I realize this video is a week old, but I'm currently relistening for the fourth time. I'm currently enrolled in a (gen ed) Bible course at my university where the professor has made it his goal to try and tear apart scripture. It reminds me a lot of your story of your Bible teacher. This podcast, and the research I'm doing independently, have allowed me to stay away from buying his stuff, and the LORD has used this to reignite a fire in me to continuemy pursuitof ordination. But I just wanted to say thank you for this, it truly was a God send, and it felt a lot like him telling me it's okay. So thank you very much!
The Knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven is WITHIN YOU. Books can be helpful but books are secondary information. Primary information is God speaking directly to you through your imagination, dreams and through your heart. No need for a Pope and no need for a Bible or Koran, or any religious book. People tend to give their power away to what other people have written which can be wrong. You learn from experience. Experience trumps reading a book. The Old Testament has a lot of ethical problems: Here is one: Psalm: 137 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. Here is another: Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 1 Peter 2:18 one more: When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. “If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. “However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. “When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. “Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. “Thus, you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby. “Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. Deuteronomy 10-16
Please do a follow-up episode on the canon (and Luther’s views), and the Septuagint vs Masoretic. Both are fascinating especially early church usage, what version is typically quoted in the NT, differences in the LXX in passages like Isaiah 53 and how that affects atonement theory in the east vs west, etc.
Yes, at 33:33, Dr. Cooper states that the question of the Septuagint is worth asking. Since St. Paul says that " All Scripture is inspired by God..." he is talking about the Greek Old Testament/ Septuagint specifically. since those were the Scriptures that Timothy was raised on. The Masoretic that we have today is very different in many ways compared to the Scriptures' that Apostles used. The Early Church believed that the Septuagint was infallible, but not the proto-Masoretic.
First of all… *Frasier* is an objectively superior 90s-sitcom. Loved it for years. While everyone was obsessed with *Friends* and *The Office* in college, I was binging *Frasier* 👌🏻 Now, I agree that inerrancy is a given with the Bible. I believe it is always better to hold more of a conservative, Augustinian approach of faith seeking understanding in handling Scripture. However, where part of my struggles come is not necessarily the inerrancy of the canon or what the Fathers have said, but when the texts itself draw on apocryphal and pseudepigraphal imagery and texts to make their point. For example, Joshua directly quotes the Book of Jasher (cf. Josh. 10:12-3 (cf. 2 Sam. 1:18). Jude alludes to The Assumption of Moses and directly quotes from 1 Enoch (cf. Jd. 9, 14-5). And I would argue that 1 Peter 3:18-20 is actually a Christian polemic in response to the theological traditions around 1 Enoch 22:3-4 (this doesn’t mean the ancient creed that Jesus “descended into hell” is necessarily wrong, it just means we need to rethink precisely what that means). Are those texts the Word of God even though they aren’t Canon? Are they partly the Word of God? Or can we say that the biblical authors simply knew what to use to capture the attention of their audience? Inerrant or not, the Bible has a history to it that we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss for the sake of Dogma.
Agreed. Even if one fully affirms biblical inerrancy, 1. as I said in my own comment, it doesn't actually get you that far when in historical prose narratives, and 2. as you said, it doesn't tell us anything about the process of authorship, redaction, and reception.
I haven't heard of this discussion before, and it interests me greatly. Could you elaborate? Maybe point me to a video or resource? In any case, thank you for bringing this to my attention. As for inerrancy, I think it's more of a conclusion than a presupposition. After examining nearly every claim in the Bible, there isn't so much as the hint of a mistake. This is evidence for Christianity, not an assumption. The reliability of the Bible is the source of our faith in God, and it's how we can trust the work of Lord Yeshua. I think when Christians say that Scripture is inerrant, it should be the capstone of our case; the gateway for the unbeliever, not an obstacle. I think if more consideration for apologetics and philosophy was at the core our religious identity, we would better know our Saviour, and better present Him to the world. Those are just my thoughts, anyway. Take care! :)
@@jonathandoe1367 I really like your idea that inerrancy should be affirmed, but as a capstone or conclusion rather than a presupposition. It's something that should be made apparent over time, in tandem with an affirmation of the core truths of the faith. For my part, I've become more comfortable with inerrancy as I've studied arguments for biblical maximalism (a high degree of correspondence between the world created by the biblical text and the real world events), the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus, and an appreciation that inerrancy does not have to mean biblical literalism. I also fully agree that philosophy should be near the core of our religious thought (though I'm not as confident about apologetics). I find it odd, though, that you then say that the reliability of the Bible is the source of our faith in God. That just can't be the case. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron- they all trusted in God prior to the existence of any written Scriptures. The same could be said in an even stronger way about the early church, which (with disciples like John Mark, Silas, Luke, Timothy, and others) believed with any direct revelation but only by second hand word of mouth. And, throughout the ages, the majority of Christians have been illiterate. So I think the chain of witnesses that authenticate the biblical testimony by the public handing on of the Scriptures and proclamation of the Gospel- what Catholics call apostolic succession- is a far firmer ground than the reliability of the Bible itself.
I really look forward to watching this one! Especially with the tolerant behavior that progressive "Christian" twitter showed to you on so kindly after you stated the fact that the Bible is inerrant.
Contra gospel reductionism, we cannot separate Christ and Scripture. We would not know of the Christ we know without Scripture presenting him as it does. To know Christ is to trust in the Scripture that gave him to us, every part of it. All of Christ, all of Scripture.
The need to use vocabulary like "inerrancy" to specify how we approach Scripture reminds me of the development of vocabulary like "homoousios" when the church dealt with the Arian controversy. The doctrine didn't change, but misappropriation of the old terminology made more precise terms necessary. Of course, a lot of these exvangelicals probably think that the doctrine of the Trinity was invented by Constantine at Nicaea, too.
The Trinity is first really mentioned at Nicaea. The funny thing is that this isn't evidence of a late invention. It means the first time anyone ever questioned the Trinity was hundreds of years after the Apostles taught it. Never before had it required open discussion. If that isn't support for the theology of a Triune God, what is?
@@jonathandoe1367 No it's not, and this would be the same argument that would be used by Catholics regarding the immaculate conception. It was just "never questioned". Anyone could make that statement. Protestants could say the reason once saved always saved was never mentioned is because it wasn't questioned.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 The problem is that here we actually see the claims being affirmed individually (Jesus is God, the Spirit is God, Jesus is distinct frim tne Spirit), it just wasn't formulated into a specific doctrine. Like how Molinism was formulated later, but the knowledge of God was always affirmed to be limiless. There wasn't a named position because there didn't need to be.
I'm not sure inerrancy really gets you that far even once you affirm it. It doesn't make clear, for instance, whether a text written in the form of narrative prose should be taken as a pretty straight representation of history (say, 2 Chronicles or 1 Maccabees), a completely fictional historical novel with a theological point (say, Esther or Tobit), or something in between, a novelistic account that is loosely based on a historical core (say, Ruth) or a history embellished with non-chronological frameworks or densely shaped by ideology (say, Judges or 1 Samuel). In none of those cases are we dealing with "errors," but it wouldn't lead us to, say, a highly maximalist account of ancient Israel's history that a literal reading would suggest.
Right. As well, even if there is fictionalized narrative in the OT, some events, such as the resurrection, are explicitly said to be historical in the expository parts of scripture. So, you're not losing much, if you do take that approach.
You hit the nail on the head! A lot of these folks use a conflation debate where they just throw everything against the wall and see if anything sticks. What it boils down to is that they want so badly to say the Bible is wrong so they can have a license to sin and indulge the flesh however they like. The one that gets me is when people, even some on online Lutheran sites, say they don’t follow what Paul or the lot testimony says. Well St Paul is defended in 2 Peter. He is also given a heck of an endorsement by St Luke in Acts. So if you don’t believe Paul, you then can’t believe Peter or Luke. Jesus quotes the Old Testament and promises that until heaven and earth disappear the law isn’t going anywhere so then do you not believe Jesus or do we throw out Mathew in order to throw out the Old Testament? When people go down this path pretty soon they have a “buddy Jesus” statue and a Bible that is just two covers over three or four out of context verses and a rainbow. If you add to it you end up with Mormons, if you strip it down you get Unitarians, if you say the translations are all wrong or it doesn’t mean what it actually says you get Jehovah witnesses…. Basically you become a cult and exactly what the Bible warns against in about 3/4 of the books therein.
Pastor Cooper introduces a significant topic which he masterly handled it by presenting adequate evidence for both believers and sceptics . As for the mustard seed example 57:01 it will be convenient to clarify that there are several linguistic approaches at stake when alluding the Scriptures analysis. By instance, Discourse Analysis, a field of inquiry in linguistics, which deals with a coherent interpretation of sentences, propositions in speech among others. Within Jesus' example, there are several sub-areas to be considered: figure of speech, rhetoric deviations, etc. As for the sociological implication of his 'example' it could be consider the sociolinguistic inferences as for his reference to such seed. Personally speaking, Bible readers must go further in their Bible studies to grasp the richness of its content.
I really love this! This is definitely what I needed right now. Do you think you could do a video discussing different manuscript traditions and why they don't affect inerrancy?
I think it’s too dismissive of the Chicago Statement to say that it was just a bunch of Baptists. Among the signatories were RC Sproul and JI Packer. The latter of whom, let’s remember, was an Anglican who broke with other conservative evangelicals on evolution and Roman Catholicism.
Hi Dr. Cooper. Apologies if you've covered this in other videos before, but could you address the difference in the canonical books between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations (I've searched your channel but couldn't find any)? Namely the Deuterocanonical books. I feel like this certainly plays into the discussion on inerrancy as to which books we consider inerrant. I was raised Protestant without any reading of the "Apocrypha" and this is something I'm very curious about with regard to inerrancy, sola scriptura, etc. Thanks for the great videos!
I'm GLAD that you have to be on social media! LOL! Working through the pain of... Not very bright folks... Isn't easy, but you're certainly fulfilling a huge gap with academic responses that I truly appreciate. Thanks for putting up with this cesspool 🤣
The mustard seed bit reminded me of an example used by David Lewis. If you're looking in the fridge and say, "There's no more beer," it would be silly to say "You lie, for you know there is plenty of beer at the store!".
@roddumlauf9241, that's a non-sequitur. Paul wasn't talking about the Greek text (LXX) at all. He was referring to the same text to which confessional Lutherans ascribe inerrancy- the autographs, which were written in Hebrew, not Greek.
Around minute 28, Dr. Cooper argues that Paul believes in the inerrancy of Scripture. I would also remind us though that even though people are already beginning to believe Paul's words are Scriptural by the time books like Jude are being written, Paul is not always sure that his words are God-breathed (1 Cor 7:24). Like. I know it makes us more comfortable to speak with confidence. But the Bible has multiple witnesses here.
