three different statements that Jesus made at three different moments during His crucifixion. Second, when comparing two or more Bible passages, one must also remember to consider the sense in which a word or phrase is used. Scripture repeatedly testifies that Jesus was more than a mere man-He was God in the flesh (John 1:1,14,17; 9:38; 10:30,33; 20:28). But how could Jesus truthfully say, “My Father is greater than I,” if Jesus was really deity? Though Jesus was and is God, while on Earth Jesus willingly humbled Himself, taking the form of a suffering servant in order to save mankind from the consequences of sin. Jesus was not denying His deity in John 14:28; He was professing His submission to the Father while in human form. John 14:28 must be understood in light of what Paul wrote to the church at Philippi concerning Jesus’ self-limitation during His time on Earth. Christ, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [He “emptied Himself”-NASB], taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:6-8). While on Earth in the form of a man, Jesus was voluntarily in a subordinate position to the Father. Christ “emptied Himself” (Philippians 2:7; He “made Himself nothing”-NIV). Unlike Adam and Eve, who attempted to seize equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47), humbled Himself, and obediently accepted the role of a servant. Jesus’ earthly limitations (cf. Mark 13:32), however, “were not the consequence of a less-than-God nature; rather, they were the result of a self-imposed submission reflecting the exercise of His sovereign will” (Jackson, 1995, emp. added). While on Earth, Jesus assumed a position of complete subjection to the Father, and exercised His divine attributes only at the Father’s bidding (Wycliffe, 1985; cf. John 8:26,28-29). As A.H. Strong similarly commented, Jesus “resigned not the possession, nor yet entirely the use, but rather the independent exercise, of the divine attributes” (1907, p. 703).
@@aaron8229 "these questions can be answered simply by remembering two basic rules of interpretation." I am not interested in how someone may choose to interpret the Bible. I am going by what the Bible actually says. Interpretation is what gives us thousands of different sects of Christianity, each claiming to be the one true Christianity. The video is titled "defending the doctrine of inerrancy". Inerrant is defined as: Incapable of being wrong. www.lexico.com/definition/inerrant Are bats birds? No. The Bible calls them birds, the Bible is wrong & so is not inerrant. Do hares chew their cud? No. Only ruminants chew their cud, hares are not ruminants. The Bible says hares chew their cud, the Bible is wrong & so is not inerrant. The Bible says god tests people. the Bible also says god tests no one. Both claims cannot be correct. The Bible is wrong & so is not inerrant. The Bible says Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite. It also says he was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem bought from the sons of Hamor. Both claims cannot be correct. The Bible is wrong & so is not inerrant. There are numerous other errors in the Bible.
Well buddy, you said it yourself. You don’t care how people interpret the Bible. Therefore you’re not willing to actually look into what Christians believe based off of what they actually teach. You’re not willing to weigh anything based off of historic Christian theology or are you willing to understand the Bible at all. Best of luck to you bud!
Been in your shoes before! Hope all is well with you bud! Stay safe in this crazy world and during this corona pandemic. It was nice chattin with you. Have a good day!
@@aaron8229 " You don’t care how people interpret the Bible." That's right. And the reason is you can have 10 Christians,you can read a passage from the Bible to them,and you could get 10 different interpretations of what the passage means. Take the issue of slavery. Do you think it is moral to own another person as property? Yes or no? "Therefore you’re not willing to actually look into what Christians believe based off of what they actually teach. " Which of the thousands of sects of Christianity are you referring to? Do you think a Christian can fall to the floor and speak in tongues ? Do you think a Christian can safely handle venomous snakes? "You’re not willing to weigh anything based off of historic Christian theology" Historical Christian theology? The issue here is whether the Bible is inerrant or not. Since there are errors in the Bible, the issue is settled.
5 лет назад
The bible in its original collection of writings - - does not exist. You start with the premise you believe in something that does not exist. How could you go wrong? lol
@kevin. ok, that accomplished nothing. Let's begin with, how do you reconcile scripture that says how names are written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8) Those whose names are written in the book of life are those who will spend eternity with GOD in HIS kingdom. Other scriptures regarding book of life: Revelation 20:15 Revelation 21:22-27
If Calvanism is correct , then God created people to not be saved...therefore if I was not among Gods' chosen and I could never be saved then God is no longer just a Judge...He would be an unjust creator of people doomed to hell without a chance for salvation.
