Is the Bible Inerrant? (DEBATE: Richard Howe vs. Mike Licona - 2019)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 жов 2019
- Mike Licona and Richard Howe debate on the topic of biblical inerrancy. Is there Bible inerrant? What constitutes an "error"? How is the doctrine of biblical inerrancy best defined? Does Mike Licona believe the Bible is inerrant? Licona addresses some of Norman Geisler's concerns. This dialogue/debate occurred at the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in Charlotte, NC on October 11th, 2019.
Mike Licona is associate professor of theology at Houston Baptist University. HBU offers a fully accredited Master of Arts degree in apologetics that may be completed entirely online or on the HBU campus in Houston. For more information, visit bit.ly/2Wlej6Z.
WEBSITE: www.risenjesus.com
FACEBOOK: / michael.r.licona
TWITTER: / drmikelicona
Buy "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus": amzn.to/38vTfNU
Buy "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach": amzn.to/2NOOZkT
Buy "Paul Meets Muhammad": amzn.to/2RdEFoB
Buy "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?": amzn.to/36dzc5C
If you like Mike's work, become a patron by visiting his new Patreon page at / risenjesus
#inerrancy
This was frustrating. Without knowing their background, you could very quickly figure out which was the philosopher and which was the Bible scholar. Howe's view is too rigid and narrow to deal with the Bible texts themselves, and Licona has a deep knowledge of the texts but struggles discussing them in philosophical categories. I prefer Licona's view, but I wish he would do some work alongside WLC to produce a more rigorous account of what the Bible actually is.
"Mytho-History" 🤭
Why does _theopneustos_ (God-breathed) or _inspiration_ have to mean or assume the Bible has to be without errors or contradictions?
For 30+ years, as a Christian, I have believed in the doctrine of _inerrancy/infallibility_ because traditionally that is what we are told to believe. Eight weeks ago I decided to look for contradictions and errors in the Bible like I have done researching Mormonism and Islam, etc. I actually found what I was looking for. The fact of the matter is there are undeniable contradictions, many that I believe are small things, but there are even some contradictions concerning the nature of God.
If you would have asked me three months ago if inerrancy was a circular argument I would have been blind to the logic and said absolutely not! But I now believe inerrancy is a circular argument and most Christians have _cognitive dissonance,_ like I had, when reading contradictory passages and verses.
I don't see why _inspiration_ has to equal _inerrancy._
What is Richard Howe’s purpose of being in this discussion if he doesn’t take a stance on anything? Cherry-picking versus around scripture isn’t answering anything. At least Mike pointed out two accounts of the same story and laid out his explanation. Does anyone know what Richard is trying to say?
As Mike presented his arguments during the discussion between the two Richard kept waffling back and forth depending on which examples either proved or disproved his position.I think Mike's definition and approach to the inerrancy of scripture is a much more realistic view.Basically it says that that the concepts and teaching that God intended the Bible to have for the formation of Christian church and it's doctrine is inerrant, inspired by and preserved by God.The fact that there are differences in gospel accounts or there are textual variants doesn't change the fact that it is a consistent teaching (across both old and new testaments) about what our Christian theology should be.
The fact that there are differences and variants shows that the Bible is a product of man.
1:31:55 I knew the debate was over when Howe said, “It could be both!” Dr. Licona rightly pointed out that this view of inerrancy is the kind of view that Bart Ehrman thinks of
Amazing arguments Mike. Very clear and effective.
Nice debate. I enjoyed it. Mike, I especially liked your closing argument.
Excellent presentation, Mike. I love your summary statement-- maybe you should've led with that ;) I think this is a crucial issue for us to come to terms with. We tend to believe what our systematic theology tells us, rather than deriving our theology from what God's word tells us. That certainly includes our position on inerrancy-- or more accurately, our definition of inerrancy.
Because so many of us are more focused on believing whatever our church says is orthodox, and spend so little time actually reading the Bible, we seem to let our view of Scripture be formed by our beliefs rather than the other way around. We've developed an idealized view of what God's Word is from our modern American cultural and theological experience, one that is often at variance with God's Word. We expect the Bible to live up to that image we've formed of it, and when it doesn't (if we ever spend enough honest time in the Word to realize it) then we lose our faith in inerrancy or in God himself. Dr. Howe even admitted that he would do the same thing, if it were proven to him that the Bible isn't inerrant in the exact way he thinks it is.
The reality is the the Bible was written under the influence/direction of the Holy Spirit, and that he used the humans who wrote it, including their culture and understanding. It's important to understand what was going on in their culture(s), and not try to strong-arm the Bible into what our culture prefers. Compositional devices seem like a valid part of the Spirit using the human authors to produce the written Word. In fact, there's no way to rightly understand the Bible apart from compositional devices. We shouldn't resist that, but should try to understand what those devices are and how they were used. That's just a natural part of exegeting the text.
Thanks again!
Over all me and you have a purpose! Not nevertheless, anything goes! Which one will you prefer? Anything goes? Or to look at you as kings and priests who is worth respecting, honoring, loving, and giving my life for a friend kind of. Arrogant has no place to a true believer of God.
When Pilot said, what is truth? What happened to the Romans? After coherence is revealed?
Beautiful comment. Peace and blessings to you and yours!!💜💜
But 2Peter 1:20-21 says that no interpretation of prophecy/revelation of God came from man's own words or interpretation. The revelations are God's own words and so are their interpretations.
Do you believe that this does not apply to other revelations like the so-called gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
For example: Matthew 27:50-53 tells us that when Jesus died, tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints who have died came out of their graves. When Jesus was resurrected, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
The writer is narrating to us the events before and during the resurrection of Jesus, that many dead bodies of saints were resurrected before Jesus was resurrected.
Well, I believe this is accurate, but why others teach this is just symbolical or parabolical or self-style of the writer to convey a specific message? Other say it is an copyist error. Why?
Another is the reports of the writers of Matthew and Mark about the two robbers or criminals that were crucified along with Jesus. They say that these two mocked Jesus also.
But preachers today and in movies are not presenting these? Is it because it is different from what the writer of Luke reported, that only one of the two robbers mocked Jesus?
I can harmonize these two different account but I must add some words of mine to do that, like, "but the other one repented later and stopped mocking at Jesus".
But if I do that, I am adding words that are not written and I will be accused as a liar according to the Bible.
It sounds like you worship the Bible.
Mike Licona: How does you view differ from divine dictation?
Richard Howe: I don't know if it does.
Mike Licona: So, your view is divine dictation.
Richard Howe: Who said anything about divine dictation?!
LOL!
I think Licona was saying here that while Howe may not know, Licona thinks a divine dictation view follows from what Howe said and Licona could have been clearer on that though he did point out some stuff as to why he thinks that.
@@rhmForITZY This was how it followed when Licona first brought it up than Howe rejected that divine dictation followed from there.
@@josiahwatson728 Well not sure Howe said it didn't follow as he just pleaded ignorance but even if he didn't believe it followed doesn't mean it does not. Licona was trying to get him to see that.
What's the purpose of the discussions? Without true coherence, response! If your knowledge is einstein, remember please speak to our level. So we may understand. Because, we as men and women matters!!!! Nevertheless, just be a thing or matter, that just exist. I say differ! We used things!!!!! Not PEOPLE!!!!! But to look at them, as kings and priests. Who is worth respecting, honoring, loving, and giving my life for a friend kind of love indeed! Now, you are not just matters! I will not lay my life for a matter!!!! Nevertheless, you think like matters individuals indeed! But love them. COMMANDMENTS of JESUS! Love God all your mind, heart, and soul. And love thy neighbors truly as thyself. All the COMMANDMENTS hangs upon this 2 COMMANDMENTS indeed. Now is how to be consistent with our purpose, will, and faith. @LLOVE. BEING ONE NOONE, CAN MATCH GOD IN BEING "WHOLE"!