@Catholic-Perennialist, inerrancy is a statement about Biblical authority, not about the perfection of any manuscript we have today. There was, in fact, a literal, physical copy of each of the originals, whose perfection has been confessed from the Church's very beginning precisely to establish Scripture as the ultimate authority. There just aren't that many differences between the texts. If you want an inerrant copy, all you have to do is fire up your time machine, go back to the times at which the various books of the Bible were written, and compile one. The only inerrant version Dr. Cooper affirms is the autographs, The same is true of the Fathers, btw,, in making the same point about the authority of the Bible. I thought Dr. Cooper was rather clear on that point.
I think because of exactly what scripture is, the word of God, it makes it very hard to define in one word like "inerrancy". Human words can't ever accurately describe what scripture is and does in the same way that we could never understand or grasp the nature of God. I prefer "inspired and fully authoritative", but even then that doesn't cut it.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think the early Lutheran documents use the word "inerrancy", but do use the term "infallibility". I understand this term arose later to address liberal rationalistic efforts to undermine Scripture. That being said, inerrancy just doesn't make sense to me. It's only used in reference to the original autographs. But we don't have any of the originals! So, what's the point? I'm quite happy, then, to stay with "infallibility", which has been defined by Kevin Vanhoozer as "not liable to fail", and who further says that whatever God is up to with Scripture it will accomplish the purpose for which he is doing it.
I am a forever evangelical by the grace of God. I had a period of going back into Catholicism God delivered me from that. I also explored eastern orthodoxy and still study at but I could never go there.
My one question as someone who approaches Scripture as an inerrantist: what do we make of how Jesus deals with the Mosaic Law? He says the divorce proceedings described by the law were given because the Hebrews were hard of heart. How may this affect our view of inerrancy?
The doctrine claiming that the Bible is the perfect, complete and inerrant word of God is extra-biblical. By what authority is the doctrine of the Bible’s inerrancy declared?
Matthew 1:1 Matthew is Scripture. Matthew 5:17 Even Christ never abolished the things written in the Law and Prophets. No church may either. Mk 1:1 Mark is Scripture. Luke 1:4 *Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine.* Luke is Scripture. John 5:39 *We have eternal life from the Scriptures because they bear witness about Christ.* John 10:35 *Scripture cannot be broken or invalidated." John 15:20 *No one may contradict or neglect the Apostles and be a Christian.* John 17:20 *The word of the Apostles is the source of true faith.* John 20:31 *The Gospel of John alone is enough to tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name.* John 22:24 *The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it.* Acts 17:11 *We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true.* Acts 24:14 *We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.* Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope. 1 Corinthians 12:28 *All other overseers, teachers and servants in the Church come after the Apostles in priority.* 1 Corinthians 14:37 *If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord.* 2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord. Galatians 1:8 *No one may contradict what the Apostles preached.* Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote. Galatians 3:22 *The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.* Eph 2:20 The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church and the faith with Christ as cornerstone. All other authorities must build on that foundation and no other. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 *We are to firmly hold to the teachings of the Apostles. They are the only true standard by which other teachers and doctrines are to be judged. I challenge anyone to identify an oral Apostolic teaching that is not written in the New Testament.* 2 Thessalonians 3:14 *We are to admonish and give the silent treatment to anyone who does not obey Paul’s epistles until they become rightly ashamed of themselves.* 1 Timothy 3:14-15 *This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons, and how the Church is to be godly. This godliness is unchanging.* 1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. 2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. *No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable. Scripture is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged.* 2 Timothy 3:17 *Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work.* 1 Peter 1:25 *The Gospel of the Apostles is the word of the Lord and it endures forever.* 1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it. 2 Peter 1:19 *Individuals do not interpret Scripture. The Apostles confirm and interpret the prophetic word of Old and New Testament Scripture.* 2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles. 2 Peter 3:16 The ignorant and unstable who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. Paul's Epistles are Scripture. 1 John 1:3-4 *The eye-witness writings of the Apostles are what give us fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father, and with His Son.* 1 John 4:6 *The Apostles are from God. Whoever knows God listens to the words of the Apostles; whoever is not from God does not believe the Apostles. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.* Hebrews 4:12 *The word of God judges the reader and the Church, not vice versa. The Epistle to the Hebrews has done this since the first time it was read.* James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
The Bible has verified itself through all the history, prophecy, and wisdom spoken in it are all true. What amazes me is other Christians that tell me they believe that the Bible is the word of God. But, they have never read it. I usually answer "So, you believe God wrote a book. But, you never read it?"
@@TheBelegur Isaiah mentions the sealed book in Isaiah Chapter 28. That's an extra book of scripture. So I have no reason to reject Isaiah's words. John also talked with an angle of heaven down on the Isle of Patmos to his face who told John that another angle would in the last days come down and bring the everlasting gospel to preach to them who dwell down on the earth. So I have no reason to reject John's testimony either for he saw these things in vision. As the angle of heaven showed him these things.
@@germanslice "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;" Revelation 22:18
@@TheBelegur That's also not the full truth either for God is not going to excuse Bible Believers who keep on thumping that scripture or thumping the teachings of Paul around to try to ignore and deny John's testimony of the truth of who has the everlasting gospel. It was the angle of God who had the everlasting gospel, it was an angle who taught John the Revelator the truth of what will happen in the last days to the world. So it will be an angle who will be sent by God to preach the everlasting gospel in the last days to the world for John the Revelator saw the angle that had the everlasting gospel with him...... But That angle that John saw that the angle of on the isle of Patmos had showed John in vision didn't have another gospel in his possession. He had the everlasting gospel in his possession. But if you think the angle of God has got another gospel to preach to those who dwell on earth among all nations, kindreds, tongues and people because you have misinterpreted what paul said to the Galatian Saint Audience for John The Revelator was assigned to reveal the things leading up to end of the world in the last days and not what was going on with the Galatian Saints in their apostasy that paul was talking and warning them about, then you are preaching another gospel and not preaching the everlasting gospel if you reject John's testimony of the truth.
Also, I find the dismissal of Wright's charge that inerrancy is a modern doctrine a bit too quick. It seems like biblical maximalists and conservatives who do not strictly subscribe to inerrancy should be taken seriously precisely because they present a steel man opponent: they aren't affirming the sexual revolution or denying the doctrines of the faith. In fact, I was wondering if you would go on to demonstrate how inerrancy was, in fact, the reigning assumption of the church fathers (which would be the critical move in disproving, rather than merely dismissing, Wright and his colleagues like Anthony Thiselton), but your parade example was telling. Justin Martyr affirms non-contradiction, which is not the same as inerrancy. I can affirm simultaneously that there is non-contradiction between Thomas' Summa, Dante's Comedia, and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and yet recognize that one is systematic theology, one is a poetic epic that reflects but does not represent the author's vision of the cosmos and the Christian life, and one is an entirely fictional allegory (despite the author's protestations!) that plumbs the sources of heroic virtue and faithfulness in the face of modernity's onslaught. And for a counter-example: Jerome expressly says that he would be perfectly content with a post-exilic redaction of the Torah by Ezra, despite so many inerrantists that insist Jesus' citations of the Torah must affirm Mosaic authorship.
Let me see if I've got this straight: God wanted the church of today to have an inerrant text...but he didn't want the church of today to have an inerrant interpretive key for that text. Do I understand correctly so far?
@@josephpchajek2685 "By design, because the fact is nobody can use scripture to know everything." ------------My comment did not express or imply that the bible inerrancy doctrine was intended to cause a person to know everything. "It's designed this way so that all learn to approach it with humility." ---------Where does the bible say God designed the bible so that all learn to approach it with humility? I'm sorry, but you appear to be simply making things up as yo go along. "Instead people think it's a key to life." --------------How does this popular misundestanding foist any obligation on me to inquire further? Some people think the Koran is the key to life...do I sin by totally disregarding that nonsense? "No one person isn't mean to be able to interpret and know everything and anything about scripture." ---------Why not? The bible does not report that anybody started worshiping the original bible manuscripts merely because of a belief that the authors were inerrantly inspired. If your god doesn't want us to know everything and anything about scripture, blame him for all the doctrinal division that exists within your cult. I therefore deduce that if any of this shit is true, God does not care about doctrinal accuracy anywhere near as much as the Christian scholars who are ceaselessly trying to make bible truth completely obvious to everybody. "It's simply not possible" -----------Then apparently you deny Mark 10:27. Nice going. You are wrong anyway. If the story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is true, God could give a similar experience to Christians, and they would presumably no more disagree with each other about the bible than Paul disagreed with himself about the bible. "there's the holy spirit which serves as a unifying factor" -----------------No, Paul said disagreement with him was "sin", Titus 3:9-11, so because many Christians today disagree with each other's interpretation o Paul's words, somebody in the controversy must be "sinning", and presumably the Holy Spirit does not support anybody who misinterpret Paul. "and there's also our humility. Now the problem with most churches, theologians, scientists and anybody really, is that they try to define or create some model that they can use for any situation. No such model exists." --------------Are you saying the model of bible inerrancy cannot be used for every situation?
It baffles me that so-called "Christians" actually think the Bible isn't inerrant. You're not a Christian if you think God's spoken word is erroneous, end of story.
It's pretty common both for Jesus' Apostles and historical Rabbinical teachers to synthesize several references from minor prophets into a theme from a major prophet and attribute all to the major prophet. In this case, Jeremiah 18-19 is prophecy spoken in the field where he smashed a potter's pot. Matt 29:10 references that, and the whole pericope shares themes with those chapters. The verses from Zechariah add to Matthew's point. By the standard of the era, his 'citation' conforms to the 'style guide.'
If all Scripture is God-breathed or God-inspired and all revelations from God like the prophecies and their interpretations are not the words of the men that were used to write them, then we should not find any errors from their original works, right? But we don't have the original writings anymore but just fragments of old copies which are also different from one another. There are also whole copies but still are different from one another. Now, how do we determine today which is the accurate copy of the original writings of the people who were inspired by God to write his words? Do we use our own standards or knowledge today to determine which is correct or wrong, or do we also need the guidance of God's spirit? And if that is so, how can we determine if the spirit guiding us is from God? For example: In Matthew 27:50-53, the writer here tells us that when Jesus died, bodies of saints who have died were raised up from their graves and when Jesus was resurrected, they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Did this really happen? Is it an accurate account of what really happened during the death and resurrection of Jesus?I believed it happened literally, but why others say, this did not happen literally? And still, others say, it is a copyist's error?
Ok, Bart Ehrman, find me a difference between two manuscripts significant enough to challenge even one minor doctrine of any of the Christian denominations existing today.
