Let's just get this dirty laundry out of the way...
"The Bible is infallible" is some kind of catch-phrase that protestants make for some odd reason.
Let's look at the words in this statement, and then you'll see why this statement is ridiculous, and anyone saying it should feel retarded.
"The Bible" -- what is it? Is it the 66 books that the protestants consider "The Canon"? Or is it the Catholic Bible? Or any other Christian sect?
Which translation? Who made the translations? This is important, because it's a simple fact that no translation by a fallible human, even of an infallible text, can be considered infallible.
Maybe the original transcripts? Oh wait, we don't have them, since they were lost to history a long time ago.
Maybe the earliest copies? We have lots of those, but "early" is subjective. Some of the earliest copies we have are just fragments. Then we found things like the Dead Sea Scrolls which are earlier than the copies we had and changes some of the passages.
What about the septuagint? Is it more accurate than the Hebrew versions that we have access to? According to the greek New Testament, it looks like Jesus was quoting, word-for-word, from the septuagint. But was he? Do you think he was really speaking to a Judean audience in Koine Greek? Or was it much more likely that he was using Aramaic? And if so, was he using an Aramaic translation of the Greek passages? Or is it possible -- and hear me out here -- that authors like Matthew were inserting scripture passages to justify what Jesus did to an audience who were familiar with the septuagint? Read Matthew closely -- I think his intentions are pretty clear, and it's written quite explicitly in certain places. And what about the places where the quotes don't match the septuagint? What is better, the New Testament version of the quote or the septuagint?
Ultimately, there is no "THE Bible". There are "Bibles", and without naming one of them as "THE" Bible, a statement like "The Bible is infallible" is utter nonsense.
But let's continue anyway.
What does "infallible" mean? It means "incapable of error". Is any book or volume of text infallible? Of course not. It is entirely possible that there are errors in the text. Even if you somehow invented a script that was literally infallible, like it was IMPOSSIBLE to put it together in a way that could not contain any error (and I can't think of any way to do this, and I have been a programmer / amateur mathematician all my life, so I think I might know a thing or two about what kinds of errors texts (programs) can have)... would it not be possible for a copy of that text to contain an error? Like, in transcribing the text, the copyist could have made a mistake, an ERROR, and so the transcription contains an error?
So you see why this is utter nonsense and ridiculous. We don't have the originals, the copies we have are not consistent, and it's obvious that numerous errors have been introduced. So it's not infallible. (It's not even inerrant...)
But let's grant your position. Let's say that yes, that version of the Bible you carry in your hands is INFALLIBLE. Like a mathematic gift from God himself, you contain, on printed page, ink blots that somehow form an infallible text. Now you have another problem. Someone, maybe you, maybe someone else, needs to READ that text and comprehend it. Can a fallible mind understand an infallible text? Of course not. Making the whole thing moot anyway.
Maybe some of you are a bit more skeptical than your protestant evangelists and shy away from "The Bible is infallible." Maybe you say "inerrant" instead, which just means "it contains no errors." If you try to defend this position, all I would need to attack and destroy it would be to find a single error in your Bible. Maybe someone translated something the wrong way. Certainly, we know of tons of errors in the KJV, since it has been around for a long time. Plus, its source material is known to contain errors since there are better sources out there. Some of those sources were discovered long after the KJV was first published, so you have to feel sorry for the translators and compilers who never had a hope to begin with.
Maybe you retreat from "inerrant" and say something like "The Bible contains sufficient knowledge to be saved" or something like that. Well, now you are having a theological discussion and you're going to try to build your case using the text of the Bible, but inevitably you are going to make the same mistake everyone else has ever made by committing the fallacy of "eisegesis" which means taking your assumptions and reading them into the text. IE, you might suppose that Isaiah was thinking of the Trinity when he said that there is only one God, but when you look at the historical context of that particular passage, as well as its textual context, you would be forced to agree, with pretty much every other scholar, that Isaiah couldn't have possibly meant the Trinity as you understand it, since such a concept did not even exist until hundreds of years after Christ died on the cross.
So, instead of reading the Bible, you are really reading your own ideas into the text and supposing that you must be right and everyone else who has different ideas must be wrong, in particular the people who originally wrote the text of the Bible. You might as well be looking in a mirror or reading fan fic you wrote yourself and supposing it to be canonical. Yay! You're worshiping your own understanding -- something the Bible cautions us not to do!