Wow! Beautiful debate, it clears up both of your positions to the audience and leaves you wide open to defend your position in the long cross fires.
I had the same position as ML coming into this, but it did show me clearly the other position has a lot similar with my view.
As ML put it: we agree on compositional methodologies we know and disagree on those we aren't familiar with!
Do you need a debate about whether the Bible is inerrant or not. Just read it and the errors jump out by the hundreds - even with a superficial reading.
This was a good debate, thanks Mike. 👍
"inerrancy is not an essential doctrine"? Is this not the teaching on which all doctrine finds its footing, and has this not been the historical position of the church all along? It would appear that atheists/agnostics would be the ones to side with *THAT* position.
Where did Jesus express or imply that following him as a believer ever required literacy, or defending the inerrancy of a NT canon? Inerrantists are Pharisees because their issues clearly add to the word of the Lord extra requirements.
When there is smoke one wonders if there is a fire. So if the "Holy" word is construed with writing errors, confusions, inconsistency, and falsehoods. Then it leads the reader to ask. What else was incorrect?. One cannot assume a conclusion, if the path to said conclusion has holes in the story. For instance. In Matthew Jesus is added to the Joseph family line. But the story tells us that Joseph was not the natural father. So either the author/authors know nothing about how biology works, or it was just a plain lie. But it compels the reader to ask questions. Like what other holes are there in the story.
Or there is another possibility: that for St Matthew Jesus was the legal, but not bodily, son of Joseph, and that St Matthew was interested in the Davidic & Abrahamic & Israelite descent of Jesus;
whereas St Luke is interested in the significance of Jesus for the whole human race - therefore, he traces His descent from Adam.
Both genealogies are theological documents; the genealogy of Jesus is of entirely secondary importance. Both documents are means of showing the theological validity of Jesus.
@@jamesmc04 My point is the story at face value brings a lot of questions. Is there more to the Joseph and Mary story than we're told? Meaning maybe Jesus was really Joesph's son. That both Mary and Joseph were less then honest about it. Because by their law both would be stoned to death for such an act. And why does The Matthew and Luke account differ from each other? And that's not the only thing the two stories contradict each other on. So to my original point. The reader sees both accounts and questions which to take as true. And if there's inconsistent accounts there. where else in the "Scriptures" are the such inconsistencies? And if both accounts are wrong, is there a correct account?
Mike's arguments made more sense to me.
Another amazing performance by Licona! I would disagree that these are "nit-nat" details as Frank Turek has reduced the discussion to, as many scholars have dedicated their lives to answering issues like these. Further, these "details" inform doctrine (specifically the doctrine of inerrancy in this case) and have an immense effect on the teachings of local pastors from the pulpit, which then goes to greatly affect the way that Christians live out their lives individually. Excellent debate, very interesting.
Question for Christians about John 3:16 DID GOD SEND GOD TO CRUCIFY GOD TO SATISFY GOD ?
Who is evil the God who killed Jesus on the cross in barbaric way in the name of LOVE and called him the CURSED ONE or the God who saved Jesus from the crime of the cross in the name of LOVE and called him the BLESSED ONE ? Do you consider the crime act of the Jew and Romans against the innocent Jesus on the cross as act of TERROR or act of LOVE ? What do you call the master mind who plan the torture and killing of Jesus on the cross in barbaric way in the name of LOVE for your salvation ?
Please watch this 4 minutes video ua-cam.com/video/piarY-7NSZE/v-deo.html
@@1541965 God,Jesus,and the Holy Spirit are three separate immortal beings also Jesus knew beforehand what was to come (also I'm using my lil bro's tablet right now my account is Madison W)
They might as well argue about whether Gandalf was resurrected using the Silmarillion as evidence. roflmao
I love to watcing two apologists duke it out
It is like watching a kindergarten playground. lol
Now that was good!! To say it was a "spirited" discussion would be an understatement!
FWIW, my takeaway was this. FAR TOO MUICH of the time was spent just not listening to the other. One of the questions during the Q&A alluded to that. Richard is drawing a distinction between his "it's a metonymy" and your "streamlining" or other literary devices where none exist.
The one point I think you could've totally shut him down with on that was one you made in another debate that was a HUGE eye opener for me. The Biblical writers didn't write in Shakespearean English and we don't today either. So it is totally logical to assume that the Biblical writers used contemporary literary devices of that time. Your argument on the conflation of Jeremiah & Zachariah was another strong point.
Overall, I think you won the debate, Mike, and Richard's attempt to bring this discussion back to what is Truth failed.
However, that said, Richard did score BIG on one issue that I believe you made a HUGE mistake with and that is on the inerrancy of the original manuscripts where you claimed that even if the autographs contained an error it doesn't matter because Christianity is still true due to the Resurrection.
Where you failed there is twofold. First, the most reliable sources we have on the Resurrection is Scripture. Yes, there are other sources but they are NOT nearly as reliable in number or substance. Destroy the credibility and veracity of Scripture and you destroy the foundation for the Resurrection.
Secondly, and more importantly, Richard's logic is correct. If the autographs contained errors, and I'm not talking about a "typo" like a misspelled word or something, then God made a mistake and if God made a mistake then we are forced to rethink our whole theology on who God is and Sola Scriptura goes flying out the window.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura says that it is Scripture ALONE that is our only infallible rule for faith and practice and the final Authority by which we govern our lives. Therefore Richard's logic must stand.
For if Sola Scriptura falls then we are left with only accepting whatever we ourselves choose to accept.
I completely agree with you
Can you enable Closed Captioning for this video please?
Like listening to 2 people talk about the politics and religion of fairies at the bottom of the well. A bunch of assertions on what is fact, without a damn thing demonstrating that those claims are, in fact, an actual fact.
@ Mike Licona. Good job presenting your arguments.
Mr Howe keeps moving the goalpost and trying to make the arguments about personal beliefs... That's very poor sportsmanship, indeed.
Debates between scholars should be about promoting understanding and not antagonistic gamesmanship.
I have yet to watch the debate, but what position did Mike take in the discussion?
I came to get a clearer picture of what the term 'inerrancy' actually means according to biblical inerrancy proponents. I saw 2 different proponents of biblical inerrancy arguing 2 different definitions, and in both cases, neither men are disputing that there are errors within the Bible (at least all modern translations that we currently have).
I'm a Christian, and I believe the Bible contains a truthful account of our Savior Jesus. However I cannot in good conscience claim that it is somehow inerrant. Not unless I twist/warp/change the definition of the word inerrant. I'm actually confused why anyone even uses the term 'inerrant' when it seems indefensible nearly to the point of being deceptive?
all these dates don't matter
if someone fails to recall his wedding date doesn't mean he didn't get married
Yes but the point is this story is god breathed so it should be no errors. This is coming from a Christian
@@Supernaturalseamoss this is also coming from christian
this is GOD breathe in a sense not as you are percieving it
"Computational devices" lol
I kept asking myself, didn't he say compositional devices?
Licona is right about Howe's higbly philosophical orientation being anachronistic and causing problems where there are no problems. Geisler does the same thing in his Systematic Theology, his volume on soteriology and the issue of free will. It seems they impose their philosophy, especially epistemology, on to the text. They're apologists more than they're theologians or exegetes. That's where the conflicts seem to be coming from. At least to me anyway. And I'm obviously nobody. Good debate.
Correct, and Geisler was a dishonest Pharisee. if he was as smart as he viewed himself, then he knew that most of the issues he "raised the alarm" about did not deserve to be considered important. Geisler was also known to forbid his opponents from cross-examining him in live debate, when in fact it is during cross-examination that is the acid test of a person's prowess and claims. I cringe to think that decades ago I respected Geisler. He was no less bigoted and presumptuous than apostle Paul.
Wouldn't one of the mechanisms for the inspiration of scripture be the way that the writers were motivated to write their epistles, and even the gospels and revelation, as a response to the needs of the day with the Lord's teaching in mind, in other words 'responding prayerfully'?
