About the cosmology, go to Reasons to Believe with Hugh Ross and you can appreciate Genesis and understand that it is correct. For starters, Genesis was translated from the Hebrew so we need to understand how the text was translated and the misunderstandings that came about because of these translations. So Genesis is correct when understood correctly.
I have come to see there is a difference between the external culture that influenced the mode of or expressions of the revealed truth and the truth/ideation behind or imbeded in those expression. The ancient languages were purer languages because they used naturally occurring images to codify spiritual or intellectual ideations. An inspiration would have to be Yah allowing an individual to have insights into things he never saw before. This awakening may cause him to express himself in a fresh way. Both the TRUTH and the MEANS by which that truth is encapsulated and conveyed are inspired. It is best to stick with the original expression if one wants fresher insights.
@@larryjohnston5523 know your place, you will never be smarter than God, but humans LOVE to think they know better than God. Pride, arrogance, ego, the things that make so called bible experts to err. They think they can change the text, change meanings, change doctrines, change the gospel, etc. Bible experts do more harm than good, because they deviate from the knowledge of God in the scriptures and impose their own human flawed logic on top of it to fix what wasn't broken. And i include Michel Hiser in that group. Mr. Michael "All doesn't mean all in the bible" Hiser. Mr. "The flood was local and not global". Mr. " preadamic races existes before Adam". Mr."trust me to understand what the bible really says". All bible "scholars" are the same. Deceived people deceiving others.
@@jaredyoung5353 i dont think the original comment was to slander knowledge / science. we as christians think science is amazing, but often it gets weaponised to continually slander the idea of God and the bible. It’s one thing to discover things in science - all christians would support this, however its another thing to use science in an antagonist way to continually put down people who believe in God as “anti-intellectual” and “irrational”. Consistently as christians we’re told we’re being stupid and illogical for believing in a God, and that science disproves God. Why not have both? The two should be working in harmony. It’s not only christians who might further the tension between religion and science, but it’s also largely some anti-theist scientists that continually tell us we’re stupid for believing. I am all for science! But I don’t think it should be used as a weapon to disprove the bible, especially since the bible isn’t meant to be a scientific textbook, that’s why the original commenter said the increase in knowledge only made humans deceitful in their arguments. He said ‘arguments’ NOT science, so im not sure why you’re trying to portray the original comment as anti-science when he said absolutely nothing of the sort.
I have benefited tremendously from Michael Heiser’s insights but with respect to cosmology, I think he’s tripping up on one of his own operating principles-“I’m not going to protect you from Scripture.” I would ask Michael: at what point does it become intolerable to ignore, with a wink and a nod, a (supposedly) factually incorrect statement? For example, Joshua 10 basically doubles down on the sun stopping it’s motion (rather than the earth its rotation). There is such specificity in the passage-are there other examples in Scripture of specificity that are also considered factually inccorrect? If so, at what point does the authority of Scripture unravel? I fully understand Michael’s argument with respect to current context-based understandings but I think it’s all too easy to incorrectly apply the wink and the nod. IOW, the matter-of-fact statements of specificity that we may find uncomfortable are proved again and again as accurate, and precise.
It's true, it also opens the door to progressive ideas of God (the idea that God is learning alongside us). But at the same time, I do see that Michael Heiser is also stating that the Bible is not a science book. The approach he takes to these scientifically inaccurate statements is that it has no effect on its purpose. Whether or not the science is true is irrelevant because at that time and in that culture it was potentially the standard idea of cosmology. I wonder if the science was perfectly congruent to our modern understanding if it would trip up the readers of that day. The goal is not to have perfect accuracy on scientific concepts, it was and is to convey spiritual truths and movements of God within the human narrative. Again as Heiser asserts, the fact that he allows scientific inaccuracies is proof that it worth correcting. What is consistently corrected throughout scripture is man's idea of God and God's relationship to man. The narrative tells humans of their place in the cosmos. Science has nothing to do with that, it goes into the realm of philosophy and it is logically coherent. My biggest problem with Heiser is what distinguishes the Christian narrative as different from other narratives? If coherence is the main sign of validity, how can he justify Christianity over another religion that is coherent? I guess the way I'd answer that is by the person of Jesus, I'd also spill into the minimal facts method of the resurrection (by Gary Habermas). Jesus is unique because there is good reason to believe in the resurrection. I think the Paul knew that, "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty" (1 Cor. 15:14). Up until Christ, the religions of the world were perhaps not as set apart as they were after Christ.