If you are a born again Christian and are sealed with the HOLY SPIRIT then be thankful but remember GOD is GOD and we are not. I point you to Psalms 115:3 Our GOD is in the heavens and HE does as HE wishes. I also remind you the many times when man questioned GOD such as Job and GOD'S response was something like "Who are you, o, man?" By your own words Kevin you are calling GOD an unjust creator and I do not believe GOD takes that lightly. I point you to Romans 9, and no it is not about Israel. Romans 9 addresses the individual and we are told very clearly that GOD chooses to whom HE will have compassion on and to whom HE will show mercy. HIS word then states in Romans 9:19, "Well then you might say, Why does GOD blame people for not responding? Haven't they simply done what HE makes them do? (the response) No, don't say that. WHO ARE YOU, a mere human being to argue with GOD........ You say Calvinism and I say the Biblical doctrine of Election, but it is the same and yes GOD did create the majority of mankind to be passed over for salvation yet scripture tells us that after hearing the GOOD NEWS and they do not respond they are responsible for rejecting CHRIST. Remember GOD is GOD and we are essentially made of dirt and there are things about this doctrine we are not privileged to and so it comes down to this, knowing this to be true about YAHWEH will you still put your faith and trust in HIS SON for the forgiveness of your sins or will knowing this about YAHWEH make you say, I would not want to serve a GOD like that.
In what way? Ezekiel is referring to Samaria and Israel delving in foreign religions rather than their God. President Trump has been all about protected the culture of the US from influence of foreigners. In that way, Trump seems quite the opposite.
@@jrstf In the inerrant (never wrong!) Word of God… it is Donald Trump who is “lusting after lovers”… he has “genitals (were) like those of donkeys and whose emission was (like) that of horses. We all know our Scripture and we all know what it means. Let the Word go out to all peoples and all nations, “This is not the Beast to lead us into Righteousness.” Blessed Be.
Why would anyone think the bible is inerrant, when as Maribel Franco points out below, we have no original manuscripts? 94% of the 5500 surviving manuscripts of the New Testament are dated from the 9th century and later. According to top New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, who learned to read and write Greek to be able to study the surviving manuscripts in their original language, there are more differences in the surviving manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.
tod beard The majority of those discrepancies are different ways to spelling a proper name or word, etc. There are some textual differences that are more significant but it's not the majority.
Elijah Smith, true, some discrepancies are just that but there are also contradictions, one of many are the 2 different stories of the Jesus infancy narratives in Luke 2 and Matthew 2. In Luke, the holy family resides in Nazareth(in Galilee), they travel to Judea, a 3 day journey for a census, Jesus is born in Bethlehem(in Judea) , they do the Rites of Purification for Mary and 42 days later they return to Nazareth. Matthew has the holy family residing in Judea, Jesus is born in Bethlehem, after the Magi leave, an angel informs Joseph that Jesus in in danger through a dream, in the middle of the night they flee Judea by going to Egypt because Herod is killing all the newborns. They don't leave Egypt until Herod dies. Then Matthew has the holy family leaving Egypt and heading to their home in Judea until they get the word that Herod's son Archelaus, is ruling Judea so they withdrew to Galilee and settle in Nazareth for the first time, it seems. There are a few problems with these 2 narratives. First, Joseph wouldn't have been involved in a census in Judea because Galilee was a silent kingdom at the time meaning Rome didn't administer or directly tax Galilee. The bible claims they had to go to Judea for the census because people were to return to the home of their ancestors 1000 years prior. This is bogus because Rome had no record of this and they were very good record keepers. Rome didn't care where people's ancestors were from because censuses were for tax purposes. It was a way for the author of Luke to get Jesus born in Judea to fulfill prophecy but a very unimpressive one if anyone did any investigation of this. The only census done around that time frame was the Census of Quirinius in 6 AD, which you can google. Jesus would have been at least 10 yrs old because he would've had to have been born before 4 BC because that's when Herod died. No mention of Herod in Luke and no mention of a census in Matthew which is strange. There's no way both can be historically accurate and it's more likely neither happened.
These are good points, and I confess I am no expert on textual analysis. The only thing I might say is that I can recommend some good books that have satisfied me when it came to these questions. I realized that it if I wanted reasons to doubt I could always find some. But after having lived out the Bible by God's grace in my own life. I know that it's true for this and many other reasons as well. The question you need to answer though (I assume your a Christian it was hard to tell from the comments not to be mean) but if the Bible isn't true. Then how do we know anything about Jesus, or say He is true.