An atheist reviews Lydia McGrew's recently published "Eye of the Beholder" (DeWard, 2021), wherein she upholds the historical reportage model and accuracy of John in rebuttal to other Christian scholars like Licona, who say different.
Lydia argues that many conservative Protestant Trinitarian Evangelical bible scholars, among whom she in her book represents with the writings of Licona, Evans, Keener and W.L. Craig, are misleading the church by arguing that the gospel of John employs a degree of fiction.
Nowhere in this book does Lydia express or imply that these scholars aren't saved, aren't walking in the light of Christ, don't study the bible enough, harbor unconfessed sin, etc, etc. She simply provides reasons to disagree with their arguments.
So assuming Lydia's entire thesis is correct, she would be forced to conclude that she has made a strong argument justifying skepticism toward the conservative Protestant Trinitarian Evangelical version of Christianity that she and her cited scholars personally follow. After all, according to Lydia, even if I became genuinely born again, faithfully attended a conservative Protestant Trinitarian church, graduated from conservative Trinitarian bible college and seminary with a legitimate ph.d in a field directly implicating the New Testament, and was careful to turn away from sin and walk in the light of Christ the whole time, not even THIS extreme level of dedication to the "right" version of orthodoxy would offer the slightest guarantee or assurance that God would protect me from espousing and teaching errors, which according to Lydia, are so harmful as to justify efforts to uproot the from the church.
No, this doesn't prove Christianity is false. It proves the reasonableness of skeptics who assert that the many NT assurances that the Holy Spirit will protect those who truly walk in Christ, are false. If Lydia is correct, then your level of bible-smarts is the only thing in existence that has significant potential to keep you free from an errant view of the gospels.
It doesn't matter if Lydia trifles that it isn't her business to figure out God's mysterious ways, the logic within "Beholder" is going to render skepticism toward Christianity reasonable, regardless.
turchisrong.blogspot.com/2021/05/christian-doscher-reviews-dr-lydia.html
Dr. Howe seemed to be deflecting and filibustering. Some of his logic, in my mind, was off.
Here was my biggest difficulty with Dr. Howe’s presentation:
He seems to equate inerrancy with truthfulness. However in most people’s minds inerrant means flawless (100% perfection), not truthfulness. The opposite of truthfulness is not errancy, but rather falsehood.
Human testimony does not have to be 100% flawless in order to be 100% truthful.
God has preserved the essential testimonies of Scripture, His dealings with mankind through the ages, that’s quite good enough for me.
The difference seems to be whether you hold to the correspondence theory of truth or not.
If what you express does not correspond to reality, can it still be true?
Actually, the matter has nothing to do with a correspondence theory of truth. Surely you allow for figures of speech and various idioms. I'm sure you don't take Jesus in a literal sense when he says, "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you" (Matt 5:29). Why not? That's what Jesus says you should do. You don't because you correctly assume Jesus is using an idiom. If you go into a store and the sales person says they will be with you in a minute, that person did not lie to you if it takes them 2 minutes. The disagreement lay in what one allows in communications in a non-literal sense.
@@MikeLiconaOfficial Yes, I allow for figures of speach. If the sales person tells me that he will be with me in a minute, I know that he means that he will be with me in a short while.
The problem is if you mean and communicate something that does not correspond to reality.
At 1:12:19 you say: "I've shown several clues in both Luke and in Matthew that suggest that Matthew means it one way, Luke means it another. So I don't consider what Matthew - what I think Matthew did there to be an error, but you do."
If Matthew *means* it in a way that does not correspond to reality, the issue *is* how you define "truth".
@@normnorumi3780 I think it may depend on the intent of the *particular* truth the writer (in Christian classical doctrine the Holy Spirit) had in mind. In terms of the Gospels we have four, not one. That means the Holy Spirit, as author, has up to four chances to *fully* communicate all *relevant* truths.
Thus one person (under inspiration) may be recording the more literal version of events, whereas the other may be communicating primarily the *lesson* to be absorbed. Another some combination. I don’t intend to say all differences may, with certainty, be thus attributed, but I suspect this accounts for a good number of them.
That may, or may not, be how we in modern times record “truth” but if at that time each writer was recording the aspect of truth he (through the Holy Spirit) thought important to highlight, and that was considered an honest approach in their day, no lie or deception has taken place. …Especially where we have other versions to compare it to to help arrive at the most likely *literal* version of events as well S to mind the spiritual insights.
@@brockgeorge777 I am not sure exactly what you are responding to.
There are of course many things that are true, and not all are mentioned at the same time. One writer may mention one thing, another may mention another. However, if the writers contradict each other, and they intend to communicate things that are contradictory, then at least one of them will say something that does not correspond to reality. If that still is considered to be "true", then we have a different definition of "truth".
Of course, figures of speach etc. may be used. When you use a figure of speach, you do not intend to communicate what the words would mean if they are taken literally.
@@normnorumi3780 we have up to 4 witnesses in some cases. What I say below builds on what I have said elsewhere. That is, there are times I think we could have one witness providing a more literal rendition of events and sayings, and another a more interpretative rendition to bring out a particular point more clearly, and of course, a range in between. Therefore, it is my position that if we have more than one take it is because the Holy Spirit (the ultimate author of Scripture and it’s meaning) it is likely because a *range* of presentations serve better to bring out the whole of what’s being revealed.
But in such instances, I believe at least one of the versions provided is rendering things closely (if not always necessarily “exactly”) as it took place. So because of the sovereign nature of God (the only possible grounds for a belief in inerrancy) we will get whatever is needed to give not only the whole literal truth, but also what’s necessary to best mine the full truth being presented theologically as well as factually.
Of course, all of this depends only on the autographs, lest we attempt to have God inspire thousands of scribes. Something the manuscript evidence is clear did not, in fact, happen, though He certainly made sure we have a very faithful rendition of those autographs in all meaningful respects.
In 2 Kings 13:1 in the 23rd year of Joash's reign over Judah, Jehoahaz begins his reign over Israel for 17 years. 17 + 23 is 40; but in 2 Kings 13:9-10 Jehoahaz dies and his son reigns over Israel in the 37th year of Joash''s reign, which is only 14 years, not 17. Explain.
Hi Mike! Interesting and articulate discussion. I do have one suggestion but I’m aware you know your audience better than I do so it might be irrelevant. In my opinion, I think you’d get wider reach eliminating the male/female dichotomy as the analogy used for different types of storytelling. In this day of cancel culture/me-too movements i could see your point being dismissed from the start or at worst labeled unfairly. Perhaps say: technical writers vs. bloggers. Technical writers cut through the noise and structures the info in a way that makes sense to the particular audience. Bloggers include lots of details as well as often emotion and opinion.
Anyway, just my unsolicited thoughts. Tell Debbie I said hello!!
Thanks for the suggestion, Heather. The guy vs. girl version of a story is an illustration I've used for years and have received countless positive feedback. I've found that it's something to which nearly all married people can relate. And it's fun to watch audience members when I'm saying it. A lot of smiles and elbowing going on. :-) That said, your suggested difference between "technical writers vs. bloggers" is something I'll consider.
Mike Licona I heard them laughing in the audience so I knew it was well received. I just happened to be watching it with a friend (a young lady much younger than me) who didn’t take the humor in stride. So I thought I’d mention it. But I thought it was great. Millennials. 🤷♀️
As a Lutheran, I wonder how much of the resistance to believing Greco-Roman compositional devices with no contemporary counterparts were employed in the Gospels is based not in the doctrine of inerrancy but in certain camps’ formulations of the doctrine of perspicuity. In Lutheranism, from the early Reformation up to the period of Orthodoxy, the perspicuity of scripture was argued to hold for all that is necessary for salvation-basically the topics covered in Luther’s Small Catechism. But in the late 17th century, Pietist Lutherans effectively broadened perspicuity to apply to all of scripture for every believer even in translations. If I’m not mistaken, I believe many Evangelical groups (functionally/in practice, at least) have similar formulations of perspicuity derived from earlier groups like the Pietists, Puritans, and/or Baptists. A compositional device not extent in contemporary discourse would seem to conflict with such a doctrine of perspicuity, as for the text to be clear for all readers of all times it would need to be written using compositional devices extant in all cultures to which the text may come. Losing such a formulation of perspicuity and having to rely exclusively on historically/culturally and grammatically attuned exegesis in the original languages to determine what the text says doesn’t sit well with many of my fellow post-Pietist Lutherans who don’t want to invest the time learning the original languages, history, and culture (including compositional patterns), but is that not the very heart of what it means to submit to the authority of scripture?