I'm happy to let the Bible be what it is. I don't need to learn cosmology or physics from the Bible. Given then that God allowed the authors to include "mistakes," how are we to know which parts are human peculiarities, and which parts are eternal truth? If we have no need to consider Genesis to be truth, then why should we consider the Gospels true?
Michael, if you accept that scientific inaccuracies in the Bible are the result of human authors speaking from their own historical context and God not correcting them (with which I agree), do you also entertain the possibility that the same thing is true of things they said about the soul, the nature of salvation, the afterlife, demons, etc.? I find this to be a distinct possibility. If you don't, how do you decide where to draw the line in applying this principle? The Bible's presentation of the soul, for example, comes from a period in history when people had no idea what the brain is, what it does or how.
I'm not MH but have you been to his website? This is en excellent question. I would suggest that the writers in the NT had one on one contact with Jesus about right and wrong. Many of the OT writers had that 1 on 2 contact w God about his will. Therefor they understood God will/Right vs Wrong. What God never did was talk about Science with the writers and that (science) is what MH talking about. The writer many of them knew God will perfectly but had no exposure to science.
I wonder the same thing. Is it possible that writers of the scripture had some of their theology wrong? Those who had contact with Christ certainly weren’t transformed into people who had an advanced knowledge of the universe. The early church and church fathers highlight this point all the more. That said, for me it hinges on the resurrection. If the resurrection is true then who Christ said he was is true. Paul is not my savior. My salvation is not contingent on what Paul wrote and Paul’s theology (as an example), it’s based on what Christ did.
actuary 1776 The only disagreement I have with Paul is that I understand he was waiting for the Lord in his life time. Although he sets clear indications as to when this was going to happen, “the falling away comes first and the son of perdition is revealed “ as far as his doctrine, he is very accurate in his teachings, although we have to read and think a lot to understand him correctly.
Genesis is accurate in its sequence, there are some metaphors but there are also real accounts since Jesus confirmed that when he spoke about Adan and Eve . We cannot shoe horn what we know about the universe and its beginnings into Genesis without having a new understanding of the days of Genesis. The original language of Genesis is Hebrew, the days of Genesis have to be long periods of time, and the accounts have to be understood based on the point of reference of where things are developing. See Dr Hugh Ross, he explains the Genesis sequence very clearly and this allow us to see that the account of Genesis is correct as written.
fcastellanos57 I’ll be completely honest I’m not 100% sure anymore. I believe Paul believed Christ is Lord and that is the most important part. Take marriage and sexual sin for example. Paul believed as you say that the lords return was imminent. Better to not marry and serve the Lord. From our perspective this isn’t the best advice. The Lord created marriage and procreation and told us to populate the earth. Paul’s views in eschatology had a significant impact on non eschatological topics, such as this. Paul is simply a man, an important man no doubt, but I don’t hold Paul to inerrancy.
I think of it as simple as the Bible can use hyperbole and figures of speech. When I am looking at Saturn through a telescope, I will say "it moved" when I can no longer see it. The book of Joshua is not making a statement about the sun's relation to the earth. However, Job 26:7 seems to make a statement about the earth and its correct. "He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing".
I take inerrancy to mean functional. The bible says exactly what God wants to for the task of accomplishing salvation for the maximal amount of people. For the rest God can deal with a personally. Like he did with me or a Muslim through a dream ect.
There's some good stuff here!!! BTW, I heard somewhere that you always appeal to a higher authority, therefore by appealing to science, we are putting science above God's word. If God could make Adam a middle aged man at the beginning, why couldn't he create a middle aged universe at the beginning??
Probably the three biggest problems with reading the Bible for the fervent is 1) treating every word and every line as equal to every other word and line. hierarchy runs through the Bible, David is not equal to God. It's really God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit that you should pay attention to firstly, everything being said and done is under them. 2) never having actually read through the entire Bible, many people just pluck verses, read devotionals and listen to positive preaching. 3) not having a good translation, translators are not perfect people, they blend away critical details, and remove or change the structure of the section(s). Avoid 'white bread' translations, strict, literal( accuracy over elegance) sorts of translation are better. Unfortunately i have no total confidence in any translation at this time, so comparative study tools are unavoidable. i currently mostly use the ESV and YLT BIbles. The ESV uses some newer data and is very readable, the YLT uses the traditional texts and is a serious literal translation, making it good for referencing but hard to read at length.
The problem with inarrancy is that the general public doesn't know what it "is not".....i.e.....inarrancy can't possibly mean "no errors in scripture " because the reality is that there are many errors in scripture ......I read scripture constantly , And there are simply textual error in the Bible ...and this means all Bibles ... And this is the stance that people present " no errors ", which is not true ....so that being said , if inarrancy is a real thing it doesn't mean the absence of errors .