Elijah Smith, I'm a former Christian and after 5 years of studying, researching the bible and finding many flaws and contradictions, I am no longer a believer. The bible endorses slavery. Leviticus 25:44-46 tells you to buy your slaves from the nations around you, they're property for life and you can bequeath them to your children as inheritance. Exodus 21:20-21 tells you how bad you can beat a slave. As long as they recover in a couple of days, the owner isn't punished because the slave is his property. The New Testament isn't much better because 1 Peter 2:18 tells slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones. I love it when Christian apologists try to tell me I'm taking it out of context.I ask them in what context is it good to own another human being? They usually don't respond. There are contradictions from the birth narratives, the crucifixion and all the way to the resurrection narratives. The key to finding discrepancies is to compare the same stories of the different gospels side by side. In the crucifixion narratives, in Mark, both thieves crucified next to Jesus mock him, in Luke only one mocks him and the other comes to his defense. In Mark, Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus' cross, In John, Jesus carries his own cross. In the resurrection narratives, in Luke , Jesus first appears to his disciples after the resurrection in Jerusalem, In Matthew it's Galilee. There's no way the gospels are historically accurate because they all contradict each other in many stories.
tod beard Oh okay, thank you for clearing that up, though it pains me that you have abandoned the faith. You are right that in the Law it provides regulations for slavery. An institution so common at that time that very little, it was imagined, could get done without it. I understand this with the principle given by the Lord in Matthew 19:8, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." In the same way I would say that slavery is like this. God never wanted nor intended humans to own each other, but the fact is that through our sinfulness we thought it justifiable to own each other. Many Jews and probably Christians were hard in heart, moreover slavery is regulated in such a way in the Law to protect the slaves. It approaches it as a negative to be sure, but it helps protect the people and their worth. While maintaing a unfortunately necessary economic component. Moses was being used by God to deliver the Law of God, but it also had parts for the sake of the physical state of Israel. It would be like God asking us to give up our cars, it would be too much change too fast. Now, in the New Testament Paul advocates for freeing the slaves, see Philemon, but again he cannot force people to free them. The Bible in whole is very much against slavery and any oppression of humans. William Wilberforce is a wonderful example of this lived out. As for the gospels. Each gospel, as I am sure you know, has a particular audience and people in mind. The way ancient writers wrote was more in a way of themes then our modern historical accounts. Not to say that Luke didn't do a very good job from a historical standpoint. But certain parts are mentioned and ommited at times based on the author's purpose. Now, I again am no expert. The birth narratives have challenged me recently but I am confident of a reasonable explanation for why this is. Because the rest of the Bible has proven itself to me.
Overall this was a rambling and unfocused talk. He decries circular reasoning and yet most of this talk was EXACTLY that and yet he STILL fails. Jesus 13:13 hahahaha Luke/Acts was repeatedly wrong when speaking about Paul's background according to Paul himself in his letters. 40:40 Jesus misquoted the Hebrew Bible SEVERAL times see Mark 11:17; 13:24-25; 14:62. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not making a claim for itself or the New Testament which of course did not exist at the time of its writing. Here is the text 2 Timothy 3:16-17 16All scripture is inspired by God and is* useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. * footnote Or Every scripture inspired by God is also. this verse is often taken out of context to make the claim to include the New Testament. The preceding two verses provide the needed context " 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." Paul is talking specifically to Timothy about Timothy's own experience and the scriptures that Timothy would be familiar with at the time which would be the 1st century AD and before any of the Gospels we rely on would have been in wide circulation. Paul clearly is not including his OWN letter in this category. He is talking about the Hebrew Bible. Paul does not employ the word "inerrant" or "infallible" he employs the word "useful" and he further circumscribes WHAT it is useful for. The scripture that most people read today in protestan America was not available until Gutenberg's bible at the earliest. Before that the compilation occured after 300 AD. So were there no right thinking believers from 40 AD to 300 AD or 1455 AD? Did not Jesus send us the Holy Spirit? Are we not called to discern for ourselves? Of course we are.