@@Mygoalwogel In 1Peter 3:18-20, there are three kinds of versions or translations existing today because each one based its translation from three different manuscripts, obviously. Version #1: "... Christ died in the flesh but was resurrected by the Spirit .." (Which is true also because God who is a Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. But is this really what Paul wrote exactly in this particular text?) Version #2: "... Christ died in the flesh but was resurrected in the Spirit..." (This is why some believe Jesus is in the Spirit nature already when he was raised up from the dead.) Version #3: "... Though his body/flesh died, his spirit lived on..." (TLB) This clearly teaches that even though Christ was killed as flesh, he continued living as spirit for no human weapon can kill him as spirit. This clearly teaches the duality of Christ's nature as the son of God (spirit) and as the son of man (flesh). The word "but" gives us the clue. For examples: 1. "Don't be afraid of those who can just kill the flesh but not the soul." 2. "You can take my body but not my mind. " The " but" word expresses the difference of two words or things. They were able to kill the flesh of Christ but not his spirit and so he, as spirit, was able to visit the dungeon of spirits and was able also to make a proclamation to them. And who are these imprisoned spirits? They were the spirits during the days of Noah who rebelled while God was patiently waiting for them to return before the great flood. These are spirits of wicked people.
@@rexcavalier Is this some kind of joke? The TLB defines itself in its own introduction like this. "The Living Bible is a paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments." It is NOT textual variants that make the TLB so different from your versions 1 and 2. The only difference between your *uncited* "versions" 1 and 2 is "by the spirit" and "in the spirit". Even if you were right (You're so wrong!) that isn't close to "significant enough to challenge even one minor doctrine." There is a variant in this verse between, "suffered" and "died" at the beginning. There is no variant regarding "pneumati" other than "to (the) pneumati." "[by/in] the spirit" -- "pneumati" - Dative Neuter singular. There isn't any preposition, "by" NOR "in" at all because the dative case doesn't require a preposition. It's already an indirect object. "By" vs "in" is a mere matter of the translator's preference. Not only have you not found a variant that challenges a doctrine. You haven't found a variant at all. Berean Greek New Testament 2016 ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·* SBL Greek New Testament 2010 ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·* Nestle Greek New Testament 1904 ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἀπέθανεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·* Westcott and Hort 1881 ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἀπέθανεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·* Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants] ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἀπέθανεν / ἔπαθεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·* Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants} ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἀπέθανεν / ἔπαθεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·* RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005 Ὅτι καὶ χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί, ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι,* Greek Orthodox Church 1904 ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθε,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ, ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·* Tischendorf 8th Edition 1872 ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἀπέθανεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·* Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894 ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθε,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ, ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *τῷ πνεύματι,* Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550 ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθεν* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ *τῷ πνεύματι·* Beza Greek New Testament 1598 Ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθε, δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων· ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί, ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *τῷ Πνεύματι,*
@@Mygoalwogel He died in the body but in the spirit, he lived on. That is the correct message of Apostle Peter here in that particular text. Not resurrected by the spirit or resurrected in the spirit, although in other texts, Jesus was raised by the Spirit of God, indeed. But in 1Peter 3:18-20, he was teaching that what was killed and died is the body of Christ only, it was Jesus only, the son of man, the flesh, BUT Christ's spirit continued to live or exist. In fact, while his body is dead, he visited the spirits who are in prison and preached also to them about his victory and the coming thousand years of fair judgment so that if they will repent, they can also stand and endure that fiery day and be purified and refined and will not perish. After 3 days, he, as spirit, he fulfilled his prophecy to raise his body back to immortal life.
@@Mygoalwogel By means the tool or the one who make the action as in resurrecting a dead body. In means the form to which the dead body is raised into. Big difference and resulted two doctrines.
Language is approximate. That's why it takes numerous books over centuries and numerous authors to try to explicate the underlying truth. Taken all together it leads me to Christ and that personal experience is the truth, the Word in flesh we've been given. But then, I'm just an ordinary slob in the pew. I do note that the apostles wrote in Greek, Luther wrote in Latin and maybe German, and we're trying to deal with it in English--Approximate!
That was a profitable discussion, Dr. Cooper! I have a question somewhat related to what you say around 58:00 though: How would interpret the references to the _raqia_ /firmament found in the Bible? I know that even some conservative scholars believe it to be a reference to the solid dome thought (in ANE) to separate the waters above from the waters below. If that is the case, then one would have to at least accept that some of the descriptions found in the Bible, while theologically accurate, "accidentally" contain part of the scientific thought of the past.
William lane craig has said that he thinks that nobody really believed those models to be correct back then. They were just images with religious significance. He has some talks about it in his defenders series. Very good specifically on the question of the firmament.
Mr. Cooper. I'm persuaded to believe Martin Luther was a geocentrist, and there are many other quotes and writings of church fathers which believe in BIBLICAL Cosmology. As opposed to the heliocentric model which dominates the Christian and secular world today. Can you cite a single verse supporting the heliocentric model in light of biblical cosmology believed by Luther, Calvin, philo of Alexandria and others.
I view inerrancy like this, the Bible is without error in its theological messages that are being taught. Example, a story is told that contains characters, content, and a whole lot of others things. The details can be a mixture of true and false in a story, while what the story is ultimately trying to communicate is the inerrant part. Gen3 is a clear example of this where there are characters, God, humans, serpent, and there’s true and false content, serpent lying about God, but the story with all its details is telling us something ultimately and I think that is the thing that is inerrant. It’s strange to speak about the serpents words as inerrant. Expanding from this, what else in the Bible doesn’t fall under an inerrant category?
You said we don't hear Jesus correcting the old testament well I kindof think the following could qualify Eye for Eye 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Love for Enemies 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
33:53. Dr. Cooper, its not *always* the Seputgaint from what I understand. I recommend you get the book 'why Protestant bibles Are Smaller' and 'The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church.'
Dr. Cooper, C.S. Lewis, a professor of literature, thought that on stylistic grounds Jonah was an inspired work of fiction. His grounds were precisely the text! I see no reason why it shouldn't be literal history. But that said, using the way Jesus spoke about Jonah as evidence that He believed that has always seemed to me to be rather shaky. If I were to say, "Just as Tom Sawyer tricked Huckleberry Finn into whitewashing Aunt Polly's fence, Jim tricked me into doing his work," would any reasonable person take that as evidence that I believed Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, and Aunt Polly to be real people and the incident to be historical?
Please forgive me for being a bit squishy in the mind. I listened intently to this man speak and I could not actually decipher any point where he tells the listener what the content of the word "inerrancy" is. He frequently references various concepts and ideas surrounding Scripture, which he dismisses, but never gets around to stating what he personally means by the term "inerrancy". So, as an armchair theologian lol I'm getting a sneaky suspicion that this particular word "inerrancy" functions like a password or code to gain one entry into certain guilds and fellowships. To the guy on the bus who ponders life after death, the meaning of life and guilt and sorrow, the term "inerrancy" is functionally meaningless for this man. Am I wrong for thinking that authority is derived from the effect of a thing, not deduced prior to encountering that thing, or even as a condition for knowing a thing? My mind seems to find that reality when I study the Gospels. I hope I'm not drifting into the weeds. Very open to correction, but something sounds a bit fishy the more I listen to this lecture on inerrancy.
No. You dont have to be a KJVO- ist to believe that translations are also inerrant. If accurate translations are rightly called " scripture," and all scripture is God- breathed, then translations also must have that resident god- breathedness on them. God's Word is by nature god- breathed: it comes out of his mouth. once it comes out of His mouth, it will not return fruitless (Isaiah 55:11). What does it do? It accomplishes God's will. It is "useful" as 2 Tim 3:16-17. And "god-breathed" is describing the quality of the scriptures, NOT the process of their writing. If one accepts and proclaims the scriptures' usefulness, even down to translations, then its resident "god- breathedness" must also be claimed down to the translations. The Bible, BECAUSE it is god- breathed is not only inerrant, it is infallibe.
Wow that was quick, thanks! How about the episode on the church fathers and prayer to the saints? I noticed that it wasn't on Spotify - I find it easier to download/stream than from here
How to create a BUZZ? 1. Make a bold or outlandish statement 2. Claim that you can back up that statement 3. Make more statements that don't back up your statement in the first place Wait at every single step for the backlash. Wash, Rinse and Repeat. Nicely played Sir. Nicely played.
You're commenting on the wrong video@@internetenjoyer1044 because this is *NOT* about a "Christian saying the bible is true"...The claims here are for inerrancy.
Well @@internetenjoyer1044 *The Bible* we don't have. Bible should *never* be subject to one's *own* interpretations. There are actually parts of Bible (if we're speaking about the English ones) that are "false" and there are Christians that don't agree to inerrancy. So guess what? It's *not* "the default position".
I believe this is not part of the discussion, and maybe you already touched on this, but I did not catch it. When you talk about inerrancy in the Bible, I don't so much think of how come there is a contradiction in the Gospels or such, but I think of it as when the Scriptures are passed down and there are copyist errors For example, in the Answering Islam Blog to clear up 101 supposed contradictions in the Bible said by Muslims (and maybe even other non-believers), they reasonably say that many of the passages that are in contradiction are not interpreted correctly, especially ones that involves doctrine or historical event. However, there are cases where there are copyist errros such as 5. Was Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to rule over Jerusalem? The answer given by Answering Islam is : Copyist Error, and then give an explanation what happened. Note, I am not in a way saying that the Bible is not preserved well, but I am saying there are these small mistakes, usually insignificant So in this sense, when you say the Bible is without error, is it that it is perfectly preserved or that all doctrine inside the Bible is without error and contradiction, or something else? I believe either the 2nd or 3rd option, but just to be clear on your stance, cus as a person living in a country where English is a second language, when saying the Bible is without error, inerrancy, perfect preservation and correct translation, all these definitions are quite similar on the surface. What's your response Dr Jordan? If you have already responded to this, can you show me the timestamp or another vid you did maybe haha, thanks and God bless🙏
Error: Easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. In Aramaic, the word for Camel is the same as rope. They are synonyms. Error: Lord's Prayer: Our Father who is throughout the Heavens. In Aramaic, the word evil means ignorance. Delivere us from ignorance. There is no inherent evil. Error: In Aramaic, the word for Prayer means "to trap." Much the same way you use a remote to trap a T.V. station.