There are no errors in the textus receptus, a.k.a. the bible. I can see how you believe there are errors if you trust deceivers that have been trying to destroy the word of God since the counter reformation happened, but that's the point, is all a lie that started in Rome with the jesuits. There's a reason why this guys have been promoting codex sinaiticus, vaticanus and other forgeries for 200+ years, as the occultist Manley Palmer Hall said, they want to change the bible. How easy it is to make people lose their faith in what God says, it amazes me. A guy with PHD after his name says something and people just believe it no matter what, "oh no, this line is wrong"," this is just metaphor","the author of this book is not the same as the one in this other book because it looks different to me","this forgery manuscript is better than the one that has been producing good fruit of salvation for more than a thousand years so let's change the text", etc.
Don't you think the ten commandments were around day 1? Considering they are principles of God's character. And He doesn't change. Those principles were made a part of the image. Therefore imprinted into Adam. Codified at Sinai when he called out a people. After the fall and to bring forth the bloodline of the Hope of Nation's. The Desire of Ages.
Very interesting point! Thank you. God incarnate reiterated it, pointing us to them..."If you love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15 JesusWordsOnly.com Enjoy!
@EmptyDisc I must have been drinking when I posted that. I never corrected any of my four children. I just let them do as they pleased then yelled at them for doing it. It was fun!
How can people even be serious in calling the sun rising as an error? Like for real, you must be really searching to find anything to discredit the bible so you have a reason to not believe and keep living in your dirty sin
It seems to me that even if the original text was inerrant in all aspects, it is beyond debate that our translations are full of errors. Every human being that has ever been saved by God as a result of reading and of these aforementioned text has thier full dependence upon Him and His Spirit.
If I was god, and I wanted to communicate to people in a failsafe way, I think I would use another method than “inspiring” a bunch of ancient Israelites to write some parchments and some other scribes to put them all together. I mean, if you use your imagination (pretend you’re an all powerful god), a book is probably the least effective way to communicate with humanity, and there are many better ways to do this that aren’t as open to interpretation/misinterpretation.
You can look at it that way, or you can see that whether or not the parchment was there, it doesn't affect the existence of God or his actions in relation to human interaction. The bible is not why Christianity exists, it is the reality of Jesus' death and resurrection (check out the minimal facts method by Gary Habermas on why the resurrection is historically verifiable). The parchment is the human's retrieval of what events transpired. Most of it was oral tradition until it was eventually written down. According to Heiser, those written parchments met the criteria of accuracy to depict who God is, his character, and the human narrative. There are better ways to prove your existence, but instead, God chose to include the variable of human faith to communicate his attributes and who he is. I think its best not to think of God as an old man in the sky, its that caricature that God avoided by not showing his "face." He has revealed a specific part of himself for a specific purpose. Also, its quite naive to think we can take in all that God is by our senses or by a parchment. A God that small is not one I'd believe is relevant and it wouldn't match up with the vastness of what our reality is. We really are in the dark as humans, this whole thing is way too big.
so what are the alternatives? do you expect God to drop down a video tape from heaven to ancient Israelites with no concept of electricity or technology? Do you expect God to tattoo his words on their foreheads so it stays with them forever? Listen to yourself here. The point of the bible being amazing is that it transcends time and culture, and this is best achieved through a book that was written thousands of years ago that we can still read today. Any other method may have meant that the bible would not have lasted long and certainly would not have been able to be used by people in the future.
@@elanordeal2457 You lack imagination. God spoke directly to the people of Israel. He could just continue doing that. Or, if he wants some special tome, it could be a “tesseract”-like object that is clearly supernatural in nature that gives a clearly supernatural message everyone hears or reads in their own tongue - no human authors involved! You might say these are silly ideas but an all powerful god COULD do something like this and according to scripture (written by men), he used to. Cut out the middleMAN. I don’t want to hear from people claiming to speak for God. I want to hear from God.
@@ChadbourneZitek but God always spoke through a middleman - Moses, Abraham, the prophets etc, so idk what you’re on about. You’re not creating a picture of a God with your suggestions, you’re creating a supernatural alien that has no desire to interact with humans authentically, but instead should use alien-like magic to make himself known. Part of the awesomeness of God is that he meets us where we’re at, not create a crazy boundary that makes it hard to know Him. In all your hypothesising of what God can and cannot do, you’re creating an unfavourable picture of a distant God who doesn’t care. Part of the importance of christianity is that our God is *relational* and not just some mystery alien-like entity in the sky. In fact, I’d say the fact that God could become a man and live among us to bring others to get to know Him is infinitely better than a magical tesseract that proves God exists.