The Bible claims that God is perfect yet Christians expect us to believe that God would not preserve one original copy in the original languges? That defies basic logic and basic common sense. There is no original copy of the original Bible in the original language so there is no way to know 100% for sure. There have been theological debates for thousands of years since the beginning of the church. There is no one way to God, the Scriptures and the Christians disagree about how you get to God a perfect God would not allow such a incoherent message to determine whether or not somebody went to hell for eternity. That would be unjust and it makes no sense. Also the Bible God claims that everything he does is perfect and his system for building his temple, for writing his word was also 100% supposed to be accurate by him and yet Christians would have us believe that somehow he decided to scrap the whole thing and just let a bunch of Christians argue about which manuscripts are the true word of God which are not. I believe that Jesus taught you can go to heaven by doing good works Matthew 25:31-46. And that you can show your faith by your works, Christians believe that they are saved by grace which means that they continue to have no good works since the only people that don't do good works are the people who believe in grace because they are evil Christians want to continue to be evil greedy and selfish and you still go to heaven and not do anything but sit there butts in church on Sunday I have observed with this with my own eyes, so I don't believe and I don't know who is the final authority to say whether or not this is right or wrong but I believe it's consistent with God's word, I don't accept the teachings of grace because I don't believe that Jesus taught grace is most Christians understand it and since there is no final authority And since God shed and could tell us what to do audibly from heaven, this is the problem with debates about Scripture is there is no final authority in every Christian claims he's the final authority every Christian claims that his version of the truth is the right version but when you have Christians are not God and they don't have a 100% pure interpretation of the Bible therefore this is why we can never understand what the Bible wants us to do I also believe that Jesus said if you love your neighbor as yourself that is fulfilling the Bible yet 99% of Christians don't love their neighbor as yourself because they are money lovers and love money more than anything, the Bible calls them idle worshipers money is there idle money is the God And Christians think they love God because everything is going well for them and they have lots of money
Maribel Franco.. wow?? really?? Its pathetic that you would impune your Creator as being so incapable of preserving His concise Revelation down through time.. when i doubt you have ever taken the time to study what we do know as the Cannon.. That He (the Infinite Being)would be incapable of communicating to you (the finite becoming) to your mind, and your heart and your will is ludicrous.. Just admit to your conscience you don't want to have anything to do with Him and move on to eating and drinking..for tomorrow you will die.. I am sure you can tell Him all this at your court date.. see you soon
Maribel Franco If there is not final authority then nothing of what you stated should be taken seriously. You are using a circular argument in which your major premise undercuts your arguments that what you say is true.
We do. The KJB is perfect and without error. Every single word is from God himself, and in the Bible. All the new versions are counterfeits, which is why they all say different things and people keep needing to "go back to the original" (none of which we have). The KJB is perfect and preserved with majesty, it's the only place where every word is God breathed. I love me some RC Sproul, but the majority of reformed theologians don't have this right. I wish they did, b/c i love em.
Only man would edit all the seemingly incongruous details and contradictions out of the established Holy Book ... but the True and Living Creator and Breather of the Writings Architected His work over 1500 years through 40 different authors and diffused the critics by leaving a perfect library of 66 editions of the same story.. mostly written about future events not yet happened with 100% accuracy.. the and topics like salvation by grace through faith and sanctification and glorification of the elect.. heavens reality and hells truth by weaving them intrinsically without contradiction throughout every Book so that creeps like you can't argue the reality of its Writer or its topics for relationship.. very simple actually.. The simple predictions just concerning the actual historical person of Jesus Christ (numbering approx 330) and its mathematical probabilities make it impossible to deny to any true objective or subjective investigator proving the collections Author.. C'mon man.. Merry Christ-mas
Just regarding your comment on Mathew 25, going to heaven by works, I would like to clarify. Salvation IS by faith ALONE, through Christ alone. If anyone believes that they had a part in their salvation, they are stealing the glory of god. As far as the works, I’m with you partially, as I believe Faith leads to good works. If I was to claim faith in Christ but my actions or lack of action did not mirror that you would have to question my faith. Christianity is an action based life. Christ taught us not what to remember, but what to do. Love God, and love your neighbors, if your neighbor is hungry praying for him is great, but feeding him is better. Faith should lead us to action.
@ He CAN recite every single word since while his body died in 2017 the soul exists beyond the grave and therefore he is conscious, so on this basis your wrong! He is alive! He is in the transcendent realm where God exists. You too will be conscious beyond the grave i hope with christ and not the devil in eternal blackness.
@ can you prove your assertion with scientifically peer reviewed experiment? i didnt think so. so if you are going to assert something by faith ie, souls are a fiction then you better prove your assertion, since if you assert a truth without proof then you are just practicing religion...i'll wait for proof for your assertion by your own criteria for asserting truth.