Example of a Bible passage with three different translations that resulted into two different teachings. In 1Peter 3:18-20, there are three kinds of versions or translations existing today because each one based its translation from three different manuscripts, obviously. Version #1: "... Christ died in the flesh but was resurrected by the Spirit .." (Which is true also because God who is a Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. But is this really what Paul wrote exactly in this particular text?) Version #2: "... Christ died in the flesh but was resurrected in the Spirit..." (This is why some believe Jesus is in the Spirit nature already when he was raised up from the dead.) Version #3: "... Though his body/flesh died, his spirit lived on..." (TLB) This clearly teaches that even though Christ was killed as flesh, he continued living as spirit for no human weapon can kill him as spirit. This clearly teaches the duality of Christ's nature as the son of God (spirit) and as the son of man (flesh). The word "but" gives us the clue. For examples: 1. "Don't be afraid of those who can just kill the flesh but not the soul." 2. "You can take my body but not my mind. " The " but" word expresses the difference of two words or things. They were able to kill the flesh of Christ but not his spirit and so he, as spirit, was able to visit the dungeon of spirits and was able also to make a proclamation to them. And who are these imprisoned spirits? They were the spirits during the days of Noah who rebelled while God was patiently waiting for them to return before the great flood. These are spirits of wicked people.
@@Mygoalwogel Another is in Ephesians 4:9: Version #1 tells us that the phrase he ascended means that he descended first. Version #2 tells us that the phrase he ascended means he also descended. See ASV and NLT. I believe that the first version inserted the word "first" and was not taught by Apostle Paul. This can be verified by the following verse which says that he did that so that he can fill the whole universe with his presence. How can one fill the whole universe if when he ascended, he is not present here below? Or when he descended, he is not present above there? Remember that our Lord is omnipresent. John 3:13 (KJV) is the correct words of Jesus when he said that no man ascended to heaven except the one who descended from heaven, that is, the son of man WHO IS IN HEAVEN. He was saying that while he was on earth speaking to Nicodemus. If he was referring to his body as the son of man, then the son of man is in heaven during that time also. Our Lord is present in heaven and on earth at the same time because that is also the capability of his father. In light of these, the word "first" Ephesians in 4:9 was inserted by copyists and the last phrase "who is in heaven" in John 3:13 was removed by some copyists also. Therefore, not all the Bibles today are inspired and not all the words inside every Bible is inspired. Some are blatant errors.
@@Mygoalwogel You have a very wrong representation of the word paraphrase, as if, the the one who translated and paraphrased the passage completely deviated from the teaching.
@@Mygoalwogel Though his body died, his spirit lived on. I will paraphrase it: Christ died in the flesh, but not in the spirit. That is the usage of the word BUT. What was killed is just the temple of Christ. Christ in the spirit did not die.
I looked at the almost 200 direct responses to your original tweet. They mostly just disagreed with you and adopted the "infallibility" position with regard to doctrine and morals. Did I miss something? Were there a bunch of nasty quote tweets or whatever?
The Bible is authoritative, since God's authority is, in some sense, behind. But it is not totally inerrant. Apostolicity & prophethood are derived from God's authority - not from inerrancy. Inerrancy is inseparable from meaning - a reader whose Bible inerrantly tells him that the patriarch Shem was a real individual who lived to the age of 600 years, is reading a different Bible from a reader whose reading of the same passage tells him that Shem must be a ancestor-figure in Jewish mythology, like Hellen, Dorus & Pelasgus in Greek mythology. There are many many passages that are understood by Christians in incompatible senses - showing that TBI is useless; for all the difference it makes, the 2 readers might as well be reading different, TBI-less, Bibles. That is just one passage that is commonly read by different readers - or by the same reader at different times - as meaning different things to each. And this happens all the time among Christians. Neither great learning in Biblical matters, nor years of study, nor prayers for Divine Guidance, nor God's assistance, nor help from the godly and learned, nor helps to the study of the Bible, have brought all Christians to the known knowledge that that particular passage means X, and not Y or Z or B or C. For that passage of the Bible, the supposed Total Biblical Errancy has been utterly worthless. It is useless to claim that TBI is at work in that passage, *if it is impossible to decide what that passage* - which, like all the OT, is alleged in the New Testament to be "God-breathed" - *is intended by its Divine & human authors to mean* . At least the text of that passage, in Genesis 11.10-11, seems to be in no doubt. But the Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 13.1 is uncertain at best. So how is that passage, the text of which is not certain, endowed with TBI ? The usual, Warfieldian, expression of TBI, is mistaken as a statement of historical fact, and makes TBI useless to all the Church except for the (imagined) possessors of the original texts. TBI is a doctrine with absolutely no value whatsoever for the Church.
The original intent of the scriptures is without errors. That said, the ideology of inerrancy is not valid, because it is meant to support those who claim to teach from the scriptures, giving them credibility, even though their interpretation of the scriptures is greatly in error concerning many doctrines.
That's part of what I was trying to say (I think I was deleted). "Inerrancy" means more than simply "without error" -- duh, of course the Bible cannot/doesn't lie (it can only lie if it's intention is to mislead and not simply to get _another point_ across through fallible human-linguistic condescension). Inerrancy, aka Inerrantism, is a whole set of schools of thought and many of them align with just the sort of issues you're describing -- in which the Bible is understood as an accidental science textbook (insofar as it addresses these matters incidentally; all-the-while inerrantly). My own perspective on the issue is very much that of A.C. Piepkorn, Hermann Sasse, or N.T. Wright. We shouldn't simply dismiss the distinction between "infallible" and "inerrant" as meaningless liberal tricks. There're conservative thinkers who do so.
I think that we don't take the dual nature of Christ seriously enough . Because Christ has two natures, one human and one Divine, we believe that the bread and wine of the eucharist must also have two natures, the natural and the supernatural, therefore it is both bread and the body of Christ, both wine and the blood of Christ.In that way the dual natures of Christ are present in the eucharist, both the natural and the Divine. In the same way the Bible, as the word of God must, necessarily, have two natures, being linked to Christ, the Word of God. The Bible then being both natural and supernatural, both human and Divine, should contain human elements as well as the Divine.
@@he7230 Completely agree. It is under the human dimension that I believe that higher criticism can belong -- just because Scholarship has recognized that the Bible resulted from natural processes that doesn't negate its Spirit-guided infallibility... nor by analogy, does an affirmation of evolutionary biology negate the guiding hand of divine providence. We need to embrace "both/and"s not resort to "either/or"s
Your failure to understand why people look at words by the current meaning is a good picture of how education has failed you. If you use the word "gay" what definition do you think people will assume? If you want an "error" I will give you one. Study Acts 5:36-37. The historical data is in error in the book of Acts. The Bible is in error.
"It has also been suggested that the reference in Acts is to a different revolt by another, unknown Theudas, because Josephus states that there were numerous uprisings, saying there were "ten thousand disorders", but he gives details on only four and Theudas was not a unique name." -- Wikipedia (Which is, like, totally the, like, the most, like, reliable source ever an' stuff.)
The question I ask. What possible harm comes when admitting there are falsehoods in the Bible? let's understand these are writings of so long ago. I hardly doubt finding error in the "scriptures" will change much. All it will show is that even the Bible is not immune to correction.
I agree with nearly everything-but there is a problem with making belief in inerrancy too abstract a matter. One can formally affirm inerrancy while explaining away the supernaturalism of the opening chapters of Genesis-such an affirmation is worthless. Edit: changed "to" to "too"
Believing the Bible is inerrant is a stumbling block. Let me make it simple, which Bible are you referring to? Which translation? and then whose interpretation which is also needed in translating the Bible? The Bible is a mystery and powerful ... but it will not usurp God and Jesus. It will not let man take control of the Bible. Too many ads here.
@@michaelborg5798 I have listened to it. Try writing in clear thoughts in your own words, and then think for a moment, do you think that makes the bible inerrant. Check whatever dictionary the meaning of inerrancy. How is the Bible inerrant to you in simple clear language. Inerrant with a thousand qualifications? I am with C.S Leweis on this.
I just don’t understand how it’s intellectually sound to simply declare a text (a library of books) to be inerrant. These books are not immune from scrutiny when it comes to historical, literary, logical methods. It’s not like a stoic philosophy or something that’s purely abstract that you can just assent to, on preference. You can look at the claims in the book, the manuscript evidences, corroborating evidences and demonstrate that it has factual, inaccuracies, propaganda and the beliefs about it do not hold up to the data. You admit in this video that conservatives simply hated the findings of critical scholarship and then just asserted and declared the text as inerrant. I’m struggling to have any respect for this kind of reactive, blind assertion to hold on to a texts authority. We know that the pentatuch was not written by a single author, just by examining the text itself. Just because the gospel authors assumed or claimed Jesus thought it was has no bearing on whether it in fact was.. this isn’t hard
Watching a bunch of baptists tell a Lutheran that the Bible is not inerrant on Twitter was the funniest and weirdest thing I’ve experienced all week.
It was fake and perverted "baptists". Real baptists strongly believe the Bible is inerrant
@@Alex27011969 I didn’t say they were good baptists lol.
Do you know what Baptist group they're from?
@@wesmorgan7729 idk across the internet so literally from everywhere
Wait till the Pentecostals get involved and start speaking in tongues and rolling on the floor.
I realize this video is a week old, but I'm currently relistening for the fourth time. I'm currently enrolled in a (gen ed) Bible course at my university where the professor has made it his goal to try and tear apart scripture. It reminds me a lot of your story of your Bible teacher. This podcast, and the research I'm doing independently, have allowed me to stay away from buying his stuff, and the LORD has used this to reignite a fire in me to continuemy pursuitof ordination. But I just wanted to say thank you for this, it truly was a God send, and it felt a lot like him telling me it's okay. So thank you very much!
Indeed
You should talk to Dr. Cooper about our seminary. I love taking classes at The ALTS.
The Knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven is WITHIN YOU. Books can be helpful but books are secondary information. Primary information is God speaking directly to you through your imagination, dreams and through your heart. No need for a Pope and no need for a Bible or Koran, or any religious book. People tend to give their power away to what other people have written which can be wrong.
You learn from experience. Experience trumps reading a book.
The Old Testament has a lot of ethical problems: Here is one:
Psalm: 137
Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
Here is another:
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
1 Peter 2:18
one more:
When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. “If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. “However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. “When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. “Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. “Thus, you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby. “Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.
Deuteronomy 10-16
"I dont debate people who talk about having sex with cartoon girls on twitter" what a line lol
The distinction between biblical inerrancy and literalism is essential, and I'm happy that you made that point
Many good points. I really like that you brought out the point of inerrancy vs literalism. Too many who discuss this subject tend to combine the two.
Please do a follow-up episode on the canon (and Luther’s views), and the Septuagint vs Masoretic. Both are fascinating especially early church usage, what version is typically quoted in the NT, differences in the LXX in passages like Isaiah 53 and how that affects atonement theory in the east vs west, etc.
YES PLEASE!