@@elanordeal2457 God always spoke through a middleman? Why is that? You’re wrong if you’re talking scripturally though - Deut 4:12 says that ALL the people heard God’s voice on Sinai. So why couldn’t God do that…all the time? Why does God need middlemen? Humans no better than you or I to claim to speak for god? You say that I’m painting a picture of a distant God. It bothers you so you lash out with what you “know” (from the Bible, which is again, written by men). But this is my point. Writing a BOOK and using HUMANS to communicate a message of such divine importance that it risks eternal torture for rejecting it - that is an incredibly unimaginative and ill-conceived system for a god to set up. There is no way to demonstrate that some book is inspired. There is no quality of “inspiration” that can be analyzed. All we have are books written by men, compiled by other men, and claimed by other men to be inspired by God.
Why do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God? Were you told that by an authority figure? Do you believe it because there are verses in the Bible that say it is so? Can you point to a Bible verse that could not have been written by a man without divine inspiration?
I kinda like this more laize fare idea of God having bible writers have liberties with their words. And God just "okaying" the bare minimum of what he needed to get across. Meaning no emphasis on science, history... etc. Its a book about spiritual truths. Mainly the true way you can get right with God and be saved from ur sins. Emphatically pointed to in the gospels as surrendering to Jesus christ. Luke: "this is an orderly account of Jesus Christ's mission and ministry..." God: 🍻"Good enough." John: "The word became flesh.." God: 👍"aight " Mark: "something something and something... furthermore Jesus Christ." God: ☕ 👌 "nice effort" Matthew: "THIS and THIS and then THIS- now come hither to JESUS CHRIST..." God:👏👏 "decent." XDDD
I believe that God is the Primary Author of all parts of Scripture All the parts of all the books are entirely human works, composed in the same ways as other human works, by the human authors all Scripture, every part of it, is God-breathed Christ is the Chief Subject of Scripture the truth of the various parts, though equally true in actuality, is of different kinds - some truth is moral, some truth is historical, and so on. the books and their parts are of different literary types: letters, legends, gospels, apocalyptic, proverbs, laments, laws, satire, humour, prophecy, and many other kinds of literature. But I don’t believe in the total inerrancy of the Bible. I see nothing in the Bible to encourage the idea, and no analogy in the Self-Revelation of God in Christ to support it. On the contrary, since the Wisdom and Power of God are revealed in the weakness of the Cross, and not in what man reckons to be power and wisdom, and since Christ is the Supreme Revelation of the Father, I would expect the Wisdom & Power of God to be shown in the Bible, not by inerrancy, but by the Holy Spirit working by means of the fallibility of men. The idea of Total Biblical Inerrancy looks like a relic of what Luther rejected as a “theology of glory”.
At last, an honest view, the scriptures AKA the old/new testament are no more, no less, than numerous other sacred scriptures i.e The Vedas, Taoist, Egyptian, Maya, etc.
@@rocketmanshawn Coincidentally, the same &/or similar claims are made by believers in & of 'their' spiritual systems. The claim of divine inspiration & divine authority is repeatedly made by the Roman pontiffs and they can no more prove it or demonstrate it than those that make the same claim for scripture or any other sacred texts. I have a keen interest in such texts & that has led me hither & thither for the opportunity to study &, God willing, learn a great deal! Including curious animals
@@rocketmanshawn that's right, Jesus Christ through His life, death and ressurection proved that Word of God (Bible) is the true Word of God, and, consequently, proved all other sacred scriptures that op mentioned as false
Dr. Heiser, once again, clears the subject up. Thank you.
So very well explained; pure and simple. Thanks for posting Michael 🙌
I love this man!
Dr Hugh Ross has lots to say about the science in the Bible. There is an interview with him on YT. Lots of valuable information.
About the cosmology, go to Reasons to Believe with Hugh Ross and you can appreciate Genesis and understand that it is correct. For starters, Genesis was translated from the Hebrew so we need to understand how the text was translated and the misunderstandings that came about because of these translations. So Genesis is correct when understood correctly.
Love it! Thanks for sharing!
Thank you very much for your deep thoughts. I really appreciate your work!
Agree, like He said heaven and earth will pass away, but my word will by no means pass away.
I have come to see there is a difference between the external culture that influenced the mode of or expressions of the revealed truth and the truth/ideation behind or imbeded in those expression. The ancient languages were purer languages because they used naturally occurring images to codify spiritual or intellectual ideations. An inspiration would have to be Yah allowing an individual to have insights into things he never saw before. This awakening may cause him to express himself in a fresh way. Both the TRUTH and the MEANS by which that truth is encapsulated and conveyed are inspired. It is best to stick with the original expression if one wants fresher insights.