So please, for the LOVE OF GOD, please STOP saying "The Bible is infallible" or anything like that. It just makes you look stupid. For thousands of years, Christians and other devout followers of the True God did not need to say anything like that, and did not even need the Bible. How did they understand God if they didn't have the Bible? The answer is in the text itself: God revealed himself to them in a way that they could understand. You need THAT, my friend, NOT the Bible. Maybe the Bible can help you obtain that revelation, but please do not suppose that the Bible is that revelation for yourself.
White man survived for thousands of years because we were connected, DIRECTLY, to God, not because of some arbitrary text that jews wrote thousands of years ago. GET CONNECTED.
"The Bible is infallible" is some kind of catch-phrase that protestants make for some odd reason.
Let's look at the words in this statement, and then you'll see why this statement is ridiculous, and anyone saying it should feel retarded.
"The Bible" -- what is it? Is it the 66 books that the protestants consider "The Canon"? Or is it the Catholic Bible? Or any other Christian sect?
Which translation? Who made the translations? This is important, because it's a simple fact that no translation by a fallible human, even of an infallible text, can be considered infallible.
Maybe the original transcripts? Oh wait, we don't have them, since they were lost to history a long time ago.
Maybe the earliest copies? We have lots of those, but "early" is subjective. Some of the earliest copies we have are just fragments. Then we found things like the Dead Sea Scrolls which are earlier than the copies we had and changes some of the passages.
What about the septuagint? Is it more accurate than the Hebrew versions that we have access to? According to the greek New Testament, it looks like Jesus was quoting, word-for-word, from the septuagint. But was he? Do you think he was really speaking to a Judean audience in Koine Greek? Or was it much more likely that he was using Aramaic? And if so, was he using an Aramaic translation of the Greek passages? Or is it possible -- and hear me out here -- that authors like Matthew were inserting scripture passages to justify what Jesus did to an audience who were familiar with the septuagint? Read Matthew closely -- I think his intentions are pretty clear, and it's written quite explicitly in certain places. And what about the places where the quotes don't match the septuagint? What is better, the New Testament version of the quote or the septuagint?
Ultimately, there is no "THE Bible". There are "Bibles", and without naming one of them as "THE" Bible, a statement like "The Bible is infallible" is utter nonsense.
But let's continue anyway.
What does "infallible" mean? It means "incapable of error". Is any book or volume of text infallible? Of course not. It is entirely possible that there are errors in the text. Even if you somehow invented a script that was literally infallible, like it was IMPOSSIBLE to put it together in a way that could not contain any error (and I can't think of any way to do this, and I have been a programmer / amateur mathematician all my life, so I think I might know a thing or two about what kinds of errors texts (programs) can have)... would it not be possible for a copy of that text to contain an error? Like, in transcribing the text, the copyist could have made a mistake, an ERROR, and so the transcription contains an error?
So you see why this is utter nonsense and ridiculous. We don't have the originals, the copies we have are not consistent, and it's obvious that numerous errors have been introduced. So it's not infallible. (It's not even inerrant...)
But let's grant your position. Let's say that yes, that version of the Bible you carry in your hands is INFALLIBLE. Like a mathematic gift from God himself, you contain, on printed page, ink blots that somehow form an infallible text. Now you have another problem. Someone, maybe you, maybe someone else, needs to READ that text and comprehend it. Can a fallible mind understand an infallible text? Of course not. Making the whole thing moot anyway.
Maybe some of you are a bit more skeptical than your protestant evangelists and shy away from "The Bible is infallible." Maybe you say "inerrant" instead, which just means "it contains no errors." If you try to defend this position, all I would need to attack and destroy it would be to find a single error in your Bible. Maybe someone translated something the wrong way. Certainly, we know of tons of errors in the KJV, since it has been around for a long time. Plus, its source material is known to contain errors since there are better sources out there. Some of those sources were discovered long after the KJV was first published, so you have to feel sorry for the translators and compilers who never had a hope to begin with.
Maybe you retreat from "inerrant" and say something like "The Bible contains sufficient knowledge to be saved" or something like that. Well, now you are having a theological discussion and you're going to try to build your case using the text of the Bible, but inevitably you are going to make the same mistake everyone else has ever made by committing the fallacy of "eisegesis" which means taking your assumptions and reading them into the text. IE, you might suppose that Isaiah was thinking of the Trinity when he said that there is only one God, but when you look at the historical context of that particular passage, as well as its textual context, you would be forced to agree, with pretty much every other scholar, that Isaiah couldn't have possibly meant the Trinity as you understand it, since such a concept did not even exist until hundreds of years after Christ died on the cross.