1:30:55 Not a good look for Howe.
I'd like to know if any of you believe there are missing books or texts? Or any scripture that was wrongly translated in different versions. If so which translation would you say is most accurate? And do you think much has been hidden from us or removed by man. Do you believe other books of scripture that they refused to put in the bible or had not found them yet makes them invalid? Being the Geneva Bible was the first one brought to America buy the puritans and it is said that this is more accurate than the King James since King James was translated and written by those who denied full Gospel teachings and was hijacked by idolaters who punished full Gospel evangelizing Protestant Christians. which is the main reason they fled the persecution to the New world in the Americas.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as the practice of suspending the acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently take such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which employed rationally sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that gods exist.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Dozens of proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of gods through intercession of angels, revelation, fulfillment of prophecy, the miraculous act of divinity, or any observation of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has emerged from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance or being) that was created instantly by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is, *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of gods.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Skepticism (atheism) is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones.
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
As a Christian, given the reasons you have provided, I think your position is reasonable.
By this list, nothing is going to match up to your idea of what you expect gods to be like (unless you make your own like many all ready have and continue to do because the human heart will never be satisfied by these means). The God of the Bible is not just an idea to be messed with but is indeed a real holy justified God. People were directly shown miracles by Jesus and still chose to not believe Him so this ain't gonna work at all. We have to surrender to God and our preconceived notions or ideas or expectations that we expect from God because God knows infinitely more than flesh and blood ever can and that makes sense because He is clearly seen outside of time and our senses and His words speak truth and you will know what to look for if you were to read the Bible in the way it is intended to be read and not mixing in our biases or world views. We have to see it for what it is and discard our expectations of what we wish it is because that itself is not living in reality or truth. Like we can say when pigs fly and God ain't going to make it happen so you believe Him, that's not how this works. God operates by faith in Him and His completed work on the cross.
Licona ran circles around this guy. Thanks for establishing the importance of compositional devices in defining inerrancy!
But for the unbeliever, there is no compelling reason to always relegate a different telling of events to compositional devices. That excuse is nothing but a bare possibility, it has no more probability to it than the theory that an author tells a story differently because he is wrong.
It was difficult to hold respect for Howe after his obnoxious display during his introduction.
A contradiction has occurred when two separate accounts of the same event cannot both be true at the same time and in *the same sense*. When the centurion sent emissaries to Christ to speak and act in his name he is, in fact, present there in his representatives with Christ acting and speaking in a sense other than if he was physically present. Christians of all peoples ought to know the principle of representation. Because we were in Christ our federal covenant representative as he lived his righteous life for us and also as he suffered on the cross for us, we were saved by having our sins imputed to him and his righteousness imputed to us. Now, if someone says, but you could not possibly be physically present in Christ on the cross or in his life, are they correct or have they misunderstood in what sense we were present in Christ? Is this actually a contradiction?
If you have a power of attorney to act on behalf of person X and you do act on their behalf, who has acted? Answer: legally person X has acted *and* physically you have acted on their behalf. Both are literally true but in different senses.
Well said Arthur.
God bless Mike Licona
I have had people compare 2 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 4:12 and I ask them how the word of God is living. Then I have them go to Titus 1:12 and ask them if the source of that verse is the word of God. Then I ask them how Titus 1:12 became scripture. Very few can give a basic definition of what the word of God is to include its totality. I would like to see someone address oral transmission and oral hermeneutics.
Old Testament quotes may be used in four basic ways
1. A direct quote from a variety of Greek Old Testament texts or direct quotes from a variety of Hebrew texts.
2. An allusion
3. A summary
4. An application of another text
Dr Howe when are you debating Dr Ehrman.
We can only wonder: if equally orthodox Christians can disagree and talk past each other so much within the context of face to face interaction, why do Christians find it so intolerable to be open to the possibility that Paul's interactions with the earlier apostles were plagued by similar unresolvable disagreements?
A absolute volte face, Licona had a different view on inerrancy in his debate with Bart Erham. Licona et Habermas are slowly being found out as CONNERIE artists!
Disappointed with the progress of the debate. They both don't seem to be very concise with their positions.
People tend not to agree on poorly written works of fiction.
The mechanism is relevant because of its implication for free will. Is God overpowering free will in order to convey an inerrant written word or can it only come through those who are voluntarily pure enough to receive it?
We don't have to get there. The Bible is not inerrant because, inter alia, Job presents Yahweh as challenging Job by asking a bunch of questions. These include basic meteorology and physics questions that Yahweh screws up.
Likely out of ignorance an untruth was spoken in the intro. If you buy the initial untruth then you will accept everything reasoned after that.
Discuss?
Give me about 3 more years and we can get this discussion started
@@AnAdequateViolinist
I forget what error was made; but what really interests me is the reluctance of various authorities in theology, science, and philosophy to examine empirical evidence I've collected over the past 23 years.
I am not interrsted in winning an argument, or gasigting anyone's faith.
The reality that Google and Wiki have whitewashed my 23 years of work tells me all I really need to know.
There are points of Scientific Mysticism tucked into the Bible.
I agree more with Licona, but I do insist that the *autographs* were in no error in terms of the message the *Holy Spirit* through the writers was communicating. Our definition of “error” may need to be more expansive than we moderns are comfortable with, but no actual error of fact or *intention* (whichever was the Holy Spirit’s objective) occurred in the autographs.
I say the reason some Christians emphasize inerrancy is not a desire to mirror the beliefs of biblical authors, but because they know the Holy Spirit is not going to guide them into truth, i.e., the bible is the only thing in existence that can possibly guard them against error. If the bible has error, they have no rational basis for hope. Yet this is contrary to the biblels absurdly idealistic assurances that believers have the holy spirit. You may as well say a starving homeless bum has a million dollars in their pocket, it's just invisible. LOL
1:34:00 Exactly.
Or maybe one or both just couldn't remember the story with complete accuracy?
1:31:56 he literally says that he believes inerrancy because he assumes it prior to actually investigating potential errors in the Bible. A man with this closed of a mind cannot be reasoned with.
It’s like showing a Mormon contradictions in the book or Mormon and them responding that they already believe that it has no errors so it can’t have any errors. Where is the critical thinking in that!?!?
No his view makes sense. He starts with the fact that a Christian God wouldn't leave a text with errors, thus he believes in biblical inerrancy. To him the potential errors in the Bible must have solutions or else a Christian God isn't real. The other guy starts from the fact that there are errors in the Bible thus the Christian God must have left a text that has errors, and thus the Christian God we believe in is one who would leave a text with errors. Which to the inerrancy guy is a contradiction in theology.
They both start from different ends. The inerrancy guy starts with God and must resolve the errors of the text, while the other guy starts with the errors and must resolve the contradiction in theology (as in explain why God would leave a text with errors). His argument that God leaves a text with errors because the errors are trivial is also dodgy as then you have to explain every error as being trivial.
As you can probably see he is not just close minded. This is the mess of Christianity.
@@Jin-hz1eq well the problem with the guy starting with the theology of God, is that he is getting his theology of God from the Bible which he assumes is inerrant because of his theology of god… so circular haha
@@Iamwrongbut tru, but if there r errors in the bible that change the theology of God I guess the errors in the bible aren't just trivial and then both sides have problems.