"The bible was Organically Inspired" - Paul Vanderklay
The increase in knowledge only made the human hearts deceitful in their arguments.
Stay stupid because that's what God wants?
There is a weird ignorance in Christianity that's elevated as a quality.
@@jaredyoung5353 I couldn't have said it better! Thank you!
@@larryjohnston5523 know your place, you will never be smarter than God, but humans LOVE to think they know better than God. Pride, arrogance, ego, the things that make so called bible experts to err. They think they can change the text, change meanings, change doctrines, change the gospel, etc. Bible experts do more harm than good, because they deviate from the knowledge of God in the scriptures and impose their own human flawed logic on top of it to fix what wasn't broken.
And i include Michel Hiser in that group. Mr. Michael "All doesn't mean all in the bible" Hiser. Mr. "The flood was local and not global". Mr. " preadamic races existes before Adam". Mr."trust me to understand what the bible really says".
All bible "scholars" are the same. Deceived people deceiving others.
@@jaredyoung5353 i dont think the original comment was to slander knowledge / science. we as christians think science is amazing, but often it gets weaponised to continually slander the idea of God and the bible. It’s one thing to discover things in science - all christians would support this, however its another thing to use science in an antagonist way to continually put down people who believe in God as “anti-intellectual” and “irrational”. Consistently as christians we’re told we’re being stupid and illogical for believing in a God, and that science disproves God. Why not have both? The two should be working in harmony. It’s not only christians who might further the tension between religion and science, but it’s also largely some anti-theist scientists that continually tell us we’re stupid for believing.
I am all for science! But I don’t think it should be used as a weapon to disprove the bible, especially since the bible isn’t meant to be a scientific textbook, that’s why the original commenter said the increase in knowledge only made humans deceitful in their arguments. He said ‘arguments’ NOT science, so im not sure why you’re trying to portray the original comment as anti-science when he said absolutely nothing of the sort.
I love him
20:17 had me rolling LOL
I have benefited tremendously from Michael Heiser’s insights but with respect to cosmology, I think he’s tripping up on one of his own operating principles-“I’m not going to protect you from Scripture.” I would ask Michael: at what point does it become intolerable to ignore, with a wink and a nod, a (supposedly) factually incorrect statement? For example, Joshua 10 basically doubles down on the sun stopping it’s motion (rather than the earth its rotation). There is such specificity in the passage-are there other examples in Scripture of specificity that are also considered factually inccorrect? If so, at what point does the authority of Scripture unravel? I fully understand Michael’s argument with respect to current context-based understandings but I think it’s all too easy to incorrectly apply the wink and the nod. IOW, the matter-of-fact statements of specificity that we may find uncomfortable are proved again and again as accurate, and precise.
It's true, it also opens the door to progressive ideas of God (the idea that God is learning alongside us). But at the same time, I do see that Michael Heiser is also stating that the Bible is not a science book. The approach he takes to these scientifically inaccurate statements is that it has no effect on its purpose. Whether or not the science is true is irrelevant because at that time and in that culture it was potentially the standard idea of cosmology. I wonder if the science was perfectly congruent to our modern understanding if it would trip up the readers of that day. The goal is not to have perfect accuracy on scientific concepts, it was and is to convey spiritual truths and movements of God within the human narrative. Again as Heiser asserts, the fact that he allows scientific inaccuracies is proof that it worth correcting. What is consistently corrected throughout scripture is man's idea of God and God's relationship to man. The narrative tells humans of their place in the cosmos. Science has nothing to do with that, it goes into the realm of philosophy and it is logically coherent.
My biggest problem with Heiser is what distinguishes the Christian narrative as different from other narratives? If coherence is the main sign of validity, how can he justify Christianity over another religion that is coherent? I guess the way I'd answer that is by the person of Jesus, I'd also spill into the minimal facts method of the resurrection (by Gary Habermas). Jesus is unique because there is good reason to believe in the resurrection. I think the Paul knew that, "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty" (1 Cor. 15:14). Up until Christ, the religions of the world were perhaps not as set apart as they were after Christ.
Thank God Christianity didn't start with a book, but with an event : Resurrection!
I'm happy to let the Bible be what it is. I don't need to learn cosmology or physics from the Bible. Given then that God allowed the authors to include "mistakes," how are we to know which parts are human peculiarities, and which parts are eternal truth?
