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.

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

YES PLEASE!

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.

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 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.

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.

Robert Preus signed it.

@@joehootman8958 As did John Warwick Montgomery.

SELK

@@DrJordanBCooper God bless you and your Church!

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.'

@@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?

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

4:44

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.

They were mostly in shared screen-shotted tweets.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

"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.)

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.