If a source is considered historical (such as the Gospels) would it then be tied to divinely Inspired? What I mean is, if a piece of literature, such as the Gospels, which have historical claims in it, if they are historically unreliable or have historical inaccuracies in it, then would this not question both Inerrancy & Inspiration, especially if we recognize that God can't be wrong? I am just curious of your thoughts on this. Blessings!
The New Testament documents claim to be historically reliable form start to finish. And all of them are claimed to be divinely inspired. So if there is something that can be proven wrong, it would mean it shouldn’t be in the canon. Amazingly, despite 2000 years of trying, not a single New Testament claim made in the text has been proven wrong, nor has a single historical account been shown to be even the least bit inaccurate.
Great stuff! He has a clear & concise message here. Thank God for people like him with expertise in the relevant field!
If a source is considered historical (such as the Gospels) would it then be tied to divinely Inspired? What I mean is, if a piece of literature, such as the Gospels, which have historical claims in it, if they are historically unreliable or have historical inaccuracies in it, then would this not question both Inerrancy & Inspiration, especially if we recognize that God can't be wrong? I am just curious of your thoughts on this. Blessings!
The New Testament documents claim to be historically reliable form start to finish. And all of them are claimed to be divinely inspired. So if there is something that can be proven wrong, it would mean it shouldn’t be in the canon. Amazingly, despite 2000 years of trying, not a single New Testament claim made in the text has been proven wrong, nor has a single historical account been shown to be even the least bit inaccurate.
@@sly8926 Awesome! Good job, Sly!