If we have no need to consider Genesis to be truth, then why should we consider the Gospels true?
The OT puts pi as 3. Is this an error? No, it's an approximation.
Michael, if you accept that scientific inaccuracies in the Bible are the result of human authors speaking from their own historical context and God not correcting them (with which I agree), do you also entertain the possibility that the same thing is true of things they said about the soul, the nature of salvation, the afterlife, demons, etc.? I find this to be a distinct possibility. If you don't, how do you decide where to draw the line in applying this principle? The Bible's presentation of the soul, for example, comes from a period in history when people had no idea what the brain is, what it does or how.
I'm not MH but have you been to his website? This is en excellent question.
I would suggest that the writers in the NT had one on one contact with Jesus about right and wrong. Many of the OT writers had that 1 on 2 contact w God about his will. Therefor they understood God will/Right vs Wrong. What God never did was talk about Science with the writers and that (science) is what MH talking about.
The writer many of them knew God will perfectly but had no exposure to science.
I wonder the same thing. Is it possible that writers of the scripture had some of their theology wrong? Those who had contact with Christ certainly weren’t transformed into people who had an advanced knowledge of the universe. The early church and church fathers highlight this point all the more. That said, for me it hinges on the resurrection. If the resurrection is true then who Christ said he was is true. Paul is not my savior. My salvation is not contingent on what Paul wrote and Paul’s theology (as an example), it’s based on what Christ did.
actuary 1776
The only disagreement I have with Paul is that I understand he was waiting for the Lord in his life time. Although he sets clear indications as to when this was going to happen, “the falling away comes first and the son of perdition is revealed “ as far as his doctrine, he is very accurate in his teachings, although we have to read and think a lot to understand him correctly.
Genesis is accurate in its sequence, there are some metaphors but there are also real accounts since Jesus confirmed that when he spoke about Adan and Eve . We cannot shoe horn what we know about the universe and its beginnings into Genesis without having a new understanding of the days of Genesis. The original language of Genesis is Hebrew, the days of Genesis have to be long periods of time, and the accounts have to be understood based on the point of reference of where things are developing. See Dr Hugh Ross, he explains the Genesis sequence very clearly and this allow us to see that the account of Genesis is correct as written.
fcastellanos57 I’ll be completely honest I’m not 100% sure anymore. I believe Paul believed Christ is Lord and that is the most important part. Take marriage and sexual sin for example. Paul believed as you say that the lords return was imminent. Better to not marry and serve the Lord. From our perspective this isn’t the best advice. The Lord created marriage and procreation and told us to populate the earth. Paul’s views in eschatology had a significant impact on non eschatological topics, such as this. Paul is simply a man, an important man no doubt, but I don’t hold Paul to inerrancy.
I think of it as simple as the Bible can use hyperbole and figures of speech. When I am looking at Saturn through a telescope, I will say "it moved" when I can no longer see it. The book of Joshua is not making a statement about the sun's relation to the earth. However, Job 26:7 seems to make a statement about the earth and its correct. "He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing".
This single subject has so much weight. It influences Science and History
I take inerrancy to mean functional. The bible says exactly what God wants to for the task of accomplishing salvation for the maximal amount of people. For the rest God can deal with a personally. Like he did with me or a Muslim through a dream ect.
There's some good stuff here!!! BTW, I heard somewhere that you always appeal to a higher authority, therefore by appealing to science, we are putting science above God's word. If God could make Adam a middle aged man at the beginning, why couldn't he create a middle aged universe at the beginning??
Wow
Good point...👍🍻
Good thought 😀!
@@chuckw8391 Thanks! I'm currently a big fan of the Dasha model put forth by Dr. Danny Faulkner
@@LittleHatori Thanks!
Who is "P" ?
Probably the three biggest problems with reading the Bible for the fervent is 1) treating every word and every line as equal to every other word and line. hierarchy runs through the Bible, David is not equal to God. It's really God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit that you should pay attention to firstly, everything being said and done is under them. 2) never having actually read through the entire Bible, many people just pluck verses, read devotionals and listen to positive preaching. 3) not having a good translation, translators are not perfect people, they blend away critical details, and remove or change the structure of the section(s). Avoid 'white bread' translations, strict, literal( accuracy over elegance) sorts of translation are better. Unfortunately i have no total confidence in any translation at this time, so comparative study tools are unavoidable. i currently mostly use the ESV and YLT BIbles. The ESV uses some newer data and is very readable, the YLT uses the traditional texts and is a serious literal translation, making it good for referencing but hard to read at length.