Yes, at 33:33, Dr. Cooper states that the question of the Septuagint is worth asking. Since St. Paul says that " All Scripture is inspired by God..." he is talking about the Greek Old Testament/ Septuagint specifically. since those were the Scriptures that Timothy was raised on. The Masoretic that we have today is very different in many ways compared to the Scriptures' that Apostles used. The Early Church believed that the Septuagint was infallible, but not the proto-Masoretic.
Thank you. Very well stated. God's peace be with you.
First of all… *Frasier* is an objectively superior 90s-sitcom. Loved it for years. While everyone was obsessed with *Friends* and *The Office* in college, I was binging *Frasier* 👌🏻
Now, I agree that inerrancy is a given with the Bible. I believe it is always better to hold more of a conservative, Augustinian approach of faith seeking understanding in handling Scripture. However, where part of my struggles come is not necessarily the inerrancy of the canon or what the Fathers have said, but when the texts itself draw on apocryphal and pseudepigraphal imagery and texts to make their point. For example, Joshua directly quotes the Book of Jasher (cf. Josh. 10:12-3 (cf. 2 Sam. 1:18). Jude alludes to The Assumption of Moses and directly quotes from 1 Enoch (cf. Jd. 9, 14-5). And I would argue that 1 Peter 3:18-20 is actually a Christian polemic in response to the theological traditions around 1 Enoch 22:3-4 (this doesn’t mean the ancient creed that Jesus “descended into hell” is necessarily wrong, it just means we need to rethink precisely what that means). Are those texts the Word of God even though they aren’t Canon? Are they partly the Word of God? Or can we say that the biblical authors simply knew what to use to capture the attention of their audience? Inerrant or not, the Bible has a history to it that we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss for the sake of Dogma.
Agreed. Even if one fully affirms biblical inerrancy, 1. as I said in my own comment, it doesn't actually get you that far when in historical prose narratives, and 2. as you said, it doesn't tell us anything about the process of authorship, redaction, and reception.
I haven't heard of this discussion before, and it interests me greatly. Could you elaborate? Maybe point me to a video or resource? In any case, thank you for bringing this to my attention.
As for inerrancy, I think it's more of a conclusion than a presupposition. After examining nearly every claim in the Bible, there isn't so much as the hint of a mistake. This is evidence for Christianity, not an assumption. The reliability of the Bible is the source of our faith in God, and it's how we can trust the work of Lord Yeshua. I think when Christians say that Scripture is inerrant, it should be the capstone of our case; the gateway for the unbeliever, not an obstacle. I think if more consideration for apologetics and philosophy was at the core our religious identity, we would better know our Saviour, and better present Him to the world. Those are just my thoughts, anyway. Take care! :)
@@jonathandoe1367 I really like your idea that inerrancy should be affirmed, but as a capstone or conclusion rather than a presupposition. It's something that should be made apparent over time, in tandem with an affirmation of the core truths of the faith. For my part, I've become more comfortable with inerrancy as I've studied arguments for biblical maximalism (a high degree of correspondence between the world created by the biblical text and the real world events), the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus, and an appreciation that inerrancy does not have to mean biblical literalism. I also fully agree that philosophy should be near the core of our religious thought (though I'm not as confident about apologetics).
I find it odd, though, that you then say that the reliability of the Bible is the source of our faith in God. That just can't be the case. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron- they all trusted in God prior to the existence of any written Scriptures. The same could be said in an even stronger way about the early church, which (with disciples like John Mark, Silas, Luke, Timothy, and others) believed with any direct revelation but only by second hand word of mouth. And, throughout the ages, the majority of Christians have been illiterate. So I think the chain of witnesses that authenticate the biblical testimony by the public handing on of the Scriptures and proclamation of the Gospel- what Catholics call apostolic succession- is a far firmer ground than the reliability of the Bible itself.
@@eatingchaos
I really look forward to watching this one! Especially with the tolerant behavior that progressive "Christian" twitter showed to you on so kindly after you stated the fact that the Bible is inerrant.
Contra gospel reductionism, we cannot separate Christ and Scripture. We would not know of the Christ we know without Scripture presenting him as it does. To know Christ is to trust in the Scripture that gave him to us, every part of it. All of Christ, all of Scripture.
The need to use vocabulary like "inerrancy" to specify how we approach Scripture reminds me of the development of vocabulary like "homoousios" when the church dealt with the Arian controversy. The doctrine didn't change, but misappropriation of the old terminology made more precise terms necessary. Of course, a lot of these exvangelicals probably think that the doctrine of the Trinity was invented by Constantine at Nicaea, too.
I met someone online that was arguing that we shouldn’t believe the trinity because it’s a doctrine invented by tertullian
The Trinity is first really mentioned at Nicaea. The funny thing is that this isn't evidence of a late invention. It means the first time anyone ever questioned the Trinity was hundreds of years after the Apostles taught it. Never before had it required open discussion. If that isn't support for the theology of a Triune God, what is?
@@jonathandoe1367 No it's not, and this would be the same argument that would be used by Catholics regarding the immaculate conception. It was just "never questioned". Anyone could make that statement. Protestants could say the reason once saved always saved was never mentioned is because it wasn't questioned.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 The problem is that here we actually see the claims being affirmed individually (Jesus is God, the Spirit is God, Jesus is distinct frim tne Spirit), it just wasn't formulated into a specific doctrine. Like how Molinism was formulated later, but the knowledge of God was always affirmed to be limiless. There wasn't a named position because there didn't need to be.
I'm not sure inerrancy really gets you that far even once you affirm it. It doesn't make clear, for instance, whether a text written in the form of narrative prose should be taken as a pretty straight representation of history (say, 2 Chronicles or 1 Maccabees), a completely fictional historical novel with a theological point (say, Esther or Tobit), or something in between, a novelistic account that is loosely based on a historical core (say, Ruth) or a history embellished with non-chronological frameworks or densely shaped by ideology (say, Judges or 1 Samuel). In none of those cases are we dealing with "errors," but it wouldn't lead us to, say, a highly maximalist account of ancient Israel's history that a literal reading would suggest.
Right. As well, even if there is fictionalized narrative in the OT, some events, such as the resurrection, are explicitly said to be historical in the expository parts of scripture. So, you're not losing much, if you do take that approach.
Thanks for the reminder that it was a good idea to leave social media
You hit the nail on the head! A lot of these folks use a conflation debate where they just throw everything against the wall and see if anything sticks.
What it boils down to is that they want so badly to say the Bible is wrong so they can have a license to sin and indulge the flesh however they like.
The one that gets me is when people, even some on online Lutheran sites, say they don’t follow what Paul or the lot testimony says. Well St Paul is defended in 2 Peter. He is also given a heck of an endorsement by St Luke in Acts. So if you don’t believe Paul, you then can’t believe Peter or Luke. Jesus quotes the Old Testament and promises that until heaven and earth disappear the law isn’t going anywhere so then do you not believe Jesus or do we throw out Mathew in order to throw out the Old Testament?
When people go down this path pretty soon they have a “buddy Jesus” statue and a Bible that is just two covers over three or four out of context verses and a rainbow.
If you add to it you end up with Mormons, if you strip it down you get Unitarians, if you say the translations are all wrong or it doesn’t mean what it actually says you get Jehovah witnesses…. Basically you become a cult and exactly what the Bible warns against in about 3/4 of the books therein.
Please continue your discussion.
Very enlightening and helpful discussion. Thank you.
Pastor Cooper introduces a significant topic which he masterly handled it by presenting adequate evidence for both believers and sceptics . As for the mustard seed example 57:01 it will be convenient to clarify that there are several linguistic approaches at stake when alluding the Scriptures analysis. By instance, Discourse Analysis, a field of inquiry in linguistics, which deals with a coherent interpretation of sentences, propositions in speech among others. Within Jesus' example, there are several sub-areas to be considered: figure of speech, rhetoric deviations, etc. As for the sociological implication of his 'example' it could be consider the sociolinguistic inferences as for his reference to such seed. Personally speaking, Bible readers must go further in their Bible studies to grasp the richness of its content.
Very insightful dicussions about real issue of inerrancy of the Scripture and its implacation to our day....godbless sir.
I will not tolerate Friends Slander
I really love this! This is definitely what I needed right now. Do you think you could do a video discussing different manuscript traditions and why they don't affect inerrancy?
I think it’s too dismissive of the Chicago Statement to say that it was just a bunch of Baptists. Among the signatories were RC Sproul and JI Packer. The latter of whom, let’s remember, was an Anglican who broke with other conservative evangelicals on evolution and Roman Catholicism.
Robert Preus signed it.
@@joehootman8958 As did John Warwick Montgomery.
Hi Dr. Cooper. Apologies if you've covered this in other videos before, but could you address the difference in the canonical books between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations (I've searched your channel but couldn't find any)? Namely the Deuterocanonical books. I feel like this certainly plays into the discussion on inerrancy as to which books we consider inerrant. I was raised Protestant without any reading of the "Apocrypha" and this is something I'm very curious about with regard to inerrancy, sola scriptura, etc. Thanks for the great videos!
I'm GLAD that you have to be on social media! LOL! Working through the pain of... Not very bright folks... Isn't easy, but you're certainly fulfilling a huge gap with academic responses that I truly appreciate. Thanks for putting up with this cesspool 🤣
The mustard seed bit reminded me of an example used by David Lewis. If you're looking in the fridge and say, "There's no more beer," it would be silly to say "You lie, for you know there is plenty of beer at the store!".
Noy related to the video content. Where can I get a cd of the acoustic guitar music at the beginning of mist if your videos?
@roddumlauf9241, that's a non-sequitur. Paul wasn't talking about the Greek text (LXX) at all. He was referring to the same text to which confessional Lutherans ascribe inerrancy- the autographs, which were written in Hebrew, not Greek.
There's miss interpretation. Also in the old Spanish bible, that's why I use textus receptus
Around minute 28, Dr. Cooper argues that Paul believes in the inerrancy of Scripture. I would also remind us though that even though people are already beginning to believe Paul's words are Scriptural by the time books like Jude are being written, Paul is not always sure that his words are God-breathed (1 Cor 7:24). Like. I know it makes us more comfortable to speak with confidence. But the Bible has multiple witnesses here.
@Catholic-Perennialist, inerrancy is a statement about Biblical authority, not about the perfection of any manuscript we have today. There was, in fact, a literal, physical copy of each of the originals, whose perfection has been confessed from the Church's very beginning precisely to establish Scripture as the ultimate authority. There just aren't that many differences between the texts. If you want an inerrant copy, all you have to do is fire up your time machine, go back to the times at which the various books of the Bible were written, and compile one. The only inerrant version Dr. Cooper affirms is the autographs, The same is true of the Fathers, btw,, in making the same point about the authority of the Bible. I thought Dr. Cooper was rather clear on that point.