Simplify events...don't try that in court.
I know Peter is a little mean, but I wish Peter ruckman would have got a hold of Mike Licona.
Question for Christians about John 3:16 DID GOD SEND GOD TO CRUCIFY GOD TO SATISFY GOD ?
Who is evil the God who killed Jesus on the cross in barbaric way in the name of LOVE and called him the CURSED ONE or the God who saved Jesus from the crime of the cross in the name of LOVE and called him the BLESSED ONE ? Do you consider the crime act of the Jew and Romans against the innocent Jesus on the cross as act of TERROR or act of LOVE ? What do you call the master mind who plan the torture and killing of Jesus on the cross in barbaric way in the name of LOVE for your salvation ?
Please watch this 4 minutes video ua-cam.com/video/piarY-7NSZE/v-deo.html
Is it evil for someone to stand by and do nothing while a masked man takes a knife and sinks the blade into a defenseless person's chest? Who is more evil, the one doing it, the ones who helped, or the ones who stand by and do nothing?
@@acarpentersson8271 not if the helpless person is sedated, and the knife is a masked doctor doing a life saving surgery.
@@1541965 I call that idolatry. Jesus was God in the flesh, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John:1:14 Jesus is not the son of God as in God had a wife ECT. He is eternal Son, he always was.But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Micah:5:2 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans:6:23 see that..... The wages of sin??? You created a false narrative check this out friend. The Quran says the injeel ( gospels) are from Allah. I don't believe that but you have to surah 29:46 ....We believe in what was revealed to us, and in what was revealed to you; and our God and your God is One; and to Him we are submissive." Surah 3:3He sent down to you the Book with the Truth, confirming what came before it; and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. So you have to believe it, unless it was curupted???? That poses another issue.And recite what was revealed to you from the Book of your Lord. There is no changing His words, and you will find no refuge except in Him. So let the people of the Gospel rule according to what Allah revealed in it. Those who do not rule according to what Allah revealed are the sinners. Jesus willing died on the cross for our sins took our wages to satisfy the law, you broke God's law your a sinner. Muhammad was a sinner surah 40:55So be patient, [O Muhammad]. Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And ask forgiveness for your sin and exalt [ Allah ] with praise of your Lord in the evening and the morning. 47:19 , 48:2 Jesus was sinless, virgin born. ECT. So..... Bit of a dilemma. Jesus payed a fine to satisfy a debt he did not owe, because we owed a debt we could not pay. The of course rose from the dead and offers eternal life to all who call upon his name. Btw the Quran teaches Jesus is God. There's so much more to say, let me know if you're interested. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
2 Corinthians:5:21
@@1541965 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Galatians:3:13
I think Luke makes it clear he's telling the 'Girl' version of the story in the very first lines of his book. 'Many' have attempted to write down about the events but mine is an 'orderly' account. So wait.. Mathews account is disorderly?? But I thought the Holy Spirit is of order and not chaos. Howe has to twist and turn every step of the way and jump through hoops when the most rational thing to say is A perfect God worked through imperfect humans to give us the truth that is enough for our Salvation.
Luke is a straight shooter. He tells you that he himself was not an eye witness of the things he wrote (Luk1:2) but rather collected a compendium of accounts derived from eye witnesses.
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, _even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,_ and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.
Luke's sayings do, but his chronology doesn't match the accounts given us by Matthew & 'Mark' (written by Peter & Andrew, not John Mark: this can be shown.)
In the mouth of two or three witness every word shall be established. Mat18:16 >
And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, _clothed in sackcloth._ These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their _mouth,_ and devoureth their enemies.
Rev11 []
...that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the _mouth_ of the LORD doth man live.
Deu8
I grew up learning reformed theology but I've always had significant problems accepting the need to take the Bible as absolutely inerrand. I never understood how reading the Genesis creation scripture as a symbolism describing a general process of creation is somehow damaging to my faith. Like, why did have to be a literal 6x24 hour days and why did it literally have to be a global flood?
I strong feel like the theological requirement of the fundamentalists to read the Bible, especially the Old Testament as a historical document actually creates a lot of unnecessary problems. It might be fine if the believer never learns about ancient Egypt and ancient Semitic history. However, as soon as the believer learns about all the archeological evidences that have been discovered (and not discovered), it would shatter the rigid requirement that the Bible is absolutely inerrand in all things and lead to crisis of faith that are totally unnecessary.
I totally agree with you. I have been Reformed-leaning since High School. About three years ago I switched to a Reformed Baptist Church, embraced the 5 points of Calvinism, and thought I had "arrived". Then I discovered Covenantal Theology and realized, not only was I a Calvinist but I was a closet Presbyterian my whole life. I even baptized my kids and argued that all my 8 children should be accepted at the Lord's Table. Throughout this journey and even into Premillennial eschatology I realized just last week that I had to have cognitive dissonance with scripture to keep the Bible harmonious with itself. With either Aminianism or Calvinism one has to believe opposing truth claims if the Biblical authors are true in everything they say.
My whole life I've been taught how to read the Bible. I basically had to pick and choose which systematic theology I felt that was most consistent and then apply it to all of scripture. Calvinism made the most sense in my mind and I had to ignore and/or try to explain away the problem verses/passages against that view. I was convinced that it was better than all the other views.
But I realized just last week that the prerequisite of most systematic theologies is inerrancy and the view that the Bible is actually God's word without error or contradictions. Inerrancy is false and falls apart when tested. There are many contradicting passages and truth claims beyond just the accounts in the Gospels or simple scribal errors. The authors of scripture had opposing views and were simply confused on matters of truth and what God's/man's purpose is or was.
I'm going through a book right now called _"The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (And Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It)"_ by Thom Stark. It's an argument against inerrancy and walks through some really challenging passages in the Bible... if they were literally true. Stark says, "The Bible is an argument with itself."
In the Old Testament, God often lost his temper (1st Samuel 15:3)
But since we killed his son, he seems to have calmed down.
I suppose he is worried about what we will do next.
When we teach that all Scriptures are God-breathed and all revelations from God are not interpreted by man but men were used just to write what the Holy Spirit wanted them to convey, then we are also saying that all the Scriptures are 100% inerrant, as in no slightest margin of error, not even one.
I heard preachers used this one if their listeners are already believers but if the listeners are critical thinkers, they changed the meaning of inerrancy a little bit. They say that historical writers of ancient times were free to make a little tweak of the narrative to convey a specific message for specific listeners or readers even it may appear as if there are contradictions, hence the four different gospels.
For example: Matthew 27:50-53 says that when Jesus died, many bodies of saints came out of their tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many during the day of Jesus's resurrection.
Because this account seems to contradict other narratives, some say it is a copyist's error or it is a symbolical narrative of what will still to happen in the future.
Another are the reports of Matthew and Mark that even the two criminals who were crucified with Jesus mocked the Lord.
Well, I can harmonize it with the report on Luke that one of them mocked Jesus and the other one didn't by inserting my own words. But if I do that, I will be called a liar according to the Bible standard that we should not add beyond what is written.
I can insert this one: "... but one of them repented later and tried to stop the other one..."
It is possible that this happened but do we have the right to teach this?
Another is the chronology of John and Luke about the time when Peter went to check up the tomb of Jesus. John says that Mary reported the body of the Lord was stolen so Peter ran to the tomb to check it and then went back home wondering what could have really happened. Luke says that Mary reported Jesus raised up from the dead but no one believed them. HOWEVER, Peter got up and went to see the tomb and then after that, he went back home wondering.
Did God inspired these two writers to narrate conflicting accounts? For what reason?
As a Christian I found Mr. Howe strange, and hard to listen to. He could make a good Muslim.
Is there a verse called inerrant in the new or the Old Testament to have such a debate.