The problem with inarrancy is that the general public doesn't know what it "is not".....i.e.....inarrancy can't possibly mean "no errors in scripture " because the reality is that there are many errors in scripture ......I read scripture constantly , And there are simply textual error in the Bible ...and this means all Bibles ...
And this is the stance that people present " no errors ", which is not true ....so that being said , if inarrancy is a real thing it doesn't mean the absence of errors .
There are no errors in the textus receptus, a.k.a. the bible. I can see how you believe there are errors if you trust deceivers that have been trying to destroy the word of God since the counter reformation happened, but that's the point, is all a lie that started in Rome with the jesuits. There's a reason why this guys have been promoting codex sinaiticus, vaticanus and other forgeries for 200+ years, as the occultist Manley Palmer Hall said, they want to change the bible. How easy it is to make people lose their faith in what God says, it amazes me. A guy with PHD after his name says something and people just believe it no matter what, "oh no, this line is wrong"," this is just metaphor","the author of this book is not the same as the one in this other book because it looks different to me","this forgery manuscript is better than the one that has been producing good fruit of salvation for more than a thousand years so let's change the text", etc.
@@JesusProtects ignorant
5:55
Don't you think the ten commandments were around day 1? Considering they are principles of God's character. And He doesn't change. Those principles were made a part of the image. Therefore imprinted into Adam. Codified at Sinai when he called out a people. After the fall and to bring forth the bloodline of the Hope of Nation's. The Desire of Ages.
Very interesting point!
Thank you.
God incarnate reiterated it, pointing us to them..."If you love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15
JesusWordsOnly.com
Enjoy!
I always correct my children, whether I think they can understand it or not. I have enough love and consideration to do that for them.
@EmptyDisc I must have been drinking when I posted that. I never corrected any of my four children. I just let them do as they pleased then yelled at them for doing it. It was fun!
How can people even be serious in calling the sun rising as an error?
Like for real, you must be really searching to find anything to discredit the bible so you have a reason to not believe and keep living in your dirty sin
It seems to me that even if the original text was inerrant in all aspects, it is beyond debate that our translations are full of errors. Every human being that has ever been saved by God as a result of reading and of these aforementioned text has thier full dependence upon Him and His Spirit.
If I was god, and I wanted to communicate to people in a failsafe way, I think I would use another method than “inspiring” a bunch of ancient Israelites to write some parchments and some other scribes to put them all together. I mean, if you use your imagination (pretend you’re an all powerful god), a book is probably the least effective way to communicate with humanity, and there are many better ways to do this that aren’t as open to interpretation/misinterpretation.
You can look at it that way, or you can see that whether or not the parchment was there, it doesn't affect the existence of God or his actions in relation to human interaction. The bible is not why Christianity exists, it is the reality of Jesus' death and resurrection (check out the minimal facts method by Gary Habermas on why the resurrection is historically verifiable). The parchment is the human's retrieval of what events transpired. Most of it was oral tradition until it was eventually written down. According to Heiser, those written parchments met the criteria of accuracy to depict who God is, his character, and the human narrative. There are better ways to prove your existence, but instead, God chose to include the variable of human faith to communicate his attributes and who he is. I think its best not to think of God as an old man in the sky, its that caricature that God avoided by not showing his "face." He has revealed a specific part of himself for a specific purpose. Also, its quite naive to think we can take in all that God is by our senses or by a parchment. A God that small is not one I'd believe is relevant and it wouldn't match up with the vastness of what our reality is. We really are in the dark as humans, this whole thing is way too big.
so what are the alternatives? do you expect God to drop down a video tape from heaven to ancient Israelites with no concept of electricity or technology? Do you expect God to tattoo his words on their foreheads so it stays with them forever? Listen to yourself here.
The point of the bible being amazing is that it transcends time and culture, and this is best achieved through a book that was written thousands of years ago that we can still read today. Any other method may have meant that the bible would not have lasted long and certainly would not have been able to be used by people in the future.
@@elanordeal2457 You lack imagination. God spoke directly to the people of Israel. He could just continue doing that. Or, if he wants some special tome, it could be a “tesseract”-like object that is clearly supernatural in nature that gives a clearly supernatural message everyone hears or reads in their own tongue - no human authors involved! You might say these are silly ideas but an all powerful god COULD do something like this and according to scripture (written by men), he used to. Cut out the middleMAN. I don’t want to hear from people claiming to speak for God. I want to hear from God.