I would love to hear any book recommendations you have on the topic of Biblical Inerrancy as well as the doctrine of Scripture in general.
I think because of exactly what scripture is, the word of God, it makes it very hard to define in one word like "inerrancy". Human words can't ever accurately describe what scripture is and does in the same way that we could never understand or grasp the nature of God. I prefer "inspired and fully authoritative", but even then that doesn't cut it.
Thank you for the Video!
Rc Sproul would be Classical apologist Reformed, Norman Geisler would be Classical apologist and Baptist, both involved with Chicago Statement.
Very little if any good comes from Twitter compared to the bad
I could be mistaken, but I don't think the early Lutheran documents use the word "inerrancy", but do use the term "infallibility".
I understand this term arose later to address liberal rationalistic efforts to undermine Scripture.
That being said, inerrancy just doesn't make sense to me.
It's only used in reference to the
original autographs. But we don't have any of the originals! So, what's the point?
I'm quite happy, then, to stay with "infallibility", which has been defined by Kevin Vanhoozer as "not liable to fail", and who further says that whatever God is up to with Scripture it will accomplish the purpose for which he is doing it.
I am a forever evangelical by the grace of God. I had a period of going back into Catholicism God delivered me from that. I also explored eastern orthodoxy and still study at but I could never go there.
carissimo pastor Cooper, I ask you to subtitle your videos in Portuguese, you have a large audience in Brazil that misses it.
My one question as someone who approaches Scripture as an inerrantist: what do we make of how Jesus deals with the Mosaic Law? He says the divorce proceedings described by the law were given because the Hebrews were hard of heart. How may this affect our view of inerrancy?
Yeeeess love Seinfeld and Frasier!
The doctrine claiming that the Bible is the perfect, complete and inerrant word of God is extra-biblical. By what authority is the doctrine of the Bible’s inerrancy declared?
Matthew 1:1 Matthew is Scripture.
Matthew 5:17 Even Christ never abolished the things written in the Law and Prophets. No church may either.
Mk 1:1 Mark is Scripture.
Luke 1:4 *Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine.* Luke is Scripture.
John 5:39 *We have eternal life from the Scriptures because they bear witness about Christ.*
John 10:35 *Scripture cannot be broken or invalidated."
John 15:20 *No one may contradict or neglect the Apostles and be a Christian.*
John 17:20 *The word of the Apostles is the source of true faith.*
John 20:31 *The Gospel of John alone is enough to tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name.*
John 22:24 *The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it.*
Acts 17:11 *We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true.*
Acts 24:14 *We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.*
Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope.
1 Corinthians 12:28 *All other overseers, teachers and servants in the Church come after the Apostles in priority.*
1 Corinthians 14:37 *If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord.*
2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord.
Galatians 1:8 *No one may contradict what the Apostles preached.*
Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote.
Galatians 3:22 *The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.*
Eph 2:20 The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church and the faith with Christ as cornerstone. All other authorities must build on that foundation and no other.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 *We are to firmly hold to the teachings of the Apostles. They are the only true standard by which other teachers and doctrines are to be judged. I challenge anyone to identify an oral Apostolic teaching that is not written in the New Testament.*
2 Thessalonians 3:14 *We are to admonish and give the silent treatment to anyone who does not obey Paul’s epistles until they become rightly ashamed of themselves.*
1 Timothy 3:14-15 *This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons, and how the Church is to be godly. This godliness is unchanging.*
1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. *No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable. Scripture is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged.*
2 Timothy 3:17 *Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work.*
1 Peter 1:25 *The Gospel of the Apostles is the word of the Lord and it endures forever.*
1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it.
2 Peter 1:19 *Individuals do not interpret Scripture. The Apostles confirm and interpret the prophetic word of Old and New Testament Scripture.*
2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles.
2 Peter 3:16 The ignorant and unstable who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. Paul's Epistles are Scripture.
1 John 1:3-4 *The eye-witness writings of the Apostles are what give us fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father, and with His Son.*
1 John 4:6 *The Apostles are from God. Whoever knows God listens to the words of the Apostles; whoever is not from God does not believe the Apostles. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.*
Hebrews 4:12 *The word of God judges the reader and the Church, not vice versa. The Epistle to the Hebrews has done this since the first time it was read.*
James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
The Bible has verified itself through all the history, prophecy, and wisdom spoken in it are all true. What amazes me is other Christians that tell me they believe that the Bible is the word of God. But, they have never read it. I usually answer "So, you believe God wrote a book. But, you never read it?"
The Bible doesn't have all of God's truth in it, it only has half the writings of the prophets in it.
@@germanslice There are good reasons to reject extra biblical writings.
@@TheBelegur Isaiah mentions the sealed book in Isaiah Chapter 28. That's an extra book of scripture. So I have no reason to reject Isaiah's words. John also talked with an angle of heaven down on the Isle of Patmos to his face who told John that another angle would in the last days come down and bring the everlasting gospel to preach to them who dwell down on the earth. So I have no reason to reject John's testimony either for he saw these things in vision. As the angle of heaven showed him these things.
@@germanslice "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;" Revelation 22:18
@@TheBelegur That's also not the full truth either for God is not going to excuse Bible Believers who keep on thumping that scripture or thumping the teachings of Paul around to try to ignore and deny John's testimony of the truth of who has the everlasting gospel. It was the angle of God who had the everlasting gospel, it was an angle who taught John the Revelator the truth of what will happen in the last days to the world. So it will be an angle who will be sent by God to preach the everlasting gospel in the last days to the world for John the Revelator saw the angle that had the everlasting gospel with him...... But That angle that John saw that the angle of on the isle of Patmos had showed John in vision didn't have another gospel in his possession. He had the everlasting gospel in his possession. But if you think the angle of God has got another gospel to preach to those who dwell on earth among all nations, kindreds, tongues and people because you have misinterpreted what paul said to the Galatian Saint Audience for John The Revelator was assigned to reveal the things leading up to end of the world in the last days and not what was going on with the Galatian Saints in their apostasy that paul was talking and warning them about, then you are preaching another gospel and
not preaching the everlasting gospel if you reject John's testimony of the truth.
Also, I find the dismissal of Wright's charge that inerrancy is a modern doctrine a bit too quick. It seems like biblical maximalists and conservatives who do not strictly subscribe to inerrancy should be taken seriously precisely because they present a steel man opponent: they aren't affirming the sexual revolution or denying the doctrines of the faith. In fact, I was wondering if you would go on to demonstrate how inerrancy was, in fact, the reigning assumption of the church fathers (which would be the critical move in disproving, rather than merely dismissing, Wright and his colleagues like Anthony Thiselton), but your parade example was telling. Justin Martyr affirms non-contradiction, which is not the same as inerrancy. I can affirm simultaneously that there is non-contradiction between Thomas' Summa, Dante's Comedia, and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and yet recognize that one is systematic theology, one is a poetic epic that reflects but does not represent the author's vision of the cosmos and the Christian life, and one is an entirely fictional allegory (despite the author's protestations!) that plumbs the sources of heroic virtue and faithfulness in the face of modernity's onslaught. And for a counter-example: Jerome expressly says that he would be perfectly content with a post-exilic redaction of the Torah by Ezra, despite so many inerrantists that insist Jesus' citations of the Torah must affirm Mosaic authorship.
Besides of Robert Preuss' book do you have other recomendation? Great video btw.
Let me see if I've got this straight: God wanted the church of today to have an inerrant text...but he didn't want the church of today to have an inerrant interpretive key for that text. Do I understand correctly so far?
@@josephpchajek2685 "By design, because the fact is nobody can use scripture to know everything."
------------My comment did not express or imply that the bible inerrancy doctrine was intended to cause a person to know everything.
"It's designed this way so that all learn to approach it with humility."
---------Where does the bible say God designed the bible so that all learn to approach it with humility? I'm sorry, but you appear to be simply making things up as yo go along.
"Instead people think it's a key to life."
--------------How does this popular misundestanding foist any obligation on me to inquire further? Some people think the Koran is the key to life...do I sin by totally disregarding that nonsense?
"No one person isn't mean to be able to interpret and know everything and anything about scripture."
---------Why not? The bible does not report that anybody started worshiping the original bible manuscripts merely because of a belief that the authors were inerrantly inspired. If your god doesn't want us to know everything and anything about scripture, blame him for all the doctrinal division that exists within your cult. I therefore deduce that if any of this shit is true, God does not care about doctrinal accuracy anywhere near as much as the Christian scholars who are ceaselessly trying to make bible truth completely obvious to everybody.
"It's simply not possible"
-----------Then apparently you deny Mark 10:27. Nice going. You are wrong anyway. If the story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is true, God could give a similar experience to Christians, and they would presumably no more disagree with each other about the bible than Paul disagreed with himself about the bible.
"there's the holy spirit which serves as a unifying factor"
-----------------No, Paul said disagreement with him was "sin", Titus 3:9-11, so because many Christians today disagree with each other's interpretation o Paul's words, somebody in the controversy must be "sinning", and presumably the Holy Spirit does not support anybody who misinterpret Paul.
"and there's also our humility. Now the problem with most churches, theologians, scientists and anybody really, is that they try to define or create some model that they can use for any situation. No such model exists."
--------------Are you saying the model of bible inerrancy cannot be used for every situation?
It baffles me that so-called "Christians" actually think the Bible isn't inerrant. You're not a Christian if you think God's spoken word is erroneous, end of story.
What about Matthew 27:9 referencing Jeremiah being fulfilled when it was actually Zecheriah being fulfilled?
It's pretty common both for Jesus' Apostles and historical Rabbinical teachers to synthesize several references from minor prophets into a theme from a major prophet and attribute all to the major prophet. In this case, Jeremiah 18-19 is prophecy spoken in the field where he smashed a potter's pot. Matt 29:10 references that, and the whole pericope shares themes with those chapters. The verses from Zechariah add to Matthew's point. By the standard of the era, his 'citation' conforms to the 'style guide.'
If all Scripture is God-breathed or God-inspired and all revelations from God like the prophecies and their interpretations are not the words of the men that were used to write them, then we should not find any errors from their original works, right?
But we don't have the original writings anymore but just fragments of old copies which are also different from one another. There are also whole copies but still are different from one another.
Now, how do we determine today which is the accurate copy of the original writings of the people who were inspired by God to write his words?
Do we use our own standards or knowledge today to determine which is correct or wrong, or do we also need the guidance of God's spirit? And if that is so, how can we determine if the spirit guiding us is from God?