Can Dr Howe tell me which story of Judas death is the right one literally, and what about the different one literally, and where is the inerrancy please? This is why many young people wonder how somebody like Mr. Howe’s discussion leads to runaway from Christianity, because the lack of any truth in all his proportions.
Why have a debate about “what does it mean to say the Bible is inerrant?” The word inerrant has a meaning you know. It’s an adjective meaning “incapable of being wrong.”
00:40 Frank: “How can we harmonize what appear to be contradictions or differences in the gospels?”
They don’t just appear to be contradictions and differences in the gospels. There are without a doubt contradictions and differences in the gospels. Almost any NT scholar would readily admit this. And if one account is right and another account contradictions that one, then by definition the Bible is not inerrant since both accounts are contained in the Bible.
The simple answer is no as it is full of translation errors.
Rev George
To those who have an ear let them hear. The truth will set you free. What's the true definition my brothers and sisters? Of truth will set you free? The tree of life. Is something else indeed! The question is can we master the tree of life? Being, likeness of God is to know evil! Doesn't mean, me and you have to touch it. Free will indeed. Not to be slave from our own decisions and shortcomings.
?
For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
[] Psa12 []
Me. Es. Dedicado. A. Leer todos lo. Dias la. Oración. De. San. Benito
One would have to do insane mental gymnastics to believe that all translations in all languages from all time since the original manuscripts is inerrant.
Even amongst English translations there’s so many difference.
1 Corinthians 7:36
Why does the ASV allow for a father to marry his virgin daughter but other translations call them betrothed and infer that they stay that way?!?
These are huge differences in commands and it’s just one of a mountain of examples.
One could easily believe originals are inerrant but we can’t prove it.
I’ll be more extreme than anyone that I’ve read so far.
1. Every word was directly dictated by the Holy Spirit and written down exactly as God wanted.
2. Not only were the original documents the Bible was written on perfect, God has perfectly preserved them in the King James Bible.
3. These so-called contradictions can be cleared up by distinguishing between what was for the Jew, or the nation of Israel, and what was for the Church, the Body of Christ.
4. God invented language and he can perfectly translate everything into every possible language and dialect.
5. Nothing has been lost or changed unless it was done deliberately by deceitful, sinful men.
I agree with you on everything except the ridiculous claim that they are only preserved in the KJV Bible. Especially when it has been revised countless times and it isn’t even the most accurate translation. I have no issue with the KJV but to specify that seems a little deceptive
Number 5 negates 1-4. Congrats.
When your opponent is arguing for the use of compositional devices and you are disputing against a competitional or computational device haha 1:25:48 & 1:29:55
Listening is a skillset. I thought these brothers in Christ would have it in spades. That was not the case. A little toe-stepping is normal for dialogue between people, but this was worse than stepping on the entire foot. I'm still not sure I fully understand what happened in this debate/so-called discussion.
I am eternally astonished at how weak the case for Jesus resurrection is, and how these apologists dupe each other with their groundless reasoning.
What's only slightly more astonishing is the trend of mouthy internet apologists to make themselves less and less available for serious scholarly debate. Lydia McGrew is one of the mouthiest Christian apologists that ever lived, absolutely certain that those who reject Jesus' resurrection are fools, yet she does not dare allow herself to be cross-examined live on the subject.
My very old bible has been changed! Supernaturally . It is with me all the time! Iam more than shocked
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
[] Psa12 []
Nothing like two Christians disagreeing on the "perfect word".
My brothers and sisters, truth comes with true freedom indeed. What do you mean? Oliver! True freedom is "WHOLENESS" INDEED. Not slave by anything indeed! To be free from within and out indeed. True freedom, can't point a finger at you my brothers and sisters. Obviously, we fall short indeed. Remember, you been given life already! Why? Ask? If God can do it again? To me, we have an excuse to ask for true coherence. God will truly reveal. In my understanding, I am living indeed. Obviously, something happened I'm alive! God can do it again and again and again as ,God pleases! Now, you and I, have something to recognize. Depends on the hearts of men and women. Arrogance, is not the character of God. But humility, spirituality, and true faith by choice indeed! For arrogance, will not give your life again.
@@oliverjamito9902 No evidence for a god to start exclaiming characteristics for it.
@@BombalurinaAI likewise, you can't see love. Only love can be seen, when is manifested. By you or me. The opposite of matters is spirituality indeed. But matters, is given just for you and me.
@@oliverjamito9902 Except we know what love is and how it presents. We can make you love a cardboard box by increasing your chemical levels of vasopressin, dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin. Then we can take thous same chemicals away from your body and you'll feel no love for anything/anyone. We can see the areas of the brain in CT scans that cause these effects, we can replicate it, we can manipulate it, and we can detect it.
Can't do that with a god at all, so that's a false dichotomy.
@@BombalurinaAI oh my brother! Same knowledge you have are Christians, won Nobel prize indeed. Selfish, is not the way of the true believers. But to acknowledge, my knowledge and your knowledge, not everyone can comprehend. If your knowledge is contribution towards our society that brings true contributions. You are my brother. To me, 80-100 years is not enough? I have my reasons. Don't you would like to know more? Or satisfied 80- 100 years is enough for you. God will never violate anyone's decisions and free will. Or else it won't be real. Indeed. I can be perfect in love, to someone and can still be denied. Are you strong enough to be denied?
X equals y case over
If _Lee Strobel_ says _Jesus_ is real then He is _real._ The Bible confirms this too. End of story! 😉
James Patrick Holding has been engaged in the "insult" style of Christian apologetics for the last 20 years.
He has committed perjury in court documents 10 separate times, according to a 170 page civil complaint filed in the latest libel lawsuit against him. Download the complaint here:
turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/06/james-patrick-holding-has-committed.html
Licona is definitely a much better trained Historian and Academic than Howe it seems.
I'm reading your comment jusy after finishing Licona's lackluster introduction. If what you say is the case, then thank you, good sir, for saving me time.
Next...
1:31:00
Looks to me like they both know there are errors in the bible and both sides use big words and long winded explanations to try to make it seem like there are not any errors.
Where’s the evidence that Jesus rose Tp from the dead? And if he did, what was his sacrifice?
David Lo Pan telling a story is not evidence of anything. Why do you believe that this story is true? Also, you didn’t answer my observation of how could this “death” be a sacrifice if he is truly undead?
Dr. Licona wrote a whole 700 pg book (I thinks is called "the resurrection a new historiographical approach") on it if you are really interested in the evidence. So did NT Wright (His book is "The resurrection of the Son of God") who is one of the foremost NT scholars alive. If you don't like to read then you can watch this ua-cam.com/video/KnkNKIJ_dnw/v-deo.html or this ua-cam.com/video/ay_Db4RwZ_M/v-deo.html. These videos really just scratch the surface so I would recommend reading the books I mentioned if you want the most fleshed out argument.
What I came to know as of now is that the tomb of Christ was located and found. He was placed in a rich man's tomb so it was easy to tell which one and is at the right location of his crucifixion. In the Bible as well, it mentions that the sabbath was quickly approaching and had to rush to put Him away, hence the rich man's tomb and the fact he could not be buried anywhere else because there was no time. Supposedly His cloths on Him was left behind and the tomb was empty. This matters because soilders were notified that people might try to steal Jesus's body (knew he was 100% dead, one of the soldiers even used a spear to pierce Jesus's right side to His heart and the Bible mentions this clearly) so they guarded His tomb taking shifts and they weren't believers taking part of Jewish celebrations but had jobs to do.
I do keep in mind that an empty tomb doesn't automatically mean a resurrection took place, but it is very telling that something miraculous happened by reading further to find more eye witness accounts of seeing Jesus in His glorified body to many believers besides the 12. They didn't see things because some seen Jesus in group settings, in the Bible again, Jesus told the disciples that were fishing to toss their net where He told them and they doubted but tried away to behold it caught what seemed nearly all the fish. It was so heavy they had to pull it to shore. Mind you at this moment, they didn't realize that it was Jesus and were glad when they finally recognized Him. It wasn't just there but Jesus also dined/visited the other disciples and showed Thomas that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead and let him touch his hands that held nails and touch His speared side. All were still holes.