@@ChadbourneZitek but God always spoke through a middleman - Moses, Abraham, the prophets etc, so idk what you’re on about. You’re not creating a picture of a God with your suggestions, you’re creating a supernatural alien that has no desire to interact with humans authentically, but instead should use alien-like magic to make himself known. Part of the awesomeness of God is that he meets us where we’re at, not create a crazy boundary that makes it hard to know Him. In all your hypothesising of what God can and cannot do, you’re creating an unfavourable picture of a distant God who doesn’t care. Part of the importance of christianity is that our God is *relational* and not just some mystery alien-like entity in the sky. In fact, I’d say the fact that God could become a man and live among us to bring others to get to know Him is infinitely better than a magical tesseract that proves God exists.
@@elanordeal2457 God always spoke through a middleman? Why is that? You’re wrong if you’re talking scripturally though - Deut 4:12 says that ALL the people heard God’s voice on Sinai.
So why couldn’t God do that…all the time? Why does God need middlemen? Humans no better than you or I to claim to speak for god?
You say that I’m painting a picture of a distant God. It bothers you so you lash out with what you “know” (from the Bible, which is again, written by men). But this is my point. Writing a BOOK and using HUMANS to communicate a message of such divine importance that it risks eternal torture for rejecting it - that is an incredibly unimaginative and ill-conceived system for a god to set up. There is no way to demonstrate that some book is inspired. There is no quality of “inspiration” that can be analyzed. All we have are books written by men, compiled by other men, and claimed by other men to be inspired by God.
Why do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God? Were you told that by an authority figure? Do you believe it because there are verses in the Bible that say it is so? Can you point to a Bible verse that could not have been written by a man without divine inspiration?
I kinda like this more laize fare idea of God having bible writers have liberties with their words. And God just "okaying" the bare minimum of what he needed to get across.
Meaning no emphasis on science, history... etc. Its a book about spiritual truths. Mainly the true way you can get right with God and be saved from ur sins. Emphatically pointed to in the gospels as surrendering to Jesus christ.
Luke: "this is an orderly account of Jesus Christ's mission and ministry..."
God: 🍻"Good enough."
John: "The word became flesh.."
God: 👍"aight "
Mark: "something something and something... furthermore Jesus Christ."
God: ☕ 👌 "nice effort"
Matthew: "THIS and THIS and then THIS- now come hither to JESUS CHRIST..."
God:👏👏 "decent."
XDDD
Neo ORTHODOXY
Why is it necessary for a theologian to come and defend the Bible?
This alone reveals how wrong the inerrancy theory is.
He is explaining what the term means. Bible is self-authenticating.
Watch dean odle on flat earth .
Love Heiser but don’t agree on this point
Sir, I admire you, but why does it take almost 25 minutes to say that the Bible is not literally factual?
I believe that
God is the Primary Author of all parts of Scripture
All the parts of all the books are entirely human works, composed in the same ways as other human works, by the human authors
all Scripture, every part of it, is God-breathed
Christ is the Chief Subject of Scripture
the truth of the various parts, though equally true in actuality, is of different kinds - some truth is moral, some truth is historical, and so on.
the books and their parts are of different literary types: letters, legends, gospels, apocalyptic, proverbs, laments, laws, satire, humour, prophecy, and many other kinds of literature.
But I don’t believe in the total inerrancy of the Bible. I see nothing in the Bible to encourage the idea, and no analogy in the Self-Revelation of God in Christ to support it. On the contrary, since the Wisdom and Power of God are revealed in the weakness of the Cross, and not in what man reckons to be power and wisdom, and since Christ is the Supreme Revelation of the Father, I would expect the Wisdom & Power of God to be shown in the Bible, not by inerrancy, but by the Holy Spirit working by means of the fallibility of men. The idea of Total Biblical Inerrancy looks like a relic of what Luther rejected as a “theology of glory”.
At last, an honest view, the scriptures AKA the old/new testament are no more, no less, than numerous other sacred scriptures i.e The Vedas, Taoist, Egyptian, Maya, etc.
Much more. The Bible does have inspiration from God. All others are just pretenders from men or lesser gods.
@@rocketmanshawn
Coincidentally, the same &/or similar claims are made by believers in & of 'their' spiritual systems.
The claim of divine inspiration & divine authority is repeatedly made by the Roman pontiffs and they can no more prove it or demonstrate it than those that make the same claim for scripture or any other sacred texts.
I have a keen interest in such texts & that has led me hither & thither for the opportunity to study &, God willing, learn a great deal!
Including curious animals
I am a muslim and disagree
@@asjadsalman348 That's fine brother, and i support your right to disagree 100%.
@@rocketmanshawn that's right, Jesus Christ through His life, death and ressurection proved that Word of God (Bible) is the true Word of God, and, consequently, proved all other sacred scriptures that op mentioned as false