For example: In Matthew 27:50-53, the writer here tells us that when Jesus died, bodies of saints who have died were raised up from their graves and when Jesus was resurrected, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
Did this really happen? Is it an accurate account of what really happened during the death and resurrection of Jesus?I believed it happened literally, but why others say, this did not happen literally? And still, others say, it is a copyist's error?
Ok, Bart Ehrman, find me a difference between two manuscripts significant enough to challenge even one minor doctrine of any of the Christian denominations existing today.
@@Mygoalwogel In 1Peter 3:18-20, there are three kinds of versions or translations existing today because each one based its translation from three different manuscripts, obviously.
Version #1: "... Christ died in the flesh but was resurrected by the Spirit .."
(Which is true also because God who is a Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. But is this really what Paul wrote exactly in this particular text?)
Version #2: "... Christ died in the flesh but was resurrected in the Spirit..."
(This is why some believe Jesus is in the Spirit nature already when he was raised up from the dead.)
Version #3: "... Though his body/flesh died, his spirit lived on..." (TLB)
This clearly teaches that even though Christ was killed as flesh, he continued living as spirit for no human weapon can kill him as spirit. This clearly teaches the duality of Christ's nature as the son of God (spirit) and as the son of man (flesh).
The word "but" gives us the clue. For examples:
1. "Don't be afraid of those who can just kill the flesh but not the soul."
2. "You can take my body but not my mind. "
The " but" word expresses the difference of two words or things. They were able to kill the flesh of Christ but not his spirit and so he, as spirit, was able to visit the dungeon of spirits and was able also to make a proclamation to them. And who are these imprisoned spirits? They were the spirits during the days of Noah who rebelled while God was patiently waiting for them to return before the great flood. These are spirits of wicked people.
@@rexcavalier
Is this some kind of joke?
The TLB defines itself in its own introduction like this. "The Living Bible is a paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments."
It is NOT textual variants that make the TLB so different from your versions 1 and 2.
The only difference between your *uncited* "versions" 1 and 2 is "by the spirit" and "in the spirit". Even if you were right (You're so wrong!) that isn't close to "significant enough to challenge even one minor doctrine."
There is a variant in this verse between, "suffered" and "died" at the beginning. There is no variant regarding "pneumati" other than "to (the) pneumati."
"[by/in] the spirit" -- "pneumati" - Dative Neuter singular. There isn't any preposition, "by" NOR "in" at all because the dative case doesn't require a preposition. It's already an indirect object. "By" vs "in" is a mere matter of the translator's preference.
Not only have you not found a variant that challenges a doctrine. You haven't found a variant at all.
Berean Greek New Testament 2016
ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·*
SBL Greek New Testament 2010
ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·*
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἀπέθανεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·*
Westcott and Hort 1881
ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἀπέθανεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·*
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἀπέθανεν / ἔπαθεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·*
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἀπέθανεν / ἔπαθεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·*
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Ὅτι καὶ χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί, ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι,*
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθε,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ, ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·*
Tischendorf 8th Edition 1872
ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἀπέθανεν,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ *πνεύματι·*
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθε,* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ, ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *τῷ πνεύματι,*
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν *ἔπαθεν* δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ *τῷ πνεύματι·*
Beza Greek New Testament 1598
Ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθε, δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων· ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί, ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ *τῷ Πνεύματι,*
@@Mygoalwogel He died in the body but in the spirit, he lived on.
That is the correct message of Apostle Peter here in that particular text.
Not resurrected by the spirit or resurrected in the spirit, although in other texts, Jesus was raised by the Spirit of God, indeed.
But in 1Peter 3:18-20, he was teaching that what was killed and died is the body of Christ only, it was Jesus only, the son of man, the flesh, BUT Christ's spirit continued to live or exist. In fact, while his body is dead, he visited the spirits who are in prison and preached also to them about his victory and the coming thousand years of fair judgment so that if they will repent, they can also stand and endure that fiery day and be purified and refined and will not perish.
After 3 days, he, as spirit, he fulfilled his prophecy to raise his body back to immortal life.
@@Mygoalwogel By means the tool or the one who make the action as in resurrecting a dead body. In means the form to which the dead body is raised into. Big difference and resulted two doctrines.
Language is approximate. That's why it takes numerous books over centuries and numerous authors to try to explicate the underlying truth. Taken all together it leads me to Christ and that personal experience is the truth, the Word in flesh we've been given. But then, I'm just an ordinary slob in the pew. I do note that the apostles wrote in Greek, Luther wrote in Latin and maybe German, and we're trying to deal with it in English--Approximate!
Does anyone have any idea about which "coalition" of Churches in Germany have the same belief as Dr. Cooper?
Thank you.
SELK
@@DrJordanBCooper God bless you and your Church!
That was a profitable discussion, Dr. Cooper!
I have a question somewhat related to what you say around 58:00 though:
How would interpret the references to the _raqia_ /firmament found in the Bible? I know that even some conservative scholars believe it to be a reference to the solid dome thought (in ANE) to separate the waters above from the waters below.
If that is the case, then one would have to at least accept that some of the descriptions found in the Bible, while theologically accurate, "accidentally" contain part of the scientific thought of the past.
William lane craig has said that he thinks that nobody really believed those models to be correct back then. They were just images with religious significance. He has some talks about it in his defenders series. Very good specifically on the question of the firmament.
Mr. Cooper.
I'm persuaded to believe Martin Luther was a geocentrist, and there are many other quotes and writings of church fathers which believe in BIBLICAL Cosmology.
As opposed to the heliocentric model which dominates the Christian and secular world today.
Can you cite a single verse supporting the heliocentric model in light of biblical cosmology believed by
Luther, Calvin, philo of Alexandria and others.
I view inerrancy like this, the Bible is without error in its theological messages that are being taught. Example, a story is told that contains characters, content, and a whole lot of others things. The details can be a mixture of true and false in a story, while what the story is ultimately trying to communicate is the inerrant part. Gen3 is a clear example of this where there are characters, God, humans, serpent, and there’s true and false content, serpent lying about God, but the story with all its details is telling us something ultimately and I think that is the thing that is inerrant.
It’s strange to speak about the serpents words as inerrant. Expanding from this, what else in the Bible doesn’t fall under an inerrant category?
So Abraham was like 175 years old when he died?
Why wouldn't he?
You said we don't hear Jesus correcting the old testament well I kindof think the following could qualify
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
33:53. Dr. Cooper, its not *always* the Seputgaint from what I understand. I recommend you get the book 'why Protestant bibles Are Smaller' and 'The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church.'
Dr. Cooper, C.S. Lewis, a professor of literature, thought that on stylistic grounds Jonah was an inspired work of fiction. His grounds were precisely the text! I see no reason why it shouldn't be literal history. But that said, using the way Jesus spoke about Jonah as evidence that He believed that has always seemed to me to be rather shaky. If I were to say, "Just as Tom Sawyer tricked Huckleberry Finn into whitewashing Aunt Polly's fence, Jim tricked me into doing his work," would any reasonable person take that as evidence that I believed Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, and Aunt Polly to be real people and the incident to be historical?
Please forgive me for being a bit squishy in the mind. I listened intently to this man speak and I could not actually decipher any point where he tells the listener what the content of the word "inerrancy" is. He frequently references various concepts and ideas surrounding Scripture, which he dismisses, but never gets around to stating what he personally means by the term "inerrancy". So, as an armchair theologian lol I'm getting a sneaky suspicion that this particular word "inerrancy" functions like a password or code to gain one entry into certain guilds and fellowships. To the guy on the bus who ponders life after death, the meaning of life and guilt and sorrow, the term "inerrancy" is functionally meaningless for this man. Am I wrong for thinking that authority is derived from the effect of a thing, not deduced prior to encountering that thing, or even as a condition for knowing a thing? My mind seems to find that reality when I study the Gospels. I hope I'm not drifting into the weeds. Very open to correction, but something sounds a bit fishy the more I listen to this lecture on inerrancy.
No. You dont have to be a KJVO- ist to believe that translations are also inerrant. If accurate translations are rightly called " scripture," and all scripture is God- breathed, then translations also must have that resident god- breathedness on them. God's Word is by nature god- breathed: it comes out of his mouth. once it comes out of His mouth, it will not return fruitless (Isaiah 55:11). What does it do? It accomplishes God's will. It is "useful" as 2 Tim 3:16-17. And "god-breathed" is describing the quality of the scriptures, NOT the process of their writing. If one accepts and proclaims the scriptures' usefulness, even down to translations, then its resident "god- breathedness" must also be claimed down to the translations. The Bible, BECAUSE it is god- breathed is not only inerrant, it is infallibe.
Any chance this will appear on Spotify?
Yes. Soon.
Wow that was quick, thanks! How about the episode on the church fathers and prayer to the saints? I noticed that it wasn't on Spotify - I find it easier to download/stream than from here
How to create a BUZZ?
1. Make a bold or outlandish statement
2. Claim that you can back up that statement
3. Make more statements that don't back up your statement in the first place
Wait at every single step for the backlash. Wash, Rinse and Repeat.
Nicely played Sir. Nicely played.
how is a Christian saying the bible is true an bold or outlandish statement?
You're commenting on the wrong video@@internetenjoyer1044 because this is *NOT* about a "Christian saying the bible is true"...The claims here are for inerrancy.
@@finallykadaine8473 ie that there are no parts of thee bible that,, when rightly interpreted, are false. This is thhe default Christian position
Well @@internetenjoyer1044 *The Bible* we don't have. Bible should *never* be subject to one's *own* interpretations. There are actually parts of Bible (if we're speaking about the English ones) that are "false" and there are Christians that don't agree to inerrancy. So guess what? It's *not* "the default position".
I believe that Biblical inerrancy is a pretty common view what are you talking about?
I was about to go off if you we’re going to defend the Chicago statement, and then you didn’t. And I just enjoyed the rest of the video.
I believe this is not part of the discussion, and maybe you already touched on this, but I did not catch it. When you talk about inerrancy in the Bible, I don't so much think of how come there is a contradiction in the Gospels or such, but I think of it as when the Scriptures are passed down and there are copyist errors
For example, in the Answering Islam Blog to clear up 101 supposed contradictions in the Bible said by Muslims (and maybe even other non-believers), they reasonably say that many of the passages that are in contradiction are not interpreted correctly, especially ones that involves doctrine or historical event. However, there are cases where there are copyist errros such as
5. Was Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
The answer given by Answering Islam is : Copyist Error, and then give an explanation what happened.