So, instead of reading the Bible, you are really reading your own ideas into the text and supposing that you must be right and everyone else who has different ideas must be wrong, in particular the people who originally wrote the text of the Bible. You might as well be looking in a mirror or reading fan fic you wrote yourself and supposing it to be canonical. Yay! You're worshiping your own understanding -- something the Bible cautions us not to do!
So please, for the LOVE OF GOD, please STOP saying "The Bible is infallible" or anything like that. It just makes you look stupid. For thousands of years, Christians and other devout followers of the True God did not need to say anything like that, and did not even need the Bible. How did they understand God if they didn't have the Bible? The answer is in the text itself: God revealed himself to them in a way that they could understand. You need THAT, my friend, NOT the Bible. Maybe the Bible can help you obtain that revelation, but please do not suppose that the Bible is that revelation for yourself.
White man survived for thousands of years because we were connected, DIRECTLY, to God, not because of some arbitrary text that jews wrote thousands of years ago. GET CONNECTED.
> spends ten paragraphs destroying Church theology and Biblical infallibility
> correctly identifies the Trinity as a late-stage pagan invention
> correctly identifies transmission errors and missing original manuscripts
> abandons textual revelation entirely to embrace ethno-nationalist spirit-channeling
Watching tribalists stumble into historical truth only to immediately dive into satanic mysticism remains peak comedy.
Identifying the corruption of ancient texts is historically accurate. The Roman Church objectively fabricated the Trinity hundreds of years after the Messiah. Missing originals and countless translation errors destroy any claim of biblical inerrancy.
However, replacing corrupted scripture with subjective "direct connection" opens the door to literal demonic delusion. Pagan tribalism offers zero salvation. True religion requires an uncorrupted, perfectly preserved oral revelation to act as a definitive baseline. Without a preserved baseline, humans end up worshipping shadows and genetics.
Rejecting the Church's pagan DLC was a good start. Do not replace one pagan psyop with another. Submit to the Creator of the universe. Bow with forehead to the floor and worship the Father alone.
60 AD is late?
Yes, because the Trinity does not exist in 60 AD manuscripts. Finding "God the Son" or co-eternal consubstantiality in first-century documents remains literally impossible.
The Trinity was hammered out by Roman politicians at Nicaea in 325 AD and finalized in 381 AD. Projecting fourth-century pagan councils backwards into 60 AD texts is the definition of historical revisionism.
First-century texts show the Messiah falling with face pressed to the earth to pray to the Father (Matthew 26:39). First-century texts show the Messiah declaring the Father greater than all.
Stop forcing Roman DLC onto first-century Jewish prophets. Abandon paganism. Place forehead on the floor and worship the Creator alone.
“The Trinity doesn’t exist in the New Testament,” got it. So the book of John was written after the first century? Didn’t know he lived that long.
>Stop forcing Roman DLC onto first-century Jewish prophets. Abandon paganism. Place forehead on the floor and worship the Creator alone.
Nah, burn in hell, jew. The one thing your kind wants more than anything else is to divorce people from Christ.
Nowhere in the Book of John does the word "Trinity" appear. Nowhere does the phrase "God the Son" appear. Nowhere does the concept of "consubstantiality" exist.
Instead, John 17:3[a] explicitly defines the Father as the ONLY true God. Co-equal essence was invented by Nicaean Romans in 325 AD, centuries after the Book of John was written.
> "burn in hell, jew"
...while bowing to statues of a Jewish carpenter... proving the absolute bankruptcy of modern Church theology.
True believers do not divorce people from the Messiah; true believers rescue the Messiah from Roman polytheism. Following the true path requires praying exactly like the prophets: facedown to the Father.
Cease the pagan idolatry. Bow with face to the ground and worship the Creator exclusively.
[a] John 17:3 - The Messiah praying to the Father: "And true salvation means knowing the Father, the ONLY true God, and Jesus Christ, the sent Messiah."
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and **the Word was God**.
>**And the Word was made flesh**
Whoops. Fuck off.
He's not a jew, he's a muslim.
Refutation: It can't possibly mean "consubstantial" since Jesus also wants his disciples to be one with him as he is one with the Father. See John 17.