God should join this discussion and clear up a few things about the bible.
Seems this guy never learned from errors? Arrogant individuals! Your will be done. Nevertheless, repentance is a decision away. This guy! Not knowing, being the likeness of God, is to coherence to know the tree of life. Good and evil. Or else, the likeness, will not exist indeed. Meaning, to know what evil can do? The true will of God? Is to be ONE. Meaning, the precious to you? Will and always be precious to me? Specially, dealing with families and beloved friends? Belongings to you? Will not be touched? Likewise, I have no right, to violate you in any kind of forms of decieviouseness. Foriegn indeed?
Inerrant? I think not. Look up Isaiah 37 and II Kings 19, the chapters say the exact same thing.
Which one is wrong?
@@normnorumi3780 : It is that both of these chapters (Isaiah 37 and II Kings 19) say the same thing. Did god need to say his message twice in different books of the bible?
@@anonymousjohnson976 One probably copied from the other. If it was true to start with, it will be true if copied. Does the text fill a function in both contexts? Yes, it fits in both contexts. So the problem (if that is a problem) seems to be that God did not inspire a new text in this instance, but rather let the writer use an old text that was already inspired. It may go against our expectations, but our expectations depend on our theology.
you must be "ignorant" if you overlook the contradictions in bible!! God doesn't contradict Himself!! Nuff said
The Bible is true because God is perfect and said the bible is inerrant??? Circular!. Who said God is perfect and cannot lie or err???? The Bible. Circular!
It’s a matter of trust. If God is not reliable as the Author of His book and has no power to keep it, why bother with an incompetent God? God is perfect and so is His Word. It’s not the Word and God that is a problem, it is man. Each gospel was written to a different type of man.
It is more about the four in harmony. Matthew was written for the Jewish religious man, Mark for the Roman strong man, Luke for the thinking Greek, and John for the common, wretched man.
See J Vernon McGee.
The first speaker is using logical fallacies. Thought stopping techniques! Answer his concerns!
1. Apologia Church in Arizona would totally disagree with #1
what a church in Arizona says is irrelevant
If the News reports says the White House sent congratulations to someone do we really mean the White House sent it No we don’t
But the unresolved question is whether compositional devices do indeed explain why to different gospel authors describe a single event in different words. It is not unreasonable on the part of the unbeliever to say those differences exist because the authors disagreed about the historical details. There is no obligation to exhaust all possible defenses of bible inerrancy before we dare consider the possibility of error in the originals.
To claim that the use of compositional devices applies to all ancient greco-roman authors with the exception of those writers whose works ended up in the canon is an absurd case of special pleading.
You are correct, but it may be that the theological viewpoint of a biblical author requires a mechanical dictation theory.
It is ethically flawed. So much cruelty in it.
mark 16:9-20 is the new name and form of the lord God Jesus Christ......period
Yeshua ,not jesus
@@andrewortiz9226 hahahaha....yes you are(Yeshua)
Pilate *did* scourge Jesus *through his agents*. Therefore, the statement "Pilate scourged Jesus" >>does
Yes, it's like saying "Bush attacked Afghanistan"
It's called a synecdoche.
Someone fell asleep lol
exegetical waterboarding lol
Licona’s position seems like a slippery slope. Admitting there are composition techniques that are not literally historical, where does that stop? Mimesis fits into that category well. Or things that aren’t attested outside of the New Testament like the infancy narratives, Herod killing the innocents, etc.
They told the stories this way for a purpose, not necessarily for historical accuracy. I can see why certain Christians like the guy on the right would push back on this so hard.
Licona's position is indeed a slippery slope. He has said in other videos that gospel writer x, y, or z has changed the text for some literary purpose (eg expediency), or even added stuff that is not likely true (eg the risen saints at crucifixion). He wants to "select" what is true and what might not be true, or altered etc. But that leads to further Christian polarization as everyone will have their opinion of what is or is not likely to be "true" in the text. Poor Licona, and Bible Canon thinks it was an amazing performance lol.
Yeah. He's smart enough to understand some real Biblical scholarship but emotionally he can't let go of the inerrancy idea. So he gets more and more and more jammed up as what he knows slams into what he wants to believe.
Oh, and the Herod thing, he was totally the kind of guy who would do something that, although I admit the evidence is weak.
ballasog - seems like a pretty big claim though. If it was made up for a theological purpose (mimicking the Moses story) then it makes sense. But since we have specific examples of what Herod did but not that, it’s not in the other gospels even, and the theological reason (the new Moses), it fits perfectly for story purposes.
And of course they had the terrible person doing the terrible thing, that would make it more believable.
@@erics120 Story does seem like it was made up and details of why he supposedly did it are nonsense. Matthew 2:3 says Jerusalem was abuzz over it. Yeah, sure, the lives of people in Jerusalem were so empty that all they had to do was gossip about some baby from Nazareth who was born in Bethlehem.
Obviously Matthew wanted Jesus to be a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and he wanted to get Jesus into Egypt so this is how he got him there.
I believe the Flight to Egypt was real though, but I believe it was a mileage run - racking up enough flight miles to qualify to retain airline status or qualify for a higher status. Also, after Joseph committed the colossal screwup of showing up in Bethlehem on Christmas Eve without a hotel reservation he figured maybe Mary would like to see the Pyramids before they went back home.
Stop trying to be funny 🙂 it makes for a better presentation
you say the Bible is true but I say The Quran is true!! each to his own but no one knows exactly what happens after death!! God is perfect and doesn't contradict Himself so bible has contradictions,!! duh !!
This tap dance competition is tough to watch. So Licona’s position is basically that the Bible does have errors because it was written by humans, which seems to be in conflict with it being inspired by an omnipotent and omniscient god. Howe’s position is that the Bible is inerrant by definition, so all of the apparent errors are just caused by a lack of understanding on our part. Both men are suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance. They know the Bible has errors, but that doesn’t make sense if it comes from a perfect god. The obvious truth is that the Bible is a collection of mostly mythological stories, written, rewritten, and redacted by dozens of people over hundreds of years, and then compiled by the early church through popular consensus. There is no indication that the Bible is anything other than stories written by humans, like all of the other stories that humans have made up as long as we’ve been around. Christians have to strain sooooo hard to make their worldview match reality. Everything makes perfect sense if you follow the evidence where it leads, instead of leading the evidence where you wish it would go. Why does the Bible appear to have errors? That’s what is expected if god doesn’t exist. Why is there evil in the world, why do bad things happen to good people? That’s what is expected if god doesn’t exist. Why are there thousands of religions throughout the world and throughout history that change, evolve, combine, and diverge over time? Why do the vast majority of people follow the religion they are born into? Why are there hundreds of denominations of Christianity that disagree on every single point of doctrine? That’s what is expected if god doesn’t exist. And most importantly for me, and millions of other ex-Christians that were raised in the church but later discovered that none of it makes any sense, where is god? Why won’t he make his existence known to me? You may say that he does, and I’m just ignoring the evidence, but that misses the point. The only thing any of us can know for certain is the content of our own thoughts. We can’t know for certain if those thoughts are correct, but we can know for certain what those thoughts are. After decades of searching for evidence of god’s existence, I can say for certain that I am completely convinced that the Christian god does not exist. Maybe there is some other unfalsifiable and undetectable god out there somewhere, I don’t think there is, but by definition such a being would be beyond our ability to prove or disprove. But for countless reasons, I am convinced that the Christian god does not exist. I may be wrong, I could be wrong about anything. I am a fallible human being. But the point is, if an all-powerful god exists, and wants me to believe that he exists, then why don’t I believe he exists? By definition anything that an all-powerful being wants to happen will happen, without exception. If god wanted everyone to know he exists, then everyone would know he exists. You may say that I could come to believe in the future, maybe that’s god’s plan. Ok, for me, maybe that’s true. But billions of people have lived and died throughout history having never even heard of the Christian god, and countless more have heard and not believed. According to Christian doctrine, these billions of people are now burning in hell, and will remain there for all eternity. If that is true, and an all-powerful god does exist, then that is what he wants to happen. There is no way around that. If god is all- powerful, then everything in existence is exactly the way he wants it to be. From my point of view, billions of people burning in hell FOR ALL OF ETERNITY is a bad thing, and a loving god would not want that to happen. If god is all-knowing, he knew exactly how everything would turn out. If he is all-powerful, he had the power to create a different world where people don’t burn in hell FOR ALL ETERNITY. And if he is all-loving, he wouldn’t want anyone to suffer at all, not even in the slightest, that’s what all-loving means. I can hear you now, “it’s all part of god’s plan”, “god works in mysterious ways”, “humans can’t understand the mind of god”, “humans have free will”. That’s all irrelevant. If god is all-knowing and all-powerful, then he intentionally and knowingly created a world in which BILLIONS of people would suffer unimaginably FOR ALL OF ETERNITY. Do you believe that is a good thing? If you believe that god is good, that god is all-loving, then you have to believe that billions of people suffering for eternity is a good thing, there is no way around it. I can’t believe that. It is not possible. And I wouldn’t want to if I could. An all-loving god would not send anyone to hell, for any amount of time. An all-knowing god would have known from the beginning that he was creating a universe in which people would go to hell. An all-powerful god would have the ability to literally create any universe, or, and this is an important point, not create anything at all. If for some reason a universe without suffering is impossible, or contradictory, then god could have just left well enough alone, and not create anything at all. Christianity teaches that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god exists. Christianity also teaches that hell exists, and a lot of people are going there. Would someone please explain to me how both of these things can be true?