Note, I am not in a way saying that the Bible is not preserved well, but I am saying there are these small mistakes, usually insignificant
So in this sense, when you say the Bible is without error, is it that it is perfectly preserved or that all doctrine inside the Bible is without error and contradiction, or something else? I believe either the 2nd or 3rd option, but just to be clear on your stance, cus as a person living in a country where English is a second language, when saying the Bible is without error, inerrancy, perfect preservation and correct translation, all these definitions are quite similar on the surface. What's your response Dr Jordan? If you have already responded to this, can you show me the timestamp or another vid you did maybe haha, thanks and God bless🙏
Before 49:20 , 51:35
Error: Easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. In Aramaic, the word for Camel is the same as rope. They are synonyms.
Error: Lord's Prayer: Our Father who is throughout the Heavens. In Aramaic, the word evil means ignorance. Delivere us from ignorance. There is no inherent evil.
Error: In Aramaic, the word for Prayer means "to trap." Much the same way you use a remote to trap a T.V. station.
23:00 Martin Luther taking notes **
Example of a Bible passage with three different translations that resulted into two different teachings.
In 1Peter 3:18-20, there are three kinds of versions or translations existing today because each one based its translation from three different manuscripts, obviously.
Version #1: "... Christ died in the flesh but was resurrected by the Spirit .."
(Which is true also because God who is a Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. But is this really what Paul wrote exactly in this particular text?)
Version #2: "... Christ died in the flesh but was resurrected in the Spirit..."
(This is why some believe Jesus is in the Spirit nature already when he was raised up from the dead.)
Version #3: "... Though his body/flesh died, his spirit lived on..." (TLB)
This clearly teaches that even though Christ was killed as flesh, he continued living as spirit for no human weapon can kill him as spirit. This clearly teaches the duality of Christ's nature as the son of God (spirit) and as the son of man (flesh).
The word "but" gives us the clue. For examples:
1. "Don't be afraid of those who can just kill the flesh but not the soul."
2. "You can take my body but not my mind. "
The " but" word expresses the difference of two words or things. They were able to kill the flesh of Christ but not his spirit and so he, as spirit, was able to visit the dungeon of spirits and was able also to make a proclamation to them. And who are these imprisoned spirits? They were the spirits during the days of Noah who rebelled while God was patiently waiting for them to return before the great flood. These are spirits of wicked people.
False. See my reply in the other place you pasted this.
@@Mygoalwogel
Another is in Ephesians 4:9:
Version #1 tells us that the phrase he ascended means that he descended first.
Version #2 tells us that the phrase he ascended means he also descended. See ASV and NLT.
I believe that the first version inserted the word "first" and was not taught by Apostle Paul.
This can be verified by the following verse which says that he did that so that he can fill the whole universe with his presence.
How can one fill the whole universe if when he ascended, he is not present here below? Or when he descended, he is not present above there? Remember that our Lord is omnipresent.
John 3:13 (KJV) is the correct words of Jesus when he said that no man ascended to heaven except the one who descended from heaven, that is, the son of man WHO IS IN HEAVEN.
He was saying that while he was on earth speaking to Nicodemus. If he was referring to his body as the son of man, then the son of man is in heaven during that time also. Our Lord is present in heaven and on earth at the same time because that is also the capability of his father.
In light of these, the word "first" Ephesians in 4:9 was inserted by copyists and the last phrase "who is in heaven" in John 3:13 was removed by some copyists also.
Therefore, not all the Bibles today are inspired and not all the words inside every Bible is inspired. Some are blatant errors.
@@Mygoalwogel You have a very wrong representation of the word paraphrase, as if, the the one who translated and paraphrased the passage completely deviated from the teaching.
@@Mygoalwogel
Though his body died, his spirit lived on.
I will paraphrase it:
Christ died in the flesh, but not in the spirit.
That is the usage of the word BUT.
What was killed is just the temple of Christ. Christ in the spirit did not die.
@@Mygoalwogel
Can you answer this question: Do you believe the spirit of Christ died also when his flesh died?
I looked at the almost 200 direct responses to your original tweet. They mostly just disagreed with you and adopted the "infallibility" position with regard to doctrine and morals. Did I miss something? Were there a bunch of nasty quote tweets or whatever?
They were mostly in shared screen-shotted tweets.
The Bible is authoritative, since God's authority is, in some sense, behind. But it is not totally inerrant. Apostolicity & prophethood are derived from God's authority - not from inerrancy.
Inerrancy is inseparable from meaning - a reader whose Bible inerrantly tells him that the patriarch Shem was a real individual who lived to the age of 600 years, is reading a different Bible from a reader whose reading of the same passage tells him that Shem must be a ancestor-figure in Jewish mythology, like Hellen, Dorus & Pelasgus in Greek mythology. There are many many passages that are understood by Christians in incompatible senses - showing that TBI is useless; for all the difference it makes, the 2 readers might as well be reading different, TBI-less, Bibles.
That is just one passage that is commonly read by different readers - or by the same reader at different times - as meaning different things to each. And this happens all the time among Christians. Neither great learning in Biblical matters, nor years of study, nor prayers for Divine Guidance, nor God's assistance, nor help from the godly and learned, nor helps to the study of the Bible, have brought all Christians to the known knowledge that that particular passage means X, and not Y or Z or B or C. For that passage of the Bible, the supposed Total Biblical Errancy has been utterly worthless. It is useless to claim that TBI is at work in that passage, *if it is impossible to decide what that passage* - which, like all the OT, is alleged in the New Testament to be "God-breathed" - *is intended by its Divine & human authors to mean* .
At least the text of that passage, in Genesis 11.10-11, seems to be in no doubt. But the Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 13.1 is uncertain at best. So how is that passage, the text of which is not certain, endowed with TBI ?
The usual, Warfieldian, expression of TBI, is mistaken as a statement of historical fact, and makes TBI useless to all the Church except for the (imagined) possessors of the original texts. TBI is a doctrine with absolutely no value whatsoever for the Church.
clean!
The original intent of the scriptures is without errors. That said, the ideology of inerrancy is not valid, because it is meant to support those who claim to teach from the scriptures, giving them credibility, even though their interpretation of the scriptures is greatly in error concerning many doctrines.
Elaine Pagels recently was asked about this and... she sounds like she has literally no idea what she's talking about.
Ok, but do you affirm the firmament?
That's part of what I was trying to say (I think I was deleted). "Inerrancy" means more than simply "without error" -- duh, of course the Bible cannot/doesn't lie (it can only lie if it's intention is to mislead and not simply to get _another point_ across through fallible human-linguistic condescension). Inerrancy, aka Inerrantism, is a whole set of schools of thought and many of them align with just the sort of issues you're describing -- in which the Bible is understood as an accidental science textbook (insofar as it addresses these matters incidentally; all-the-while inerrantly).
My own perspective on the issue is very much that of A.C. Piepkorn, Hermann Sasse, or N.T. Wright. We shouldn't simply dismiss the distinction between "infallible" and "inerrant" as meaningless liberal tricks. There're conservative thinkers who do so.
I think that we don't take the dual nature of Christ seriously enough . Because Christ has two natures, one human and one Divine, we believe that the bread and wine of the eucharist must also have two natures, the natural and the supernatural, therefore it is both bread and the body of Christ, both wine and the blood of Christ.In that way the dual natures of Christ are present in the eucharist, both the natural and the Divine. In the same way the Bible, as the word of God must, necessarily, have two natures, being linked to Christ, the Word of God. The Bible then being both natural and supernatural, both human and Divine, should contain human elements as well as the Divine.
@@he7230 Completely agree. It is under the human dimension that I believe that higher criticism can belong -- just because Scholarship has recognized that the Bible resulted from natural processes that doesn't negate its Spirit-guided infallibility... nor by analogy, does an affirmation of evolutionary biology negate the guiding hand of divine providence.
We need to embrace "both/and"s not resort to "either/or"s
Yes, but we should be careful to stick to the science, and avoid left-wing ideology masquerading as science.
@@he7230 in terms of higher criticism? Or biology?
We would love for you *not* to get off the internet.
yes, of course it is. it is the holy word of holy God
Your failure to understand why people look at words by the current meaning is a good picture of how education has failed you. If you use the word "gay" what definition do you think people will assume?
If you want an "error" I will give you one.
Study Acts 5:36-37. The historical data is in error in the book of Acts. The Bible is in error.
"It has also been suggested that the reference in Acts is to a different revolt by another, unknown Theudas, because Josephus states that there were numerous uprisings, saying there were "ten thousand disorders", but he gives details on only four and Theudas was not a unique name." -- Wikipedia (Which is, like, totally the, like, the most, like, reliable source ever an' stuff.)
The question I ask. What possible harm comes when admitting there are falsehoods in the Bible? let's understand these are writings of so long ago. I hardly doubt finding error in the "scriptures" will change much. All it will show is that even the Bible is not immune to correction.
No
I agree with nearly everything-but there is a problem with making belief in inerrancy too abstract a matter. One can formally affirm inerrancy while explaining away the supernaturalism of the opening chapters of Genesis-such an affirmation is worthless.
Edit: changed "to" to "too"
No it isn't. Didn't need an hour to flesh that out either.
wot uttur drivil.
Get to the point!
You waffle too much man 🙄
Believing the Bible is inerrant is a stumbling block. Let me make it simple, which Bible are you referring to? Which translation? and then whose interpretation which is also needed in translating the Bible? The Bible is a mystery and powerful ... but it will not usurp God and Jesus. It will not let man take control of the Bible. Too many ads here.
Clearly you didn’t watch the video as he addressed your assumption of inerrancy. Please watch the video and get informed.
If you actually listened you might have heard an answer to these questions.
@@michaelborg5798 Nope I watched. Could you answer it after you listened to him?
@@mark-mh6pz go to the 4:35 minute mark and listen for like 20 seconds and get back to me with your translation idea again.
@@michaelborg5798 I have listened to it. Try writing in clear thoughts in your own words, and then think for a moment, do you think that makes the bible inerrant. Check whatever dictionary the meaning of inerrancy. How is the Bible inerrant to you in simple clear language. Inerrant with a thousand qualifications? I am with C.S Leweis on this.
I just don’t understand how it’s intellectually sound to simply declare a text (a library of books) to be inerrant. These books are not immune from scrutiny when it comes to historical, literary, logical methods. It’s not like a stoic philosophy or something that’s purely abstract that you can just assent to, on preference. You can look at the claims in the book, the manuscript evidences, corroborating evidences and demonstrate that it has factual, inaccuracies, propaganda and the beliefs about it do not hold up to the data.
You admit in this video that conservatives simply hated the findings of critical scholarship and then just asserted and declared the text as inerrant. I’m struggling to have any respect for this kind of reactive, blind assertion to hold on to a texts authority.
We know that the pentatuch was not written by a single author, just by examining the text itself. Just because the gospel authors assumed or claimed Jesus thought it was has no bearing on whether it in fact was.. this isn’t hard