Even Trinitarian scholars admit the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Old or New Testament. It is a fabrication that comes along much later.
[Correct; it can’t.](https://biblehub.com/strongs/john/10-30.htm)
In no such way. An exact copy of an original is the same (by necessity of being exact) as the original. Translation errors, in so far as they are errors, are no longer scripture but errors. And when it comes to translations (or differences in copies), obviously whatever is closer to the original is more authoritative.
Determining proximity to a missing document is pure guesswork. Claiming translation errors "are not scripture" admits the current physical Bible contains non-scripture. If the physical book contains non-scripture, the physical book is fallible. Case closed.
Validating the text reveals undeniable mathematical contradiction. 2 Kings 24:8 states King Jehoiachin began ruling at eighteen years old. However, the exact same event in 2 Chronicles 36:9 states King Jehoiachin began ruling at eight years old. (Note: modern translations attempt to erase this scribal error by altering the text, but the traditional King James Version and the original Masoretic Hebrew explicitly say eight).
The exact same king, the exact same event, two entirely different numbers. Identifying the correct number remains impossible, because the originals vanished. Such contradiction is the definition of textual corruption. The Creator demands strict monotheism and preserved truth, not guessing games.
Abandon the Roman Church's pagan DLC. Place forehead on the earth and worship the Father exclusively.
Anything with all the errors removed can be considered perfect and infallible too, I guess.
No it doesn't.
This is literally how all revelation is received, by spiritual means, God manifesting himself to man.
The fact that Satan also uses spiritual means to communicate does not mean we should sever all spiritual communications with other-worldly beings. It means we should be more careful in how we receive and intepret such spiritual communications.
> True religion requires an uncorrupted, perfectly preserved oral revelation to act as a definitive baseline.
No it doesn't. Proof: What manuscripts was Moses working from when he purportedly wrote the pentateuch? We don't need scripture, we need revelation.
> muslim nonsense
Having studied islam, I have discovered that your god, Allah, is actually Satan, the deceiver. I can offer proof if you like.
The true God does not lie or deceive.
Massive linguistic fail. The Messiah spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the literal word for God is "Alaha". Arabic and Aramaic are sister languages. Calling the Arabic word for God "Satan" literally means calling the Messiah's exact word for the Creator satanic. Pure comedic gold.
> "What manuscripts was Moses working from?"
Moses was the actual prophet receiving the baseline. Prophets establish the standard. Random individuals relying on subjective spiritual voices without an objective baseline always end up channeling demons. Unanchored mysticism guarantees deception.
Furthermore, Satan desires polytheism and idol worship. Islam dragged countless pagans out of darkness, smashed global idol worship, and established strict monotheism. Satan does not free pagans from satanic influence. Satan does not command humanity to worship the Father exclusively. Equating pure monotheism with Satanism exposes total theological bankruptcy.
Drop the subjective mysticism. Bow with forehead to the earth and worship the Creator alone.
You said: "True religion requires an uncorrupted, perfectly preserved oral revelation to act as a definitive baseline."
I interpreted that to mean, in simpler terms, "You can't have true religion unless you have scripture"
So I pointed out that Moses did not have scripture
Then you said "Moses was the actual prophet receiving the baseline"
Therefore, you contradicted yourself. Moses does not need scripture because prophets don't need scripture.
You could destroy every copy of the Bible, and it wouldn't matter, since a prophet could reveal God's will regardless.
This is the problem with Islam (and protestants): They cannot do simple logic.
> drop subjective mysticism
"Subjective mysticism" is all Moses had. It is all Jesus had. It is all the prophets and apostles have EVER had. If there were scriptures, it was merely a device to lead the individual toward God.
False. The messenger delivers the scripture. The messenger's divine connection provides absolute objective truth.
> "prophets lack a need for scripture"
Correct. However, upon the messenger's death, the community absolutely requires a perfectly preserved baseline. Without an infallible oral baseline, generations drift into polytheism.
Destroying a perfectly preserved 604-page oral revelation (the Quran) fails, because millions memorized the exact words. Destroying the corrupted Church texts leaves humanity with zero objective guidance, because no living prophets exist to fix the errors.
The Church's reliance on unanchored mysticism birthed the Trinity. Prophets never preached Triune dogmas. Prophets pressed foreheads to the ground to pray.
Reject the polytheism brainrot. Bow with forehead to the ground and worship the Father alone.