The sequence: jesus is born in bethlem. The whole family goes to Jerusalem. Then they return to nazaret. Then the astrologers pay a visit to him. Then the whole family runs to egypt...mt says that the astrologers go see Jesus after he was born already, it could well be they went there after the whole family already visited Jerusalem. Then the two accounts wouldn't contradict each other right? Just focusing on different aspects
Could you make a definition video and with what your definition of innerancy means and doesn't mean, what can and cant happen in the Bible (like can errors or cant errors happen in it and other examples) under it.
@@MikeLiconaOfficial if God gives me more time il make sure il read it. God has blessed you brother (we forget to be thankfull), youre doing a great job.
Skeptics don’t presume harmonization. It’s plausible that Luke knew about the pilgrimage to Egypt where Jesus was a refuge. It’s also plausible that he did not know about it or believe it happened. There is not a specific reason to think that Mark knew about or believed in the virgin birth or at the very least the nativity story that we have. It’s not that skeptical scholars are trying to attack the Bible. When it comes to historicity of these events there are plausibility apologetics to defend them, but there is not available data that makes it specifically likely.
Good question, Mike. There are lots of things about and in Scripture that are not provable. For example, we cannot "prove" that Jesus' death atones for sin. However, that is not to say that we cannot present arguments that render it reasonable to believe Jesus' death atones for sin.
@@MikeLiconaOfficial There are matters of fact, and there are matters of opinion (belief). Of course we cannot prove matters of opinion. But we should be able to prove matters of fact. I think you made that point in your discourse. You said something like Scripture was inerrant in all it's teaching about faith, IIRC. I can't argue with that. But the blanket statement that all Scripture was inerrant include matters of fact, which I think are beyond our ability to actually prove. So whether about fact or faith, we cannot prove that the Bible is literally inerrant. Anyway, I appreciate your work. I always get something out of your videos. Your discussion with Frank convinced me to buy your book. I look forward to reading it. Thanks.
Almost all of Licona's "reasoning" appears replete with the logical fallacies of false equivalence and equivocation. Add too a good dose of argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority, appeal to ridicule, personal incredulity - to mention a few. How can anyone with any decent education not be aware of these?
Mike continues to say things that are VERY disturbing. Everyone one of those examples he gives have good explanations for them. The "discrepancy'" in Samuel has been dealt with and it was a scribal error where the word "brother" was left out. The example of Chronicles and the numbers are easily explained as well. And here's the thing. Mike is quick to often say "the majority of scholars say..." Well, why doesn't he say the same when it comes to what scholars say about these so-called discrepancies/errors? And to say that we can't say that only the errors occurred where there are parallel texts is fallacious. Mike can't say they isn't true either. The problem is that Mike seems to be literally striving to claim that Scripture can't be trusted. I'm left wondering if Mike has ever looked into Textual Criticism at all? I'm NOT even close to being an expert in the field but I have listened to those who are and they make a LOT of sense. I'd LOVE to see a debate between Mike and someone who is an expert in Textual Criticism that can actually address the Textual Variants based on manuscript evidence.
You clearly don't know much about Dr Licona if these are your takes. 1. Mike is engaging in textual criticism in all of his work - just because you (or anyone more qualified than you) may disagree with his conclusions doesn't invalidate his knowledge of the critical textual method. The reverse is also true, we can disagree with a scholar like Bart Ehrman but there's no denying he is an excellent textual scholar who applies the methods well. 2. Speaking of Bart Ehrman, Bart and Mike have had debates in the past (I believe the most recent was from a couple of years ago) which are available on RU-vid to listen to if you want