Both are true because God will not play the waiting game forever and people have a mind of their own and make their own choices whether it is misinformed or not. We have to trust God and His perfect vision because we as people can't understand everything and make mistakes in our logic constantly. God made it possible for us to please Him but sending His son, Jesus Christ, who is without fault, to die for us. Fully God and fully man so He can rightly justify us and so He can die and defeat death. All sin results in the first death, our humanly death. Sin is incredibly evil and we see what it does to everything around us and destorys what is good by distortion and rendering it to a mere shadow of its former self. Since man, like the rest of creation, concieved sin, we cannot do things perfectly like God and are hopelessly evil and blind and have to keep pursuing God no matter what as a result. We have to suffer because sin causes suffering and that will end once the first death occurs because that is what was ordained in Genesis and is evident all around us that things die and rot back into dust from which it came. Creation rightfully returns back to the one who gave it because it is God's and no one else's. Give to ceasar that is ceasar's and give to God to what is God's. We are God's pocession because He made us and created us in His image. Only He can see and knows everything because He is eternal and was always there before we were made. He is the only one who saw what happened first hand and knows why and even gave clear instructions for us to follow and His reason behind it. He didn't lie at all and a quick look around proves it in this mess. God gave us a choice to follow what we choose, do we trust Him or do we go with what we want to believe as a result not trusting the one who made us and sees all?
Egyptain document dated to 2000BCE:-
Then said Atum: My living daughter is Tefnut,
she will exist with her brother Shu.
"Life" is his name,
"Truth " is her name .
I shall live with my twins, my fledglings,
with me in their midstone of them at my back,
one of them in my belly.
Life will lie with my daughter Truth,
one of them inside,
one of them about me.
It is on them that I have come to rely
with their arms about me.
C T II 32b33 a cf. J.P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt, 22; 2527 .
This debate was poorly moderated, and both men spent time talking out of their ass, though Howe used that orifice almost continuously.
Why do you need The Bible to be inerrant? Nothing in this world is perfect, and The Bible is part of this world.
Inerrancy is a very stupid legalistic trifle that is created by bible verses declaring that scriptures are inspired by god. Add in some immature teachers, and you wind up with "all hope is lost if there's even one error in the originals".
THE BIBLE IS BEST DESCRIBED AS A 10,000 PIECE JIGSAW PUZZLE...THAT IS MISSING ABOUT HALF THE PIECES!
If only we had one book that had descended to earth, directly from God, in words we all understood, and it contained only what God wanted for all of us, at all times and in every circumstance! There are more than a few religious leaders, preachers and teachers who try to make it seem like there is such a singular book they call THE BIBLE.
Trouble is--no such book exists!
What is so often called "THE Bible," is actually a very broad array of many different collections of books, in many different languages, not always containing the same books, which are not translated from the original copies of any of them, because every single one of the original "autographs" have been lost, and all we have are copies...of copies of copies of copies...and even those differ one from the other!
OK, so let's say we can at least agree that the original writings were, every one "inerrant." Apparently not!
At the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, that was held in Chicago in October 1978, a very conservative group, came out with a statement declaring what "inerrancy" of the bible meant, and all they did was re-define the meaning of the word "inerrancy" to exclude the 1000s of discrepancies between all the copies of copies of copies of texts that had been discovered up to that time, and they refused to recognize the results of the discipline of Contextual Criticism, the way all legit scholars of antiquity determine what parts of any copy of ancient documents is most likely in accord with the originals and which are not!
OK, so let's just say we could agree on what scholars tell us which texts most likely represent the original writings of the bible books...then you have to ask, "Which books?"
Today's Protestant Bible, for example, has 27 New Testament books, but before 1807, it had only 26, before the American Bible Society surreptitiously removed the Introduction page to the apocryphal books, like Revelation, which was often added to their printed editions!
OK, so let's say we agree on what Protestants thought of as "The" Bible books before the 19th Century. Then how to know which parts of the that Bible represent God speaking to us today, and which parts not? Jesus, himself, said the Law of Moses was given for the hardness of men's hearts, a stop gap measure, not the full and final version of what God really wanted to tell us!
OK, so let's say, for Christians, what really matters is what Jesus said, and everything else, such as the Old Testament and the later Epistles, must be interpreted through the prism of what Jesus taught and not the other way around.
Well, maybe we're now getting to the heart of the matter...as long as we understand Jesus often spoke in parables, and more than a few times, employed the use of hyperbole, and probably because his real views, had he expressed them openly and unreservedly from the get go of his public ministry, he would have been killed right away, and we would never have even heard of him...so he also spoke as if he agreed with what the Pharisees taught, only to put a little twist on them, as his way of conveying his real positions but only to those "who had ears to hear."
Is, then, "inerrancy" the word to describe the process of peeling back all the many layers of trying to get at what Jesus of Nazareth was really driving at and what was, centuries after their deaths, attributed to Moses, the Jewish prophets and writers of the New Testament?
Well, how about another term that much better fits what we have to work with--a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle!
Depending on what's included (just the Greek and Hebrew or the Latin and other language versions), there are somewhere between 6,000 and 20,000 texts of the Bible, none of them the originals, but copies of copies of copies.
So, more than a few people are content to claim one version of this puzzle, pieced together by representatives of one particular religious sect that began when a murderous king wanted to get rid of his Catholic wife that could not bear him a male heir, the King James Bible, is somehow miraculously equal to the original autographs, and every part of it (well, as cherry picked and then proclaimed from pulpits) represents what God says to everyone today.
However, if we apply honest scholarship to weed out all the fake pieces someone cut out and added to the box (using Textual Criticism), and do our best not to cram pieces together with others where they, in context, do not really fit (using Contextual Criticism), even though what remains represents only about half of what was in the original box, a pretty good picture emerges...that is, if one is willing to accept that picture for what it is, regardless of how well it compares to or contrasts with the image created by Churchianity!
Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Real-Life-Jesus-Nazareth-Really-Stood-ebook/dp/B09V4BJ62D
1:01:19 haha